Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[Redeemed]

To the Christian the Trinity is one God. To the Muslim they are three Gods. To the Christians they are three persons that make one God. To the Muslims that is not possible. Who can explain this? Can it be explained? If we could convince people that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or just one (Allah) would that solve the bloody trails that have happened over the centuries through religious wars? Are we caught in a spiritual war with truth and deception? Will we learn from the past? We have one Creator who made the Christians and the Muslim persons. We are brothers in humanity. We come from the same creator who is God the Almighty. There is no one like Him. He is the Creator of heaven and earth. His creation brings Him glory. God is alive. He is not dead. He sees the thousands of years of wars over His name. Will He stop this soon? We can't stop it. We need God to do it. Why can't Christians and Muslims pray that God stop this? Don't we collectively make up the greatest of worlds religions and only one of these can be right. We know all other faiths are small and weak compared to the most powerful Creator of the worlds. We know that God is all-powerful. We know that He can intervene. What if all the Christians and Muslims agree on a day to fast and pray that God bring about a revival of truth so that all blinders will be off on this Islamic forum? Questions, questions and more questions????????

[Woodrow]

Somehow this thread was over looked and slipped into the back pages. Kind of an interesting suggestion. It is essentialy what all Muslims do at least 5 times a day. Daily each of us will say the Fatiha at least 5 times, usually more often.

Part of the Fatiha is the asking of guidance to be kept on the right path.


1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

2. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;

3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.

6. Show us the straight way,

7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

We do feel that Allah(swt) does answer this prayer constantly and that He does give us true guidance when we stray and that He does gently nudge us in the right direction as we need to be nudged and guided.

[Sinbad]

wars is political not religous. The Ottoman Empire was allied with Austria and France against Russia. The next moment it was ww1, and the brittish created arab nationalism to fight the ottomans.
The ottomans brought in religion and declared jihad against the christians, this didnt work.

So the moral is, wars and conflicts are political, they just use religion.

[Woodrow]

47: 2. Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the way of ALLAH - HE renders their works vain.
47: 3. But as for those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in that which has been revealed to Muhammad - and it is the truth from their Lord - HE removes from them their sins and sets right their affairs.
47: 4. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does ALLAH set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.
47: 8. O ye who believe ! if you help the cause of ALLAH, HE will help you and will make your steps firm.
47: 9. But those who disbelieve, perdition is their lot; and HE will make their works vain.
47: 10. That is because they hate what ALLAH has revealed; so HE has made their works vain.
47: 11. Have they not traveled in the earth and seen what was the end of those who were before them ? ALLAH utterly destroyed them, and for the disbelievers there will be the like thereof.
47: 12. That is because ALLAH is the Protector of those who believe, and the disbelievers have no protector.
47: 13. Verily, ALLAH will cause those who believe and do good works to enter the Gardens underneath which streams flow; While those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire will be their last resort.

47: 18. But as for those who follow guidance, HE adds to their guidance, and bestows on them righteousness suited to their condition.
47: 19. The disbelievers wait not but for the Hour, that it should come upon them suddenly. The Signs thereof have already come. But of what avail will their admonition be to them when it has actually come upon them.
47: 20. Know, therefore, that there is no god other than ALLAH, and ask protection for thy human frailties, and for believing men and believing women. And ALLAH knows the place where you move about and the place where you stay.

47: 22. Their attitude should have been one of obedience and of calling people to good. And when the matter was determined upon, it was good for them if they were true to ALLAH.
47: 23. Would you not then, if you are placed in authority, create disorder in the land and sever your ties of kinship ?
47: 24. It is these whom ALLAH has cursed, so that HE has made them deaf and has made their eyes blind.
47: 25. Will they not, then, ponder over the Qur'an, or, is it that there are locks on their hearts ?
47: 26. Surely, those who turn their backs after guidance has become manifest to them, Satan has seduced them and holds out false hopes to them.
47: 31. And if WE pleased, WE could show them to thee so that thou shouldst know them by their marks. And thou shalt, surely, recognize them by the tone of their speech. And ALLAH knows your deeds.
47: 32. And WE will, surely, try you, until WE make manifest those among you who strive for the cause of ALLAH and those who are steadfast. And WE will make known the true facts about you.
47: 33. Those, who disbelieve and hinder men from the way of ALLAH and oppose the Messenger after guidance has become manifest to them, shall not harm ALLAH in the least; and HE will make their works fruitless.
47: 34. O ye who believe ! obey ALLAH and obey the Messenger and make not your works vain.
47: 35. Verily, those who disbelieve and hinder people from the way of ALLAH, and then die while they are disbelievers - ALLAH certainly, will not forgive them.





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

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

[Balthasar21]

To the Christian the Trinity is one God. To the Muslim they are three Gods. To the Christians they are three persons that make one God. To the Muslims that is not possible. Who can explain this? Can it be explained? If we could convince people that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or just one (Allah) would that solve the bloody trails that have happened over the centuries over religious wars? Are we caught in a spiritual war with truth and deception? Will we learn from the past? We have one Creator who made the Christians and the Muslim persons. We are brothers in humanity. We come from the same creator who is God the Almighty. There is no one like Him. He is the Creator of heaven and earth. His creation brings Him glory. God is alive. He is not dead. He sees the thousands of years of wars over His name. Will He stop this soon? We can't stop it. We need God to do it. Why can't Christians and Muslims pray that God stop this? Don't we collectively make up the greatest of worlds religions and only one of these can be right. We know all other faiths are small and weak compared to the most powerful Creator of the worlds. We know that God is all-powerful. We know that He can intervene. What if all the Christians and Muslims agree on a day to fast and pray that God bring about a revival of truth so that all blinders will be off on this Islamic forum? Questions, questions and more questions????????

Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus Christ never claim to be the Creator / God , The first teaching of Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus Was Yashu'a Isa . Jesus Christ the son Creator / God And the Christian Teacher Minister Etc Trun
Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus into God / Creator Himself . ( Food For Though ) .

According to Exodus 20 ; 7 , States And I Quote ; The ( Shalt ) not ( Bow Down ) thyself to them , nor serve them ; For ( I ) the Lord thy ( God ) am a ( Jealous - God ) ( Visiting ) the ( Iniquity ) of the ( Father ) upon the ( Chrildren ) unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me .

Overstanding of the above Verse . ( Why would Creator / God of the Bible ) be ( Jealous ) If There only one Creator / God ) ? Its because Creator / God of the Bible Knew their were other Eloheem / God's by sides him thats why . The Word Eloheem For God Means God's

John 10 ; 34-35 States And I Quote ; Jesus answered them , Is it not written in your ( Law ) I said Ye are
( gods ) . Verse 35 . If he called them ( gods ) unto whom the ( word ) of ( God ) came , and the ( Scriptures ) cannot ( be broken )

Psalm 82 ; 1 -7 , States And I Quote ; ( God Standeth ) in the ( Congregation ) of the ( Mighty ) he ( Judgeth ) among the ( GOD'S ) . Verse 2 . How long ( Will ) ye ( Judge Unjustly ) and ( Accept ) the persons of the ( Wicked ) Selah . Verse 3 . ( Defend ) the poor and father -less ( Do Justice ) to the afficted and needy ) . Verse 4 . Deliver the poor and needy ( Rid ) them out of the ( Hand ) of the wicked . Verse 5 . They know not . nether ( Will ) they ( Understand ) they walk on in ( Darkness ) all the ( Foundations ) of the
( Earth Are Out Of Course ) . Verse 6 . I ( Have Said ) Ye are ( Gods ) ; and all of you are ( CHIDREN ) of the
( Most High ) . Verse 7 . But ye ( Shall Die ) like ( Men ) and fall like one of the ( Princes ) .

Also Read Genesis 6 ; 1 -4 , Job 1 ; 6 , also 2 ; 1 . So according to the Christian Bible their many Eloheem / God's .

ANUNNAQI / ELOHEEM
Genesis R.T. 1;1-12 , 14 , 16 - 18 , 20 -22 , 24 -28 , 31 ; 2;2 ; 3;1, 5,6,9 ; 4;25 ; 5 ; 1 , 22; 6;2; 7;16 ; 8;1 ; 9 ;1 ; 20;3 ; 22;9 , 12 ; 27;28 ; 28;4 , 30;20 ; 35;4 , 5 ; 41 ; 39

The word '' ANUNNAQI '' means '' Those Who ANU Sent Down , From Heaven To Earth '' . They came from the skies to the planet earth which was originally called Tiamat meaning '' Maiden Of Life ''. And also referred to as Tamtu And Tiwawat , And Qi , Ki , Tiamat .. Is also called Terra , Orb , Arduwt Or Ard . When the greek got hold of the word Qi , They changed it to Ge < Greek > Where the word Geo < Greek > comes from . . The ANUNNAQI in The Bible are called ELOHEEM . They got their name ANUNNAQI When they were coming to Earth . The ANUNNAQI are a race of Supreme Beings .

The word ANUNNAQI is used within The Ancient Tablets such as The Enuma Elish , The Gilgamesh Epics , Etc . The word ELOHEEM <Aramic > means ''' These Beings '' Or '' A Group Of ELOHS '' . ELOHEEMS Are angels of El <Aramic > or messengers of EL ELOH Who is ANU . They are physical Angelic Beings , Not Spooks Or Spirits Or Ghost . They are a host of beings that do the work of EL < Aramic > While on The Planet Earth under an appointed being . Then they are called El < Aramic > Who is under AL or El <Aramic >

The word '' ELOHEEM '' Is found throughout '' The Scroll Of Genesis and is Falsely translated as '' God '' The name ELOHEEM Is used for Both Agreeable And Disagreeable Beings And Even Humans As In Exodus 7 ; 1 , When YAHUWA < Aramic > Told MOSES That He Will Make Him An ELOHEEM For The PHARAOH . The ANUNNAQI , ELOHEEM .. Came to the planet earth to mine for natural resources for the protection of their planet RIZQ , Which Is The 8th Planet In The 19th Galaxy Illyuwn , Which has Three Suns ; UTU , SHAMASH .

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

I think zakir Naik say it best.

the father son and spirit.

what image is in your mind when you speak of a benevolent father?
Maybe an old Sean Connery ..LOL

wehat image is in your mind when you speak of the good son?

Maybe any middle aged man

what image is in your mind when you say spirit?
A bulbous smog of light or something..

this is 3 different entity..

Islam is simple..ONE GOD,do not try to imagine what he look like.

that is the difference between trinity and Allah..

you say 3 in ONE
We say ONLY ONE....

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

And about the idea of muslim and chrisitan and every faith to pray for peace..


the Quran has already answered this..

there is a verse that say,IF ALLAH WILLS IT THEN ALL OF MANKIND WILL BE ONE RACE AND ONE RELIGION.

But that wont happen..for this world is a test.

[Keltoi]

Salaam,

I think zakir Naik say it best.

the father son and spirit.

what image is in your mind when you speak of a benevolent father?
Maybe an old Sean Connery ..LOL

wehat image is in your mind when you speak of the good son?

Maybe any middle aged man

what image is in your mind when you say spirit?
A bulbous smog of light or something..

this is 3 different entity..

Islam is simple..ONE GOD,do not try to imagine what he look like.

that is the difference between trinity and Allah..

you say 3 in ONE
We say ONLY ONE....

Actually I've thought about asking Muslims this same question. What image comes to your mind when you think of God? An old man with a beard sitting on a throne? Because to a Christian the Almighty power that is God cannot be placed into a box so as to be easily understood by the human mind. Sometimes I feel that Muslims are so obsessed with concentrating on God being One, which of course we both agree on, that they miss the point altogether. God obviously has many ways of interacting and manifesting Himself in our world and in our minds. The possibilities are obviously limitless. To answer your questions though....

What is God? That is obviously impossible to describe using the written word. Almighty Creator, Lord, the One God. As for what image comes to mind, for me personally I don't really have an image in mind....definately not Sean Connery.

What image comes to mind when speaking of the Son? Of course there are millions of paintings and images of Christ as he was imagined by artists and worshippers. Most of us know that his true physical image was never captured, so all we can do is imagine how He might have looked during His time on Earth. If you are referring to the Son in the spiritual sense, it again goes back to our image of God, which is impossible to describe or put into a box.

As for the Holy Spirit, Jesus described it as a Comforter. The translation from Greek means literally breath or air. Sometimes described as the aspect of God immanent in this world, in people, and in the church.

[Balthasar21]

Salaam,

And about the idea of muslim and chrisitan and every faith to pray for peace..


the Quran has already answered this..

there is a verse that say,IF ALLAH WILLS IT THEN ALL OF MANKIND WILL BE ONE RACE AND ONE RELIGION.

But that wont happen..for this world is a test.

Zukiflim < says > there is a verse that say,IF ALLAH WILLS IT THEN ALL OF MANKIND WILL BE ONE RACE AND ONE RELIGION.


Chapter and verse please .

[Balthasar21]

Salaam,

I think zakir Naik say it best.

the father son and spirit.

what image is in your mind when you speak of a benevolent father?
Maybe an old Sean Connery ..LOL

wehat image is in your mind when you speak of the good son?

Maybe any middle aged man

what image is in your mind when you say spirit?
A bulbous smog of light or something..

this is 3 different entity..

Islam is simple..ONE GOD,do not try to imagine what he look like.

that is the difference between trinity and Allah..

you say 3 in ONE
We say ONLY ONE....

Michelangelo's '' Creation '' , on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel painted in 1508 A.D. Of God and Adam , And they were painted Caucasian .

[Zulkiflim]

Actually I've thought about asking Muslims this same question. What image comes to your mind when you think of God? An old man with a beard sitting on a throne? Because to a Christian the Almighty power that is God cannot be placed into a box so as to be easily understood by the human mind. Sometimes I feel that Muslims are so obsessed with concentrating on God being One, which of course we both agree on, that they miss the point altogether. God obviously has many ways of interacting and manifesting Himself in our world and in our minds. The possibilities are obviously limitless. To answer your questions though....

What is God? That is obviously impossible to describe using the written word. Almighty Creator, Lord, the One God. As for what image comes to mind, for me personally I don't really have an image in mind....definately not Sean Connery.

What image comes to mind when speaking of the Son? Of course there are millions of paintings and images of Christ as he was imagined by artists and worshippers. Most of us know that his true physical image was never captured, so all we can do is imagine how He might have looked during His time on Earth. If you are referring to the Son in the spiritual sense, it again goes back to our image of God, which is impossible to describe or put into a box.

As for the Holy Spirit, Jesus described it as a Comforter. The translation from Greek means literally breath or air. Sometimes described as the aspect of God immanent in this world, in people, and in the church.

salaam,

when we pray we pray to allah,,,to no image no location but only pray in the eastern direction,,,

we do not make graven images,we do not make idols,we do not imagine Allah form or substance.

So that is a large difference,...

By the way,we emphasie that GOD is ONE it is not our wish but what the CREATOR has taught us..

HE IS ONE,,not two not three not multitudes.

Luckily for you you only got 3 divinity,try taoism,with thousand of god,or busshaism with thousand of boddhisatvas..divinities in all..

[Zulkiflim]

Zukiflim < says > there is a verse that say,IF ALLAH WILLS IT THEN ALL OF MANKIND WILL BE ONE RACE AND ONE RELIGION.


Chapter and verse please .

Salaam,

And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.

5:48

Link below
http://19.org/km/PM/5

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

Allah light

Allah says in the Qur'an what means,

*{Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, [and] the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not -- light upon light -- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things.}* (An-Nur 24:35)

[vpb]

To the Christian the Trinity is one God. To the Muslim they are three Gods.

Yes, you say it's one God, but actually if you unpack that "One God" of yours, then we have "The Father, Holy Spirit, and The Son". Which means that you say "One God" but actually that God is compressed like if you would couple of files compressed in a .zip file, which then you could call it one file, but in reality that .zip one file hold three files. so please don't claim that you believe in one God.

To the Christians they are three persons that make one God. To the Muslims that is not possible. Who can explain this? Can it be explained?

the concept of trinity not that is not possible for muslims but also for christians. generations and generations have failed to explain the concept of Trinity, and whoever says that I can explain the concept of trinity has just lied to him/her self bc you can't explain it, you basically just believe it.

If we could convince people that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or just one (Allah) would that solve the bloody trails that have happened over the centuries through religious wars?

dude , you believe that Jesus is the son of God, but we don't. So this is the point where our beliefs diverse.

the Surah Al-Ikhlas explain very clearly about Allah swt:

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

We have one Creator who made the Christians and the Muslim persons.

yes I agree, but the perception of that Creator is different to you and to us.

We are brothers in humanity. We come from the same creator who is God the Almighty. There is no one like Him.

You just contradicted your self with the statement that "There is no one like him", so if God has a son, basically God holds human values (humans have sons and daughters), also by your belief God or Son of God, he ate , drank, sleept, prayed to God?? does this match with what human does. So if we say that there no one like God, than God cannot have a son, or sleep or drink , or be tempted by sins etc etc.

He is the Creator of heaven and earth. His creation brings Him glory. God is alive. He is not dead.

Surah Al Baqara, 2:255:
Allah is He besides Whom there is no god, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases, His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great.

What if all the Christians and Muslims agree on a day to fast and pray that God bring about a revival of truth so that all blinders will be off on this Islamic forum? Questions, questions and more questions????????

Surah Al-Baqara 2:109

Many of the followers of the Book (Christians and Jews) wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

[Keltoi]

Yes, you say it's one God, but actually if you unpack that "One God" of yours, then we have "The Father, Holy Spirit, and The Son". Which means that you say "One God" but actually that God is compressed like if you would couple of files compressed in a .zip file, which then you could call it one file, but in reality that .zip one file hold three files. so please don't claim that you believe in one God.

"Please don't claim that you believe in one God"....sorry, even saying please isn't going to get me to suddenly "see the light" and realize I pray to three Gods, which is false. So please, don't tell me what I believe.

the concept of trinity not that is not possible for muslims but also for christians. generations and generations have failed to explain the concept of Trinity, and whoever says that I can explain the concept of trinity has just lied to him/her self bc you can't explain it, you basically just believe it.

Perhaps "generations and generations" have failed to explain it to your satisfaction, but Christians understand the concept as well as any human being could understand it. Saying we understand it totally would be like saying we understand God totally, which of course is impossible. We understand that God manifests His will in different ways and through different means. We also understand that God and Christ Jesus mention these different ways in which God's will becomes manifest. These different ways are very important.

Uhhgg...I never can get the quote thing to work properly.

[vpb]

"Please don't claim that you believe in one God"....sorry, even saying please isn't going to get me to suddenly "see the light" and realize I pray to three Gods, which is false. So please, don't tell me what I believe.

i'm not trying to tell you what you believe, believe what you want, but saying that you believe in one God, and the other hand saying "The Father...." is a contradiction that can be seen from the moon.

Perhaps "generations and generations" have failed to explain it to your satisfaction, but Christians understand the concept as well as any human being could understand it. Saying we understand it totally would be like saying we understand God totally, which of course is impossible. We understand that God manifests His will in different ways and through different means. We also understand that God and Christ Jesus mention these different ways in which God's will becomes manifest. These different ways are very important.

oh come onnnn, Christians understand the concept of trinity???? loll, they pretend to understand but they don't. I'm sorry to be categorical, but that's what it is. the most famous answer that they come up when they explain the trinity is "the egg" and these sort of answers. Trinity is a complex concept has not yet been answer wether you like the reality or not.

anyways i'm not gonna argue anymore cuz i don't want to change the direction of the thread. so i'll finish with this.

[MustafaMc]

Zukiflim < says > there is a verse that say,IF ALLAH WILLS IT THEN ALL OF MANKIND WILL BE ONE RACE AND ONE RELIGION.


Chapter and verse please .

In addition to ones already quoted.

Quran 11:118 If your Rabb had so willed, He would have certainly made mankind one single nation but that is not what He wants, so they will continue to differ

16:93 If Allah wanted, He could have made you all one nation, but He lets go astray whom He wants and guides whom He pleases: but most certainly you will be questioned about all your actions.

[Keltoi]

i'm not trying to tell you what you believe, believe what you want, but saying that you believe in one God, and the other hand saying "The Father...." is a contradiction that can be seen from the moon.



oh come onnnn, Christians understand the concept of trinity???? loll, they pretend to understand but they don't. I'm sorry to be categorical, but that's what it is. the most famous answer that they come up when they explain the trinity is "the egg" and these sort of answers. Trinity is a complex concept has not yet been answer wether you like the reality or not.

anyways i'm not gonna argue anymore cuz i don't want to change the direction of the thread. so i'll finish with this.

If the most "famous" answer for the understanding of the Trinity is the "egg" analogy, then you haven't been looking.

[MustafaMc]

Actually I've thought about asking Muslims this same question. What image comes to your mind when you think of God? An old man with a beard sitting on a throne? Because to a Christian the Almighty power that is God cannot be placed into a box so as to be easily understood by the human mind.

I for one, have absolutely no mental image of Allah. I would also agree with the last sentence I quoted here.

[Zulkiflim]

If the most "famous" answer for the understanding of the Trinity is the "egg" analogy, then you haven't been looking.

Salaam,

Are you referrin to the water,ice and steam??

All are H20 but form is still different.
wet ,cold/hard and intangible..

So it is the smae you get 3 different forms,3 different image..

[Redeemed]

i'm not trying to tell you what you believe, believe what you want, but saying that you believe in one God, and the other hand saying "The Father...." is a contradiction that can be seen from the moon.



oh come onnnn, Christians understand the concept of trinity???? loll, they pretend to understand but they don't. I'm sorry to be categorical, but that's what it is. the most famous answer that they come up when they explain the trinity is "the egg" and these sort of answers. Trinity is a complex concept has not yet been answer wether you like the reality or not.

anyways i'm not gonna argue anymore cuz i don't want to change the direction of the thread. so i'll finish with this.

You can disagree with us, but you cannot tell us what we believe!

[Woodrow]

You can disagree with us, but you cannot tell us what we believe!

True.

All things in this life are a matter of our own choices. When we know that Allah(swt) is guiding our lives, it would be foolish to go against what he guides us to do.

Allah(swt) in his mercy has led me to the right path and I will not choose hellfire by abandoning the path He has revealed so clearly.

[Redeemed]

Salaam,

Are you referrin to the water,ice and steam??

All are H20 but form is still different.
wet ,cold/hard and intangible..

So it is the smae you get 3 different forms,3 different image..

Maybe this will help shed a little light on the subject. What would you do if you found out or finally learned that we are really worshipping only one God?

[Woodrow]

Maybe this will help shed a little light on the subject. What would you do if you found out or finally learned that we are really worshipping only one God?

I believe you are convinced of that.

But, out of curiosity when is the last time you prayed simply to God(swt) without the use of Isa(as)'s name? When was the last time you were able to pray directly to God(swt) without a mental image of what you perceive Isa(as) to look like?

Are you praying to God(swt) or to a perception of what you have been taught God(swt) should look like?

Do you pray to the one God(swt) or are you praying to a concept of what you believe God(swt) should be?

A concept can be worshiped and can feel very real, in fact even stronger than reality as it will be what your heart desires it to be.

[Grace Seeker]

I believe you are convinced of that.

But, out of curiosity when is the last time you prayed simply to God(swt) without the use of Isa(as)'s name?

About 5 minutes ago. I just learned of some friends suffering a serious illness.

When was the last time you were able to pray directly to God(swt) without a mental image of what you perceive Isa(as) to look like?

Again, about 5 minutes ago.

Are you praying to God(swt) or to a perception of what you have been taught God(swt) should look like?

I just told you I did not have any image in my head.

Do you pray to the one God(swt) or are you praying to a concept of what you believe God(swt) should be?

Yes, I am praying to just one God. And of course it is a concept of who (not what) I believe God is. Why would I or anyone pray to a different God than who they conceive God to be? Do you conceive of God to be Allah, and then pray to someone else? That makes no sense.

A concept can be worshiped and can feel very real, in fact even stronger than reality as it will be what your heart desires it to be.

True, but not applicable.

[Redeemed]

I believe you are convinced of that.

But, out of curiosity when is the last time you prayed simply to God(swt) without the use of Isa(as)'s name? When was the last time you were able to pray directly to God(swt) without a mental image of what you perceive Isa(as) to look like?

Are you praying to God(swt) or to a perception of what you have been taught God(swt) should look like?

Do you pray to the one God(swt) or are you praying to a concept of what you believe God(swt) should be?

A concept can be worshiped and can feel very real, in fact even stronger than reality as it will be what your heart desires it to be.

did you read the attachment?

[Zulkiflim]

Maybe this will help shed a little light on the subject. What would you do if you found out or finally learned that we are really worshipping only one God?

Salaam,

Basically that documen just say it is a mystery...

And from that article it clearly state that you are worshipping 3 god and not to question about it.

Hav you ever heard of unitarians,they existed far longer than trinitarians..

[Grace Seeker]

If it is easier to prove something to exist, why dont you prove to me Jesus exists??

There is no serious evidence that Jesus even existed. Christianity is simply a modification of past pagan beliefs.

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

Yet this account has been embroiled in controversy since the 17th century. It could not have been written by a Jewish man, say the critics, because it sounds too Christian: it even claims that Jesus was the Messiah 9(ho christos, the Christ)!
The critics say: this paragraph is not authentic. It was inserted into Josephus' book by a later Christian copyist, probably in the Third or Fourth Century.

The opinion was controversial. A vast literature was produced over the centuries debating the authenticity of the "Testimonium Flavianum", the Testimony of Flavius Josephus.

A view that has been prominent among American scholars was summarized in John Meier's 1991 book, A Marginal Jew.

This opinion held that the paragraph was formed by a mixture of writers. It parsed the text into two categories: anything that seemed too Christian was added by a later Christian writer, while anything else was originally written by Josephus. By this view, the paragraph was taken as essentially authentic, and so supported the objective historicity of Jesus. Unfortunately, the evidence for this was meager and self-contradictory. But it was an attractive hypothesis.


Then, in 1995, a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus. It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance. Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.

For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator. In one key line that is considered authentic, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".



In 41 AD, the emporer Claudius wrote to the Jews in Alexandrian expressly forbiding them to invite other Jews from Syria to join them because there had arisen in Syria "a pecular sect within the Jews fomemting a new malady that people can be raised from the dead". Who are these Syrian Jews that Claudius is speaking of? What peculiar sect? What new malady? Given that Acts tells us that it was in Syrian Antioch that the Jews were first called Christians, it is highly likely that this is to whom Claudius is referring. It seems unlikely that if this belief is arising within the Jews that its source is, as you claim, a modification of past pagan beliefs. It makes much more sense to be based on a real historical figure such as Jesus.


Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Tacitus simply refers to "Christus" the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held—prefect or governor. In this instance, the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription discovered at Caeserae states that Pilate was prefect. Concerning Tacitus's source, it was likely an imperial record, and it has been controversially speculated that this may even have been one of Pilate's reports to the emperor.


As for your hero, Early Doherty, and others who dispute the historical existence of Jesus, this view has not found acceptance by the historical community. noted historian Michael Grant stated that views such as Doherty's are derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

And in the first letter of John, the author speaks of having seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands (1 John 1: 1-3) Now, of course you can try to dismiss this as not the work of the Apostle John, but the early church accepted it and those who were disciples of the Apostle are reported by their own disciples to have testified to it being the work of the Apostle.


For most people that would be enough proof. I doubt if it is for you, But unless you have had DNA test, I think I have given more proof for the historicity of Jesus than your mother has given you for who your father is. Take that comment any way you want it, but I suggest you take that as implying that sometimes we take things on people's word because we find them to be trustworthy. This is how I feel about the disicples and others in the first generation of the church who testified that Jesus was real. Their lives, and willingness to lay them down rather than deny him, are testimony to me that their faith was not something they made up, but had themselves experienced.

[Grace Seeker]

Hav you ever heard of unitarians,they existed far longer than trinitarians..

I submit to you that Peter was a Trinitarian, now please name a Unitarian before Peter.

[Philosopher]

I submit to you that Peter was a Trinitarian, now please name a Unitarian before Peter.

The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). This is the reason that verse 1 commands us not to add or subtract any details from the Law, and verse 5 warns us to remain steadfast with all the traditions of the Law.

In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).

The man known today as "Jesus" fulfilled all these prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church) who changed the original Law, doing away with the Hebrew calendar and the Biblical holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkos the Festival of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.). He disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin.

Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law?thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":

Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45)

http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

[August]

Yes, you say it's one God, but actually if you unpack that "One God" of yours, then we have "The Father, Holy Spirit, and The Son". Which means that you say "One God" but actually that God is compressed like if you would couple of files compressed in a .zip file, which then you could call it one file, but in reality that .zip one file hold three files. so please don't claim that you believe in one God.

Well, the theology behind the trinity is pretty complicated when you really start thinking about it. I really believe that it's one of those things you must accept on faith, and that we humans can't fully understand. In fact, this has driven some Christian groups to adopt heretical ideas about the Trinity. The Mormons, in fact, express a view similar to what you've stated about the .zip drive. They believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three seperate but equal Gods. 'Course they also believe that we can all become gods ourselves.

[vpb]

Well, the theology behind the trinity is pretty complicated when you really start thinking about it. I really believe that it's one of those things you must accept on faith, and that we humans can't fully understand. In fact, this has driven some Christian groups to adopt heretical ideas about the Trinity. The Mormons, in fact, express a view similar to what you've stated about the .zip drive. They believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three seperate but equal Gods. 'Course they also believe that we can all become gods ourselves.

in Islam, everything is based on knowledge, the more knowledge you have , the more you trust in God, the more pious you are, and that's why the first word revealed is "Ekara" which means "READ", so knowledge is keept in high esteem.

so when you have something that is not well defined, a complex thing, then a number of definitions come from that, same as people can't really define the word "intelligence", cuz it's a complex thing.

[vpb]

Knowledge should be held in high esteem, but I find it hard to believe that we mere mortals can understand everything about the creator of our universe. We're so small, with such short lives, none of us can truely comprehend all the ways of God.
I've got a problem specifically with what you said about more knowledge leading to more trust in God and piety. I've known many people of different religions who didn't understand much of the theology of their faith, but their faith worked great things in their life. They had a great trust in God. Then you have my father, who is not religious, who has a tremendous understanding of the beliefs and teachings of most major world religions, yet this knowledge hasn't brought him closer to God.

there's a difference for example between reading the Qur'an, and understanding it :)

Muslim scholars know that God is One, we know that God is one, but they are more pious, bc their knowledge has expanded that much that they understand the meaning of "God is One" more than we do, they have more resources in their mind from Qur';an and Sunnah. so that's why we muslims seek knowledge to understand it better and better. but in Qur'an Allah swt says to look at things and reflect on them, so the more you know, the more you reflect, the more you believe. :) but i think everyone has a way of looking at this. so... :)

[Trumble]

I posted this first (now deleted) in the 'Bible' thread, which is where you will find MustafaMc's post, but it is more appropriate here;

Yes, and this difference clearly points out the reason why Muslims view Christians as polytheistic in their belief about God.

The "muslim view" is not one as to what Christians believe, it is an interpretation of what that belief is based on.

The most that can be true, surely, is that the doctrine of the Trinity could be interpreted in polytheistic terms? If the Christians themselves do not interpret it that way, then their belief must be monotheistic, not polytheistic. The "muslim view" is therefore something of an irrelevance; it amounts to no more than an interpretation of Christian doctrine that is not accepted by Christians. It is of no more importance to Christians than a Christian interpretation of the Qur'an not accepted by muslims would be to muslims, i.e none.

[vpb]

The most that can be true, surely, is that the doctrine of the Trinity could be interpreted in polytheistic terms? If the Christians themselves do not interpret it that way, then their belief must be monotheistic, not polytheistic. The "muslim view" is therefore something of an irrelevance; it amounts to no more than an interpretation of Christian doctrine that is not accepted by Christians. It is of no more importance to Christians than a Christian interpretation of the Qur'an not accepted by muslims would be to muslims, i.e none.

are you philosophying?

[MustafaMc]

The "muslim view" is not one as to what Christians believe, it is an interpretation of what that belief is based on.

The most that can be true, surely, is that the doctrine of the Trinity could be interpreted in polytheistic terms? If the Christians themselves do not interpret it that way, then their belief must be monotheistic, not polytheistic. The "muslim view" is therefore something of an irrelevance; it amounts to no more than an interpretation of Christian doctrine that is not accepted by Christians. It is of no more importance to Christians than a Christian interpretation of the Qur'an not accepted by muslims would be to muslims, i.e none.

We believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah. The Quran tells us that they disbelieve (in the Oneness of God) who say Jesus is the Son of God.

I have shown that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct entities and that they can't be One. This fact is not dependent upon one actually understanding that what he is doing is ascribing partners with Allah. I am certain that Christians are sincere, but I believe that they are misled.

The irrelevance that you claim will become crystal clear on the Judgement Day.

[Trumble]

I have shown that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct entities and that they can't be One.

Other than, perhaps, to the satisfaction of yourself and those who may already agree with you have done nothing of the sort, but you miss the point. The point is that Christians do not agree with your assessment of their doctrine, and that they therefore believe in and worship ONE God. Your position is irrelevant in that it does not change that fact.

This fact is not dependent upon one actually understanding that what he is doing is ascribing partners with Allah.

They are NOT doing that, a "fact" that is unchanged because you choose to interpret their doctrine in a particular way. Even if Christians may have got it wrong they can be 'guilty' of no more than a relatively minor theological error, not of polytheism as they are not polytheists.. even if you thank that, according to their own doctrine, they should be.

[ummzayd]

Other than, perhaps, to the satisfaction of yourself and those who may already agree with you have done nothing of the sort, but you miss the point. The point is that Christians do not agree with your assessment of their doctrine, and that they therefore believe in and worship ONE God. Your position is irrelevant in that it does not change that fact.

They are NOT doing that, a "fact" that is unchanged because you choose to interpret their doctrine in a particular way. Even if Christians may have got it wrong they can be 'guilty' of no more than a relatively minor theological error, not of polytheism as they are not polytheists.. even if you thank that, according to their own doctrine, they should be.

so where r the Christians & why can't they speak for themselves?

anyway, just because Christians say 1+1+1=1 doesn't make it correct does it? it's not a 'minor' mathematical error it's pretty fundemental. they can't say 'well this is our belief so you can't accuse us of being innumerate'.

and, if Jesus pbuh was supposed to be God come down to earth, & while he was here he prayed to God in heaven, then that right there is TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES no doubt about it. no 'interpretation' necessary.

peace

[vpb]

:sl:

can i ask two simple question to christians:

1.Did god create evil (the devil and the concept of sinning)
2.Is it that Jesus a.s was qualified to die on the cross for your sins, because he himself was sinless? is that the qualification that he could pay your for sins bc he didn't have sins himself?

I'd be glad if u could answer these question to me. and please proper answers not your personal opinions but proper answer from bible.

[MustafaMc]

Other than, perhaps, to the satisfaction of yourself and those who may already agree with you have done nothing of the sort, but you miss the point. The point is that Christians do not agree with your assessment of their doctrine, and that they therefore believe in and worship ONE God. Your position is irrelevant in that it does not change that fact.

This is shown in 4 short verses:

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus (Son) when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
and lo, a voice (Father) out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

You and Christians can deny what I see, but 1) no one can descend from the Heavens and light upon himself, 2) no one can say to himself this is my son with whom I am pleased, 3) at no time can anyone pray to himself that someone else's will be done instead of his own, and at no time can anyone sit beside himself.

They are NOT doing that, a "fact" that is unchanged because you choose to interpret their doctrine in a particular way. Even if Christians may have got it wrong they can be 'guilty' of no more than a relatively minor theological error, not of polytheism as they are not polytheists.. even if you thank that, according to their own doctrine, they should be.

Allah will judge that matter, not you nor I. As I have said before, I hold the Quran as the Word of Allah. What I know about the Christian faith comes reading the Bible and my knowledge of formerly being one and what I believe regarding their error comes from reading the Quran. According to the Quran this is no "relatively minor theological error", but rather it is a major (the unforgivable) sin of ascribing partners with Allah. How can it get more major than that?

[Woodrow]

We have gotten way off topic here. I'm going to do a massive clean up. I apologise for any posts that may be deleted in error.

[Grace Seeker]

Hav you ever heard of unitarians,they existed far longer than trinitarians..

I submit to you that Peter was a Trinitarian, now please name a Unitarian before Peter.

Zilkiflim, I'm reposting this in case you care to respond to it. Philosopher did respond in a long post that I couldn't see how it related to either one of our comments nor to the topic in general. So, I thought maybe you would care to speak for yourself?

[Zulkiflim]

Zilkiflim, I'm reposting this in case you care to respond to it. Philosopher did respond in a long post that I couldn't see how it related to either one of our comments nor to the topic in general. So, I thought maybe you would care to speak for yourself?

Salaam,

Well after all the deletion i cant recall what they main argument was about..

Hmm.,...let me try to F8 my brain..LOL

[Abdul-Raouf]

If we could convince people that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or just one (Allah) would that solve the bloody trails that have happened over the centuries through religious wars?

Hmmm.. The important point u have left is u consider Jesus as God(ie accordin to u the three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)...

[Redeemed]

Hmmm.. The important point u have left is u consider Jesus as God(ie accordin to u the three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost)...

Why didn't you say I consider Him the Son of God? You didn't understand my question: I asked what if you suddenly realized that it is possible for God to be one yet consist of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? What if you could see that Jesus is Allah's word made into flesh as a man and the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit??:? If you could see this, then you would know what we see as Christians.

[NoName55]

^^ my new signature is for you

[Redeemed]

^^ my new signature is for you

By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an, Mary is not part of it.

[NoName55]

which came first after Paul and sun-god constantine; Catholicism or your particular version?

how do you trace your creed back to Paul if not thru Rome?

[Malaikah]

I submit to you that Peter was a Trinitarian, now please name a Unitarian before Peter.

Jesus. :D :thumbs_up

[Redeemed]

Jesus. :D :thumbs_up

The name above all names:thumbs_up

[Redeemed]

I posted this first (now deleted) in the 'Bible' thread, which is where you will find MustafaMc's post, but it is more appropriate here;





The "muslim view" is not one as to what Christians believe, it is an interpretation of what that belief is based on.

The most that can be true, surely, is that the doctrine of the Trinity could be interpreted in polytheistic terms? If the Christians themselves do not interpret it that way, then their belief must be monotheistic, not polytheistic. The "muslim view" is therefore something of an irrelevance; it amounts to no more than an interpretation of Christian doctrine that is not accepted by Christians. It is of no more importance to Christians than a Christian interpretation of the Qur'an not accepted by muslims would be to muslims, i.e none.

a lot of what you say is truth. But i think it does have an impact more so on them what our view is of the Qur'an than what their view is of the trinity. As I have mentioned, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods like they say we do (cause their only form of reference is the Qur'an). We see Him as one substance and yet in three persons. Contrary to the Qur'an, Mary is not part of it. We see Jesus as the word of God which became flesh, and we see God as a Spirit; therefore, He is the Holy Spirit. There is only ONE God. It is not our job to explain how this is possible. With man this is not possible, but with God all things are possible.:statisfie

[NoName55]

had you any manners (or indeed any knowledge) you would have answered my question instead of alway talking what rhyms with bullspit

alapiana1

Originally Posted by NoName55

^^ my new signature is for you

By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an, Mary is not part of it.

NoName55 which came first after Paul and sun-god constantine; Catholicism or your particular version?

how do you trace your creed back to Paul if not thru Rome?

[Trumble]

.. and Catholics worship Mary. And a god is 'one who is worthy of worship'. so they take Mary as a god.

Catholics do not 'worship' Mary. They venerate her, honour her and show devotion to both her and other Saints. They would agree with you that only God is 'worthy of worship'.

[ummzayd]

Catholics do not 'worship' Mary. They venerate her, honour her and show devotion to both her and other Saints. They would agree with you that only God is 'worthy of worship'.

Hello, I was brought up a catholic and was certainly taught to pray to her statue, praise her and ask her for things. what else do you call that? it is certainly not right to put her on a par with 'other saints'.

The whole month of May was devoted to the worship of Mary in my (& all other catholic) schools.

peace

[Trumble]

Hello, I was brought up a catholic and was certainly taught to pray to her statue, praise her and ask her for things. what else do you call that? it is certainly not right to put her on a par with 'other saints'.

I call it veneration, and not 'worship', although I agree with your last point; I phrased that badly. Exactly the same is true of many traditional Buddhist practices in some cultures, that are (incorrectly) interpreted as 'worshipping' the Buddha. I did a quick google and found this, which seems to make the Catholic position clear, Do Catholics Worship Mary?

A question for you; did you perceive your 'worship' of Mary as being that appropriate to a god?

[ummzayd]

A question for you; did you perceive your 'worship' of Mary as being that appropriate to a god?

we were constantly and enthusiastically told by the nuns that Mary was the 'mother of God' and therefore so 'special' and 'unique' and 'high status' and so on and on. If anyone told you 'here is God your creator, pray to Him and ask Him for whatever you want, and by the way this here is His mother, you can pray to her for whatever you want too' what do you think they are trying to tell you? what would you think, if you were to take them at their word? If anyone questioned anything, or tried to 'tie down' a doctrine to a definite position, they were given short shrift.

when I prayed to Mary, I believed I was praying to the 'Mother of God'. I can't give you any further explanations of it than that. I believe polytheism means praying to someone other than God, and asking them for things and so on. I suppose someone can say 'well I pray to (whoever) and I 'venerate' them and I believe they have power to give me what I ask - but I don't worship them' - well they are deluding themselves.

and that's what I believe.

peace

[MustafaMc]

By the way, the Qur'an misrepresents Biblical Christianity. It bases its assumptions on Catholicism, because no where in the Bible does it state that followers of Christ are to include Mary as deity or part of the trinity. Remember, we do not see God as one in three gods. We see Him as one substance yet three persons, and contrary to the Qur'an, Mary is not part of it.

From my perspective, Catholics worship Mary (hail Mary, statues, etc) and they call her the Mother of God while Protestants worship Jesus (rely upon him to save them from their sins) and they call him the Son of God. It is readily apparent to Muslims for anyone to call a human as God, or Son of God, or Mother of God as blasphemously ascribing partners with the One God. This is despite the good intentions of Christians to be monotheistic.

[MustafaMc]

last time I looked Catholics were in the majority (by a long way) in the Christian world. and Catholics worship Mary. And a god is 'one who is worthy of worship'. so they take Mary as a god.

I agree. Another point is that Christianity has changed considerably since the Quran was revealed, particularly the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther in 1500's. Wikipedia "Church beliefs and practices under attack by Protestant reformers included purgatory, particular judgment, devotion to Mary, the intercession of the saints, most of the sacraments, and the authority of the Pope." BTW there were no Baptist or Methodists in 600 A.D.

[Trumble]

devotion to Mary

I see "devotion", not "worship".

[Muslim Knight]

I see "devotion", not "worship".

This echoes the polytheists in Makkah who oppressed the Prophet during the birth of Islam. They did not outrightly reject Allah, but their sin was to set up partners for Him with whom they worship. They were saying that Hubal, Al-Lat and Uzza had the right for devotion alongside Allah.

That Muhammad said these idols made by their own hands, were powerless, enraged them and made them obstinate against the Message of Islam and the testification of faith, Laa ilaha il Allah, There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah.

'Devote' or 'worship' really makes no difference. Let us call a black kettle, black. We Muslims do not suffer the mental illness of seeing 1 as 3 or 3 as 1.

[Malaikah]

I see "devotion", not "worship".

Unfortunately from an Islamic perspective it is worship and setting up partners with Allah.

You might not agree but you don't have to.

[MustafaMc]

I see "devotion", not "worship".

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: de·vo·tion
Pronunciation: di-'vO-sh&n, dE-
Function: noun
1 a : religious fervor : PIETY b : an act of prayer or private worship -- usually used in plural c : a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation

Any way you dice it or slice it - it is still worship which should be reserved for the One God.

BTW Catholics also pray to "Patron Saints" for help and protection.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php
"Patron saints are chosen as special protectors or guardians over areas of life. These areas can include occupations, illnesses, churches, countries, causes -- anything that is important to us."

It seems that you and Christians can't see the distinction that Muslims make between polytheism and monotheism.

Muslims recite the Surah al-Fatiha (Quran 1:1-7) at least 17 times every day with one of the ayat being O'Allah! You Alone we worship and You Alone we call on for help.

Most Muslims also recite in their prayers:

Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient (independent of all, while all are dependent on Him); He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.

These 2 passages clearly define what monotheism actually is.

Quran 3:64 Say: "O people of the Book! Let us get together on what is common between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah; that we shall not associate any partners with Him; that we shall not take from among ourselves any lords beside Allah." If they reject your invitation then tell them: "Bear witness that we are Muslims (who have surrendered to Allah)."

[ummzayd]

:sl:

masha'Allah brother I think you nailed it, alhamdulillah!

:w:

[Trumble]

Any way you dice it or slice it - it is still worship which should be reserved for the One God.

Slicing and dicing by ignoring the the "religious exercise or practice" bit, you mean? Worship is a religious exercise or practice, but not all religious exercises or practice are worship. Would you like me to produce a few definitions of "devotion", even in the religious sense, that don't mention "worship" at all?

All that is just playing with words, anyway. Call it 'worship' if you like, but it is not the same activity that that word means in relation to God. Obviously Islam thinks such activity inappropriate, which is fair enough.. but the original suggestion was that Mary was worshipped as a god. That is not the case.

[Redeemed]

I don't see it that way. He is not Muslim and I do not expect him to be familiar with the Qur'an or the Ahadith. I can understand how there would be some confusion for a Non-Muslim over the words we use.

I do disagree with his beliefs and believe he is in error. But, I also believe he is very sincere as to what he does believe.

Because I disagree with his beliefs does not mean I believe he would intentionaly say something invalid.

I appreciate that. You are gracious. To be honest with you, if I say something that is not true, it is because of ignorance, not of any intention to hurt. It would still hurt me to think that I misrepresented your beliefs. :cry: I am trying to learn Islam so that I don't make these mistakes. I have learned so much on this forum. I knew nothing about Islam before except that they pray 5 times a day and believe in Allah. I feel, however, there is a built in mechanism in Islam that would cause Muslims to hate anyone they see trying to pull them away from what they believe to be true. Unfortunately, however, I have tasted this spirit (not from you). The difference I sense, in practical ways, between our doctrines or religions are the fruit I see in the lives of Christians and Muslims. Of course there are exceptions to the rule on both sides. But I would never get offended or threatened if one tries to pull me away from Christianity; moreover, it is no secret that I want not only you but everyone on this forum to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and to see Him for who He really is in the Bible. There are certain Muslim brothers that send me secret e-mails stating that they know my stealthy mission to deceive Muslims. They said that most Muslims do not see my hidden agenda except for them. My intentions are not to deceive you or anyone. I have been out in the open regarding my intentions and if there are Muslims or Christians that are weak in the faith, maybe this forum is not the place for them. Just the same, I appreciate your understanding and kind words.:thumbs_up

[Redeemed]

last time I looked Catholics were in the majority (by a long way) in the Christian world. and Catholics worship Mary. And a god is 'one who is worthy of worship'. so they take Mary as a god.

the part of qur'an you quoted doesn't mention bible or trinity. as usual, no mistake there. it is entirely correct and even precise. all praise belongs to Allah ta'ala.

peace

I was born and raised Catholic, but I am not a Catholic. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. You might find it helpful to read about the reformation. The Catholics started off correctly, but they didn't heed Jesus' warning that men will come in and bring traditions that make the law of God to no affect. The fact that the Catholics are in the majority means nothing. To me, one with God is the majority and between us, I believe that would be me.:)

[Woodrow]

I believe your statement:

. I feel, however, there is a built in mechanism in Islam that would cause Muslims to hate anyone they see trying to pull them away from what they believe to be true.

Is true.

We do believe that as Muslims we are on the true path to heaven and that any person trying to sway a Muslim from Islam is leading the member into hellfire. It is impossible to not get angry at words we see as an attempt to lead our brothers and sister into hellfire, even if the words are spoken out of ignorance.


But, that also applies to Christians who firmly believe what they do. Would I not be at least a little bit condemned if I walked into any Christian church and tried to lead the members to the Truth of Islam?

[Redeemed]

I believe your statement:



Is true.

We do believe that as Muslims we are on the true path to heaven and that any person trying to sway a Muslim from Islam is leading the member into hellfire. It is impossible to not get angry at words we see as an attempt to lead our brothers and sister into hellfire, even if the words are spoken out of ignorance.


But, that also applies to Christians who firmly believe what they do. Would I not be at least a little bit condemned if I walked into any Christian church and tried to lead the members to the Truth of Islam?

We are to love the sinner and the deceived one not their sin, but when we make a person the object of our hatred whether their purpose is out of ignorance or deliberate, we sin against God and know not God. To the Christian, God is love and no one or nothing can separate us from the love of God. It is that same question of security that we have as true followers of Christ that appears to be absent in Islam.

[Redeemed]

Hello, I was brought up a catholic and was certainly taught to pray to her statue, praise her and ask her for things. what else do you call that? it is certainly not right to put her on a par with 'other saints'.

The whole month of May was devoted to the worship of Mary in my (& all other catholic) schools.

peace

Sorry Sister,
Some Catholics are closer to the truth than others, but there are many that do worship Mary. I have been around long enough to see it. In other words, Mary worship is not Biblical. No offense intented.
God bless U

[vpb]

Sorry Sister,
Some Catholics are closer to the truth than others, but there are many that do worship Mary. I have been around long enough to see it. No offense intented.
God bless U

well, if you worship God and son of God, it's not to be suprised that they worship the mother of the son of God, (wife of God). Why do you think your belief is smarter than theirs?

Astagfirullah.

[Woodrow]

We are to love the sinner and the deceived one not their sin, but when we make a person the object of our hatred whether their purpose is out of ignorance or deliberate, we sin against God and know not God. To the Christian, God is love and no one or nothing can separate us from the love of God. It is that same question of security that we have as true followers of Christ that appears to be absent in Islam.

Idealisticaly this is true, We are to love the sinner and the deceived one not their sin, but when we make a person the object of our hatred whether their purpose is out of ignorance or deliberate, we sin against God and know not God., but as Humans we react as humans. I do my best not to hate anyone for any reason, yet to be honest, I have met people I have honestly hated. I regret my weakness for those times, but I understand why I felt that way and do accept the fact I have human short comings.

It is that same question of security that we have as true followers of Christ that appears to be absent in Islam

I can see that you have not grasped the degree of security and assurance we do have as Muslims. We know that Allah(swt) is all just and merciful. We do know that he will punish us no more than what our sins warrant, but that out of his goodness and forgiveness he will reward us countless times more than what we could ever be worthy of. We trust in His word without any question and know fully that he will guide us as we walk on the path to Jannah.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

well, if you worship God and son of God, it's not to be suprised that they worship the mother of the son of God, (wife of God). Why do you think your belief is smarter than theirs?

Astagfirullah.

bro , u forgot to mention '' mother of God .''

yes , Astagfirallah.

May God show us all the straight path & keep us away from associate partner with God Almighty.


Ameen , Ameen , Ameen

[Redeemed]

Idealisticaly this is true, We are to love the sinner and the deceived one not their sin, but when we make a person the object of our hatred whether their purpose is out of ignorance or deliberate, we sin against God and know not God., but as Humans we react as humans. I do my best not to hate anyone for any reason, yet to be honest, I have met people I have honestly hated. I regret my weakness for those times, but I understand why I felt that way and do accept the fact I have human short comings.



I can see that you have not grasped the degree of security and assurance we do have as Muslims. We know that Allah(swt) is all just and merciful. We do know that he will punish us no more than what our sins warrant, but that out of his goodness and forgiveness he will reward us countless times more than what we could ever be worthy of. We trust in His word without any question and know fully that he will guide us as we walk on the path to Jannah.

Yes, i used to hate people too, but God has changed my life. I no longer do that. I am a new creation in Christ. He as given me a clean heart and a right spirit. As far as your comment on the security issue, can you show my chapter and verse in the Qur'an that you base that on? Cause, I don't see what you found that confidence on. My understanding is Allah can send you to hell just cause He feels like it regardless of how many good things you do with the exception maybe of dying in a jhad.

[vpb]

bro , u forgot to mention '' mother of God .''

I did it on purpose, bc sometimes you don't know wether Son of God, or One of the substances of the whole God. I think it's simultaniosly son of God, and God .

[vpb]

Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:120:

And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.

[Woodrow]

Yes, i used to hate people too, but God has changed my life. I no longer do that. I am a new creation in Christ. He as given me a clean heart and a right spirit. As far as your comment on the security issue, can you show my chapter and verse in the Qur'an that you base that on? Cause, I don't see what you found that confidence on. My understanding is Allah can send you to hell just cause He feels like it regardless of how many good things you do with the exception maybe of dying in a jhad.

Oddly I can say very much the same. It is after accepting Islam I learned to be more peaceful and forgiving of others. Islam has changed my life and I am no longer that which I was before I was born into Islam.

What you see in us as insecurity we see as acknowledgement of the power of Allah(swt) We accept the fact that Allah(swt) is greater than us and it is only his will that is of importance. we have no control over what Allah(swt) will do, it is His will and it is for us to accept it and be forever grateful for what ever He chooses to bestow upon us. We also have faith that He will be fair and mercifull in his choices.

In contrast we see what you call security as being arrogance and an insult to the Power of Allah(swt). Do you not know that if for any reason He chooses he has the power to cast you and who ever he desires into the hellfire and he owes us humans no explanation as to why? Do you deny the absolute authority of Allah(swt) and feel that he does not have the right or ability to do as he wishes? Is not everything ultimatly up to the will of Allah(swt) and He will do as He wills, Inshallah?

I also believe Allah(swt) keeps his word and that in the Qur'an He has said:

98: 7. (And) lo! those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings.
98: 8. Their reward is with their Lord: Gardens of Eden underneath which rivers flow, wherein they dwell for ever. Allah hath pleasure in them and they have pleasure in Him. This is (in store) for him who feareth his Lord.

There are other passages with more description as to what is promised to those who believe. I strive to do what I can to know that when I die it will be as a believer. But, I have full faith in knowing Allah(swt) is the most fair and the most merciful. I have no further need in knowing more than that.

[vpb]

Surah Al Maeda (The Table, The Table Spread) 5:17:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

[Grace Seeker]

which came first after Paul and sun-god constantine; Catholicism or your particular version?

how do you trace your creed back to Paul if not thru Rome?

First, if I was a Roman Catholic, I would argue that Catholicism was the faith of all of the first Christians. It was the only faith. There was only one church and it was the Catholic Church. The Catholic church was in existence before either Paul or Constantine.


Second, I don't personally buy that particular argument. I think that the Catholic Church as I know think of it is one of many denominations within Christendom. Some of those denominations have split off from the Catholic Church. Some, such as the Coptics or the Orthodox churches, are just as original as the Catholic church.

Third, then there are groups such as that which I am a part of that did break away from the Catholic Church. We did so because we thought that errors had developed within the teaching of the Catholic Church. We noticed these errors by comparing the scriptures with the then current teachings of the church and found that there was a difference between them. At which time we decided to go with what we understood the scriptures to be teachings versus with what we understood the Catholic Church to have been teaching. In my mind, that means we were clinging to that which was most surely original Christianity vs. that which had evolved as the Catholic Church's expression of Christianity. So, though the Catholic Church might have come before my version of Christianity, my version has its own access to original Christianity without needing the input of the Catholic Church. We do not trace ourselves through Rome, but through the scriptures.



Oh, and btw, we don't trace ourselves back to either Constantine or Paul, we go back farther to Jesus. While Paul and Constantine may have had significant impact on the development of the Christian faith. Its origins lay in the experience not of these Johnny-come-latelys, but in those who were the companions of Jesus proclaiming the good news of the work of God that Jesus had accomplished in his death and resurrection.

[Grace Seeker]

Surah Al Maeda (The Table, The Table Spread) 5:17:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

I'll take that as a speech against the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I submit to you that Peter was a Trinitarian, now please name a Unitarian before Peter.

Jesus. :D :thumbs_up

Very good.

Now if Jesus was a unitarian, please explain to me why he told Philip that seeing him was the equivalence of seeing the Father?

John 14

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

And, if Jesus was a unitarian, please explain to me why he allowed Thomas to address him as God?

John 20

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

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

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[vpb]

I'll take that as a speech against the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

it doesn't mean that I want to be rude about your opinions, cuz you have your religion, i have mine, but I wanted to show what Allah swt said about the trinity that your belief is based upon, and the partnership you assign to Allah swt.

[Grace Seeker]

last time I looked Catholics were in the majority (by a long way) in the Christian world. and Catholics worship Mary. And a god is 'one who is worthy of worship'. so they take Mary as a god.

Catholics are in the majority in the Christian world.

Catholics do NOT worship Mary.


As to actual Catholic views on Mary, you can read about them hear: Article from New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia. Now there is in that review of Mary, much that I myself do not agree with. Personally, I think that the songs written in her honor and the idea of praying to God "through" her (or any human being) are a bit much. But I do not find Catholics addressing her as one who is considered "worthy of worthship". They stop just short of that.

Indeed the 2nd Vatican Council affirms that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that this mediator is Jesus Christ. Reading a copy of the Catholic Catechism I see Mary described there is the model Christian, the perfect example from all of humanity as to what it is to live in the will of God. But they never equate her with God. She does get the title "Mother of God", but not because she is herself divine. Rather it is because her son, Jesus, is.

If you find a Catholic who takes Mary as a god, this is a Catholic who is practicing something contrary to what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

[Redeemed]

JazakAllah khaira wa Salaam Alaikum :)

Who is being gossiped about here? And what answers were you looking for?

[Phil12123]

I don't remember the source but many years ago I read about Muhammed's shock and revulsion over seeing how Catholics "worshipped" or venerated Mary, so much so that in his view they were making her part of the Trinity. It was his misunderstanding of their view of Mary (though not entirely unjustified) and of the Trinity that lead him to reject much of the Bible as being in conflict with monotheism. And since the Bible pre-dated anything he came up with, the only way to dispute it was to say it was corrupted, though there is not any credible evidence to support such a claim. Absent such alleged corruption, the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, calling the Father "God," and the Son "God," and the Holy Spirit "God," and yet teaching there is only ONE God. He didn't understand that, nor perhaps can we, but it's there nevertheless.

Peace

[vpb]

I don't remember the source but many years ago I read about Muhammed's shock and revulsion over seeing how Catholics "worshipped" or venerated Mary, so much so that in his view they were making her part of the Trinity. It was his misunderstanding of their view of Mary (though not entirely unjustified) and of the Trinity that lead him to reject much of the Bible as being in conflict with monotheism. And since the Bible pre-dated anything he came up with, the only way to dispute it was to say it was corrupted, though there is not any credible evidence to support such a claim. Absent such alleged corruption, the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, calling the Father "God," and the Son "God," and the Holy Spirit "God," and yet teaching there is only ONE God. He didn't understand that, nor perhaps can we, but it's there nevertheless.

really? lol well that's your opinion but it doesn't represent the truth. :)

do you thnk Allah swt misunderstood your belief?? astagfirullah. Muhammed saws did not decide about things from his desires, but rather that what Allah swt commanded him directly or indirectly.

please read the following verses.

Surah Al Maeda (The Table, The Table Spread) 5:17:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."



[By the star when it goes down, Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. He has been taught this Qur'an by the one mighty in power (Jibreel). (Free from any defect in body and mind), then he (Jibreel) rose and became stable. While he was in the highest part of the horizon, then he approached and came closer and was at a distance of two bows length or even nearer (Jibreel). So did Allah convey the inspiration to His slave (Muhammad) through (Jibreel). The Prophet's heart lied not in seeing what he saw. Will you then dispute with him about what he saw? And indeed he (Muhammad) saw him (Jibreel) at a second descent. Near the lote tree of the utmost boundary (beyond which none can pass). Near it is the Paradise of Abode. When that covered the lote tree which did cover it! The sight of Muhammad turned not aside nor it transgressed beyond the limit ordained for it. Indeed, Muhammad did see, of the Greatest Signs, of his Lord.] (An-Najm 53:1-18)

[Redeemed]

well, if you worship God and son of God, it's not to be suprised that they worship the mother of the son of God, (wife of God). Why do you think your belief is smarter than theirs?

Astagfirullah.

Actually, it is no surprise to me, and you are right. It does make sense to do that if one didn't have the Bible to go by. Mary is not the mother of God. She was created by God just as we were. She did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ. She was just blessed among women to have given birth to the Word of God in the flesh. In other words, Jesus is God. He is the prince of peace, the Everlasting Father, the mighty God, King of kings, Lord of Lords, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the bright mornings star, the Savior of the world, the light of the world, the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valley the great I am, the Son of God, the son of man, Alfa and Omega, the Beginning and the End, The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (including Mary's sin), wonderful counselor, Immanuel (God with us), the Way the Truth and the Life, The Creator and much, much more. God said of Jesus, "But thou Oh God is an everlasting kingdom..." Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father even those going to hell. One that worships Jesus is worshiping God. One that does not honor Jesus the same as God (Allah) worships and honors not God. We have to meet God on His terms not ours or by the terms of others who say they have heard from God. We need to hear from God for ourselves. We have to have our own connection. Prayer is not facing in some direction and speaking our peace. It is letting God speak His to us from any direction He wants, and He is speaking to you now, but you will not hear!:cry:

[vpb]

Mary is not the mother of God. She was created by God just as we were

lol, but how come Mary is only a creature of God, but Jesus is not?? If God put Jesus in Mary's womb, then Jesus is not his son, but his creature, if God had relationship with Mary, then we come to the conlsuion that God holds human values. And if God didn't have relationship with Mary, then he had to put the child in Mary's womb, which is not his son in any sense. Astagfirullah cuz I feel terribly even to take this sort of examples. Have you ever contemplated enough, do you really think God can have a son??? God does not hold human values. He majesty is high from having a son. this term 'son of God' was just a metaphoric word that was used by Jews, and you adapted it as real Son of God.

...The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (including Mary's sin), wonderful counselor, Immanuel (God with us), the W...

Immanuel does not refer to Jesus, actually Dr. Zakir Naik has explained this thing that people believe when it says in the bible that A virgin will give birth to a son that will be called Immanuel, but the jewish word that is used for Mary, does not mean "a virgin" but a "young lady", and he explained the other word that means "a virgin", so this prophecy is unfulfilled in Bible and does not refer to Jesus. I don't know who, but it does not.

[vpb]

at minute 5:45 of the video, talks about the "Imannuel" and explains it in the jewish words used in bible.

Media Tags are no longer supported

[NoName55]

Originally Posted by NoName55

JazakAllah khaira wa Salaam Alaikum :)

Who is being gossiped about here? And what answers were you looking for?

Don't concern yourself for Br. Gene has dealt with the matter on your behalf via PM and post. As far as I am concerned, it is resolved.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Jesus (p) : 'My Father is greater than I'--chapter John



any verse in Bible where father declared :.....My son is greater than all ??????

if yes , where is it & what's the context ?

[Phil12123]

lol, but how come Mary is only a creature of God, but Jesus is not??

Because Jesus is God, equal with the Father in essence, substance, and nature, and existing as long as God has existed. Mary is just a human, with no preexistence, and no existence until she was created. Jesus' human existence began when "the Word was made flesh," i.e., when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived in her womb without knowing a man.

If God put Jesus in Mary's womb, then Jesus is not his son, but his creature,

Wrong, for the same reason.

.. if God had relationship with Mary, then we come to the conclusion that God holds human values. And if God didn't have relationship with Mary, then he had to put the child in Mary's womb, which is not his son in any sense.

Jesus is "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). For you to talk as you do about Jesus is just as offensive to me as a Christian as it would be for me to say that Muhammad had a demon when he was supposedly receiving what went into the Quran. Do you understand that? You speak of things you know not.

Immanuel does not refer to Jesus, actually Dr. Zakir Naik has explained this thing that people believe when it says in the bible that A virgin will give birth to a son that will be called Immanuel, but the jewish word that is used for Mary, does not mean "a virgin" but a "young lady", and he explained the other word that means "a virgin", so this prophecy is unfulfilled in Bible and does not refer to Jesus. I don't know who, but it does not.

Matthew 1:18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
20. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.''
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23. "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,'' which is translated, "God with us.''

The "prophet" referred to is Isaiah ---

Isaiah 7:14. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

I chose to believe the Scriptures. You may believe Dr. Infidel and be one with him. That is your choice. We all make choices. And some of them have eternal consequences. Without Jesus, we are all lost and condemned to an eternity in the lake of fire to pay for our own sins. I choose to accept His death on the cross (which you choose to deny even happened), as FULL payment for all my sins. In choosing that, I choose to trust in His Word which says:

1 Peter 2:24. [Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness ...

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32. He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The contrast cannot be clearer:

Without Christ:
Our sin earns us
wages...DEATH,
physical, spiritual,
and ultimately
eternal.

With Christ:
He pays for them
and gives us the
gift of ETERNAL LIFE.

A gift cannot be worked for or earned, but simply received. But it MUST be received, or you will never possess it.

The choice is yours. Choose LIFE and live forever, by receiving His GIFT today!

Peace

[vpb]

Because Jesus is God, equal with the Father in essence, substance, and nature, and existing as long as God has existed. Mary is just a human, with no preexistence, and no existence until she was created. Jesus' human existence began when "the Word was made flesh," i.e., when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived in her womb without knowing a man.

still you fail to explain, and you only say "because Jesus is son of God" but nevermind i'm not discuss this thing any further cuz it has been discussed many times and there's not point to di further.

For you to talk as you do about Jesus is just as offensive to me as a Christian as it would be for me to say that Muhammad had a demon when he was supposedly receiving what went into the Quran. Do you understand that? You speak of things you know not.

you are comparing two different things and it doesn't work, and as for talking like that about Jesus, actually I get offended more than you do, much more, bc you are giving Allah swt human values, making Allah swt imperfect and flawless by claiming that he has a Son, Subhanallah only humans have sons, God is not in need of anything , and also you are twisting my prophet Isa's (Jesus's) a.s teachings, and that's why I care, bc he came with the same message as other prophets "Laaaa ilahe ilallah - There is no diety of worship except Allah", and veriy Jesus himself, the "son of God" that you call will testify against you on the day of judgement as it says in the Qur'an:

Surah Al-Nisa 4:157-159

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

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he (Jesus a.s) will be a witness against them;-

and wallahi we will also testify inshaAllah.

[vpb]

To Christians, Jesus is God. God loves us so much that He came down to Earth and lived as a man, just so that He could die for our sins. Jesus is the Son of God, and was a man, but he is also God the Father.

a man is mortal, God is immortal, how on earth can you be immortal and mortal at the same time? how can you be a son of God and a God at the same time? can you be a prince (son of King) and the King at the same time? impossibly impossible :p. the King has to die for you as a prince to become a King. Who brought this concept?? what was he thinking of? ;D seriously loll

[Grace Seeker]

a man is mortal, God is immortal, how on earth can you be immortal and mortal at the same time? how can you be a son of God and a God at the same time? can you be a prince (son of King) and the King at the same time? impossibly impossible :p. the King has to die for you as a prince to become a King. Who brought this concept?? what was he thinking of? ;D seriously loll

That you do not understand how, does not make it impossible to be true, just impossible for you to conceive of it as true. There is a difference.

[vpb]

That you do not understand how, does not make it impossible to be true, just impossible for you to conceive of it as true. There is a difference.

what am I not understanding here??? should I force my brain believe that you can be a prince and a king at the same time??? how can a prince which his father is on the throne, be a king at the same time? 2 kings? or one prince and 1 king? or no king at all? please what am I missing here, why can't i understand? why can't I understand that it is possible to be mortal and immortal at the same time? hmmm or should I just force this idea on my brain and just say "I believe" .

[August]

what am I not understanding here??? should I force my brain believe that you can be a prince and a king at the same time??? how can a prince which his father is on the throne, be a king at the same time? 2 kings? or one prince and 1 king? or no king at all? please what am I missing here, why can't i understand? why can't I understand that it is possible to be mortal and immortal at the same time? hmmm or should I just force this idea on my brain and just say "I believe" .

It's one of those things that must be accepted on faith. We can use logic and reason to see why the Trinity makes sense, but it isn't something that can be proven. I'm guessing you were raised Muslim? I was raised Christian, so I never have really had a problem seeing the Trinity as monotheism. The precise explanation of the Trinity differs among some Christian groups, however.

[vpb]

It's one of those things that must be accepted on faith. We can use logic and reason to see why the Trinity makes sense, but it isn't something that can be proven. I'm guessing you were raised Muslim? I was raised Christian, so I never have really had a problem seeing the Trinity as monotheism. The precise explanation of the Trinity differs among some Christian groups, however.

nooo, it don't want to accept it blindly, and trinity cannot be proven even through login a reason, i'm sorry but it doesn't , just at those two simple examples it fails, and no one in the world can come up and say that you can be king and a prince at the same time, or immortal and mortal at the same time. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 :p.
and as far as for being raised as a muslim, heh..I was raised in a "muslim" family, which not that taught me about Islam, but they even themselves had hugeeee misunderstandings of Islam, you can imagine if i'm called "extremist" for applying second pillar of Islam, than you can imagine what family I was raised on. :)
but religion doesn't go with what your parents or family had,

Surah Ibrahim (Abraham) 14:10

Their messengers said: Is there doubt about Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth? He invites you to forgive you your faults and to respite you till an appointed term. They said: You are nothing but mortals like us; you wish to turn us away from what our fathers used to worship; bring us therefore some clear authority.

[Grace Seeker]

what am I not understanding here??? should I force my brain believe that you can be a prince and a king at the same time??? how can a prince which his father is on the throne, be a king at the same time? 2 kings? or one prince and 1 king? or no king at all? please what am I missing here, why can't i understand? why can't I understand that it is possible to be mortal and immortal at the same time? hmmm or should I just force this idea on my brain and just say "I believe" .

Let me just address the last one. Are you yourself a mortal or an immortal being? I can make a case for both, and both at the same time.

One of these days you are going to die. Obviously you are therefore a mortal being.

But when you die you life will not end, instead it will be transformed into a new life created to live forever either with God in paradise or apart from God in eternal torment. So, you are therefore an immortal being. Both at the same time.

Well, if that can be true for a human being, why is it so hard to imagine a divine being putting on flesh. As Jesus himself said, nothing is imposible for God.

But ultimately you are also right, it isn't about logic. There is no logic to it from a human perspective. From a human persepctive it is more mystery than logic. But then many other things are also more mystery than logic and yet we know they are true -- gravity for example. So, yes, I guess that we are asking you to just believe. If one believes in the words recorded in the Bible then one is faced with scripture calling one know as the Father God, and yet on another occassion refering to one known as the Son as God, and on other occassion refering to the Holy Spirit as God. Calls three different persons God and yet claims there is just one God. I'm not going to solve it for you and tell you how it works, I'm not even going to put a name to it this time, I'm just going to tell you that the Bible says that is the way it is. You can do with that information whatever you please.

[Zulkiflim]

Let me just address the last one. Are you yourself a mortal or an immortal being? I can make a case for both, and both at the same time.

One of these days you are going to die. Obviously you are therefore a mortal being.

But when you die you life will not end, instead it will be transformed into a new life created to live forever either with God in paradise or apart from God in eternal torment. So, you are therefore an immortal being. Both at the same time.

Well, if that can be true for a human being, why is it so hard to imagine a divine being putting on flesh. As Jesus himself said, nothing is imposible for God.

But ultimately you are also right, it isn't about logic. There is no logic to it from a human perspective. From a human persepctive it is more mystery than logic. But then many other things are also more mystery than logic and yet we know they are true -- gravity for example. So, yes, I guess that we are asking you to just believe. If one believes in the words recorded in the Bible then one is faced with scripture calling one know as the Father God, and yet on another occassion refering to one known as the Son as God, and on other occassion refering to the Holy Spirit as God. Calls three different persons God and yet claims there is just one God. I'm not going to solve it for you and tell you how it works, I'm not even going to put a name to it this time, I'm just going to tell you that the Bible says that is the way it is. You can do with that information whatever you please.

Salaam,

The flesh will wither and cruble but the soul remian.

But the soul is not divine.
Angels will last till the end days,,but they are not divine..
Satan will last till the end days,,,but they are not divine

Divinity is ONLY ONE...

[vpb]

Let me just address the last one. Are you yourself a mortal or an immortal being? I can make a case for both, and both at the same time.

One of these days you are going to die. Obviously you are therefore a mortal being.

But when you die you life will not end, instead it will be transformed into a new life created to live forever either with God in paradise or apart from God in eternal torment. So, you are therefore an immortal being. Both at the same time.

Well, if that can be true for a human being, why is it so hard to imagine a divine being putting on flesh. As Jesus himself said, nothing is imposible for God.

Failure, we are not talking about the afterlife, but we are talking about this life, and when I say mortal and immortal at the same time, I don't mean mortal in this life, and immortal on the other, but I mean both at this life,don't try to be sneaky with my thoughts :p,. As you claim Jesus is god, he lived on earth, but we know that God is immortal no matter what, but on earth he was mortal, so mortal and immortal is impossible, jesus had either to be mortal, and was a human, a prophet, or be immortal which denies that he came on earth or lived on earth. don't try to mix it with other world, we are talking about this world. Jesus couldn't be God (immortal) and live on earth as mortal, and be immortal and mortal same time. now Mission Impossible 4

Calls three different persons God and yet claims there is just one God.

I haven't come across a single religious book which says : "the monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam and christianity" , it has always been "the two monotheistic religion , Judaism and Islam" .

to make it more clear about the trinity thing, I took an examp;le before but i will do it with an image :D for entartainment :)

Christianity:

Islam:

I hope i'm clear enough.

[vpb]

btw, the example that people give with H20, same thing is with this, they are all files, but their form is different, one is a zip file, the other is just a text file. you can't edit a zip file with Notepad :D:) which they are not the same. you can try to put some water gass on the glass and put some coffe and drink it :p it's really good . i've tried it.

[Gangster No.1]

Actually I've thought about asking Muslims this same question. What image comes to your mind when you think of God? An old man with a beard sitting on a throne? Because to a Christian the Almighty power that is God cannot be placed into a box so as to be easily understood by the human mind. Sometimes I feel that Muslims are so obsessed with concentrating on God being One, which of course we both agree on, that they miss the point altogether. God obviously has many ways of interacting and manifesting Himself in our world and in our minds. The possibilities are obviously limitless. To answer your questions though....

What is God? That is obviously impossible to describe using the written word. Almighty Creator, Lord, the One God. As for what image comes to mind, for me personally I don't really have an image in mind....definately not Sean Connery.

What image comes to mind when speaking of the Son? Of course there are millions of paintings and images of Christ as he was imagined by artists and worshippers. Most of us know that his true physical image was never captured, so all we can do is imagine how He might have looked during His time on Earth. If you are referring to the Son in the spiritual sense, it again goes back to our image of God, which is impossible to describe or put into a box.

As for the Holy Spirit, Jesus described it as a Comforter. The translation from Greek means literally breath or air. Sometimes described as the aspect of God immanent in this world, in people, and in the church.

Yeh but you believe that jesus is the son of god, that is abit like 'what!'

When jesus died did apart of god die aswel?

[MustafaMc]

To Christians, Jesus is God. God loves us so much that He came down to Earth and lived as a man, just so that He could die for our sins.

To Muslims, this is outright blasphemy!

Jesus is the Son of God, and was a man, but he is also God the Father. Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit together make up God. This is monotheism, it may be complicated, but it is the truth. Simplicity is not an indicator of truth.

I don't see how anyine gets "monotheism" from this or any other Christian explanation.

[vpb]

I don't see how anyine gets "monotheism" from this or any other Christian explanation.

it is a polythiestic monotheism.

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam,

The flesh will wither and cruble but the soul remian.

But the soul is not divine.
Angels will last till the end days,,but they are not divine..
Satan will last till the end days,,,but they are not divine

Divinity is ONLY ONE...

I was addressing mortal vs. immortallity. You said that one could not be both. I showed that they could. And that is in a human being, not a divine being.


Just as you have in the human being a union of spirit and flesh, so you can have that in a divine being. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, both at the same time. I don't have to prove it to you, anymore than I have to prove that my cat has four legs, I just observe that to be true by seeing and then counting them. I observe Jesus to have two natures (one divine, one human) by seeing them in scripture and then counting them.

At your option, you can distrust what I say, and come and count my cats legs for yourself. And if you distrust me with regard to Christ you can also read the scriptures for yourself to see what they say.

Of course, if you go to another source and use that as your reference, perhaps the three-legged cat running down your street or the Qur'an, you just might doubt me because the source of information that you use to determine what is the truth will be different than mine.

[Grace Seeker]

Yeh but you believe that jesus is the son of god, that is abit like 'what!'

When jesus died did apart of god die aswel?

More like a part of God died when Jesus took our sins upon himself, for God is holy and cannot have anything to do with sin, and yet he did.

[Woodrow]

None. No.



None. Jesus was not an earthly father to any children since He was not married and He did not father any children out of wedlock.

The Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of Whom are of one essence, substance, and nature, namely, Deity. They are the ONE true God. The three are indeed three distinct, separate entities, but together make up the ONE God. They are separate and distinct in the sense that the Son died on the cross, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world; the Son did not send the Father or the Holy Spirit to be the Savior of the world. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son to do His special work, not vice versa. etc., etc. So they are in that sense separate and distinct, but they are the ONE God.



Having a mother was how God made the Word flesh (John 1:14). Presumably He could have used a direct act of creation of Jesus' physical body, as in, "Let there be a physical body" and poof, there would be a man's body the Word could inhabit. But that is not how God did it. NO, to your second question.



Yes. It placed Jesus' earthly mother in a position of authority over the child and young person and young man, Jesus, for the period He was subject and obedient to her, as any Jewish boy should be to his mother. See Luke 2:51.

Your point?

Peace

Your point?

Just my round about way of trying to arrive at an understanding of things that confuse me.

Your replies do have me contemplating over 2 points in particular.

These 2 replies are:

The Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of Whom are of one essence, substance, and nature, namely, Deity. They are the ONE true God. The three are indeed three distinct, separate entities, but together make up the ONE God. They are separate and distinct in the sense that the Son died on the cross, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world; the Son did not send the Father or the Holy Spirit to be the Savior of the world. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son to do His special work, not vice versa. etc., etc. So they are in that sense separate and distinct, but they are the ONE God.

Yes. It placed Jesus' earthly mother in a position of authority over the child and young person and young man, Jesus, for the period He was subject and obedient to her, as any Jewish boy should be to his mother. See Luke 2:51.

These are what I see as major issues between Muslims and Christians. At the moment I am simply reflecting on your replies and how I can best address them, with dignity and not in any offensive manner.

Now how this relates to the trinity? To me it offers some insight into why Christians view the Trinity as being one God and also why we as Muslims believe different.

[Grace Seeker]

Forget about the date but what about moral of the story ?

If Christians believe Priests are above having children , then how come u can believe God has begotten son ?

The date is important, as it clearly shows the story was an invention and not a true event.

In truth, only some Christians believe that priests should not have children, and no Christians believe that priests are above having children. The reason that those who do not have children have chosen not to is for other reasons than the story implies.

[Grace Seeker]

Muhammed saws has already proven that it is possible to be married and dedicate him/her self to the Lord. Even if we go and take a very pious muslim who reached the level of Ikhsaan, he is married and still the only thing he is preoccupied is his Lord, or or or :p let's take Abu Hanifa, he is one of the greatest scholars, who dedicated his life for Allah swt, those who know him know how much he contributed :D, and he was stilled married :)

Sorry :D

And many protestant ministers are married. That doesn't mean that we don't sometimes have difficult decisions to make. This happened to me just 1 week ago.

Our wedding anniversary was on a Sunday. We wanted to celebrate it, but I had to preach that morning. Fine, plenty of people work on the day of their wedding anniversay, I could too. We also had an evening service, but we could go out and have a nice lunch together. So, that was the plan.

I walked into the house after church to put some things away while my wife waited for me in the car, I saw that we had a message on the answering machine and thought it was probably a call wishing us a Happy Anniversary from one of our kids. It wasn't. A teenager, a senior scheduled to graduate that afternoon, had died overngiht. We live in a very small town (5000 people) and thus a small school with a small graduating class where everyone knows each other. The principal was calling the pastors in town to ask us if we could be there to provide counseling for the kids who might not even learn about this tragedy until they arrived for what is usually a great big celebration. This time there would be a lot of unexpected grief to deal with. Could I meet with him at the school at 1:00 PM? It was 12:50 PM.

So, now I have a choice. I cannot be both husband and pastor at this particular point in time. I have to choose one over the other. And, your illustrations not withstanding, some people simply choose in advance that they want to avoid having to make that choice later as I had to on this occassion.

[Grace Seeker]

Excellent Phil, that is a great summary. I believe your points 8 & 9 give a full explanation as to why we can not agree. In accordance with the Bible point 8 is true. In accordance with the Qur'an point 9 is true.

I firmly believe the Qur'an is the truth and that for me to follow Christianity would be the path to Hellfire. I know I can no more convince you the Qur'an is the truth, than you can convince me that the Bible is true. All I can do is Thank Allah(swt) that I was lead away from the Bible and to the Qur'an. I know you are probably Thanking God(swt) that you have the Bible.

There can be no mutual acceptance over the Trinity. The best we can do as Muslims and Christians is disagree in peace.

So, are we willing to allow each some degree of peace?

I don't object to the differences in opinion, but lately it seems like everyone is trying to make converts of the other.

I actually agree with that motivation, too. But I think it is misplaced if we think we are going to be effective in trying to do so by attacks on an internet forum, rather than seeking to know each other as individuals and learning to live in peaceful relationships with each other first. And then lead rather than push each other to explore the faith we wish to share with them.

[جوري]

Dear Gene
this is an Islamic forum, with the purpose of teaching and giving du3wa to all who seek it, I assume those who have come here, have done so freely on their own accord? be that as it may, I haven't seen any Muslim member actively trying to convert anyone, at least not to the level where they are invading people's inboxes with a barrage of tasteless testimonies and articles-- what I find not only offensive but down right insolent, is some of the louder of your "Christian" bros, who not only come here to offend, but purposefully, lie and mislead Muslims (and it really is a futile effort) unless one is fickle to begin with-- No Muslim who has willingly, consciously and freely accepted Islam, would consider again becoming a Christian-- so why do some who shall remain nameless try oh so incredibly hard? It comes across as desperate, and pathetic, wasteful of everyone's time and down right irritating!

To pose a sincere question with the intent of learning is one thing, to quote laughable articles from questionable missionary websites is another. When that is the case, I don't think anyone should make an intercession on another's behalf, because I personally will down right rip into them...
peace!

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

..... Especially when Muhammad had doubted his own revelations, which started the Islam religion. He even thought the source of it was demonic in nature and that he was demon possessed. ....


One of his most devoted wives was Aishah who he married at six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. Imagine if she was your daughter. :-[

Muslims respect Jesus (p) & some Christians take advantage of it. U know that we won’t attack Jesus (p) or any other Biblical Prophets (pbut ) ; so u r writing freely against our respected Prophet .



I don’t understand how it’s possible that in an Islamic forum , one can write such a negative post against the Last Prophet (p) .

I wouldn't consent to my daughter's hand in marraige at six years old.

- Yap sure ; early marriage is prohibited by man’s law & we see thousands & thousands young unmarried mothers in the west.


-
- So many young girls are having illegal married lives with unlimited husbands …... School girls going to abortion clinics . LOL




How many times do we have to tell u that this was a blessed marriage ? In Islam ,no one is forcing any parent or daughter to say yes to a marriage proposal.


.
No one forced Aisha ( ra ) to marry the Prophet (p) . She was already engaged at that time but that man did not accept Islam & the marriage broke by her father.


When God gave permission to Wives of the Prophet to choose if they want divorce , it was Mother Aisha (ra ) who first declared that she wishes to stay with him. Who forced her to say so ?



Early marriage was very common ---still common in many parts of the world.



Sis PurestAmbrosia already posted in one state, Delaware, USA the age of consent was only seven.

Prophet David (p) married a young virgin when he was at death bed. Do Christians bash the Prophet for that or God scolded him ?

Pl. don’t provoke us unneccasarily.



verses of the Day :


Surah 3. The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran



Fear the Fire, which is prepared for those who reject Faith:


And obey Allah and the Messenger. that ye may obtain mercy.


Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous,- ( 3: 131-133)




Say: "O People of the Book!

come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God

that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God."


If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s Will).

3: 64

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Gene
this is an Islamic forum, with the purpose of teaching and giving du3wa to all who seek it, I assume those who have come here, have done so freely on their own accord? be that as it may, I haven't seen any Muslim member actively trying to convert anyone, at least not to the level where they are invading people's inboxes with a barrage of tasteless testimonies and articles-- what I find not only offensive but down right insolent, is some of the louder of your "Christian" bros, who not only come here to offend, but purposefully, lie and mislead Muslims (and it really is a futile effort) unless one is fickle to begin with-- No Muslim who has willingly, consciously and freely accepted Islam, would consider again becoming a Christian-- so why do some who shall remain nameless try oh so incredibly hard? It comes across as desperate, and pathetic, wasteful of everyone's time and down right irritating!

To pose a sincere question with the intent of learning is one thing, to quote laughable articles from questionable missionary websites is another. When that is the case, I don't think anyone should make an intercession on another's behalf, because I personally will down right rip into them...
peace!

I can respect that view. And my post wasn't to point figures are any one in particular. Though if you were to ask me, I think the proselytizing has been going pretty good both directions lately. We Christians who come here have to remember that this forum has some rules that we agreed to respect. And those few Muslims who challenge Christian beliefs by asserting that Muslims have a monopoly on the truth and that we Christians are going to hell (yes, some posts are that direct) have to understand that this does invite a response, not all of which will be to eveyone's liking.

And if you wanted to post something which in effect said: Ditto. But in reverse. I could also understand where you were coming from.

[جوري]

I don't think anyone is funneling traffic to heaven or hell, I find it just as absurd for a Christian to write that they are saved w/out standing trial. These are beliefs on a very personal level. And I find it a great transgression to pass that sort of judgment or assert that sort of guarantee, who are we defying? ! I believe I have quoted suret Az zalzala enough times to display that the day of judgment is about justice, not favoritism. There is no bribery when it comes to G-D, Allah is exalted above these human traits. Look at how the human body works when under a state of Acidosis or Alkalosis, how it tries to achieve balance and homeostasis, justice for the body so to speak, not compromising one organ over another, it is brilliant and harmonious, it is minute measure of G-D's ingenuity-- he who created it in that form, surely understand the human mind, psyche and the human condition!

[Grace Seeker]

I don't think anyone is funneling traffic to heaven or hell, I find it just as absurd for a Christian to write that they are saved w/out standing trial. These are beliefs on a very personal level. And I find it a great transgression to pass that sort of judgment or assert that sort of guarantee, who are we defying? ! I believe I have quoted suret Az zalzala enough times to display that the day of judgment is about justice, not favoritism. There is no bribery when it comes to G-D, Allah is exalted above these human traits. Look at how the human body works when under a state of Acidosis or Alkalosis, how it tries to achieve balance and homeostasis, justice for the body so to speak, not compromising one organ over another, it is brilliant and harmonious, it is minute measure of G-D's ingenuity-- he who created it in that form, surely understand the human mind, psyche and the human condition!

There is much in creation that can teach us about God. But we have to be careful that we don't imply that by knowing creation that we know God. To make the leap (which you haven't necessarily done) from observing our human bodies as being created so harmoniously in balance and to then infer from that fact that God must therefore desire balance in all things, including this plan of salvation, seems to be to be an unwise inference.

Imagine if one was a student of fractual geometry and observed those patterns repeated in nature and the human body, and how it occurs on both the macro, micro, and even sub-atomic scale what one might infer about God from it?

It is important to let God reveal God's self to us. His creation should awaken us to an awareness of his presence, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it informs us with regard to his nature.

[Woodrow]

So, are we willing to allow each some degree of peace?

I believe most of us want that.

But, I think that we all have to remember, that each of us has very strong emotional feelings about our beliefs and we all have to accept the fact that at times we may speak first out of feeling and not verifiable fact. In other words we need to be forgiving of each others emotionalism at times.

I don't object to the differences in opinion, but lately it seems like everyone is trying to make converts of the other.

That is definetly happening. Even myself as a Muslim who believes there should be no compulsion, has been partaking of the pleasures of Evangelical rushes. Thank you for the reminder. We all need to avoid doing that.

I actually agree with that motivation, too. But I think it is misplaced if we think we are going to be effective in trying to do so by attacks on an internet forum, rather than seeking to know each other as individuals and learning to live in peaceful relationships with each other first. And then lead rather than push each other to explore the faith we wish to share with them.

All I would like to add to that is sharing has to be done with the attitude of sharing knowledge and not as a weapon/threat to demand the other person accepts it.

[جوري]

I never stated anything about the nature of G-D, in fact if anything I have maintained all throughout is that this sort of Anthropomorphism that many attribute to him is unbefitting.!

what I have stated however is that sophistication can be observed in the most minute of his creation, and I have no doubt that by the same token the day of judgement should not be brought down to this lowest common denominator --a simpleton view of not having to withstand judgement because G-D has sent a son who is a sin eater and in doing so has spared at least the portion of humanity, that accepts that as a fact, no matter how evil their deeds.

[Grace Seeker]

All I would like to add to that is sharing has to be done with the attitude of sharing knowledge and not as a weapon/threat to demand the other person accepts it.

Can I share my wish that perhaps you might find in the conversation with different Christians here than those you learned about the faith from when you were younger new insights that lead you to reconsider the reasons you previously left it? Or my hope that such reconsideration might even lead to a reawakening of the possibility of having a relationship with God in and through Jesus Christ?

[Grace Seeker]

I never stated anything about the nature of G-D, in fact if anything I have maintained all throughout is that this sort of Anthropomorphism that many attribute to him is unbefitting.!

what I have stated however is that sophistication can be observed in the most minute of his creation, and I have no doubt that by the same token the day of judgement should not be brought down to this lowest common denominator --a simpleton view of not having to withstand judgement because G-D has sent a son who is a sin eater and in doing so has spared at least the portion of humanity, that accepts that as a fact, no matter how evil their deeds.

I think you just called me a simpleton. :D

If so, so be it. While I value sophistication in many things, that doesn't mean that I only value sophistification. It is interesting that you have distilled Christiantiy down to such a simply worded concept as "sin-eater", though I had never thought of it in those terms before, I can live with it nonetheless. Thank-you for simplifying it for me.

[vpb]

While it is true that to get a degree one needs to study and pass a test. And if being admitted to Jannah is like being admitted to the Bar to practice law, then this is a good analogy. But if being admitted to heaven is like being claimed as a member of God's family, then it has no relevance, for parents don't ask their children to do anything to become their children. They are automatically children by being born into it, or in other cases adopted into it. In the case of adoption, the judge makes that decision and it is done, no tests to pass, you just are. (And as regards the law of adoption, I speak from personal family knowledge.)



So, as on many other things, our views as to what we even mean by salvation, though we both use the same word, change the way we view what is and is not reasonable with regard to the process. For Muslims a test seems to be obligatory. For Christians a test would be anathema.

Ok let's use your analogy, if your dad is some kind of secret agent which is responsible for a thing that is held on a room, you as his son, do you get the right to enter in that place just bc it's your dad? no, you don't. even you are his son, he is the only one to access that room. So just bc you are his son does not change anything. Nor that you can get PhD bc your dad has one. You are their son, but u still need to workout . You can;t take human birth on a family as an analogy and not continue further. If you take the birth , you have to take it to the end. So if you are born within a family , you don't get the rights all the right just bc you were born in that family. How about the possibility that people leave their son/daughter on the hospital?? or somebody steals the kid, a muslim :p ?? where is the security of receving this "gift"???

I understand you have your opinions , and I have my opinions, but you and me have to work, we're not gonna recieve any such 'gift' as just believe and everything is done for us, this is a trick of Shaitan trying to lead people away from God, if God did a 'sacrifice' then why are we living anymore? why not justed asked a question and finish, and go to heaven??? we see that we live in a quite long period of time (depending to us), somebody 10 years, soemone 50 years, someone 80 years, all these years are just a space so you fill it with the answers to the tests you recieve, you are not going to finish 80 years of life with just a 'gift',by answering a yes or no question. No. Life is just a test, so the other world is a reward for those who passed the test. I'm sorry to say cuz you might be older than me, with all my respect, but don't be fooled with this type of tricks.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 475: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari:
The Prophet said, "None is more patient than Allah against the harmful and annoying words He hears (from the people): They ascribe children to Him, yet He bestows upon them health and provision .


still Allah swt leaves options to u to think and reflect upon the signs. If I would be helping a person, and one day that person would tell a lie about me to the whole world that "I am an homosexual", I would be offended and and probably say to him "go away, i don't want to talk to u and i'm not gonna help u anymore", so would you and everyone else behave like this, most of the time. It's a common human nature. but u see Allah swt for centuries (of our time) has been watching people, and they have ascribed different types of partners to him, yet he bestowed mercy upon them, just by giving theem Oxygen, it's enough to reflect on the mercy of Allah swt.

And many protestant ministers are married. That doesn't mean that we don't sometimes have difficult decisions to make. This happened to me just 1 week ago.

Our wedding anniversary was on a Sunday. We wanted to celebrate it, but I had to preach that morning. Fine, plenty of people work on the day of their wedding anniversay, I could too. We also had an evening service, but we could go out and have a nice lunch together. So, that was the plan.

I walked into the house after church to put some things away while my wife waited for me in the car, I saw that we had a message on the answering machine and thought it was probably a call wishing us a Happy Anniversary from one of our kids. It wasn't. A teenager, a senior scheduled to graduate that afternoon, had died overngiht. We live in a very small town (5000 people) and thus a small school with a small graduating class where everyone knows each other. The principal was calling the pastors in town to ask us if we could be there to provide counseling for the kids who might not even learn about this tragedy until they arrived for what is usually a great big celebration. This time there would be a lot of unexpected grief to deal with. Could I meet with him at the school at 1:00 PM? It was 12:50 PM.

So, now I have a choice. I cannot be both husband and pastor at this particular point in time. I have to choose one over the other. And, your illustrations not withstanding, some people simply choose in advance that they want to avoid having to make that choice later as I had to on this occassion.

Hey :) you got wedding anniversary .


Well in one way you told us that you were able to be dedicated for both, so your statement at the end that you cannot do both is wrong, bc u can do, and you already did one.

but as for being not married, to be 24 hours in the service of Lord, that's extreme.
Allah swt has taught us through His Messenger saws, how to live a life , a normal life where everything has its own right. what do I mean. we know that praying is a very important aspect in muslim's life, but praying all day, and doing nothing else, leaving the family without any income, not do any job, etc. is wrong. Prayer is very good, but it has its limits. That's why in Islam even sleep, is an ibadaah, you get reward if you go to sleep with the intention that you rest your body so you will be able to worship Allah swt tomorrow. Or you worship Allah swt by going to work, where you get your income to feed your family and take care of them. Everything in life , when it is done properly according to teaching of Muhammed saws, is worship to God, so each one has its on rights, its own time. You pray you read qur'an , you study, you sleep, you spend time with u'r wife, kids, etc etc. and as for being dedicated in one thing, and leaving all the other things in deficit, this is not worship, this is extreme, and the offspring of it is nothing. If you consume meat, vegetables , etc etc your body will be very healthy, but if you consume just meat meat meat, you gonna have lack of vitamins etc etc. so it's not the solution to be an extremist in worship God, cuz it leads to nothing. By fullfilling all your duites as a man, or someone as a woman, you fulfuill God's prescribed duties to u. so you please God in every aspect.
A priest, he doesn't get married, for me it is a "zullum" to him, zullum means "doing something bad to him", like you do zullum to someone by robbing someone who worked all day to earn some money, so the preiest is doing zullum to himself, not getting married is an awful thing, it's something that the human nature requires, to have some relationship with the opposite gendre. we see in this case the priest is on extreme, bc he is leaving the duties as a father, a husband , etc. just to fulfill some other duty, it's like cleaning your table in your room, but your closset or your bed is messed up. you have to clean all of them a little bit, so it becomes alltogether a cleaned room.



Reported by an-Nasaa'ee (5/268), ibn Maajah (no. 3029), Ahmad (1/215, 347) with a saheeh sanad.
The Messenger of Allaah (SAW) said, "I warn you of extremism in the Religion for indeed those that came before you were destroyed due to their extremism in the religion."




Peace.

[vpb]

I don't object to the differences in opinion, but lately it seems like everyone is trying to make converts of the other.

why do you guys pretend to be so strange on this expression?? why are we here on this board?? are we to be """21st century"" people, where we do not dare to tell to somebody that he/she is wrong?? no, there are opinions, but of course on side of opinion is right, most of the time, in the case of religion, is one opinion is right. two religions can't be right. so we discuss so we try to teach others about what we think is right, and tell them not do that thing bc it's wrong. what's wrong with this?, let's be real. we are all here to impose our opinions on others bc we think our opinion is right. let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that "ye ye ye i am talking to him about Jesus, but i'm not trying to make him believe my opinion". that's why we discuss, so we try to make others understand our opinions. it's fair on both sides.

[Woodrow]

Can I share my wish that perhaps you might find in the conversation with different Christians here than those you learned about the faith from when you were younger new insights that lead you to reconsider the reasons you previously left it? Or my hope that such reconsideration might even lead to a reawakening of the possibility of having a relationship with God in and through Jesus Christ?

I fully understand that is your hope. That does not offend me and I see it as a reflection of your love to fellow humans.

Gene, I can understand fully that a person who is Christian would believe that I have made a grave error and became an enemy of Christianity. I do understand that they would desire I reconsider and return to Christianity.

I do not believe I am anti-Christian. I truly believe that Islam is the truth that Jesus(as) wanted us to all learn. I feel pure fulfillment in Islam and the Beauty and love of Allah(swt) is an overwhelming awe. I honestly believe that when I was a Christian I was just a toddler in knowing and loving God(swt) I believe the Love I had for Jesus(as) was misdirected as worship and it is through learning to properly love Jesus(as) that I became aware of how to direct my worship to Allah(swt). To me Christianity was a training excercise to discover the reality of Islam and the begining of learning how to submit to the will of Allah(swt) I love Jesus(as) deeply for helping guide me to Allah(swt).

[Grace Seeker]

Well in one way you told us that you were able to be dedicated for both, so your statement at the end that you cannot do both is wrong, bc u can do, and you already did one.

but as for being not married, to be 24 hours in the service of Lord, that's extreme.
Allah swt has taught us through His Messenger saws, how to live a life , a normal life where everything has its own right. what do I mean. we know that praying is a very important aspect in muslim's life, but praying all day, and doing nothing else, leaving the family without any income, not do any job, etc. is wrong. Prayer is very good, but it has its limits. That's why in Islam even sleep, is an ibadaah, you get reward if you go to sleep with the intention that you rest your body so you will be able to worship Allah swt tomorrow. Or you worship Allah swt by going to work, where you get your income to feed your family and take care of them. Everything in life , when it is done properly according to teaching of Muhammed saws, is worship to God, so each one has its on rights, its own time. You pray you read qur'an , you study, you sleep, you spend time with u'r wife, kids, etc etc. and as for being dedicated in one thing, and leaving all the other things in deficit, this is not worship, this is extreme, and the offspring of it is nothing. If you consume meat, vegetables , etc etc your body will be very healthy, but if you consume just meat meat meat, you gonna have lack of vitamins etc etc. so it's not the solution to be an extremist in worship God, cuz it leads to nothing. By fullfilling all your duites as a man, or someone as a woman, you fulfuill God's prescribed duties to u. so you please God in every aspect.
A priest, he doesn't get married, for me it is a "zullum" to him, zullum means "doing something bad to him", like you do zullum to someone by robbing someone who worked all day to earn some money, so the preiest is doing zullum to himself, not getting married is an awful thing, it's something that the human nature requires, to have some relationship with the opposite gendre. we see in this case the priest is on extreme, bc he is leaving the duties as a father, a husband , etc. just to fulfill some other duty, it's like cleaning your table in your room, but your closset or your bed is messed up. you have to clean all of them a little bit, so it becomes alltogether a cleaned room.



Reported by an-Nasaa'ee (5/268), ibn Maajah (no. 3029), Ahmad (1/215, 347) with a saheeh sanad.
The Messenger of Allaah (SAW) said, "I warn you of extremism in the Religion for indeed those that came before you were destroyed due to their extremism in the religion."




Peace.

Jesus also said, ""No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." So, even when we marry, we have to be careful that our wife understands that we serve God first. Now, of course it is not only pastors who have to be sure that their spouse understand this, but all persons in all relationships. But in truth there is a special burden on the spouse of a pastor for the demands can come at any time of the day, and often at the most inoportune times, just like with a doctor. It is extreme, I admit, but not in the sense in which you mean it above.

[جوري]

Grace Seeker;752394--I think you just called me a simpleton. :D

No, not you, I had another member in mind really.
Anyhow on this note I make my exit.

peace!

[vpb]

Jesus also said, ""No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." So, even when we marry, we have to be careful that our wife understands that we serve God first. Now, of course it is not only pastors who have to be sure that their spouse understand this, but all persons in all relationships. But in truth there is a special burden on the spouse of a pastor for the demands can come at any time of the day, and often at the most inoportune times, just like with a doctor. It is extreme, I admit, but not in the sense in which you mean it above.

yeah of course, you cannot pretend to love two people equaly cuz you can't. and also the love for God is bigger than any other love, so of course it takes the first priority.

We have examples where Prophet Muhammed saws would just get on bed with Aisha r.a and by the time his skin would touch her skin, the revelation would come to him, he would ask permission from Aisha, to leave in order to recieve the verses. You see He was kind with Aisha, (how many people if they want to leave the bed after they were going to spend the night with his their wife, ask permission from their wife?? It is Muhammed saws who did that) , bc He felt sorry for her that couldn't spend the night with her, and also fullfilled his duty on getting the verses of the Qur'an. :) So we see goodness on both sides :)
I think this event happened when 10 last verses of Sur'ah Al-Baqarah were revealed. If i'm wrong pls some correct me.

[Phil12123]

It is interesting that you have distilled Christianity down to such a simply worded concept as "sin-eater", though I had never thought of it in those terms before, I can live with it nonetheless. Thank-you for simplifying it for me.

Ambrosia, I must respectfully and vehemently disagree that "sin-eater" is appropriate to describe the redemptive work and atoning death of Christ on the cross. He bore our sins in His own body on the cross, and His blood washes our sins away, but nothing in Scripture even hints at anyone eating sin. So, why do you use that term and where did you get it? From your own fertile mind?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Ambrosia, I must respectfully and vehemently disagree that "sin-eater" is appropriate to describe the redemptive work and atoning death of Christ on the cross. He bore our sins in His own body on the cross, and His blood washes our sins away, but nothing in Scripture even hints at anyone eating sin. So, why do you use that term and where did you get it? From your own fertile mind?

Peace

I won't try to put words in Sister Ambrosia's mouth. But, from a Muslim view point that is close to what we see. Not eating in the sense of physicaly putting it in his mouth but more as a metaphor such as somebody who accepts the danger and punishment for you.

i.e. "He ate the bullet for me."


I know that for you that is a beautiful thought. As a Muslim I see it as totaly unnecessary as I know Allah(swt) can and will forgive sins with just the will of His mercy. To me the Mercy of Allah(swt) is much more beautiful than thinking Allah(swt) is too weak to simply will our forgiveness.

The truth is it all comes down as to which is the truth the Qur'an or the Bible. I doubt we will agree on which is right, so best we can do is disagree in peace.

[Phil12123]

This thread has gone fruitless and should be closed.

Or, you could simply leave and post to another thread that you don't think has gone fruitless, leaving us to our fruitless conversations!

Peace

[Woodrow]

Or, you could simply leave and post to another thread that you don't think has gone fruitless, leaving us to our fruitless conversations!

Peace

See, there is something we agree on.

There will always be some differences between people of different faiths. If those differences did not exist we would all be one faith. Hopefully, peaceful debate can be a way for all of us to face those differences in a peaceful manner. It is for that reason I think this thread still has some value.

[Phil12123]

I won't try to put words in Sister Ambrosia's mouth. But, from a Muslim view point that is close to what we see. Not eating in the sense of physicaly putting it in his mouth but more as a metaphor such as somebody who accepts the danger and punishment for you.

i.e. "He ate the bullet for me."

I know that for you that is a beautiful thought. As a Muslim I see it as totaly unnecessary as I know Allah(swt) can and will forgive sins with just the will of His mercy. To me the Mercy of Allah(swt) is much more beautiful than thinking Allah(swt) is too weak to simply will our forgiveness.

The truth is it all comes down as to which is the truth the Qur'an or the Bible. I doubt we will agree on which is right, so best we can do is disagree in peace.

Your last paragraph I heartily agree with. The one before that, I would say that for Allah to "forgive sins with just the will of His mercy" is not a matter of not being "too weak to simply will our forgiveness". It comes down to ignoring or overlooking sins and not holding anyone accountable for them. And in my mind that means he is not just. I don't mean "not fair" but not just, in terms of justice. I also don't mean to be repetitive, but if God is just, I will have to pay for my sins---every one of them---unless Christ made that payment. To me it's such a simple, easy concept, but to all of you Muslims, you reject it and that is just hard for me to understand. What it boils down to is Christ died in vain if sins are forgiven without His death being the basis for that forgiveness.

Peace

[Phil12123]

See, there is something we agree on.

There will always be some differences between people of different faiths. If those differences did not exist we would all be one faith. Hopefully, peaceful debate can be a way for all of us to face those differences in a peaceful manner. It is for that reason I think this thread still has some value.

Agreed!!!

[Woodrow]

Your last paragraph I heartily agree with. The one before that, I would say that for Allah to "forgive sins with just the will of His mercy" is not a matter of not being "too weak to simply will our forgiveness". It comes down to ignoring or overlooking sins and not holding anyone accountable for them. And in my mind that means he is not just. I don't mean "not fair" but not just, in terms of justice. I also don't mean to be repetitive, but if God is just, I will have to pay for my sins---every one of them---unless Christ made that payment. To me it's such a simple, easy concept, but to all of you Muslims, you reject it and that is just hard for me to understand. What it boils down to is Christ died in vain if sins are forgiven without His death being the basis for that forgiveness.

Peace

Peace Phil,

You just typed a very key sentence.

What it boils down to is Christ died in vain if sins are forgiven without His death being the basis for that forgiveness.

That is very true, If Isa(as) had died on the cross for our sins.


We do not believe Isa(as) has died an earthy death and was taken up to Allah(swt) and will return to live the remainder of his earthly life during which he will destroy the anti-Christ.

[Grace Seeker]

Your last paragraph I heartily agree with. The one before that, I would say that for Allah to "forgive sins with just the will of His mercy" is not a matter of not being "too weak to simply will our forgiveness". It comes down to ignoring or overlooking sins and not holding anyone accountable for them. And in my mind that means he is not just. I don't mean "not fair" but not just, in terms of justice. I also don't mean to be repetitive, but if God is just, I will have to pay for my sins---every one of them---unless Christ made that payment. To me it's such a simple, easy concept, but to all of you Muslims, you reject it and that is just hard for me to understand. What it boils down to is Christ died in vain if sins are forgiven without His death being the basis for that forgiveness.

Peace

Not to take up the Muslim cause here, but as a pastor I find that this idea of vicarious atonement is one of the more difficult ones to explain to other, especially young, Christians. It doesn't surprise me at all that many (not all) of the the young Mulsim reverts that I meet often cite their inability to come to some sort of understanding of how this worked as reasons they left Christianity. Of course not all who feel this way become Muslims, some become Jews or drop out of religion altogether. In your experience, how have you explain the vicarious atonement in ways that those who were questioning it found helpful?

[Phil12123]

Not to take up the Muslim cause here, but as a pastor I find that this idea of vicarious atonement is one of the more difficult ones to explain to other, especially young, Christians. It doesn't surprise me at all that many (not all) of the the young Mulsim reverts that I meet often cite their inability to come to some sort of understanding of how this worked as reasons they left Christianity. Of course not all who feel this way become Muslims, some become Jews or drop out of religion altogether. In your experience, how have you explain the vicarious atonement in ways that those who were questioning it found helpful?

I wouldn't explain it any differently to a young Christian than I've tried to explain it here on this board. In fact, a person cannot become a Christian without believing the idea of vicarious atonement---that is the heart of the Gospel. He may not recognize that term, but surely he understands and believes that Jesus died for his sins and rose again. The "for his sins" makes it vicarious, since Christ did not die for any of His own; He had none. Of course, a new Christian does not have the baggage of the erroneous notion that Christ never actually died on a cross but God rescued Him and had someone else die there. To me that is as hard to swallow as anything else I've heard on this board. In fact, I believe that's a lie from the pit of hell, or from the devil wherever he is. And I think that opinion is supported by history.

Peace

[Redeemed]

Salaam/ peace ;





Muslims respect Jesus (p) & some Christians take advantage of it. U know that we won’t attack Jesus (p) or any other Biblical Prophets (pbut ) ; so u r writing freely against our respected Prophet .

I don’t understand how it’s possible that in an Islamic forum , one can write such a negative post against the Last Prophet (p) .






- Yap sure ; early marriage is prohibited by man’s law & we see thousands & thousands young unmarried mothers in the west.


-
- So many young girls are having illegal married lives with unlimited husbands …... School girls going to abortion clinics . LOL




How many times do we have to tell u that this was a blessed marriage ? In Islam ,no one is forcing any parent or daughter to say to a marriage proposal

.
No one forced Aisha ( ra ) to marry the Prophet (p) . She was already engaged at that time but that man did not accept Islam & the marriage broke by her father. When God gave permission to Wives of the Prophet to choose if they want divorce , it was Mother Aisha (ra ) who first declared that she wishes to stay with him. Who forced him to say so ?



Early marriage was very common ---still common in many parts of the world.



Sis PurestAmbrosia already posted in one state, Delaware, USA the age of consent was only seven.

Prophet David (p) married a young virgin when he was at death bed. Do Christians bash the Prophet for that or God scolded him ?

Pl. don’t provoke us unneccasarily.



verses of the Day :


Surah 3. The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran



Fear the Fire, which is prepared for those who reject Faith:


And obey Allah and the Messenger. that ye may obtain mercy.


Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous,- ( 3: 131-133)




Say: "O People of the Book!

come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God

that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God."


If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s Will).

3: 64

Sorry i didn't mean to offend you Muslim Woman. It is written, "Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them." I could be wrong about my approach, but I haven't posted untruth knowingly. In other words, I can back it up, and now, I feel that I must. I am not attacking any person's character on this forum like mine is being attacked (everyone knows who’s doing that). I guess I could see why this might offend you. I looked up in the Koran to see if these comments of Caner are truly Muhammad's thoughts and words, and I was able to confirm it to be the case. I can only tell you that if Muslims cut down my beliefs out of sincerity and concern for my soul, I would not be offended or combative. I would understand, even as I believe many of you do. By the way, I agree with the fact that people in society, even in America, allow and allowed early age marriages, but that doesn't make it right or the will of God. Frankly, I can see how that can lead to all kinds of perversions. I really didn't mean to make a big deal about the Prophet's young wife nor did I say anything bad about him for doing it. It was the other things I mentioned that really got to me, but now I feel I need your permission to prove to you the valid source or maybe you already know and don't want me to mention it. You have been patient and respectful to me; so, when you speak, I think twice. Again, I am truly sorry to have offended you.:cry:

[جوري]

I looked up in the Koran to see if these comments of Caner are truly Muhammad's thoughts and words, and I was able to confirm it to be the case.

Go ahead and bring us your evidence from the Quran then. I see no greater accommodation than this!

[Talha777]

To the Christian the Trinity is one God. To the Muslim they are three Gods. To the Christians they are three persons that make one God. To the Muslims that is not possible. Who can explain this? Can it be explained? If we could convince people that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or just one (Allah) would that solve the bloody trails that have happened over the centuries through religious wars? Are we caught in a spiritual war with truth and deception? Will we learn from the past? We have one Creator who made the Christians and the Muslim persons. We are brothers in humanity. We come from the same creator who is God the Almighty. There is no one like Him. He is the Creator of heaven and earth. His creation brings Him glory. God is alive. He is not dead. He sees the thousands of years of wars over His name. Will He stop this soon? We can't stop it. We need God to do it. Why can't Christians and Muslims pray that God stop this? Don't we collectively make up the greatest of worlds religions and only one of these can be right. We know all other faiths are small and weak compared to the most powerful Creator of the worlds. We know that God is all-powerful. We know that He can intervene. What if all the Christians and Muslims agree on a day to fast and pray that God bring about a revival of truth so that all blinders will be off on this Islamic forum? Questions, questions and more questions????????

If you believe in Trinity, you cannot make your own philosophical speculations about it, or try to justify it with your own logic (if you can call it logic). If you believe in trinity, than you must prove it straight out of the Bible, you must prove every quality you believe about Trinity, straight out of the Bible, including "three gods in one", that all the components of the trinity are from the same substance, and you neither confound the substance, blah, blah, blah. Everything you believe about the trinity must come from your bible.

Then you will realize what a sham your trinity is. It was invented by gentile philosophers influenced by Plato, and has little to do with the Bible. Note that Im not saying the Bible is right. All I am saying is that the New Testament, particularly the writings of Paul and other so called "apostles" clearly show that Christians believe in at least two gods, Jesus and his "Father". They are not one and the same, the NT clearly shows that Jesus is separate from his father, has a different mind from his father, and even prays to his father.


So let us examine the trinity from the bible:

JESUS HAS A DIFFERENT WILL FROM HIS "FATHER", ALSO THE "SON OF GOD" WAS RELUCTANT TO DIE ON THE CROSS, SO MUCH FOR JOHN 3:16
"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 26:39)

JESUS IS INFERIOR TO HIS "FATHER"
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

JESUS IS INFERIOR TO THE "HOLY GHOST"
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (matthew 12:32)

THE "SON OF GOD" HAS A "SOUL" AND IS SUBJECT TO DEATH
"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," (Mark 14:34)

THE "SON OF GOD" PRAYS (TO ANOTHER GOD?)
They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." (Mark 14:32)

I can show you literally dozens of verses that breaks all the theories of the trinity that are extra-biblical. many years after Jesus (alaihi salaam) was gone, the Christian theologians debated the doctrine of the trinity, the debate between the nestorians and the orthodox christians over the nature of Jesus are well known, as are the debates over the reality of the "trinity" (a word never mentioned in the bible), yet none of these debates were rooted in scripture, they were all purely philosophical debates, more to do with plato than Jesus or Paul.

So I humbly supplicate to the REAL GOD, Almighty Allah, that may He guide the blind Christians to the Truth of Islam, and that they may accept the Seal of the Prophet, Mustafa (Sallallahu alaihi wa salaam). If they accept Islam, we will accept them as our elder brothers. Ameen.

[vpb]

Not even the word 'Bible' itself is mentioned in the Bible .

[Keltoi]

Not even the word 'Bible' itself is mentioned in the Bible .

Do you know what "Bible" means and where the word came from?

[vpb]

Do you know what "Bible" means and where the word came from?

i'm not talking about the meaning or where it came from, I'm talking about that the word Bible itself is not mentioned in the Bible.

[Talha777]

Do you know what "Bible" means and where the word came from?

Yes, you have raised a very good point. How do we know that all the books in the Bible are supposed to be part of it. I mean how can Paul's letters be considered as part of scripture? Christians say the "holy spirit" guided the process of the bible, and preserved it (in which case it did an awful job). Of course, catholics and protestants can't even agree what is and what isn't part of the bible. even martin luther doubted if the book of revelation is part of the bible.

we have repeatedly challenged any christian to come forward and tell us straightforwardly how was the bible canon compiled?

[Keltoi]

i'm not talking about the meaning or where it came from, I'm talking about that the word Bible itself is not mentioned in the Bible.

Since the Christian Bible is made up of numerous books, 66 if I'm not mistaken, there wasn't one name for all of them. They all have their own names. So the Greek word "Biblos" was used to name the entirety of these books when they came together in one. It wouldn't make any sense for the word "Bible" to appear in the Bible.

[Keltoi]

Yes, you have raised a very good point. How do we know that all the books in the Bible are supposed to be part of it. I mean how can Paul's letters be considered as part of scripture? Christians say the "holy spirit" guided the process of the bible, and preserved it (in which case it did an awful job). Of course, catholics and protestants can't even agree what is and what isn't part of the bible. even martin luther doubted if the book of revelation is part of the bible.

we have repeatedly challenged any christian to come forward and tell us straightforwardly how was the bible canon compiled?

The New Testament had pretty much come together by 150AD but there continued to be discussion about a few books until about 400 AD. It was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The three criteria used were similar to the criteria used by the Jewish clergy to compile the Old Testament.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book's teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?

In both Old and New testaments, the books included had to be generally viewed as the work of divinely inspired writers who faithfully converted God's Word into written form.

[vpb]

Since the Christian Bible is made up of numerous books, 66 if I'm not mistaken, there wasn't one name for all of them. They all have their own names. So the Greek word "Biblos" was used to name the entirety of these books when they came together in one. It wouldn't make any sense for the word "Bible" to appear in the Bible.

yes, of course, bc these gospels are human-made books, bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible :)

[Keltoi]

yes, of course, bc these gospels are human-made books, bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible :)

Of course they are "human made" books, God doesn't work with paper and ink. I don't really see the relevance of your other point either. "bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book"...where did this divine logic come from?

[Trumble]

if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible :)

I don't see your logic. Why would being the word of God necessarily mean that a book must include reference to its own title? And of course it would be nonsense to say that any book that includes a reference to its own title must be the word of God!

[vpb]

Of course they are "human made" books, God doesn't work with paper and ink. I don't really see the relevance of your other point either. "bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book"...where did this divine logic come from?

of course that God doesn't work with paper and ink, but bible is written from people, who just write whatever they know (we don't know how accurate they are), while for example Qur'an , came directly from God , through Gabriel (the arch-angel) to Muhammed saws. You see the difference?

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

I don't see your logic. Why would being the word of God necessarily mean that a book must include reference to it's own title? And of course it would be nonsense to say that any book that includes a reference to its own title must be the word of God!

if you buy a book, and the title of the book is not included on the book, how do you know if it is that book??? or do u have to wait till people assign a name for it?

i haven't come across a single book which does not include in its papers the name of the book itself that the author gave. bc as for religious texts, i'm not even discussing that, but let's just take example for ordinary books.
on the bible you just have nems "Gospel of John, of mathew, of luke, of of of....."

btw, not everything works with logic cuz login bring "why"s and that why another why and leads at the end to commiting suicide.

[Keltoi]

of course that God doesn't work with paper and ink, but bible is written from people, who just write whatever they know (we don't know how accurate they are), while for example Qur'an , came directly from God , through Gabriel (the arch-angel) to Muhammed saws. You see the difference?

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

if you buy a book, and the title of the book is not included on the book, how do you know if it is that book??? or do u have to wait till people assign a name for it?

i haven't come across a single book which does not include in its papers the name of the book itself that the author gave. bc as for religious texts, i'm not even discussing that, but let's just take example for ordinary books.
on the bible you just have nems "Gospel of John, of mathew, of luke, of of of....."

btw, not everything works with logic cuz login bring "why"s and that why another why and leads at the end to commiting suicide.

I see the difference to you, as you believe Gabriel brought the Qu'ran to Muhammed...we don't believe that, so that line of reasoning doesn't work well in this context.

[vpb]

I see the difference to you, as you believe Gabriel brought the Qu'ran to Muhammed...we don't believe that, so that line of reasoning doesn't work well in this context.

ok, so if didn't come directly, but people like Paul john luke.... wrote them based on the knowledge they had, then we need to examine the accuracy of the statement they made.
if they say "and Jesus said this and this", you need to show me the source and the chain of the narration.
so I am asking u kindly :) could u please show me a source and chain of narration of a single statement of Jesus that went till it reached Paul or mark or john...whoever.. You choose which ever saying of Jesus u want :).

[vpb]

for example, this is how a chart of narration of a hadith looks like:

[جوري]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ofend you. I will have to pray about how to respond to you.

Don't bother addressing me in any more of your posts... you can go cower some dark cyber corner for a few more days ( we all know that is the sort of praying you do), cut and paste as many anti-Islamic articles as you can, until you feel a false sense of ammunition, and come back hurl it here as you so often do in one of your numerous nauseating repetitive posts!

Unlike you, everyone here, in the very least those who have reverted, have given this a great deal of study, and I hope that they wouldn't show you any kindness, because you are not an honorable man! I have more scathing words to say to you, but will refrain myself. You want to learn how to be a good Christian, then take lessons from Eric H-- though I don't believe sincerity and intent can be taught.

I am unsubscribing from this thread!

peace!

[Trumble]

ok, so if didn't come directly, but people like Paul john luke.... wrote them based on the knowledge they had, then we need to examine the accuracy of the statement they made.

Why?

if they say "and Jesus said this and this", you need to show me the source and the chain of the narration.

Why?

There is no "need" to do anything of the sort. Suggesting there is is as absurd as saying "OK, so Mohammed got the Qur'an from God via the Angel Gabriel. Show me the eye witness reports of those who were there at the time(s) and SAW the Angel Gabriel".

There is no need as it is sufficient to assume that Bible is "inspired" by God to assume in turn that it says what He wishes it to say. I'm sure you would agree that that is comfortably within His power? Your point only makes any sense at all if you assume otherwise, which obviously Christians do not. In both cases, the issue is one of faith , not "sources and chains of narration", or indeed eye witnesses. A faith I don't share in the case of either Bible or Qur'an, of course, but then faith is like that - you have it or you don't.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

Not even the word 'Bible' itself is mentioned in the Bible .

I heard that Trinity is also not mentioned in Bible.

I was listening to late Ahmeed Deedat ( may Allah be pleased with him).

verses of the Day & Night :p


O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)!

Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of God aught but the truth.


The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of God and His Word, ("Be!" -- and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (R&#251;h) created by Him; so believe in God and His Messengers.



Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you.


For God is (the only) One Il&#226;h (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son.

To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.


The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God, nor the angels who are near (to God).

And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together unto Himself.


Quran 4: 171-172

[vpb]

NO. I disagree. We see that God directed more than one person to write, by his inspiritation, more than one book. Each book was written for its own particular reason. The Church would in time collect all of these writing together and keep them in one place. Though they had many different human scribes and spoke to many different sitatuations over a large number of years, they all had one thing in common, they were the word of God for the people of God. And that is why we collected them together into one place, and declared them to be the standard of faith and practice (i.e. the canon). So, the creation of the writing was a work of God through human agents. The collation of the Bible was a work of God's people though the Holy Spirit.

are you telling me that about 1400 people were inspiried by God to write a book??? and 4 of them were choosen as the real inspired ones? when you have inspiration from God, you don't need outside source .

[Grace Seeker]

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

Sure.

1) Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
2) John, the companion of Jesus, heard this with his own ears.
3) Late in his life, he recorded this saying by writing it down.
4) This record came to be know by the early church as the 4th gospel. It was given the title the Gospel of John, because it was believed that John was the author. This was on the testimony of:

a. some of John's own disciples (Polycarp and Ignatius) who wrote that they had heard John himself testify himself that he had written the 4th gospel.
b. the consensus tradition of the early church that it was written by John the Apostle.

[Grace Seeker]

are you telling me that about 1400 people were inspiried by God to write a book??? and 4 of them were choosen as the real inspired ones? when you have inspiration from God, you don't need outside source .

What 1400 people are your referring to?

[vpb]

NO. I disagree. We see that God directed more than one person to write, by his inspiritation, more than one book. Each book was written for its own particular reason. The Church would in time collect all of these writing together and keep them in one place. Though they had many different human scribes and spoke to many different sitatuations over a large number of years, they all had one thing in common, they were the word of God for the people of God. And that is why we collected them together into one place, and declared them to be the standard of faith and practice (i.e. the canon). So, the creation of the writing was a work of God through human agents. The collation of the Bible was a work of God's people though the Holy Spirit.

:) i understand you, but we're are trying tell you guys that there is no diety of worship but Allah , and not joining him in partnership.



Surah An-Nisa 4:48:
Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.

Ibn Kathir says: "Allah swt warned us that he does not forgive shirk, so he does not gives mercy to a slave, who dies on joining partnership to Allah, whereas the other sins are forgiven.

From the above ayat, we understand that shirk is the greatest sin, because Allah swt told us that he does not forgive it except with tewbe, whereas the sins under the level of shirk are put under the will of Allah swt; if Allah wants he forgives then, if not he punishes. So, it is an obligation for a muslim to be afraid of this big sin, because it is the biggest injustice and the worst behavious, it contains on itself underestimation for Allah swt and trying that the truth that is only for Allah swt, to give it to somebody else, as Allah swt says:

Luqman 31:13
Behold, Luqman said to his son by way of instruction: "O my son! join not in worship (others) with Allah: for false worship is indeed the highest wrong-doing."

[Grace Seeker]

Are you joking?

no , i'm sorry I can't accept just blindly somebody's work just like that,

Are you joking?


You blindly accept somebody's work every time you pick up your Qur'an. You blindly accept that Muhammad was telling you the truth. You blindly accept that:
1) he got the message from another source and not his own creation. You have convinced yourself that Muhammad was not intelligent enough man to have composed the recitations over time. I have a higher degree of respect for Muhammad's intelligence than that.
2) the source was indeed the angel Gabriel and not some other source. You believe this because that is who Muhammad told you told him, and you believe Muhammad to be telling the truth. In part because if he didn't get it from Gabriel, then he was either lying (you can't believe that of Muhammad's character), fooled (you won't believe that of Muhammad's person), or crazy (a crazy man doesn't do the things that Muhammad did).
3) Gabriel got his message from God. The alternative to this option is too scary to even conceive for the Muslim, yet this alternative option is exactly what you claim has happened with regard to the Bible. If it could happen to our holy book, why could it not have happened to yours?


Ultimately there is an element of blind faith in both of our choices for our respective Holy Books.





P.S. While some will see this as an attack on either Muhammad or the Qur'an (or even both), I hope those who know me here know that I do not mean it that way at all. I am merely questioning the logic being presented, and even that I don't mean as a personal attack on vpb.

[vpb]

It was given the title the Gospel of John, because it was believed that John was the author. This was on the testimony of:

it was believed ehh?? subhanallah

a. some of John's own disciples (Polycarp and Ignatius) who wrote that they had heard John himself testify himself that he had written the 4th gospel.

is there any information about the Polycarp and Ignatius??

What 1400 people are your referring to?

1400 writing like the 4 ones u have.

[Grace Seeker]

:) i understand you, but we're are trying tell you guys that there is no diety of worship but Allah , and not joining him in partnership.

Which makes sense if the Qur'an is truly a work of God and the Bible is false. But not if it is the other way around.

What you are therefore also doing is asking us to throw away our Bibles, because they do teach those "truths" that we believe which you declare to be false beliefs. We merely want to show you that what we believe is taught, not just by "other" sources, but within the very pages of the Bible itself.

[Redeemed]

If you believe in Trinity, you cannot make your own philosophical speculations about it, or try to justify it with your own logic (if you can call it logic). If you believe in trinity, than you must prove it straight out of the Bible, you must prove every quality you believe about Trinity, straight out of the Bible, including "three gods in one", that all the components of the trinity are from the same substance, and you neither confound the substance, blah, blah, blah. Everything you believe about the trinity must come from your bible.
Then you will realize what a sham your trinity is. It was invented by gentile philosophers influenced by Plato, and has little to do with the Bible. Note that Im not saying the Bible is right. All I am saying is that the New Testament, particularly the writings of Paul and other so called "apostles" clearly show that Christians believe in at least two gods, Jesus and his "Father". They are not one and the same, the NT clearly shows that Jesus is separate from his father, has a different mind from his father, and even prays to his father.


So let us examine the trinity from the bible:

JESUS HAS A DIFFERENT WILL FROM HIS "FATHER", ALSO THE "SON OF GOD" WAS RELUCTANT TO DIE ON THE CROSS, SO MUCH FOR JOHN 3:16
"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 26:39)

JESUS IS INFERIOR TO HIS "FATHER"
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

JESUS IS INFERIOR TO THE "HOLY GHOST"
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (matthew 12:32)

THE "SON OF GOD" HAS A "SOUL" AND IS SUBJECT TO DEATH
"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," (Mark 14:34)

THE "SON OF GOD" PRAYS (TO ANOTHER GOD?)
They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." (Mark 14:32)

I can show you literally dozens of verses that breaks all the theories of the trinity that are extra-biblical. many years after Jesus (alaihi salaam) was gone, the Christian theologians debated the doctrine of the trinity, the debate between the nestorians and the orthodox christians over the nature of Jesus are well known, as are the debates over the reality of the "trinity" (a word never mentioned in the bible), yet none of these debates were rooted in scripture, they were all purely philosophical debates, more to do with plato than Jesus or Paul.

So I humbly supplicate to the REAL GOD, Almighty Allah, that may He guide the blind Christians to the Truth of Islam, and that they may accept the Seal of the Prophet, Mustafa (Sallallahu alaihi wa salaam). If they accept Islam, we will accept them as our elder brothers. Ameen.

Agreed, I can not make my own philosophical speculations no one can. You said "Prove it is logical straight out of the Bible, if it is logical." It is not logical. We do not depend on logic. It is written, “There is a way that seems right to a man but that way leads to death.” All I can say is if you can't believe that Jesus is the Son of God like He claims He is; then, believe in His works. He raised the dead, clamed the storms with his word. He didn't stop people from worshiping Him. He opened the eyes of the blind; he caused the lame to walk. He turned water to wine. He forgave sins. He has said and done things that only God can do. Philip said shows us the Father, Jesus said how long have I been with you and you still don’t know me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. We believe Jesus words more than any prophet cause He trumps them all. He is deity not a partner of God. No where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as a partner to God You don’t accept that notion and neither do we. These are not shams to us - it is the power of God.:omg:

[vpb]

All I can say is if you can't believe that Jesus is the Son of God like He claims He is; then, believe in His works. He raised the dead, clamed the storms with his word. He didn't stop people from worshiping Him. He opened the eyes of the blind; he caused the lame to walk. He turned water to wine. He forgave sins. He has said and done things that only God can do

we believe that he did the things you mentioned. We really do believe in his miracles. but it was his miracles, that God gave to him , so he could prove to people that he is a indeed a Messenger of Allah. All the prophets came with miracles, so these were miracles that were performed by Jesus.

He is deity not a partner of God. No where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as a partner to God You don’t accept that notion and neither do we.

La ilahe il-allah wahdahu la sharika la.

this is another if I can call, an extension of shahada that we usually say which means

There is no diety of worship but Allah, without rivals or partners.
:)

[Grace Seeker]

There is no diety of worship but Allah, without rivals or partners.

The point is that this is exactly what Christians believe too. The point of contention is not:

How gods there are? one and only one
Does God have any partners, rivals or associates? no

The point of contention is: Who is God?

And what Christians say --that Muslims will never accept and that Christians must confess-- is that Allah was himself incarnate in Jesus. Jesus and Allah are one and the very same, there is no distinction between them. Which is why for the Qur'an to say that Allah says that Jesus is just a prophet and nothing more proves to Christians that the Qur'an couldn't really be from Allah, but an imposter. For Christians, it is the Qur'an that speaks against itself by its very claims (or shall I say counter-claims) with regard to Jesus Christ, the one true God who came down from heaven and tabernacled among his creation in the flesh as they are in the flesh, and then offered his own life to pay the punishment for their sins so that he might reconcile them to himself. This is the word of God that has been hand down to us from those who met Jesus personally and any book that denies these truths from those who met Jesus face-to-face (including Paul) is to be doubted.

I have tried many times to say who the Trinity is to Christians -- it is a label used to describe our mutlifaceted experience of the manifestation of the one God. But I keep failing at doing it in a way that Muslims seem to be capable of understanding what we are saying.

And, even though the question only asks us to articulate who the Trinity is for us, and does not ask us to explain why we believe it to be true, it just asks us to state what it is we believe with regard to the Trinity, it seems some Muslims want to come back and argue that Christians believe in something other than what we say we believe in. So, let me try to say who the Trinity is the Muslims.

I believe that to the Muslim mind the Trinity is blasphemous.

[vpb]

u forgot to mention holy Spirit in ur Shahada ......& remember , sin against holy Spirit won't be forgiven regarding ur holy book. So , do include him.

lollllllllll ;D;D;D

[north_malaysian]

To the Muslim they are three Gods.

That's what I believed and being taught by my religious teachers.

[vpb]

That's what I believed and being taught by my religious teachers.

that's what Allah swt says in the Qur'an. but if they want to call it a 'monotheistic religion' , let them call it. it doesn't affect us. we know what is a pure, real monotheistic religion.

[Grace Seeker]

This really has more to do with integrity of the Bible than with the Trinity, but the verses in question are often mis-used to prove the Trinity, so I have addressed the question asked for those who care to actually study this process.

It’s from a Christian site…at least it appears to do so.


Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?


What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?


"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...?



Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you.


People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.


________________________________________
NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?
If not, you need to get a King James so you can have some confidence

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible...tes_verses.htm

Yes. This is a Christian website. They ask the question: "NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to... tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?"

Answer: Yes. Those verses do not belong in the Bible.

Does that surprise you? Remember, I have never said that the Bible has never been corrupted. There have been errors made by some of the copyists. This one appears to be more than an accident. This one appears to be an intentional scribal gloss added by some over-zealous copyist.

So, why do I make that conclusion?

This is a passage that has two variant readings. One of those is as follows:

Variant A

7οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

8το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

This form is how it is found in all of the most ancient manuscripts of not only the Greek versions, but the later translations in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. It is also found this way in even in the earliest of Old Latin copies, including Jerome's first editions of the Vulgagte. Of some 70 different ancient manuscript families and hundreds of individual copies that include this book of the Bible, a total of 8 do NOT have this form of the verse, which is the Greek text that the NIV properly translates:

7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The other 8 copies include the scribal gloss:

Variant B

7οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

8και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

This is the version that the KJV translates as

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The difference between the NIV and the KJV being whether or not the phrase -- εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη, translated into English as "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth" -- is original or a gloss.

The earliest use of the phrase is not even in a copy of the Bible, but in a 4th century Latin quotation by a Spanish heretic named Priscillian who died in 385 AD. After this it begins to appear in a few families of the later editions of the Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and then is translated from the Latin back into Greek where it appears in an 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th century copy.

Plus there is also an 11th century copy where the phrase is definitely a scribal gloss written into the margin of a Variant A copy of the passage by a 17th century hand to make it into a Variant B version.


None of the early church fathers quote the phrase in question in any of their writings when citing the passage. Not even at the time of the great trinitarian debates in the early 4th century does anyone make reference to it. And as has been said, it would have been a prime verse for those who were looking for support of their trinitarian views to have quoted if it had existed.

Also, if it were original there is no good reason to imagine someone to omit it, neither on accident (it is a rather long addition to have missed) nor intentionally on theological grounds. However, in addition to the lack of support from nearly all copies and all of the most ancient copies, there is also the fact that the gloss makes an awkward break in the sense of the passage.



So where did it come from?

Most likely it was a comment entered into the margin of a Latin copy of the Vulgate. Later, when that copy was copied, a careless scribe included it. And subsequent theologians accepted it because they no longer had access to the earliest manuscripts to make comparisons.

Then in 1516 Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament on the printing press. Erasmus, himself, knowing that the scribal gloss was not original did not include it in his first edition. But, by this time theologians were used to reading it and and using it in their Latin versions of the Bible, and Erasmus was criticized for omitting it. Erasmus's answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words of the gloss in it he would print them in his next edition. Well, someone did come up with one of those very late Greek copies; and Erasmus, true to his word, but very much against his better judgment, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.

Then 28 years later, in 1550, Stephanus printed his edition of the Greek New Testament to which he gave the name Textus Receptus or "The Received Text" in which he used Erasmus's 1522 edition that included the in question gloss. Stephanus' text became the basis for the KJV and most other bibles for the next 300 years.

Now we don't decide that a verse should or should not be in the Bible based on how we feel about it, or that it somehow got added or deleted in the middle ages. We use the best scholarship available to us to evaluate the various existing manuscripts to determine the most likely form of the original passage if there appear to be any variants. And based on that process in this case, it is certain that the NIV rendering of the verse is based on the correct Greek text, and the KJV was in error for ever including the gloss.

ok , i just saw anther Christian site where they are telling readers to be cautious about bogus bible.....Strange....when Muslimls claim that Bible has been changed , normally Christians protoest but these info are from their sites.......they are accusing other Christians to play with Bible.

I agree it is strange. For some reason there are some Christians who are so enamored by the poetry of the King James Version (also known as the Authorized Version because King James authorized its printing) and its long history of use as formerly the best of the English translations that they think that God himself personally authorized it and that he even inspired not just the original text, but even the King James translation. As you can probably guess, I am not one who so believes. Rather, I believe that those who claim that modern scholarship, careful research, extensive study, and good textual criticism are corrupting the Bible just make fools of themselves and of God's Word. They care more for their well-preserved traditions, than what God actually inspired.

Hope i did not hurt Christians feelings.....i want to know. My question is : if Bible is from God , why so many verses are removed from Bible by Christians ? I also read long ago that many verses are returning back in some versions…how is that ?

If you read through the process of how this one gloss got into the KJV and why it was preserved, and yet how today we once again have access to some of the oldest manuscripts that people had lost access to for a long period of time, and can now better judge discern and evaluate when a mistake in the copying has been made, I think that will probably answer many of your questions. There really aren't any verses being removed from the Bible. That is a red herring offered by those who want to preserve their beloved KJV as the only legitimate English bible in use today. But there are some verses that we realize today that the KJV probably didn't use the best Greek text (or Hebrew text when speaking of the Old Testament) from which it was translated. As we are able to produce a better copy that we have more confidence of being what was originally written, those texts are to be preferred, and thus translations based off of those texts are also to be preferred.

[Grace Seeker]

Actually, the Bible as decided upon (I tkink) around 390 A.D. at the Council of Hippo, and still exists in the Catholic Bible, has an additional 7 OT books as compared to the Protestant Bible.

The point, I think, is that Quran mentions itself by name in the Quran.

I think the Book of Mormon mentions itself in itself too. Therefore...what? That makes it authentic or more believable or...what?

Actually, that means NOTHING!!!!!!!

And these comments relate to our topic: "Who is the Trinity for either Christians or Muslims", how?

[north_malaysian]

that's what Allah swt says in the Qur'an. but if they want to call it a 'monotheistic religion' , let them call it. it doesn't affect us. we know what is a pure, real monotheistic religion.

I understand the concept of trinity as monotheistic for Christians....

But as a Muslim I have to say it's not monotheistic to my belief....


But I'm not against Christians who believed in trinity as monotheistic.

[Grace Seeker]

I know this won't actually settle anything, and will be completely confusing to some, but here goes anyway.

In speaking of Trinity, recall that its basic forumaltion is that we have a single God known in three persons, but one being. Yes, if Christianity was talking about multiple beings then we would have a plurality of Gods. But that is NOT what Christianity means by Trinity. We mean just the one being God. And surely Islam does not object to that aspect of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. so, the part that Islam objects to is the idea of three persons.

Now, I suspect that when your typical Muslim thinks of three persons, that one thinks of three individuals like you and me walking around being in conversation with each other. BUT that would be three beings. And again, Christianity is speaking of God as just one being.

So, then how is it that Christianity is able to speak of 3 persons as one being and not three?

Well it begins with discarding our 21st century idea of person. In the 21st century a person is an individual. And this each individual is a singular being. That was NOT the idea of personhood at the time the church first started speaking about the one God in three-persons.

Instead, think of "person" in the sense of "persona" , i.e., character, face, manifestation, subsistence. It must not be confounded with essence or being. God is one in essence, three in persons. In modern philosophical usage the term person means a separate and distinct rational individual. But the tri-personality of God is not a numerical or essential trinity of three beings (like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), for this would be tritheism. If this is what Christianity meant, then the charge of polytheism would be appropriate. But again, no matter how many people misunderstand and try to make it into a math equation today, the early church was NOT talking numbers. Nor is it, on the other hand, merely a threefold aspect and mode of manifestation where the Father is the Essential Divinity, the Son the Divine Humanity, the Holy Spirit the Divine Proceeding or Operation. The doctrine states that there is a real, objective, and eternal, though ineffable, distinction in the one Divine being, with a corresponding threefold revelation of this being in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification. Hence the distinction between the immanent, intrinsic (or ontological) trinity and the extrinsic or œconomical) trinity.

In other words, there is no trinity of essence. There is no making of additional Gods, partners, nor associates. Rather, what the Christian proclaims is that the one God has made himself known in more than one way. There is a trinity of manifestation. We know God who makes himself known to us an Eternal Father that provides for the needs of his children. We know God (the one and the very same God that we know as Father and provider) an expression of the love who shows us his mercy and grace. This aspect of God's character is actually independant of the man Jesus because this was part of God's character even before Jesus was born. And we know God (and again the very one and the same God that we have come to experience in these other ways) as a divine presence who actually moves in and shapes our very lives from within, not just as an outside force. This last manifestation of God who shapes our lives from within we call the Holy Spirit. And the grace, mercy, and love of God who takes away our sins is seen manifested in the life of Jesus.

And so this trinity description of God must always describe God in unity, for without unity, we are describing something other than the God of Christianity. To say that the Father comes before the Son or the Spirit comes after the Father is not a true expression of unity and therefore is not the faith. There are not three, but one. One who is eternal from the beginning. One who is everlasting. One who is all in all. And this God whom we worship, however one knows him, be he worshipped as Father, Son, or Spirit it is still but one God who is worshipped and glorified, for the Father is not separate from either the Spirit or the Son. Again, they are all one.

He is one in essense. One in being. One in reality. The only distinction is not in who God is in his essence, but in our way of knowing God by virtue of him making himself known to us in different ways. Thus when we worship, whether we are thinking of worship as directed to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Spirit, it is directed to the three-in-one being. There are not three gods to be worshipped. No matter what name one uses in addressing God (Father, Son, Spirit) it is but the one and the very same being whom we worship as God.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

......

ok , thanks for reply.....Insha Allah i will read it when go off-line.......i saved it . I hope , i was not rude in my posts .

And these comments relate to our topic: "Who is the Trinity for either Christians or Muslims",

:giggling:

PS. u had ur marriage anniversay last week ? Congrates .......not late ....too early for the next yr :)

[tears4husain]

To actually answer the question, the trinity to muslims is non-exsistent, disbelief, polytheism or to be an apostate. To christians its their belief and what they stand for. The main reason why there is so much controversy between the two.

[Grace Seeker]

To actually answer the question, the trinity to muslims is non-exsistent, disbelief, polytheism or to be an apostate. To christians its their belief and what they stand for. The main reason why there is so much controversy between the two.

:sl:

Hey! Hey! I think I'm going to like you. You actually addressed the question!!! :D

[Talha777]

Assalamo alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu to those who follow the Straight Path.

In reply to GraceSeeker

So, then how is it that Christianity is able to speak of 3 persons as one being and not three?

Well it begins with discarding our 21st century idea of person. In the 21st century a person is an individual. And this each individual is a singular being. That was NOT the idea of personhood at the time the church first started speaking about the one God in three-persons

I have already previously challenged you and your ilk to directly prove all the qualities and ideas you have about your "trinity" straight from your Bible. It's very easy to try to wrinkle out theological problems with your own philosophical speculations, but we don't care for philosophy, we wan't to know where in the Bible does it say that a person is not an individual in the Bible, with regard to the "trinity" at least.

recall that its basic forumaltion is that we have a single God known in three persons, but one being

Likewise, where can we find this formulation directly from the Bible. The Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, etc., are not in the Bible, so please don't refer to those.

Instead, think of "person" in the sense of "persona" , i.e., character, face, manifestation, subsistence.

In which case you are limiting God to three manifestations. On the other hand, the Holy Quran says: Of Him seeks (its need) every creature in the heavens and on earth: every day in (new) Splendour doth He (shine)! (Ar-Rahman 55:29) Furthermore, how do you say that God's has only three manifestions (father, son, holy spirit), when there are additional "manifestations" mentioned in the Bible. For example, the manifestation of God in the burning bush, or the manifestation of God's voice, why aren't these manifestations considered different personheads within One God?

If this is what Christianity meant, then the charge of polytheism would be appropriate. But again, no matter how many people misunderstand and try to make it into a math equation today, the early church was NOT talking numbers Nor is it, on the other hand, merely a threefold aspect and mode of manifestation where the Father is the Essential Divinity, the Son the Divine Humanity, the Holy Spirit the Divine Proceeding or Operation

Again, please prove it from your Bible. You believe it is the inspired word of God, it should clarify your beliefs on such a fundamental and important subject about what kind of God you worship. Why isn't this concept of the trinity mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? Why isn't the concept even explained in the New Testament? You say the early church was not talking numbers. The early church we assume were the apostles of Jesus (alaihi salaam), and the authors of the New Testament. Show me from the writings of Paul or anyone else in the NT why Christians should believe they have one God instead of two separate interactable gods (father and son).

In other words, there is no trinity of essence. There is no making of additional Gods, partners, nor associates. Rather, what the Christian proclaims is that the one God has made himself known in more than one way. There is a trinity of manifestation. We know God who makes himself known to us an Eternal Father that provides for the needs of his children. We know God (the one and the very same God that we know as Father and provider) an expression of the love who shows us his mercy and grace. This aspect of God's character is actually independant of the man Jesus because this was part of God's character even before Jesus was born. And we know God (and again the very one and the same God that we have come to experience in these other ways) as a divine presence who actually moves in and shapes our very lives from within, not just as an outside force. This last manifestation of God who shapes our lives from within we call the Holy Spirit. And the grace, mercy, and love of God who takes away our sins is seen manifested in the life of Jesus.

Yes, what you are talking about is the same God in three manifestations. But the New Testament does not talk about the same God. The New Testament makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is a) inferior to the "father" (john 14:28) b) inferior to the "holy spirit" (matthew 12:32) c) interacts and prays to the "father" (mark 14:32) d) has a different will than the "father" (matthew 26:39) e) did not die willingly on the cross to redeem your sins (matthew 26:39)

Think about the implication of these facts from your own bible. They completely and utterly trash all your meticulously crafted "synchronistic" doctrine about the trinity. Imagine one manifestation has a completely different will and mind from another, and furthermore is inferior and prays to the superior manifestion? It's absurd. It's even more extreme than saying God has multiple personality disorder (God forbid) The only explanation is that the anonymous authors of the New Testament believed in at least two separate gods, albeit one superior and the other inferior, just like romans believed in a plethora of gods, but held that jupiter was like "god the father" and was the greatest of the gods.

No matter what name one uses in addressing God (Father, Son, Spirit) it is but the one and the very same being whom we worship as God.

And god also worships himself (mark 14:32), i'm sorry, but your god is not my God.

[Keltoi]

I have already previously challenged you and your ilk to directly prove all the qualities and ideas you have about your "trinity" straight from your Bible. It's very easy to try to wrinkle out theological problems with your own philosophical speculations, but we don't care for philosophy, we wan't to know where in the Bible does it say that a person is not an individual in the Bible, with regard to the "trinity" at least.

"Your ilk?" Very productive. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Trinity involves the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. If I thought it would actually do any good, I would post verses mentioning these three aspects of God, but something tells me it would probably be a waste of time.

[vpb]

"Your ilk?" Very productive. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Trinity involves the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. If I thought it would actually do any good, I would post verses mentioning these three aspects of God, but something tells me it would probably be a waste of time.

it should not take u much time to explain from bible about the core of your belief.you should have already know it by heart.

[Keltoi]

it should not take u much time to explain from bible about the core of your belief.you should have already know it by heart.

Oh, I do know it by heart. If I thought the intention of these "questions" were to better understand my faith I would have no problem with it. It is when the same questions are repeatedly asked regardless of the answer that it gets slightly annoying.

[vpb]

Oh, I do know it by heart. If I thought the intention of these "questions" were to better understand my faith I would have no problem with it. It is when the same questions are repeatedly asked regardless of the answer that it gets slightly annoying.

lol, well sometimes the questions change but anyways you need to have patience.

peace

[Keltoi]

lol, well sometimes the questions change but anyways you need to have patience.

peace

I have plenty of patience if the question is asked with respect.

[vpb]

I have plenty of patience if the question is asked with respect.

lol, I know but patience is not graded by being patient on things that u like, but by being patient on things that u can't stand :)

[Keltoi]

lol, I know but patience is not graded by being patient on things that u like, but by being patient on things that u can't stand :)

True enough...but I haven't drank my coffee yet.

[vpb]

True enough...but I haven't drank my coffee yet.

lol :) can u do it without coffe? :p

[Trumble]

we wan't to know where in the Bible does it say that a person is not an individual in the Bible, with regard to the "trinity" at least.

It doesn't say it, to my knowledge. There would be no reason for it to; why would it describe a concept perfectly familiar to its readers as an alternative to one not in common use until centuries later? Grace Seeker is quite correct regarding the concept associated with 'person' at that time, and you'll find it in used that way as the principal meaning in English literature right up to the 17th century by some authors, particularly when they were familiar with Latin and Greek. It's still with us, in legal terminology if nowhere else.

The nearest you will find to the English 'person' in either Latin or Greek is the Latin persona. That has two meanings, the first being a (literal) mask usually in the context of being worn by an actor, and the second is a character, part or function which an individual represents. The latter is not just used in a theatrical sense but also to describe a role, position or character undertaken by an individual in other contexts, particularly in politics and law.

One definition (Lewis/Short) is

the part or character which any one sustains in the world

which is rather interesting in the context of the Trinity, I think. Nobody said Al Pacino was three people because he could play many roles :)

[NoName55]

I think. Nobody said Al Pacino was three people because he could play many roles

There was I, thinking that al-pacino played many roles but never three at same time.

and also never realised that he had same status as the Lord of the worlds. Ah well! I suppose one lives and learns

[Trumble]

There was I, thinking that al-pacino played many roles but never three at same time.

and also never realised that he had same status as the Lord of the worlds. Ah well! I suppose one lives and learns

Not even Al has that status, except maybe in the acting profession!

Being a trifle flippant even "never three at the same time" is only a matter of perspective. What if he was filming a movie and two TV shows over the same period? Or what if you were watching 'The Godfather' on TV, while your next door neighbour was watching 'Donnie Brasco' on DVD and your brother was watching him live on stage? Is that not three roles at the same time? He could only film/play one at a time from his own perspective, of course - but that is hardly a limitation God suffers from.

The point is that according to the concept of 'personhood' in use at the time, and to a limited extent still in use, playing three 'roles' at the same time is quite easy. To take a modern day example, a company lawyer or director can quite easily adopt multiple personas at the same time, in acting for (and, importantly as) multiple companies. All that is needed is authority to adopt that persona (another non-existent problem for God). He is still the managing director of company 'A' even if he is currently dealing with the paperwork of company 'B' sitting in his office at company 'C'. In all three cases he is not merely an employee, he is authorised to bear that company's legal person for as long as the Board representing shareholders, or he himself, decides. No, that is not the same situation as the Trinity by any means, but it does illustrate the concept of personhood that is relevant here.

[NoName55]

so god of trinity is like an actor but the actor is not quite like him.

oh by the way did not the trinity god, perform all three parts at the same time or like al-pacino taped it all? or left the world unattended while he was being murdered to pay for Adam's fruit eating habit?

would still like to see al-pacino do a live show on T.V, while at the same time being on stage

[Talha777]

It doesn't say it, to my knowledge. There would be no reason for it to; why would it describe a concept perfectly familiar to its readers as an alternative to one not in common use until centuries later? Grace Seeker is quite correct regarding the concept associated with 'person' at that time, and you'll find it in used that way as the principal meaning in English literature right up to the 17th century by some authors, particularly when they were familiar with Latin and Greek. It's still with us, in legal terminology if nowhere else.

17th century English literature?! I'm sorry, but I clearly asked Grace Seeker and all other Christians to show me from the Bible and only the Bible that the persons mentioned in the "Trinity" are not individuals but one and the same. This includes all parts of the trinity. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old.

Also, I have referenced some very important verses from the Bible which no Christian has yet addressed, which clearly show that the concept of trinity held by mainstream christians today is completely foreign to the concept propogated by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament. We are still awaiting an explanation as to why Jesus said he has a different will from his "Father", why Jesus said he is inferior to the Holy Spirit and the "father" despite the fact Christians claim they are all one and the same, but just different manifestations of the same God, and why Jesus prayed to the father. Please explain and clarify using proofs directly from the Bible.

[NoName55]

..... but that is hardly a limitation God suffers from.

There was me believing that there was no concept vof God in budhism. Buddha was silent about the existence or non-existence of God.

who said this?

"It is not my business or yours to find out whether there is God – our business is to remove the sufferings of the world"

As I said before it is too hard for me to keep up with all this new fangled ideas.

[Trumble]

17th century English literature?! I'm sorry, but I clearly asked Grace Seeker and all other Christians to show me from the Bible and only the Bible that the persons mentioned in the "Trinity" are not individuals but one and the same. This includes all parts of the trinity. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old.

I'm not at all sure I could, it isn't an easy idea.

It might help to consider the Qur'an. We are frequently told that the full meaning of the Qur'an can only be understood by those who know Arabic not just because non Arabic readers don't know the words, but because they don't know the concepts associated with them. Here the issue is one of change of historical usage rather than language, but in short there is a concept assumed by the Bible authors that is simply not familiar to most modern day readers.

I wouldn't presume to say that acceptance and understanding of that concept necessarily means acceptance and understanding of the Trinity as a purely monotheistic idea. That is certainly disputed, as this thread shows. All I was really trying to do was confirm Grace Seeker was correct on that particular point, and that sometimes full understanding requires rather greater depth than just reading a translation, or even the original language without some additional work on top. The same is obviously true of the Qur'an.

[Trumble]

There was me believing that there was no concept vof God in budhism. Buddha was silent about the existence or non-existence of God.

who said this?

"It is not my business or yours to find out whether there is God – our business is to remove the sufferings of the world"

I'm not quite sure of your point? To the Buddha the existence of a God(s) or not was a total irrelevance as any such God would be subject to the same laws of cause and effect as everything else. What Buddhism excludes is a creator God. One of the best things about Buddhism - it's a practical religion.

If you referring to my own use of the term, as a Buddhist, I am assuming for the sake of this particular argument that there is one (or more) of them; the ability to assume one point - even one you may not necessarily agree with - in order to discuss another is a pre-requisite in any philosophical forum, otherwise you will never get anywhere. Do you think it might be more constructive in considering the question originally posed if I just posted "why worry, there is no God and there is no Trinity" half a dozen times? :rollseyes

[Talha777]

What else does the Bible say about trinity?

JESUS IS NOT ALL-KNOWING!
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (mark 13:32)

JESUS IS SUBJECT TO THE FATHER
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 corinthians 15:28)

YHWH IS NOT ONLY THE FATHER OF JESUS, HE IS HIS GOD
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

*see also john 20:17, ephesians 1:17, 1 peter 1:3, revelation 1:6,

[Phil12123]

...I clearly asked Grace Seeker and all other Christians to show me from the Bible and only the Bible that the persons mentioned in the "Trinity" are not individuals but one and the same. This includes all parts of the trinity. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old.

Let me quote myself here, as perhaps I have partially answered your question before:

The Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of Whom are of one essence, substance, and nature, namely, Deity. They are the ONE true God. The three are indeed three distinct, separate entities, but together make up the ONE God. They are separate and distinct in the sense that the Son died on the cross, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world; the Son did not send the Father or the Holy Spirit to be the Savior of the world. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son to do His special work, not vice versa. etc., etc. So they are in that sense separate and distinct, but they are the ONE God.

John 1:1 shows both the distinction of persons (Father and Son) and the sameness of their essence, substance, and nature:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The first phrase shows the eternality of the Word---He was already there "in the beginning" (whenever that was and whatever it consists of).

The second phrase shows the distinction of persons---the Word was with God. You have to have at least two to have one with another. Al Pacino does not qualify---he's only one.

The third phrase describes the Word and tells us WHAT He is, not Who He is. He is God in terms of His essence, substance, and nature---Deity. He is not God the Father, with Whom is was. However, He is of the same essence, substance, and nature as God the Father. He is ONE with the Father---ONE essence, substance, and nature, therefore only ONE God---ONE Deity, not two or three or more. Just ONE. Jesus said, "I and my Father are ONE."

So, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as the Son (John 1:14), He could pray to His Father, and in His flesh He could get hungry, eat food, get tired and sleep in the boat, etc.---all the things that we humans do all the time, because He took on the likeness of sinful flesh.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

After His resurrection, his followers recognized His Deity, as when Thomas confessed it, and the risen Lord did not correct him or deny what Thomas said:

John 20:26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!''
27. Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.''
28. And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!''
29. Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.''

All believers down through the centuries since then "have not seen and yet have believed" and we have all been blessed beyond measure because of it.

The Holy Spirit is also God and yet distinct from the Father and the Son.

That He is distinct is shown here:

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever,
17. "even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

John16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8. "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9. "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10. "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
11. "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

That the Holy Spirit is God is shown here:

Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.
2. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?
4. "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.''

And yet the Scriptures are clear and consistent that there is ONLY ONE GOD, in both Old and New Testaments. The tri-unity of God is how the distinction of persons and oneness of God are reconciled.

Also, I have referenced some very important verses from the Bible which no Christian has yet addressed, which clearly show that the concept of trinity held by mainstream christians today is completely foreign to the concept propogated by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament. We are still awaiting an explanation as to why Jesus said he has a different will from his "Father", why Jesus said he is inferior to the Holy Spirit and the "father" despite the fact Christians claim they are all one and the same, but just different manifestations of the same God, and why Jesus prayed to the father. Please explain and clarify using proofs directly from the Bible.

Sorry, I didn't see those verses. I will have to look back at your earlier posts, or you can quote them again, and I will try to respond. Thanks.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

17th century English literature?! I'm sorry, but I clearly asked Grace Seeker and all other Christians to show me from the Bible and only the Bible that the persons mentioned in the "Trinity" are not individuals but one and the same. This includes all parts of the trinity. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old.

Also, I have referenced some very important verses from the Bible which no Christian has yet addressed, which clearly show that the concept of trinity held by mainstream christians today is completely foreign to the concept propogated by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament. We are still awaiting an explanation as to why Jesus said he has a different will from his "Father", why Jesus said he is inferior to the Holy Spirit and the "father" despite the fact Christians claim they are all one and the same, but just different manifestations of the same God, and why Jesus prayed to the father. Please explain and clarify using proofs directly from the Bible.

You know, you are quite impatient. It took me about 3 hours to answer you. Not too long I don't think. You are simply wrong if you think that I have cut and paste response to every question sititng here at my immediate disposal. And I wouldn't use them if I did. I would make sure to read, revise, and write on my own, not merely parroting what someone else had previously said, though I might quote several. That takes time. And it takes time that I cannot allocate to every question. Believe it or not, my day is not one of simply engaging in internet conversations, though sometimes my wife would argue that it is. Now, even what I have provided below just scratches the surface. Is it sufficient? Do you want more? Are you willing to be patient if you do?

I have already previously challenged you and your ilk to directly prove all the qualities and ideas you have about your "trinity" straight from your Bible. It's very easy to try to wrinkle out theological problems with your own philosophical speculations, but we don't care for philosophy, we wan't to know where in the Bible does it say that a person is not an individual in the Bible, with regard to the "trinity" at least.

First, I and my ilk have already, in fact several times, given verses straight from the Bible which are those that led the early church to struggle with this question of how could God be making himself known in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit and yet it still be true that there is one God. Thread after thread has presented many of verses. Do you truly want to see a list of them again? Or are these rhetorical challenges?

Second, the Trinity is dealing with a philosophical conundrum in the early church. Given that there is just one God. And given that Jesus referenced God as the Father(Luke 11:2). And given that Jesus referred to himself and the father as one(John 10:30). And given that Jesus accepted others' worship of himself as God (John 20:28). And given that the Spirit worked in people lives to sanctify them as only God can do(Romans 15:16). And given that God actually lives in us by his Spirit(Ephesians 2:22). The early church had to resolve this basic philosophical conflict that had on the one hand just one being who was God and on the other hand an experience of God in these three persona. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity moved from an experience of the one God found in three persons that is recorded in scripture to a philosophical explanation of that experience recorded in the Bible. And that is reality is what makes your argument against philosophical explanations of the Trinity specious and why it is completely irrelevant that the word Trinity is never found in the Bible. The Bible records God making himself known to us in these three persons and that is all we need to show. If you don't accept the proof when it is plainly shown to you, that is your problem, not ours.

Likewise, where can we find this formulation directly from the Bible. The Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, etc., are not in the Bible, so please don't refer to those.

You won't find the formulation of the Trinity in the Bible. The Trinity is not revelation. The Trinity is interpretation of revelation. Is Shari'a law found in the Qur'an. I recently did a search for Shari'a in the Qur'an and according to the search engine I used, it isn't mentioned in the Qur'an. Does this make it invalid? No. Shari'a expresses what one finds in the Qur'an even if the word itself is never used there. Likewise with Trinity.

In which case you are limiting God to three manifestations. On the other hand, the Holy Quran says: Of Him seeks (its need) every creature in the heavens and on earth: every day in (new) Splendour doth He (shine)! (Ar-Rahman 55:29) Furthermore, how do you say that God's has only three manifestions (father, son, holy spirit), when there are additional "manifestations" mentioned in the Bible. For example, the manifestation of God in the burning bush, or the manifestation of God's voice, why aren't these manifestations considered different personheads within One God?

No, I am not limiting God to three manifestions. First God did make himself know in the burning bush, etc. These are called Theophanies. That are examples of one of the manifestations or personas of God making himself known to us breaking into human history. Second, we have experienced no other manifestations of other personas of God than these three, so this is what we know and write of. Is it possible that God might yet make himself known in another way? I suppose. I am not going to limit God. But I also am not going to speak as true of God that which I don't know to be true. Thus the Old Testament at speaks primarily about the manifestions of God as Father (and arguably in an undeveloped manner, Spirit) for that was all that they knew. So, my experience of what is true of God is his three-fold persona, and that is what I can then speak of.

Again, please prove it from your Bible. You believe it is the inspired word of God, it should clarify your beliefs on such a fundamental and important subject about what kind of God you worship. Why isn't this concept of the trinity mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? Why isn't the concept even explained in the New Testament? You say the early church was not talking numbers. The early church we assume were the apostles of Jesus (alaihi salaam), and the authors of the New Testament. Show me from the writings of Paul or anyone else in the NT why Christians should believe they have one God instead of two separate interactable gods (father and son).

Hebrews 1:8 (despite Woodrow's and vpb's protestations) has God speaking about the Son and God calls the Son "God".
Revelation 1:8 has Jesus speaking and identifying himself to John as "the Lord God" and "the Almighty".
Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus was of the same nature (i.e. essence)

Ephesians 4:6 Paul tells us that it is God the Father who is "in all ".
In Galatians 2:20 Paul says that it is Christ who lives "in me".
Yet in Romans 8:9-11 Paul says that it is the Spirit who lives "in you." And further this is the equivalence of saying that "Christ is in you".

Hebrews 11:26 says that when Moses decided to quit living as an Egyptian and to live instead among "the people of God" that he did so "for the sake of Christ" though it would be more than a millenia before Jesus would be born.

And after all of this Paul says that there is just "one God" Ephesians 4:6. There you have exactly what you requested, Paul saying that we worship one God.

Yes, what you are talking about is the same God in three manifestations. But the New Testament does not talk about the same God. The New Testament makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is a) inferior to the "father" (john 14:28) b) inferior to the "holy spirit" (matthew 12:32) c) interacts and prays to the "father" (mark 14:32) d) has a different will than the "father" (matthew 26:39) e) did not die willingly on the cross to redeem your sins (matthew 26:39)

Philippians 2 tells us that in his time on earth, Jesus did not seek to grasp equality with God -- that is why he came to earth in human form, he could have stayed in heaven-- but that even in doing this he was still of the same nature as God. What you are confused by is the fact that Jesus had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature so that he was at all times both 100% God and 100% man. These two natures co-mingled with one another but were never confused into one nature -- though admittedly it can leave us scratching our head in a bit of confusion. So it is that the earthly Jesus having surrendered neither his divine essense nor his divine persona, but only his divine perogatives to power and knowledge and came to earth and lived among us as a human being. In being fully human he knew only that which the Father revealed to him and had only power to do that which other humans could do, but that did not abrogate the reality of his divine nature that was also present in him. And so, as to his earthly existence the Father was indeed "greater" (John 14:28) and the words he would share with his disciples were not his own but those of the Father (John 14:24), yet in the very same discourse Jesus would say that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father (John 14:9). Given these two natures it also makes sense for Jesus, even though Jesus is himself God, to pray to the Father. Indeed it would make sense for the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to always be in communication with one another in the very essence of their unity as one being. Jesus goes so far as saying that in providing the Holy Spirit to be a divine presence in our lives, we human beings are even admitted into this relationship. Not surprising since it was because of the presence of the Holy Spirit as a divine source of power in his life (not his own power, remember he emptied himself of that in coming to earth) that Jesus did any of the miracles which are attested to him; thus Jesus says that with this same divine presence in our lives we shall do all that we have seen him do and even greater things (John 14:12) -- again not in our own power, but in the power of God.

It also makes sense for Jesus to have his own unique will. As his own person he would be responsible for his own decisions. It is indeed an important theological point that Jesus had free will to do whatever he wanted as a human being. He was not some automaton programmed by God the Father. He had to face the choice to sin or submit the same way that each of us do, or his offering of himself on the cross could not be a perfect sacrifice. But he always choose to conform his will to that of the Father. However, you are wrong that Christ did not go willingly to the cross. John 10:17-18 makes it clear that Jesus did what he did "of my own accord". On the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9) Jesus spoke about his departure with Moses and Elijah, which was to come to fulfillment in Jerusalem, and then we are told as that time approach that he "resolutely set out for Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). So, while Jesus prayed that if there was another way that this would be done, he nonetheless choose to conform his will to the Father's will in order to bring about reconcilation between God and humanity.

Your idea that Matthew 12:32 show Jesus as inferior to the Holy Spirit completely misses the mark as to what that passage is all about and isn't related to the Trinity at all. Another concept important to Christianity is that humans are so steeped in our sins that we cannot on our own even recognize the need to be cleansed of them. And just look at much of the world, it is oblivious to the reality of sin. One of the things that the God does in our lives in the person of the Holy Spirit is to awakenness to our need for God in our lives. Without that awakening, we would simply continue to live blissfully ignorant lives with regard to God's will for us. So, the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. But some people choose instead to ignore that convicting action, that prompting action of God. They consider all spiritual things as mere foolishness, and thus are condemned by that very attitude toward God, to never avail themselves of God's offer of mercy. It is possible to turn your back on Jesus today, and tomorrow accept him. He never turns his back on you. Now, blasphemy is not a word that one utters, but an attitude present in the heart. So turning your back on Jesus can be forgiven, but turning your back on the Holy Spirit...? If you refuse to even recognize the Holy Spirit, given that God will not force himself on you, given that we always have free choice, then there is little that can be done to save you. Some people turn and walk away from God, and they do so to their own ****ation.

Think about the implication of these facts from your own bible. They completely and utterly trash all your meticulously crafted "synchronistic" doctrine about the trinity. Imagine one manifestation has a completely different will and mind from another, and furthermore is inferior and prays to the superior manifestion? It's absurd. It's even more extreme than saying God has multiple personality disorder (God forbid) The only explanation is that the anonymous authors of the New Testament believed in at least two separate gods, albeit one superior and the other inferior, just like romans believed in a plethora of gods, but held that jupiter was like "god the father" and was the greatest of the gods.

I am sorry, but the inferences you have drawn are not the teachings of the Bible. They come from your own mind or ideas passed on to you by someone else. My prayer is that you are not yourself turning your back on the promptings of the Holy Spirit to make himself known to you.

And god also worships himself (mark 14:32), i'm sorry, but your god is not my God.

Maybe not today, but some day:

Philippians 2
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

[MustafaMc]

"Your ilk?" Very productive. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Trinity involves the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. If I thought it would actually do any good, I would post verses mentioning these three aspects of God, but something tells me it would probably be a waste of time.

I believe that it would be helpful if you could quote a few key verses in the gospels where Jesus (pbuh) clearly establishes this Trinity concept himself. Muslims accept the authentic words of Jesus, but Biblical authenticity can't be proven because they recognize the influence of man on the actual texts of the gospels. BTW Muslims flat out reject anything that Paul wrote because he was not one of Jesus' (pbuh) disciples while he lived on earth.

[Keltoi]

I believe that it would be helpful if you could quote a few key verses in the gospels where Jesus (pbuh) clearly establishes this Trinity concept himself. Muslims accept the authentic words of Jesus, but Biblical authenticity can't be proven because they recognize the influence of man on the actual texts of the gospels. BTW Muslims flat out reject anything that Paul wrote because he was not one of Jesus' (pbuh) disciples while he lived on earth.

Well, with all due respect of course, the fact that Muslims reject Paul's words doesn't mean Christians do. Paul wrote many important works. I believe if you look at Grace Seeker's last post, he supplies quite a few verses where Christ speaks of His relationship with God and the relationship of the Holy Spirit to all.

[MustafaMc]

Well, with all due respect of course, the fact that Muslims reject Paul's words doesn't mean Christians do. Paul wrote many important works. I believe if you look at Grace Seeker's last post, he supplies quite a few verses where Christ speaks of His relationship with God and the relationship of the Holy Spirit to all.

Yes, GraceSeeker did, as usual, expend a large amount of energy to accurately portray the Christian perspective.

However, what would be nice is a single concise paragraph whereby one uses quotes by Jesus (pbuh) from the gospels to clearly demonstrate the concept of Trinity so that a 12 year old could understand and comprehend the concept.

[Keltoi]

Yes, GraceSeeker did, as usual, expend a large amount of energy to accurately portray the Christian perspective.

However, what would be nice is a single concise paragraph whereby one uses quotes by Jesus (pbuh) from the gospels to clearly demonstrate the concept of Trinity so that a 12 year old could understand and comprehend the concept.

Sometimes explanations take more than one paragraph, and sometimes you have to have more experience and intelligence than a twelve year old to fully understand concepts. Grace Seeker's post was very well written and at least to me did a good job of answering the question.

[MustafaMc]

Sometimes explanations take more than one paragraph, and sometimes you have to have more experience and intelligence than a twelve year old to fully understand concepts. Grace Seeker's post was very well written and at least to me did a good job of answering the question.

The concept of God is central to both Islam and Christiainity. The Islamic concept of Allah can be concisely presented by the few verses of Surah Ikhlas (Purity of Faith) and Ayat Al-Kursi (The Throne) Surah 2:255. I believe most 12 year olds can grasp this concept of God.

Why is it so difficulty for Christians to convey their concept of God concisely with a few verses from the gospels using quotes from Jesus (pbuh)?

Perhaps, GraceSeeker could humor me with a short reply.

[Talha777]

John 1:1 shows both the distinction of persons (Father and Son) and the sameness of their essence, substance, and nature:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Essence or substance is nowhere mentioned in John 1:1. Neither can it be clearly discerned that the Word is the same God. As far as I am concerned, two separate gods are mentioned in this verse, the Word that is subject to God (with God), and the Word that is God. Basically, the author believes there are two separate gods, but one of them (the word) is inferior to the other.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I'm not disputing that the author of Philippians doesn't consider Jesus to be God. but even from these verses, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "son" is the same essence as the "Father". Rather, this passage clearly shows Christians have two distinct deities. Read philippians 2:9 carefully. "therefore god also has highly exalted him" if it is the same god, than it would be, god has highly exalted himself It shows that the "Father" is superior to the "Son", and that one god has exalted another god, but they are still separate gods. similarly verse 11 of the same chapter shows the exact same thing.

I will not address the other verses which you have mentioned, because my challenge was very clear: prove to me from the bible that jesus is the same essence as his father and the holy spirit as well that they are one and the same god, not separate and distinct gods.

i will, however, show you that the authors of the new testament believed in separate distinct gods, one the regarded as a father who begot another god, that is entirely distinct and has an entirely different mind and will from the first god. read the following passage carefully:

What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." (matthew 22:42-44)

This clearly shows that the NT believes in two separate gods, and that these two separate gods even communicate with eachother, both of them are "lords", one of them has promised to make retributions against the enemies of the other god.

furthermore, if there is one god, no matter what how many separate and distinct "manifestations" he has, they will all possess the same divine qualites such as omnicience. however, as the New Testament clearly shows, "god the son" is not all knowing, and therefore is an inferior and separate god from "the father" who is omnicient: No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (mark 13:32)

and finally, even if god has three manifestations and one of them is Jesus, than one manifestation cannot be regarded as the god of the other. if this is the case, than it clearly shows that jesus is a separate god from his father: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

[Talha777]

And given that Jesus referred to himself and the father as one(John 10:30).

Yes, I was waiting for you to post this verse, as it is your only viable argument you have. all the other verses do not address my challenge, which is to show me how the "Son" is the same god as the "father" and that they are not distinct gods according to the new testament.

But I am one step ahead of you, since you claim you have made a lifelong study of your bible you should know that in this passage Jesus was speaking metaphorically look at the verses that precede:

The Jews answered him, saying, `For a good work we do not stone thee, but for evil speaking, and because thou, being a man, dost make thyself God.' (john 10:33)

here the Jews began to stone Jesus because they mistakenly believed that Jesus had just claimed himself divinity, and claimed to be God. So Jesus clarifies that he was speaking metaphorically: Jesus answered them, `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? (john 10:34)

Jesus goes on to explain that because he does the righteous work of god, he fits this metaphorical description of the Old Testament that he is a god. But if you believe literally that Jesus claimed to be god from john 10:30, than you are necessarilly admitting to polytheism.

You won't find the formulation of the Trinity in the Bible. The Trinity is not revelation. The Trinity is interpretation of revelation. Is Shari'a law found in the Qur'an. I recently did a search for Shari'a in the Qur'an and according to the search engine I used, it isn't mentioned in the Qur'an. Does this make it invalid? No. Shari'a expresses what one finds in the Qur'an even if the word itself is never used there. Likewise with Trinity.

It makes no difference if the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible or not. I am not concerned with the word, I am concerned with the concept of trinity i would like you to clearly explain to me the concept of trinity from your bible, including the subject of same essence, etc.,

With regard to shariah, it is the word for the laws of Islam, as contained in the Holy Quran and Sunnat. The word is not important, the concept of it is, and you will find the concept is crystal clear, because whatever the Holy Quran commands is shariah.

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus was of the same nature (i.e. essence)

On the contrary, philippians 2:6 indicates that there are two separate gods, and one of those gods doesn't regard it as robbery to claim a status of parity with the other (despite that one is omnicient and the other is not)

Hebrews 11:26 says that when Moses decided to quit living as an Egyptian and to live instead among "the people of God" that he did so "for the sake of Christ" though it would be more than a millenia before Jesus would be born.

I'm not disputing that the New Testament authors believed Jesus is very, very old and was around at the creation of the earth. However, if the "son" was begotten, than at one point he wasn't there.

And after all of this Paul says that there is just "one God" Ephesians 4:6. There you have exactly what you requested, Paul saying that we worship one God.

Wrong, ephesians 4:6 only says that the "Father" who is a distinct and separate god from the "son" is one. Saying God is one is different from saying there is only one god. Both statements are true, but without the latter one it is still an open possibility that there are many gods, and paul and the other authors of the new testament clearly believed in at least two gods: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

Philippians 2 tells us that in his time on earth, Jesus did not seek to grasp equality with God

A direct contradiction with philippians 2:6 which says he does seek equality with god, but contradictions in the bible are a different subject altogether, we will leave that for another day.

So it is that the earthly Jesus having surrendered neither his divine essense nor his divine persona, but only his divine perogatives to power and knowledge and came to earth and lived among us as a human being. In being fully human he knew only that which the Father revealed to him and had only power to do that which other humans could do, but that did not abrogate the reality of his divine nature that was also present in him

You are radically redefining the word "logic". First you say that Jesus did not surrender his divine essence or persona, which includes omnicience, as omnicience is a quality of God, than you say that Jesus did surrender his divinity by suddenly not being all-knowing, and therefore relying on God's revelation. I'm sorry, but that is not 100% divine and 100% human, that is simply 100% human. If he was 100% divine and 100% human he would possess qualities of both human and God, not one or the other.

It also makes sense for Jesus to have his own unique will

No it makes no sense at all. If Jesus is the same god as his father but has a different will, than you are point blank accusing God of having multiple personality disorder. that is a grave blasphemy, and you and your christians should repent from such satanic thoughts.

[Phil12123]

Essence or substance is nowhere mentioned in John 1:1. Neither can it be clearly discerned that the Word is the same God. As far as I am concerned, two separate gods are mentioned in this verse, the Word that is subject to God (with God), and the Word that is God. Basically, the author believes there are two separate gods, but one of them (the word) is inferior to the other.

Wrong. Why don't you let a Christian answer your question by giving you the Christian interpretation of a Christian verse of Scripture? You can tell me how a verse of the Quran should be understood; I won't dispute your understanding of your holy book. Give me the same courtesy concerning how a verse of the Bible should be understood. I don't want to get into a technical dissertation of the Greek, so I'm telling you, in English, what the verse means by what it says. And what I told you is exactly that. Re-read my post, very slowly and carefully, and let it sink in before you shoot off your answer to it. I really can't say anything more than I've said to make it any clearer to you. So, I'm hoping I didn't waste my time in putting that post together. Read it again. And maybe again. Ponder it. Chew on it. Think about it. Then respond. Thanks.

Peace

[vpb]

I think inside the bible two concepts contradict each other, bc one side we are told that Jesus is inferior to God, and he prays to God etc...but the other side that he is God??

huh???

[Muslim Knight]

I think inside the bible two concepts contradict each other, bc one side we are told that Jesus is inferior to God, and he prays to God etc...but the other side that he is God??

huh???

Wait, there's more.

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

1 = 3

3 = 1


I share your pain, brother.

[vpb]

Wait, there's more.

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

1 = 3

3 = 1


I share your pain, brother.

what a horrible state to die :( may Allah save us from committing shirk and from hellfire .ameen

[MustafaMc]

The concept of God is central to both Islam and Christiainity. The Islamic concept of Allah can be concisely presented by the few verses of Surah Ikhlas (Purity of Faith) and Ayat Al-Kursi (The Throne) Surah 2:255. I believe most 12 year olds can grasp this concept of God.

Why is it so difficulty for Christians to convey their concept of God concisely with a few verses from the gospels using quotes from Jesus (pbuh)?

The following quote is from a post that I made earlier at #40. It logically shows that the three entities are separate and unique, not one and the same.

This is shown in 4 short verses:

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus (Son) when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice (Father) out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

You and Christians can deny what I see, but 1) no one can descend from the Heavens and light upon himself, 2) no one can say to himself this is my son with whom I am pleased, 3) at no time can anyone pray to himself that someone else's will be done instead of his own, and 4) at no time can anyone sit beside himself.

A refutation of this post with a concise counter using the gospels to show how the three are simultaneous manifestations of the One would help communicate the concept of Trinity to Muslims.

[Trumble]

Yes, I was waiting for you to post this verse, as it is your only viable argument you have.

But I am one step ahead of you, since you claim you have made a lifelong study of your bible you should know that in this passage Jesus was speaking metaphorically look at the verses that precede:

The Jews answered him, saying, `For a good work we do not stone thee, but for evil speaking, and because thou, being a man, dost make thyself God.' (john 10:33)

here the Jews began to stone Jesus because they mistakenly believed that Jesus had just claimed himself divinity, and claimed to be God. So Jesus clarifies that he was speaking metaphorically: Jesus answered them, `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? (john 10:34)

Jesus goes on to explain that because he does the righteous work of god, he fits this metaphorical description of the Old Testament that he is a god. But if you believe literally that Jesus claimed to be god from john 10:30, than you are necessarilly admitting to polytheism.

With being so busy being one step ahead, and all, you seem to have forgotten to mention that that interpretation is far from universal.. indeed it is only generally adopted by those with the same agenda as yourself. The alternative perception is that the suggestion that the Jews' belief that Jesus claimed to be God was mistaken is simply not supportable from the text. Jesus does not deny the suggestion; indeed he repeats it - with much the same result!

35. If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, 36. can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37. If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me; 38. but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 (Then) they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.

Why would Jesus withdraw the claim, or claim a misunderstanding, and then make it again?

The final paragraph of yours which I quoted bears little resemblance to what verses 35-39 actually say, it is an interpretation that derives in turn solely from a particular interpretation of verse 34 which is (arguably) not sustainable by the context.

Wrong, ephesians 4:6 only says that the "Father" who is a distinct and separate god from the "son" is one. Saying God is one is different from saying there is only one god. Both statements are true, but without the latter one it is still an open possibility that there are many gods, and paul and the other authors of the new testament clearly believed in at least two gods: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

This is what Ephesians 4: 4-6 actually says (directly transliterated from Nestle-Aland)

one body and one spirit, as also you were called with one hope of the calling of you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, the One over all and through all and in all

I don't recognise in there what you claim it says. Do you? Nothing about "who is a distinct and separate god from the 'son'", and that is not suggested by the context. Is it really credible to read those verses as admitting the existence of multiple gods? Sure, if you are picky about the semantics they don't actually exclude that possibility, but the meaning of the verses is clear - that there is only one God. The words 'one' and 'all' are repeated and emphasised several times for a reason.

Your whole case is based around Biblical interpretations that simply are not shared by those whose belief you are disputing; that may well be inconvenient, but it does suggest you are unlikely to make much progress. No doubt those who share your agenda will be quite happy to share 'your' interpretations, but they would be well advised to look a little deeper before making their minds up :)

[Talha777]

Bismillahi Arrahmani Arraheem

The alternative perception is that the suggestion that the Jews' belief that Jesus claimed to be God was mistaken is simply not supportable from the text. Jesus does not deny the suggestion; indeed he repeats it - with much the same result!
35. If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, 36. can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37. If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me; 38. but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 (Then) they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.
Why would Jesus withdraw the claim, or claim a misunderstanding, and then make it again?
The final paragraph of yours which I quoted bears little resemblance to what verses 35-39 actually say, it is an interpretation that derives in turn solely from a particular interpretation of verse 34 which is (arguably) not sustainable by the context.

The verse we were discussing was John 10:30, which GraceSeeker tried to use as proof that Jesus is the same god as his father: "I and my father are one". But I showed how he was quoting this verse out of context. The context is that Jesus was claiming to have the father in him, and that he is a god in the same sense that the Old Testament calls the Israelites as "gods". (john 10:34). So if Jesus is god in this sense, than so are the Israelites, which would make christianity a polytheistic religion. This is a direct comparison, you cannot say that Jesus is god in a different sense from the israelites, at least from this passage (john 10:30-34).

Look at ephesians 4:4-6, which you yourself quoted: one body and one spirit, as also you were called with one hope of the calling of you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, the One over all and through all and in all

According to christianity, god "the father" is in all, and this is how Jesus is claiming to be god, and why he says even the israelites are gods (john 10:34).

Now let us look at some more errors and flaws with the concept of trinity from the New Testament itself:

IS JESUS IMMUTABLE?
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (hebrews 13:8)

BUT JESUS WAS INFERIOR TO ANGELS?!
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (hebrews 2:9)

IF JESUS IS GOD, THAN HE MUST BE OMNICIENT
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (hebrews 4:13)

...BUT THE BIBLE SAYS HE ISN'T
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (mark 13:32)

JESUS WASN'T ALWAYS THE "SON OF GOD"
So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father (hebrews 5:5)

*Dear christians, these are the verses from your own bible. they completely shatter your religious beliefs into smithereens! You believe that Jesus, whom you claim to be the son of god, is inferior to Angels! (hebrews 2:9) Imagine, Angels, which are the creation of God, have a superior status to Jesus!

[Trumble]

But I showed how he was quoting this verse out of context. The context is that Jesus was claiming to have the father in him, and that he is a god in the same sense that the Old Testament calls the Israelites as "gods". (john 10:34).

No, you produced one interpretation of that verse which creates that context. It has no existence outside that interpretation. I noted in my previous post that it is not the only, or indeed the generally accepted, interpretation and suggested that it might not be a sound one.

Look at ephesians 4:4-6, which you yourself quoted: one body and one spirit, as also you were called with one hope of the calling of you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, the One over all and through all and in all

According to christianity, god "the father" is in all, and this is how Jesus is claiming to be god, and why he says even the israelites are gods (john 10:34).

The "over all and through all and in all" is suitably vague to be interpreted in a variety of ways. I, personally, might even ascribe pantheistic elements to it, but the usual interpretations are that man was created in God's image, and so there is part of him in all of us, all humans are Gods children, God is always there within our hearts, a divine spark in all of us, and so on and so on.

There is no link between the two verses other than the one you created yourself. You can only do that with your chosen interpretation of 10:34-39 and even then there is no direct link; it is a possible reason, no more. You have no idea whether Jesus claimed to be (a) god for that reason, or for some completely different reason - such as actually being one in whatever context you like!

[Grace Seeker]

Essence or substance is nowhere mentioned in John 1:1. Neither can it be clearly discerned that the Word is the same God. As far as I am concerned, two separate gods are mentioned in this verse, the Word that is subject to God (with God), and the Word that is God. Basically, the author believes there are two separate gods, but one of them (the word) is inferior to the other.



I'm not disputing that the author of Philippians doesn't consider Jesus to be God. but even from these verses, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "son" is the same essence as the "Father". Rather, this passage clearly shows Christians have two distinct deities. Read philippians 2:9 carefully. "therefore god also has highly exalted him" if it is the same god, than it would be, god has highly exalted himself It shows that the "Father" is superior to the "Son", and that one god has exalted another god, but they are still separate gods. similarly verse 11 of the same chapter shows the exact same thing.

I will not address the other verses which you have mentioned, because my challenge was very clear: prove to me from the bible that jesus is the same essence as his father and the holy spirit as well that they are one and the same god, not separate and distinct gods.

i will, however, show you that the authors of the new testament believed in separate distinct gods, one the regarded as a father who begot another god, that is entirely distinct and has an entirely different mind and will from the first god. read the following passage carefully:

What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." (matthew 22:42-44)

This clearly shows that the NT believes in two separate gods, and that these two separate gods even communicate with eachother, both of them are "lords", one of them has promised to make retributions against the enemies of the other god.

furthermore, if there is one god, no matter what how many separate and distinct "manifestations" he has, they will all possess the same divine qualites such as omnicience. however, as the New Testament clearly shows, "god the son" is not all knowing, and therefore is an inferior and separate god from "the father" who is omnicient: No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (mark 13:32)

and finally, even if god has three manifestations and one of them is Jesus, than one manifestation cannot be regarded as the god of the other. if this is the case, than it clearly shows that jesus is a separate god from his father: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

The problem with your refutation is that it actually makes our point. The writers of the New Testament did indeed worship more than one person. That seems to be your point. But your claim is this is proof that they worship more than one God. Now prove to me from the text that these multiple persons are also different beings. The New Testament goes on to reassert the Old Testament concept that there is just one God (James 2:19, Romans 3:30, et. al.), even while at the same time we see there to be more than one person who is understood to be God (your above point). So, if there are multiple people worshipped as God and yet only one God, aside from simple disregarding the Bible as corrupted how do you explain this? How, based on the Bible, can you have more than one person worshipped as God -- the Father, Jesus (a.k.a. the Son), and the Spirit all worshipped individually (these verses have been previously given in this thread) -- and yet still say that there is only one God? And remember, your standard is that the proof must come from the text not philosophy or logic.

[Talha777]

The problem with your refutation is that it actually makes our point. The writers of the New Testament did indeed worship more than one person. That seems to be your point. But your claim is this is proof that they worship more than one God. Now prove to me from the text that these multiple persons are also different beings. The New Testament goes on to reassert the Old Testament concept that there is just one God (James 2:19, Romans 3:30, et. al.), even while at the same time we see there to be more than one person who is understood to be God (your above point). So, if there are multiple people worshipped as God and yet only one God, aside from simple disregarding the Bible as corrupted how do you explain this? How, based on the Bible, can you have more than one person worshipped as God -- the Father, Jesus (a.k.a. the Son), and the Spirit all worshipped individually (these verses have been previously given in this thread) -- and yet still say that there is only one God? And remember, your standard is that the proof must come from the text not philosophy or logic.

The orthodox Christian position is that there is one God, but three different persons within it. This is why I quoted: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

you did not even attempt to address this verse from your bible which says the father is the god of the son.

here are additional verses which prove that Jesus himself has a god. this cannot be if there is only one god. so if jesus is god, logically he must be a separate and distinct god from the father:

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (john 20:17)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (ephesians 1:17)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (revelation 1:6)

since when does god worship another god? and you say they are different persons within one god?

[Grace Seeker]

[The verse we were discussing was John 10:30, which GraceSeeker tried to use as proof that Jesus is the same god as his father: "I and my father are one". But I showed how he was quoting this verse out of context. The context is that Jesus was claiming to have the father in him, and that he is a god in the same sense that the Old Testament calls the Israelites as "gods". (john 10:34). So if Jesus is god in this sense, than so are the Israelites, which would make christianity a polytheistic religion. This is a direct comparison, you cannot say that Jesus is god in a different sense from the israelites, at least from this passage (john 10:30-34).

I disagree that you have shown that I took it out of context. What I see is you inventing your own context and then mis-applying it. When Jesus quotes David, he is showing the pharisees that their own scriptures foretold of this person who would be a son of David and also the divine Son of God. So, he is re-asserting that they are right in saying that he is claiming to be God, and he is asking them to accept the possibility that instead of being blasphemous (because in their mind no mere man should claim to be God), that it might in fact be true. And then he cites the events of his ministry to substantiate his claim that it is indeed true, for no mere man could do what he has done, they could only be done through the power of God.

In language a 12-year old could understand, as this has been requested, if we really understand what Jesus is saying here, Jesus is saying, "Yes, I am saying that I am God. You want to stone me because you think that a mere human should not say such a thing. But that is because you assume my claim is false. Consider the other possibility, it could also be true. Look at what you see me do, and then you will know the truth. I actually am who I say I am."

[Grace Seeker]

The orthodox Christian position is that there is one God, but three different persons within it. This is why I quoted: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (ephesians 1:3)

you did not even attempt to address this verse from your bible which says the father is the god of the son.

here are additional verses which prove that Jesus himself has a god. this cannot be if there is only one god. so if jesus is god, logically he must be a separate and distinct god from the father:

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (john 20:17)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (ephesians 1:17)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (revelation 1:6)

since when does god worship another god? and you say they are different persons within one god?

Duh. If there are three persons, and each is God, then yes the Father will God to the Son and the Spirit. Likewise the Son will be God to the Father and the Spirit. And the Spirit will be God to the Son and the Father. And indeed we see this very thing in scripture. But again, I can tell just by the way you write that you are not thinking of just three separate pesonas, but of three separate beings. Prove to me, from scripture that there are not just three separate persons, but three separate beings.

Most 12 year olds are able to get this from the simple analogy of a triangle, or the three forms of water. Why are you struggling so much to understand what we mean by it? You keep wanting me to prove something from the Bible in regard to it, that we don't even assert to be true when we speak of the Trinity. I don't think your problem is that you are denser than a 12-year old. It may be just the opposite, you are too smart for your own good, and are trying to make something different out of the concept of the Trinity than it really is.

[Grace Seeker]

The following quote is from a post that I made earlier at #40. It logically shows that the three entities are separate and unique, not one and the same.



A refutation of this post with a concise counter using the gospels to show how the three are simultaneous manifestations of the One would help communicate the concept of Trinity to Muslims.

Not a refutation at all. This is why we say three persons. There indeed are three distinct persons. But you have only shown one side of the coin. And we would be polytheists were it not for the reaffirmation in scripture that despite this recognition of three different persons who are God that there is still just one God. The doctrine of the Trinity simply is to explain how both can be true at the same time. Obviously, it is not a very good explanation in your mind.

[Phil12123]

BUT JESUS WAS INFERIOR TO ANGELS?!
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (hebrews 2:9)

Dear christians, these are the verses from your own bible. they completely shatter your religious beliefs into smithereens! You believe that Jesus, whom you claim to be the son of god, is inferior to Angels! (hebrews 2:9) Imagine, Angels, which are the creation of God, have a superior status to Jesus!

Wrong. wrong. wrong. Jesus is NOT inferior to Angels. In fact, He is the creator of all the angels, and of everything else.

Why do you take things out of context and think you have shattered anything to smithereens?? I don't know whether to consider it dishonest or just pathetic.

Let's look at Heb. 2:9 in context, which really includes all of chapter one of Hebrews, but for now let's look at chapter two:

Hebrews 2:
1. Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.
2. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward,
3. how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
4. God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
5. For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
6. But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You take care of him?
7. You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of Your hands.
8. You have put all things in subjection under his feet.'' For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
10. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12. saying: "I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will sing praise to You.''
13. And again: "I will put My trust in Him.'' And again: "Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.''
14. Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15. and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
17. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

First the writer considers Man, which God "made a little lower than the angels" (v. 7). Then he changes the subject and considers Jesus, Who also was "made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone." This is talking about the incarnation when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). This is when Jesus, Who was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to equal with God took on the form of a servant---a human body to be like man, made a little lower than the angels. Why? So He could "taste death for everyone" or as Philippians 2:8 says, be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

And from that "made a little lower than the angels" you have the nerve to conclude that Jesus, the creator of the angels, is "inferior" to the angels!!!

Did you read Chapter 1? The writer clearly distinguishes Jesus from the angels and conclusively establishes that He is better than the angels:

Hebrews 1:
1. God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets.
2. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
3. who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4. having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5. For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You''? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son''?
6. But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him.''
7. And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.''
8. But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.''
10. And: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands;
11. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment;
12. Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.''
13. But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool''?
14. Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

Do you not now see from the above that it is utter folly to state your conclusion, that Jesus is inferior to the angels, creatures that HE created and who are commanded to worship HIM?

Personally, I think we Christians deserve an apology for that irresponsible statement.

Peace

[Redeemed]

good, we understand each other.
now you go your way, I go my way :p ;D

bye:D

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace :statisfie

Wrong. wrong. wrong. Jesus is NOT inferior to Angels. In fact, He is the creator of all the angels, and of everything else....Personally, I think we Christians deserve an apology for that irresponsible statement.

Peace

did not read the whole posts ..... No offence , pl. but someone posted a verse that says like this --sins against holy Spirit won't never be forgiven.


What's the meaning of this verse ? sins against father & Jesus (p) can be forgiven but not against holy Spirit ? Does not it give a highter status to him than the other 2 dieties ?


I read Bible long ago....so far as i remember now , always father gave orders & Jesus (p) obeyed .........he never gave father any order . I Don't remember now if Holy Spirit gave Jesus (p) any order or not , but the verse mentioned does give him a higher status as sin against him won't be forgiven .

[Muslim Woman]

bye:D

forever :? Or a short break ?


:thankyou:

[Talha777]

I disagree that you have shown that I took it out of context. What I see is you inventing your own context and then mis-applying it. When Jesus quotes David, he is showing the pharisees that their own scriptures foretold of this person who would be a son of David and also the divine Son of God. So, he is re-asserting that they are right in saying that he is claiming to be God, and he is asking them to accept the possibility that instead of being blasphemous (because in their mind no mere man should claim to be God), that it might in fact be true. And then he cites the events of his ministry to substantiate his claim that it is indeed true, for no mere man could do what he has done, they could only be done through the power of God.In language a 12-year old could understand, as this has been requested, if we really understand what Jesus is saying here, Jesus is saying, "Yes, I am saying that I am God. You want to stone me because you think that a mere human should not say such a thing. But that is because you assume my claim is false. Consider the other possibility, it could also be true. Look at what you see me do, and then you will know the truth. I actually am who I say I am."

I don't care for your explanation especially since it does not address the verse I quoted: `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? (john 10:34)
You did not even attempt to explain who these "gods" are, and why Jesus used this particular Psalm to justify himself claiming to be god. It is evident to any sane person that either Jesus was speaking of himself as god metaphorically, or else Jesus believed he was a god, and there were many gods of the past among the israelites (including David?). If Jesus clearly believed he alone is god, he would not have referenced this psalm.

If there are three persons, and each is God, then yes the Father will God to the Son and the Spirit. Likewise the Son will be God to the Father and the Spirit. And the Spirit will be God to the Son and the Father

Unfortunately for you, your bible only says that Jesus has a god, and it never says, not even once, that jesus is the god of his father, or that the holy spirit is the god of jesus's father. i hope you are not giving up on your commitment to sticking to verses from the bible to explain clearly your concept of the trinity.

but even if what you say is substantiated by your bible, it is still completely illogical and absurd. if there is one god, than no, the different persons within that god (or the different manifestations) cannot logically be gods to eachother.

and finally, the idea that jesus is a minor god and has a superior god (the father) is supported in many verses in scripture: You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (john 14:28)

therefore, your contention that the three persons are equal, and they are all gods to eachother, is not only completely absurd, but directly contradicts what your own bible has to say.

Most 12 year olds are able to get this from the simple analogy of a triangle, or the three forms of water. Why are you struggling so much to understand what we mean by it? You keep wanting me to prove something from the Bible in regard to it, that we don't even assert to be true when we speak of the Trinity. I don't think your problem is that you are denser than a 12-year old. It may be just the opposite, you are too smart for your own good, and are trying to make something different out of the concept of the Trinity than it really is.

first of all, not a single analogy to help explain the trinity has made any sense. secondly, there are not "triangle analogies" in the new testament which explain the trinity, and may i remind you that it is your job to prove directly from your bible everything you believe to be fundamentally true about the trinity.

but since we are on the subject, i will post the following:http://www.answering-christianity.co...three_gods.htm

Muslim: Is Jesus God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Is Jesus the Father?
Christian: No
Muslim: Is the Father God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Is The Father Jesus?
Christian: No
Muslim: So these are 2 different persons?
Christian: Yes, 2 distinct different persons
Muslim: And both are God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Is the Holy Spirit God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Is the Holy Spirit the Father or Jesus?
Christian: No, the Holy Spirit is not
Muslim: So Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: And these are three different persons?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: So you have three persons, each one is God, how many is that?
Christian: Three, opppssss no no I meant One
A Family is made up of more than one member, a Father, Mother, and Son. Yet the family is one family and not three families, the same with Trinity.
This is my favorite analogy, and it is one of the most deceptive analogies. The family statement is true, a family is made up of 2 or more persons, a typical basic family is a Husband, Wife, and son.
But here is the problem, Christians say that each person in the Trinity is God, remember Christians say Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. So therefore using the Christian Trinity doctrine, that would basically mean that the husband is a family, the wife is a family, and the son is also a family!!!!!!! In a family we say that the husband wife and son MAKE UP A FAMILLY, we do not say that each specific member of the family is the family!

[MustafaMc]

Not a refutation at all. This is why we say three persons. There indeed are three distinct persons. But you have only shown one side of the coin. And we would be polytheists were it not for the reaffirmation in scripture that despite this recognition of three different persons who are God that there is still just one God. The doctrine of the Trinity simply is to explain how both can be true at the same time. Obviously, it is not a very good explanation in your mind.

I am sure that is frustrating for you to not be able to show Muslims how "three different persons who are God is still just one God." Until a proof is provided outside of the Bible and Christian theology, I don't see how I or any other Muslim could understand that the human being, Jesus (pbuh), is at the same time God and Son of God. We see God as being that entity called "the Father" that Jesus (pbuh) prayed to and spoke of so often in the NT. I believe that we will have to leave at the point that we agree to disagree.

[Keltoi]

I am sure that is frustrating for you to not be able to show Muslims how "three different persons who are God is still just one God." Until a proof is provided outside of the Bible and Christian theology, I don't see how I or any other Muslim could understand that the human being, Jesus (pbuh), is at the same time God and Son of God. We see God as being that entity called "the Father" that Jesus (pbuh) prayed to and spoke of so often in the NT. I believe that we will have to leave at the point that we agree to disagree.

Until proof is provided outside of the Qu'ran and Muslim theology that the angel Gabriel visited Mohammed and passed on a Message from God....yeah, isn't a very realistic expectation is it?

[MustafaMc]

Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am sure that is frustrating for you to not be able to show Muslims how "three different persons who are God is still just one God." Until a proof is provided outside of the Bible and Christian theology, I don't see how I or any other Muslim could understand that the human being, Jesus (pbuh), is at the same time God and Son of God. We see God as being that entity called "the Father" that Jesus (pbuh) prayed to and spoke of so often in the NT. I believe that we will have to leave at the point that we agree to disagree.

Until proof is provided outside of the Qu'ran and Muslim theology that the angel Gabriel visited Mohammed and passed on a Message from God....yeah, isn't a very realistic expectation is it?

Funny how we hit upon the central points of disagreement so succinctly and perhaps so honestly. These are also essential ellements of our respective faiths that you can never prove yours to me any more than I can prove mine to you.

Peace.

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace :statisfie




did not read the whole posts ..... No offence , pl. but someone posted a verse that says like this --sins against holy Spirit won't never be forgiven.


What's the meaning of this verse ? sins against father & Jesus (p) can be forgiven but not against holy Spirit ? Does not it give a highter status to him than the other 2 dieties ?


I read Bible long ago....so far as i remember now , always father gave orders & Jesus (p) obeyed .........he never gave father any order . I Don't remember now if Holy Spirit gave Jesus (p) any order or not , but the verse mentioned does give him a higher status as sin against him won't be forgiven .

Muslim Woman, go back and find that post. I addressed it shortly afterward. But, for a quit parallel, imagine that someone has knowledge of the Qur'an, but refuses to listen to its teachings. Will Allah have mercy on that person? Won't that person fair worse than those who have no knowledge or those who try to follow but still sometimes fail?

Well, the Holy Spirt's role is to lead us to truth. So, rejecting Jesus is bad, but the work he does in our lives is to grant forgiveness. So, forgiveness is still available, even if we don't accept it. But the Holy Spirit directs us to find the truth and is a light which makes God known to us in so doing. Rejecting the Holy Spirit leaves us living in falsehood and darkness. From that there is no escape except to seek the light and truth which you have rejected. That's what makes rejecting the Holy Spirit worse than rejecting Jesus, also worse than rejecting the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's divine presence in our lives to guide us, and without it we are totally lost and on our own. But no one can find God on their own, we always need God's help to find God and grow in God. So, rejecting the Holy Spirit is sentencing one's self to life without God, forever.

[Phil12123]

did not read the whole posts ..... No offence , pl. but someone posted a verse that says like this --sins against holy Spirit won't never be forgiven.

What's the meaning of this verse ? sins against father & Jesus (p) can be forgiven but not against holy Spirit ? Does not it give a highter status to him than the other 2 dieties ?

I read Bible long ago....so far as i remember now , always father gave orders & Jesus (p) obeyed .........he never gave father any order . I Don't remember now if Holy Spirit gave Jesus (p) any order or not , but the verse mentioned does give him a higher status as sin against him won't be forgiven.

My post was responding solely to the irresponsible statement made that Christ was inferior to the angels. That's all.

The question you mention is another issue, but I will try to respond to it now.

No, it doesn't give a higher status to the Holy Spirit "than the other 2 dieties" because, first of all, they are not 2 other deities. There is only ONE Deity--- ONE God. If you mean the other two Persons of the Trinity, the answer is still no. The issue is the nature of the different sins, not just the different Persons. Actually, I would rather not get too detailed in my answer for fear that I would possibly accuse someone of the unpardonable sin, which is a very heavy burden for anyone to bear. Now, I know you Muslims do it all the time when you accuse us Christians of the unpardonable sin of associating with Allah, but I would rather step lightly and carefully when discussing this matter.

Suffice it to say that the Holy Spirit is the One Who convicts you of your sin and convinces you of your need for the Savior. When you thereafter receive the Son as Savior and Lord, the Holy Spirit comes in to dwell in you and regenerate you, making you a brand new person, cleaning up your life, and empowering you to live a godly life that is pleasing to the Lord. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one can ever be saved, sealed, or sanctified.

The unpardonable sin is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil, which amounts to rejecting not only Christ Whose reception must precede the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit as well. The Pharisees certainly rejected Jesus as Israel's promised Messiah, but more than that, though they knew He "was a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him'' (John 3:2), they nevertheless attributed His casting out of demons to the Devil, the prince of demons. In that state, they would not only be rejecting the only Savior that can save them from their sins, but the Spirit Who regenerates and gives them new life as well.

Someone can speak against the Son, as all of you Muslims have done repeatedly, and be forgiven, after proper repentance and faith in Him, but to also reject the Holy Spirit and consider His regenerating and life-giving work to be of the devil, puts a person beyond forgiveness because they will die in their sins in an unregenerate state, having rejected both the Son and the Spirit, as most of the Pharisees had done.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

I don't care for your explanation especially since it does not address the verse I quoted: `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? (john 10:34)
You did not even attempt to explain who these "gods" are, and why Jesus used this particular Psalm to justify himself claiming to be god. It is evident to any sane person that either Jesus was speaking of himself as god metaphorically, or else Jesus believed he was a god, and there were many gods of the past among the israelites (including David?). If Jesus clearly believed he alone is god, he would not have referenced this psalm.



Unfortunately for you, your bible only says that Jesus has a god, and it never says, not even once, that jesus is the god of his father, or that the holy spirit is the god of jesus's father. i hope you are not giving up on your commitment to sticking to verses from the bible to explain clearly your concept of the trinity.

but even if what you say is substantiated by your bible, it is still completely illogical and absurd. if there is one god, than no, the different persons within that god (or the different manifestations) cannot logically be gods to eachother.

and finally, the idea that jesus is a minor god and has a superior god (the father) is supported in many verses in scripture: You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (john 14:28)

therefore, your contention that the three persons are equal, and they are all gods to eachother, is not only completely absurd, but directly contradicts what your own bible has to say.


first of all, not a single analogy to help explain the trinity has made any sense. secondly, there are not "triangle analogies" in the new testament which explain the trinity, and may i remind you that it is your job to prove directly from your bible everything you believe to be fundamentally true about the trinity.

but since we are on the subject, i will post the following:http://www.answering-christianity.co...three_gods.htm

Question: Are you wanting to learn what it is that Christians believe with regard to these passages? Or do you want to tell us what they mean? You are like a person walking into a furniture store, sitting down at the dining room table there, and asking for a waitress to bring you a menu. Your questions are so far amiss, and then you tell me that I am not addressing the context.


So, from the top with John 10.

John 10
22Then came the Feast of Dedication] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The 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. 30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The pericope begins with the Jews asking Jesus to tell them who he is - "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Notice Jesus' response, "I did." "I did tell you, but you did not believe."

So, what did Jesus tell them? Did he tell them that he was NOT the Christ, or did he tell them that he was the Christ?

Well, to the Jews the Christ (Greek for Messiah, which in English means "anointed one of God") would have been someone sent to them from God. And Jesus basically says, all you have to do is open your eyes and observe what you see to know the answer to that question: Look at the miracles I do in my Father's name; they speak for me.

In other words he is saying, "Yes, I am the Christ. If only you had eyes to see that."

But he goes on to tell them that even though it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, that they can't see it. That they are too blind to see it, and one of the reasons is that really only those who belong to God (Christians talk about the "elect") are going to be able to believe. These Jews, by their vary actions and questions, show that they are not among those who really belong to God (even if they do trace their heritage all the way back to Abraham). If they did, they would see God in what Jesus does and they would not question who he was. Those who belong to him are the same as those who really belong to God as their Father. And vice versa, those who belong to God as their Father are those who belong to him. (Compare these comments of Jesus with John 6:37, 6:42, 8:42, 8:47) It is like with a shepherd, the shepherd speaks and calls to all the sheep at pasture in a field (shepherds would often pasture their flocks with one another, and then separate them at the end of the day by calling to them) and those who belong to the shepherd know his voice and follow him. So, using the analogy, if these Jews really belonged to God like they liked to think that they did, then they would hear Jesus speak his message and recognize it because, as he says, "I and the Father are one."

Now, clearly the Jews understood this to be the equivalent of Jesus saying that he was God. Indeed they say as much when questioned as to why they were about to stone Jesus: "We are not stoning you for any if these [miracles that Jesus had done], but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Well, how should Jesus respond to this charge? What are his options?
1) If it is not true he can simply tell them that he was not saying that he was God. That he was only speaking of the oneness he felt with God when he was doing miracles or how he loved people like God does. Or pretty much make any other sort of statement to a similar effect that they misunderstood what he was saying. But that is not what Jesus chose to say--

Instead Jesus replies with proposing a different way of looking at the issue:
2) He references some of the scripture that they would be familiar witih. The reference is to a Psalm of David, Psalm 82, where God speaking to mere men uses the term "gods" while referring to them. (These supposed "gods" were earthly kings who were accustomed to thinking of themselves as "gods" in relation to their subjects, except now, in the Psalm, they are in the court of the true KING, God, who will judge everyone, including these kings.) If God could speak of mere men that way, what is wrong with Jesus speaking of himself as he did? After all, if he was who he said that he was, then it wasn't blasphemy. It was simply the truth.

Jesus then reasserts his connect with God. If God is going to call "gods" mere mortal men that he calls into court for judgement, what do you think God is going to call the one person he actually anoints as his very own and sends to earth? And then he admits that he has called himself God's son. Now, to me at least, it is clear from the context that Jesus does not mean "son" as in all people are children of God. First the Jews of Jesus' day did not believe that. Yes, they spoke of the Fatherhood of God, but they meant it in a metaphorical sense. Here Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. They saw themselves as specially chosen people. But their chosenness came from being the children of Abraham. No human being could call themselves the progeny of God without it also being the same as making a claim to being divine themselves. And thus Jesus pointed again at his miracles for proof to his divine connection. And then he repeats the very idea that started all of the trouble -- not something you want to do if people have misunderstood you. Jesus is NOT saying that he is some sort of little "god". He is not saying that the Jews are misunderstanding his point about his unique connection with God. He is instead emphasizing it: "Get this. Here is how my statement 'I and the Father are one' works-- the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Even if you don't believe me when I tell you, just look at what you see, the miracles should speak for themselves.

The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, but they would have none of it. If he was going to call himself God's son, claim he was one with the Father, claim that his miracles proved he was from God, then he has gone to far. They didn't believe that he was who he said he was. They believed he was a man, claiming to be God. And so they went to seize him yet again.

Like the Jews, you can claim that Jesus wasn't really God or God's Son if you want to. But to say that Jesus never claimed to be God, just isn't true. He did it here and was clearly understood to have done it here. When called on it, rather than deny it, he affirmed it a second time.

And if you understood the scriptures you would know that Jesus' statement, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) was another example of Jesus making the same statement -- to which, not surprisingly, they picked up stones to stone him on that occassion also. Those who do not see that Jesus did in fact call himself God are simply about as able to see as the Jews in this pericope. Jesus' life is replete with evidence, but they still only see a mere man because they do not belong to him, but to someone else.

[Talha777]

Now, clearly the Jews understood this to be the equivalent of Jesus saying that he was God. Indeed they say as much when questioned as to why they were about to stone Jesus: "We are not stoning you for any if these [miracles that Jesus had done], but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Well, how should Jesus respond to this charge? What are his options?
1) If it is not true he can simply tell them that he was not saying that he was God. That he was only speaking of the oneness he felt with God when he was doing miracles or how he loved people like God does. Or pretty much make any other sort of statement to a similar effect that they misunderstood what he was saying. But that is not what Jesus chose to say--
Instead Jesus replies with proposing a different way of looking at the issue:
2) He references some of the scripture that they would be familiar witih. The reference is to a Psalm of David, Psalm 82, where God speaking to mere men uses the term "gods" while referring to them. (These supposed "gods" were earthly kings who were accustomed to thinking of themselves as "gods" in relation to their subjects, except now, in the Psalm, they are in the court of the true KING, God, who will judge everyone, including these kings.) If God could speak of mere men that way, what is wrong with Jesus speaking of himself as he did? After all, if he was who he said that he was, then it wasn't blasphemy. It was simply the truth.
Jesus then reasserts his connect with God. If God is going to call "gods" mere mortal men that he calls into court for judgement, what do you think God is going to call the one person he actually anoints as his very own and sends to earth? And then he admits that he has called himself God's son. Now, to me at least, it is clear from the context that Jesus does not mean "son" as in all people are children of God. First the Jews of Jesus' day did not believe that. Yes, they spoke of the Fatherhood of God, but they meant it in a metaphorical sense. Here Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. They saw themselves as specially chosen people. But their chosenness came from being the children of Abraham. No human being could call themselves the progeny of God without it also being the same as making a claim to being divine themselves. And thus Jesus pointed again at his miracles for proof to his divine connection. And then he repeats the very idea that started all of the trouble -- not something you want to do if people have misunderstood you. Jesus is NOT saying that he is some sort of little "god". He is not saying that the Jews are misunderstanding his point about his unique connection with God. He is instead emphasizing it: "Get this. Here is how my statement 'I and the Father are one' works-- the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Even if you don't believe me when I tell you, just look at what you see, the miracles should speak for themselves.
The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, but they would have none of it. If he was going to call himself God's son, claim he was one with the Father, claim that his miracles proved he was from God, then he has gone to far. They didn't believe that he was who he said he was. They believed he was a man, claiming to be God. And so they went to seize him yet again.
Like the Jews, you can claim that Jesus wasn't really God or God's Son if you want to. But to say that Jesus never claimed to be God, just isn't true. He did it here and was clearly understood to have done it here. When called on it, rather than deny it, he affirmed it a second time.
And if you understood the scriptures you would know that Jesus' statement, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) was another example of Jesus making the same statement -- to which, not surprisingly, they picked up stones to stone him on that occassion also. Those who do not see that Jesus did in fact call himself God are simply about as able to see as the Jews in this pericope. Jesus' life is replete with evidence, but they still only see a mere man because they do not belong to him, but to someone else.

You completely lost me at this point. You were supposed to explain clearly that Jesus was not claiming to be god in the same sense the Psalm quoted in john 10:34 calls the israelites as "gods". going through your entire post, i did not even find one instance where you could clearly prove the distinction between jesus claiming to be god, and the psalm calling the israelites as god. you tried to prove it contextually, you failed, you tried to prove it by saying jesus claimed to be the messiah, but that will backfire on you.

yes jesus claimed to be the messiah, and if you ask any jew, or better yet, any rabbi, they will tell you that yes the messiah will be someone who will perform great miracles and will be sent from God. the title son of god is not a literal description, it is a metaphorical title of honour, and it has been used many times in the old testament, including genesis 6:4, psalm 82:6. even in the new testament, the title "Sons of God" is used for ordinary humans: matthew 5:9, romans 8:14-19, romans 9:26, galatians 3:26, and hebrews 12:7.

therefore, no matter how many quotes you use of jesus calling himself the son of god, or god is his father, etc., it is not proof at all that he is divine, but actually proves the contrary taking into account how pious people are given the title son of god throughout the bible.

yes, jesus, being the promised messiah, performed many great miracles and exorcisms, including raising people from the dead. this is not proof that he is divine. many prophets of the old testament performed great miracles, such as moses and daniel (peace be upon them).

then you try to use the fact that the new testament claims that jesus was created before abraham as proof that he is god. Islam believes the same thing about the seal of the prophets, Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam):

Once Hazrat Jaabir (radi Allahu anhu) asked the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) whom Allah Ta'ala created before anything else. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) stated: "O Jaabir! Verily, before the creation of anything else, Almighty Allah created the Noor (Light) of your Nabi (Muhammad) from His Noor." (Muwahibul Laduniya; Zirkani Shareef)

But you have yet to provide one solid proof that Jesus is god, the same god as his "Father" according to your own bible. I am giving you such a great opportunity, from genesis to revelation, give me just one verse where you can prove jesus is the one god.

[Talha777]

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion, but it seems you (GraceSeeker) are having a difficult time finding verses to prove that Jesus is the same god as his father, that they are one god. So in order to make the discussion run along smoothly, I have decided to help you out by giving you a few hints:

look up john 1:18 and john 17:11.

[Grace Seeker]

You completely lost me at this point. You were supposed to explain clearly that Jesus was not claiming to be god in the same sense the Psalm quoted in john 10:34 calls the israelites as "gods". going through your entire post, i did not even find one instance where you could clearly prove the distinction between jesus claiming to be god, and the psalm calling the israelites as god. you tried to prove it contextually, you failed, you tried to prove it by saying jesus claimed to be the messiah, but that will backfire on you.

Is it that I failed to make my case, or as with the Jews that Jesus spoke to, that you fail to believe in the evidence that Jesus himself presents? They wanted to stone him for his false claims. You want to dismiss him as having not made any claims. I prefer to believe him for having made claims that are true.

yes jesus claimed to be the messiah, and if you ask any jew, or better yet, any rabbi, they will tell you that yes the messiah will be someone who will perform great miracles and will be sent from God. the title son of god is not a literal description, it is a metaphorical title of honour, and it has been used many times in the old testament, including genesis 6:4, psalm 82:6. even in the new testament, the title "Sons of God" is used for ordinary humans: matthew 5:9, romans 8:14-19, romans 9:26, galatians 3:26, and hebrews 12:7.

Every time that the title "Son of God" (or "Son of Man" for that matter) is used it is being used metaphorically. But what is the metaphor? Someitmes it is simply to say that we are children of God, brothers and sisters in the family of God. But not every time. And when Jesus uses it in this case, the grammatical construction of the Greek that John tells the story in, indicates that Jesus was saying that he was the Son of God in exactly the sense that Muslims say that he never would have said. So your best argument is that Jesus never actually said those words. Either that this was an invention of another who didn't know -- except that it was written down by John, one who has among the closest companions of Jesus -- or you can claim that since Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and John wrote in Greek that we can't know exactly what he said. But again, John is the one who wrote it down, and if Jesus had meant it to be understood differently could have chosen a different way to express what Jesus says. So, John wants us also to understand that Jesus was indeed claiming to be God's unique son. Not just one of many, like all other humans, but the unique one belonging to the Father, because he comes from the Father.

Argue that you don't believe it to be true all you want. Argue that someone later changed it after John wrote it. But that is THE Jesus that is presented to us in John's gospel over and over again. If you don't see it, don't say that it isn't there, just admit that you are blind.

then you try to use the fact that the new testament claims that jesus was created before abraham as proof that he is god. Islam believes the same thing about the seal of the prophets, Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam):[

What can I say? Just another thing that we believe differently about. No human being can be created before the beginning. To be from before the beginning is to be divine.

But you have yet to provide one solid proof that Jesus is god, the same god as his "Father" according to your own bible. I am giving you such a great opportunity, from genesis to revelation, give me just one verse where you can prove jesus is the one god.

No, I haven't proved that Jesus is God. What I have shown for those who have eyes to see is that Jesus claimed to be God. But for one more verse where it is plainly stated, but I am assured that you will still not see it, try 1 John 5:20 -- "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He [which refers to Jesus as the immediate antecedent for the pronoun] is the true God and eternal life."

Let me parse the key sentence for you:
Subject -- He (Jesus)
Verb -- is
Direct Object -- God
Adjective modifying "God" -- true
conjunction -- and
2nd Direct Object -- life
Adjective modifying "life" --eternal.

The simple form of the sentence: He (Jesus) is God.

Now, in truth in the Greek the pronoun is not "he" it is "ουτος", which might more literally be translated "this one", but either way it still refers back to Jesus for its antecedent. John is telling us that Jesus is God, and not just any old God or some lesser God or "little" God, but the true God. And furthermore, Jesus is also eternal life. That is the proclamation. You don't have to believe it to be true. But you do have to believe that it is what it says if you're going to want anything to think you are credible in any other testimony you should ever give as to what people mean, say or do.

[Redeemed]

forever :? Or a short break ?


:thankyou:

no, I was saying bye to the individual I posted to. Not to you:)

[Grace Seeker]

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion, but it seems you (GraceSeeker) are having a difficult time finding verses to prove that Jesus is the same god as his father, that they are one god. So in order to make the discussion run along smoothly, I have decided to help you out by giving you a few hints:

look up john 1:18 and john 17:11.

I don't find this an interesting conversation. I find it a sad conversation. When I have a conversation with some of the more mature thinking persons on this forum, I find that we do not always agree, but their response is usually that while they disagree with me, that they can usually see why I have arrived at the conclusions and beliefs I have. But you are unable to see anything except through your own set of preconceptions. You continually force verses to be interpreted falsely and won't accept the wisdom of others (not just me but many others, the interpretations of the ages) that show you that these words are understood differently, and were written to say something different than you, in error, try to force them to say.

Reading your statements that I have proved nothing, when I'm not trying to prove anything, only stating what Christians see in these verses, makes me think of the saying:
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You do not need to accept my teaching. But to deny that this was the intent of the author makes me doubt your credibilty in other things that you might seek to explain to me in the future. You are merely a dogmatic individual. One who thinks as preprogrammed to think. And not worthy of seeking to have truly intellectual conversation with, because you are incapable of the crucial element of give and take and seeing things through another's eyes. It is not your beliefs that I find repulsive, it is your manner. I despise them among Christians when I encounter them; I now see that they are no more attractive on a Muslim either.



Now, for those others who actually care to hear, some information that you may or may not have considered.

One of the chief, and reasonable, arguments challenging the concept of the Trinity is that Jesus sees himself as less than the Father. That he worships and prays to the Father. That he says that he is sent from the Father. And that He does nothing of his own accord, but only that which is given to him by the Father. One totally reasonable way to understand this is that Jesus is a servant of the Father. And one might therefore conclude that if a servant, then Jesus could not be equal with the Father, and certainly could not himself be God. Muslims do believe that if Jesus was truly God that he would ALWAYS be omniscent, ALWAYS be omnipotent, ALWAYS be all that they understand to be true of ALLAH.

Well, YES, indeed GOD is always all of those things. But God also has the power to limit himself in those areas as well. Example: a person is about to commit haraam. Allah is omniscient and knows this. Allah wills for a person to not commit haraam. Allah is omnipotent and can make a person do what ever Allah wills for that person. The goes ahead and actually commits haraam. Why is that? Is it because:

a) Allah actually willed for the person to commit haraam.
b) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam but was unable to stop it.
c) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam, was able to stop it, and yet choose not to exercise his power to stop it.

The anwser, of course, is C. Allah limited his omnipotence in order to allow the person to exercise their free will -- which in our example they exercised unwisely. So, while God is always all powerful, God can also limit his exercise of that power.

Now, this is exactly what Christians say is true with regard to Jesus. In his human life on earth, Jesus voluntarily shared in our natural limitations. He experienced life like any other human being. So, though divine, the human Jesus was in fact relating to God the Father just like any other human would. After he rose from the dead, jesus returned to the glory he had with the Father before he came to earth (Philippians 2:9-11, John 17:5). In that restored glory, Jesus was able to send the Holy Spirit and empower his disciples to do even greater works than he did while he was here in the flesh (John 14:12, 14:26-28).


Another well-thought out objection: 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that even in the culmination of all things that the Son will be made subject to God the Father. If Jesus is God, and this is after the resurrection, why will this be?

Jesus humbly and voluntarily submits himself to the Father's will. We find in the internal relationships of the Godhead a relationship that serves as a typology for all human relationships, namely that we be submissive, one to another (Ephesians 5:21). We see Jesus' submission in his willingness to come to earth and even though he is God take on the nature of a servant (Philippians 2:7). For God, this is equal to make himself nothing, yet he willingly does it. But because he submits himself in this way does not make him any less the pre-existent and eternal Son, co-equal with God the Father. Just as a wife who submits to her husband in the nature of their relationship with one another does not become inferior to her husband by doing so. Jesus is NOT inferior to the Father; he is NOT a "little god". The Son is still all that he ever was and will be, that does not change simply because he submits in his relationship with the Father.

[vpb]

Now, this is exactly what Christians say is true with regard to Jesus. In his human life on earth, Jesus voluntarily shared in our natural limitations. He experienced life like any other human being. So, though divine, the human Jesus was in fact relating to God the Father just like any other human would. After he rose from the dead, jesus returned to the glory he had with the Father before he came to earth (Philippians 2:9-11, John 17:5).

we have already discussed the logic example of being mortal and immortal at the same time. and it fails.

Jesus humbly and voluntarily submits himself to the Father's will. We find in the internal relationships of the Godhead a relationship that serves as a typology for all human relationships, namely that we be submissive, one to another (Ephesians 5:21). We see Jesus' submission in his willingness to come to earth and even though he is God take on the nature of a servant (Philippians 2:7). For God, this is equal to make himself nothing, yet he willingly does it. But because he submits himself in this way does not make him any less the pre-existent and eternal Son, co-equal with God the Father. Just as a wife who submits to her husband in the nature of their relationship with one another does not become inferior to her husband by doing so. Jesus is NOT inferior to the Father; he is NOT a "little god". The Son is still all that he ever was and will be, that does not change simply because he submits in his relationship with the Father.

why do u distort with your own mouth the oneness of God by claiming that he had a son??? have u ever contemplated enough about God having a son??? or God being in human flesh???? God is in no need of a son or anything. He has power over all things. Everything he created are own by Him. I can't understand how you guys don't percept this and just twist it and subtitute it with something that is not even explainable??

Surah Tawba 9:31-32

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

[Keltoi]

we have already discussed the logic example of being mortal and immortal at the same time. and it fails.

why do u distort with your own mouth the oneness of God by claiming that he had a son??? have u ever contemplated enough about God having a son??? or God being in human flesh???? God is in no need of a son or anything. He has power over all things. Everything he created are own by Him. I can't understand how you guys don't percept this and just twist it and subtitute it with something that is not even explainable??

Surah Tawba 9:31-32

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

God has no need for human beings either, but He still saw fit to create them. Although I don't know how a human being can presume to know what God "needs" or wants. Have I "contemplated" why God would go to such lengths to grant me forgiveness? Many, many, many times. Makes more sense to me each time I contemplate it. Of course, being in agreement with God is like a raindrop being in agreement with a thunderstorm. To you it is "unexplainable", but to me it is my faith. A faith I am very comfortable with. Grace Seeker, as always, has done a thorough job of explaining from where our faith is derived. Accept that it is our faith, and that our faith comes from the Word of Christ, as we see it. Nobody is asking you to convert, only to understand the roots of our faith.

[vpb]

God has no need for human beings either, but He still saw fit to create them. Although I don't know how a human being can presume to know what God "needs" or wants.

well you seem you can't make the difference between "I want to" and "I need to".

We need water cuz we can't live without it
but We don't choocolate cuz we can live without it. but we buy it bc we like it, and just to please our selves but no bc we can't live without choocolate. so God is not in need of a son , nor of our worship, but he just created us so we please him.

Have I "contemplated" why God would go to such lengths to grant me forgiveness? Many, many, many times. Makes more sense to me each time I contemplate it. Of course, being in agreement with God is like a raindrop being in agreement with a thunderstorm. To you it is "unexplainable", but to me it is my faith. A faith I am very comfortable with. Grace Seeker, as always, has done a thorough job of explaining from where our faith is derived.

:) You like to not work anything , and just recieve salvation?? is that what prevents from contemplating about the question, lol everyone likes free money without working, but not possible. :)

Accept that it is our faith, and that our faith comes from the Word of Christ, as we see it. Nobody is asking you to convert, only to understand the roots of our faith.

we do you guys always jump on about the word 'convert', it's not here about converting , it's about telling what is right, which has already been made clear from error, but......

[Redeemed]

well you seem you can't make the difference between "I want to" and "I need to".

We need water cuz we can't live without it
but We don't choocolate cuz we can live without it. but we buy it bc we like it, and just to please our selves but no bc we can't live without choocolate. so God is not in need of a son , nor of our worship, but he just created us so we please him.

:) You like to not work anything , and just recieve salvation?? is that what prevents from contemplating about the question, lol everyone likes free money without working, but not possible. :)

we do you guys always jump on about the word 'convert', it's not here about converting , it's about telling what is right, which has already been made clear from error, but......

We show our faith by our works, but we do not put our faith in our works, because there is no amount of good works we could ever do to earn eternal life. It is written: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life NO one comes to the Father but by ME" Jesus said it; I believe it, and that settles it. :)

[جوري]

nice.. how did those words sound like in Aramaic?

[vpb]

We show our faith by our works, but we do not put our faith in our works, because there is no amount of good works we could ever do to earn eternal life. It is written: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life NO one comes to the Father but by ME" Jesus said it; I believe it, and that settles it.

we have already discussed about the thing on working good deeds and getting to paradise, which there is no need to discuss again but the fact that you recieve salvation just by accepting that Jesus died for you sins on the cross.. is what stops you contemplating the right way, bc you like to have that type of gift, that u just believe it and u're saved. It is true that at your work if you say to your boss "ye I believe I can do it" , but you don't do it, then you will probably end up being fired if u do that 2 or 3 times. and humans by nature love free things, and you see many people buying lotto tickets, and they spend all their life, but 99% of them never win, bc they like free stuff, while other people work hard, and get the same amount of money . So the thing is that this idea of salvation by just believing on Jesus's crussifiction, is what prevents you from contemplating about that question on the right way, and is what makes you disstort the oneness of God, by ending up ascribing son to Him . God is perfect, he doesn't mix with human anomalities.

[Phil12123]

we have already discussed about the thing on working good deeds and getting to paradise, which there is no need to discuss again but the fact that you recieve salvation just by accepting that Jesus died for you sins on the cross.. is what stops you contemplating the right way, bc you like to have that type of gift, that u just believe it and u're saved. It is true that at your work if you say to your boss "ye I believe I can do it" , but you don't do it, then you will probably end up being fired if u do that 2 or 3 times. and humans by nature love free things, and you see many people buying lotto tickets, and they spend all their life, but 99% of them never win, bc they like free stuff, while other people work hard, and get the same amount of money . So the thing is that this idea of salvation by just believing on Jesus's crussifiction, is what prevents you from contemplating about that question on the right way, and is what makes you disstort the oneness of God, by ending up ascribing son to Him . God is perfect, he doesn't mix with human anomalities.

You seem to be mixing two issues here but perhaps they are related. We already discussed, as you point out, that Muslims are depending in part on their good works to get them to Heaven, while Christians are depending on Christ's redemptive Work as payment for their sins and the gift of eternal life given to all who believe. But then you use an analogy of a job, which really does not relate. Of course on the job a worker has to work or he will get fired. Is that how you see your Heaven? Something you get at the end of your life for working hard and earning it. If that is the case, you would deserve Heaven for all your work, right? But we agreed to those 9 statements, one of which is:

4. No sinner can work enough, or do anything, or be "good" enough, to deserve Heaven.

But then you say, "this idea of salvation by just believing on Jesus's [crucifixion], is what prevents you from contemplating about that question on the right way." Not so. The "right way" to Heaven is Jesus. The "right way" to live our life down here while we're on our way to Heaven, is what would please Jesus, as we are led and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The "right way" when it comes to the doctrine of God and His nature and attributes is that taught by the Word of God as revealed by the Spirit of God, as He leads and guides us into all Truth.

Consider this: If you have the doctrine of God correct (His oneness, etc.), why is it that you are so wrong on the "right way" to get to Heaven? There is NO WAY a zillion good works will make a bit of difference when it comes to having ANY of your sins forgiven. You're still relying on your repentance and Allah's mercy to get ANY of your sins forgiven, and even that you have no assurance of till it's too late.

So, if I were non-Christian and non-Muslim and viewed both religions from a neutral position, I might think the Trinity is too hard for me to understand, but I sure enough would KNOW that I wasn't going to be sure of Heaven the Muslim way, working myself and hoping for mercy without any real promise of it, and with no one paying for my sins but ME if that mercy did not come.

Knowing here and NOW my sins (past, present and future) are all forgiven, paid for in full, gives me peace, joy and happiness that you will never know about if you stay on your "right way."

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

nice.. how did those words sound like in Aramaic?

I don't get your point???

True, Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic as his native language, and would have probably actually spoken these words in Aramaic, not English. But in the same way that I generally trust the quality of the scholarship of the translators to properly translate from the Greek in which this was originally written to English (yep, most of the time I depend on translators, though I can read the Greek if I feel a need to look something up in it), I also trust John in writing it in Greek to properly record in Greek what it was that Jesus said in Aramaic. And it is wonderful for you that you can read the Qur'an in its original Arabic. But, I don't feel any great loss in just having Jesus' words in Greek. Let me explain why.

I spent the summer of 2005 living in Chile. During that time my host family and I had many conversations about hundreds of things -- all of them in Spanish. I got home and my family and friends wanted to hear about my experiences, but they don't speak Spanish. Now, when I share one of the conversations I had with my "sister" Kattia with my wife, I report: Kattia said, "___________". What should I fill in the blank with, the original Spanish phrase or an English phrase? In truth, when talking to my wife, I'm only thinking in English, and I even remember Kattia's words as if she had spoken them in English. My wife trusts me to provide her a faithful rendering of what it is that Kattia and I said to one another, the actual words are not nearly as significant to her as the nature of our conversation. When there is something significant in the language or cultural context, I stop the narration of the conversation and explain that element to her and, once done with that, then return to sharing the conversation with her again. Now I am sure you understand that already from your own personal experience of speaking multiple lanuages.

John does the same thing for those he wrote to faithfully rendering the conversations he had in Aramaic with Jesus in Greek for his Greek understanding readers. I trust him to be at least as good at this as I am for he actually grow up in a multi-lingual world. The only question pertinent then is what is the quality of the translation from Greek to English? If you'll trust my Greek, I would say it is pretty good. The particular verse in question is one that is very straightforward in the Greek, so there is little room for questioning how it should translate into English.

[Talha777]

Bismillahi Arrahmani Arraheem
(In the Name of Allah; the Most Beneficient; the Most Merciful)

Alhamdulillah, this is my 300th post, so by the grace of Allah, I hope to make it a worthy one. Satan is constantly trying to lead astray the Believers, he injects poisonous doctrines to confuse us about the most fundamental and essential belief of all - the absolutely Oneness and Unity of God Almighty. The Oneness of Allah is so important to understand and believe in, and any belief or practice which in the very least derails or degrades this unity is clear and manifest idolatry. Idolatry in turn is the root of sin, the root of man's transgression:

For ye do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return. (Al-Ankabut 29:17)

The trinity is another transgression against the absolute and perfect Oneness of Allah. Like all false and satanic doctrines, it makes no sense and is completely illogical. So compare what Allah teaches and makes clear with that which Satan tries to deceive man, and you will see that Truth prevails, but falsehood always suffers defeat and shatters to pieces. May Allah Taala grant victory to the Believers, and may He destroy Christianity. Ameen.

In response to GraceSeeker:

Every time that the title "Son of God" (or "Son of Man" for that matter) is used it is being used metaphorically. But what is the metaphor? Someitmes it is simply to say that we are children of God, brothers and sisters in the family of God. But not every time. And when Jesus uses it in this case, the grammatical construction of the Greek that John tells the story in, indicates that Jesus was saying that he was the Son of God in exactly the sense that Muslims say that he never would have said. So your best argument is that Jesus never actually said those words. Either that this was an invention of another who didn't know -- except that it was written down by John, one who has among the closest companions of Jesus -- or you can claim that since Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and John wrote in Greek that we can't know exactly what he said. But again, John is the one who wrote it down, and if Jesus had meant it to be understood differently could have chosen a different way to express what Jesus says. So, John wants us also to understand that Jesus was indeed claiming to be God's unique son. Not just one of many, like all other humans, but the unique one belonging to the Father, because he comes from the Father.
Argue that you don't believe it to be true all you want. Argue that someone later changed it after John wrote it. But that is THE Jesus that is presented to us in John's gospel over and over again. If you don't see it, don't say that it isn't there, just admit that you are blind.

Yes, it is true we Muslims don't care for the writings and postulations of this John. Not to speak of the rest of the New Testament, we don't even care for the four so called "Gospels". The Holy Quran says we believe in the real and true Gospel of Jesus Christ (alaihi salaam), not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Furthermore, even the quotes and words of Jesus in these four "gospels" are not completely reliable, as you have correctly pointed out, they are Greek translations of his teachings in Aramaic, which adds further doubt and skepticism to their authenticity.

Nevertheless, my original challenge is very fair to you, in fact you have the advantage in it. I as a Muslim don't even believe in your New Testament, yet I have asked you to show me even one verse in your entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, which perspicuously states that Jesus is The God (capital G), and is one and the same as the "Father". This challenge still stands, and you have failed miserably to even address it. It seems you are reluctant to take on this challenge. No doubt, it is a very fair and honest challenge. You believe Jesus is God, that he is the same God as his "Father", the One and Only true God. You believe this to be your concept of the "trinity". Obviously such a strange and unique belief must be substantiated by the Bible which you believe in. Yet many of us Muslims are surprised that such a fundamental belief of your is not at all clearly spelled out in your scripture. In fact, I will clearly show you with many proofs and passages from your Bible that Jesus is a distinct and separate "deity" from "God the Father". I have already quoted many verses to this effect, which you completely ignored, nevertheless I will quote many new verses.

Now you are saying something that the Greek grammatical construct of John's writings prove that Jesus is God, in an altogether different sense than what Psalm 82 says about the Israelites: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' (John 10:34)

Please explain who these "gods" are, and why Jesus quoted this Psalm to justify his claim that he and the father are one (John 10:30). Upon hearing this claim of Jesus, his enemies began to stone him, accusing him of blasphemy. Now if Jesus really is God, the One and Only, he wouldn't have tried to justify himself or clarify what he meant, he would have simply said: "Yes I'm God, live with it" or something to that effect. Instead, we clearly see that Jesus clarified the nature of his claim by quoting Pslam 82. Until and unless you address this, you cannot use John 10:30 as proof that Jesus is God, one and the same with the "Father". You are talking about Greek grammatical construct, but you have yet to explain this grammar, so please do so.

But since we are on the subject of Greek grammar and John, let me point you and my Muslim brothers to the infamous John 1:1:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Here is the literal English rendering: In beginning) was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word

Notice two different Greek words are used, one for "the God", and the other for the "Word", which is called as "a god". It will also interest you and my Muslim brothers that John 1:1 is a plagiarization on the ideas of the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo, who predated both Jesus and John, who came up with the concept of logos (word).

try 1 John 5:20 -- "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He [which refers to Jesus as the immediate antecedent for the pronoun] is the true God and eternal life."

Again you will have to explain it in Greek grammar, because the English grammar of the translation you are giving is pretty ambiguous. He can refer to God or the "son of God" (Jesus). If you examine the verse, however, it is yet another proof that Jesus is clearly distinct from the "Father", and the two are completely separate gods (if he is referring to Jesus, which is debatable).

"And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ"

His is the pronoun referring to God, another clear proof that the Son is not the same as God (or Father), because "his" is possessive, and the "son" is the possession.

And no matter how many verses in the New Testament you come up with which you think shows that God is one, you cannot overlook the fact that Jesus is never called as God (The God) in the Bible. On the contrary, the New Testament makes a clear distinction between Jesus as "Lord" and the Father as the only one "God":

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (1 Corinthians 8:6)

The concept of trinity is the each person (Father, son, holy spirit) is God, but this verse clearly refutes such a falsehood by unequivocally proclaiming that only the “Father” is God.

Finally, I had suggested to you two verses from the New Testament that you might want to use to prove your case that Jesus is the same God as the Father, that they are one and the same. For some reason, however, you did not take my suggestion, but nevertheless I would like to talk about those verses, because the Muslims might become curious about them:

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18)

This wording of this verse does indeed prove that Jesus, who is mentioned as being at the Father's side, is "God the One and Only". However, this verse seems to be an interpolation/fabrication. Different manuscripts have an alternative wording to the phrase "God the One and Only", which is the "only Son" and not one and only God. The fact that a formula of Christology in the New Testament seems to have been interpolated, and that different manuscripts have different wordings which completely alter the meaning, having completely different implications for Christian belief tells me that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the New Testament.

The other verse says: I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. (John 17:11)

Jesus says that he and is father are one, but compares that unity to the unity of different individual disciples, which again shows that this is a metaphorical unity Jesus is talking about, as he was evidently talking about in John 10:30. Furthermore, if you read the rest of John chapter 17, you will see how Jesus compares his relationship with God with the relationship amongst the disciples:

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 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. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." (John 17:16-26)

This whole passage, which is ironically authored by John (or attributed to him), basically proves that whenever Jesus has been speaking about his Father as being one with him, or that he is in the father and the father is in him, he was saying it in a metaphorical sense. Similarly, Jesus compares him being sent by the Father to him personally sending out his disciples. And what did Jesus send his disciples to do? To share the good news of his gospel, his teachings and revelations from God. Similarly, God sent Jesus to share the message which He revealed to him. And regarding Jesus being the "Son of God", you claim this is a literal description of him, that he was truly "begotten" by the Father, and for others it is a metaphorical description but they are not begotten or born of the Father like Jesus. However, as usual, the Bible proves you wrong:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)

So in the end I pray that may Allah Taala help the misguided to see the Light and the Truth, to identify the Seal of Prophets whom He has sent as a Giver of Glad Tidings and a Warner, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (Sallallahu alaihi wa salaam). May they accept him, and may they believe in the Final Testament the Holy Quran, wherein Allah Taala says:

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Al-Maidah 5:73)

[vpb]

yet I have asked you to show me even one verse in your entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, which perspicuously states that Jesus is The God (capital G), and is one and the same as the "Father". This challenge still stands, and you have failed miserably to even address it. It seems you are reluctant to take on this challenge

he is trying to sneak through the discussion :p

The trinitarian believes a virgin to be the mother of a son who is her maker.

loll i like this sentence :)

[Ubaidah]

Just some things I've found about the Trinity.

Some Christian traditions either reject the doctrine of the Trinity, or consider it unimportant. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves as "Nontrinitarians." They can vary in both their reasons for rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they describe God.

Criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine

Nontrinitarians commonly refer to the following points in objection to Trinitarian teaching.

* That it does not follow the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled.
* That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.
* That it is paradoxical and therefore not in line with reason.
* That it reflects the influence of pagan religions, some of which have divine triads of their own.
* That the doctrine contradicts the Holy Scriptures, such as when Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is, or the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."[41]
* That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God's person (hypostasis).
* That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible.
* Three persons in one or a personal Trinity suggests polytheism.

[Grace Seeker]

Now you are saying something that the Greek grammatical construct of John's writings prove that Jesus is God, in an altogether different sense than what Psalm 82 says about the Israelites: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' (John 10:34)

Please explain who these "gods" are, and why Jesus quoted this Psalm to justify his claim that he and the father are one (John 10:30). Upon hearing this claim of Jesus, his enemies began to stone him, accusing him of blasphemy. Now if Jesus really is God, the One and Only, he wouldn't have tried to justify himself or clarify what he meant, he would have simply said: "Yes I'm God, live with it" or something to that effect.

He didn't quote the Psalm to justify his statement that he and the Father are one. That is why I keep saying telling you that you are reading this whole thing wrong.

Instead, we clearly see that Jesus clarified the nature of his claim by quoting Pslam 82. Until and unless you address this, you cannot use John 10:30 as proof that Jesus is God, one and the same with the "Father".

I have addressed it three times. I just haven't addressed it in a way which satisfies you. So, last time, because I leave on Wednesday for a week.

The use of Psalm 82 is a Jewish type of argument. The psalm is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and to defend the poor and the innocent. In doing so, God speaks to these judges and God says, "I say that you are "gods", sons of the Most High, all of you." The judge is commissioned by God to judge men, he is therefore in essence like a god to other men. So, men who are merely in positions of authority as judges over other men are called sometimes referred to in the scriptures as "gods" -- for another example see Exodus 22:9 for another example of this where the plural term elohim, usually translated singularly as "God" is in this instance translated as "judges". Thus we see that men who were specifically commissioned to some task by God were sometimes called gods, even in scripture. So, as the Jews are accusing him of being a mere man and yet calling himself God is committing blasphemy, Jesus reminds them that it is indeed scriptural for a person who is commissioned by God to do so. If that is their charge against him, they don't have a case, unless of course, they don't recognize his special commissioning. "Are you the Christ?" they have asked him. "Look at my works," is Jesus' response. But because they haven't responsed to those works, he makes a declarative statement, "I and the Father are one." The subsequent stoning the Jews are going to do is in response to that. Jesus use of the Psalm is in response to the stoning, not an explanation of his statement. "What is wrong with a mere man claiming to be God, if we see this very thing being declared of mere men by God himself in the scriptures?", putting the question back on them, not explaining away his comment is how Jesus uses the Psalm.

My reference to Greek grammar in this passage was specifically to Jesus' statement in verse 36, "I am God's son." This is a quote within a quote, Jesus quoting the Jews who have attributed the statement to Jesus. Jesus does not deny having made that type of statement. He merely challenges them to believe it or not believe it based on what they see of his actions, even if they won't believe his words. Exactly what you have asked for in asking, why didn't he do something to the effect of saying, "I am God, live with it."?

Now the grammar of that simple statement "I am God's son," is equally simple in Greek: υιος του θεου ειμι.
υιος is in the nominative case. Normally a noun in the nominative case would be the subject of the sentence, but in this sentence the subject is contained within the verb itself, so this is a predicate nominative.
There is no article. Now there is no indefinite article in Greek so it can be either "a son" or simply "son".
του θεου is in the genitive case which expresses relationship. Thus "son" belongs to "god", which does have the definite article "the" attached to it. (I'm using small "g" because if Greek doesn't use capitalization as we do in English, and we get that we mean "God" not "god" from the context and applying English grammar rules, not Greek grammar.)
ειμι is the present indicative of the verb "to be" in the first person singular, thus it translates "I am".

So, a very wooden transaltion would be "son of the god I am". Putting that sentence into proper English form it becomes simply, "I am God's Son." In terms of my statement that this particular use of the term in this verse said something grammatically about Jesus being THE son of God vs. being simply any old "a son" of God, I am going to have to retract that statement. I made it thinking of the phrase "Son of God" as a whole, which I do think is used to make a claim for Jesus divinity, but we will have to take that up in another thread. As I said above, there is no article in this sentence. As Greek does not have an indefinite article, when the noun is in the nominative singular, one cannot automatically assume that it should be either with or without the indefinite article. And context here does not help us with that determination.


Now that brings us to that wondeful John 1:1 where you believe that we need to insert the indefinite article. I would love to discuss it, but time is getting away from me, and certainly given that this single verse has been discussed for centuries, we can wait till I return to address it.

I do want to briefly address one other comment you made, though:

If you examine the verse, however, it is yet another proof that Jesus is clearly distinct from the "Father", and the two are completely separate gods (if he is referring to Jesus, which is debatable).

"And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ"

His is the pronoun referring to God, another clear proof that the Son is not the same as God (or Father), because "his" is possessive, and the "son" is the possession.

It IS VERY TRUE that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct persons. If we were claiming that they were all one person, then what we would be talking about is schizoprenia. The whole concept of the Trinity was in answer to the question that the early church had to ask itself: How can we worship BOTH God the Father and God the Son, who are clearly two different persons, and still claim that we worship just one God? And that answer was to recognize there is a distinction of 3 separate persons. The Son is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Son. Nor is the Holy Spirit the Father nor the Son. They are three separate and distinct personages. We are not making them one in that sense. But we are saying that even though they are three distinct and separate persons that we are not talking about three separate gods. So, proving that the Father and the Son are both God and separate persons is something we would agree with. What we do not agree with is that in proving that statement that you have proved that they are separate gods. We submit to you that even in the reality of having three distinctly separate persons who are each themselves God, that we still have just one being who is God, a being that is himself three persons and yet just one being. As long as you look at each person as a separate being you will not understand the concept of the Trinity. And we Christians will come alongside you to reject as polytheism any belief which proposes that Jesus is a God separate and independent of the Father who is another God. We reject that, for even though we know that Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God, yet we also know that God is one and that there is no other God than the one God. That is what we mean when we say Trinity.

[Redeemed]

He didn't quote the Psalm to justify his statement that he and the Father are one. That is why I keep saying telling you that you are reading this whole thing wrong.

I have addressed it three times. I just haven't addressed it in a way which satisfies you. So, last time, because I leave on Wednesday for a week.

The use of Psalm 82 is a Jewish type of argument. The psalm is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and to defend the poor and the innocent. In doing so, God speaks to these judges and God says, "I say that you are "gods", sons of the Most High, all of you." The judge is commissioned by God to judge men, he is therefore in essence like a god to other men. So, men who are merely in positions of authority as judges over other men are called sometimes referred to in the scriptures as "gods" -- for another example see Exodus 22:9 for another example of this where the plural term elohim, usually translated singularly as "God" is in this instance translated as "judges". Thus we see that men who were specifically commissioned to some task by God were sometimes called gods, even in scripture. So, as the Jews are accusing him of being a mere man and yet calling himself God is committing blasphemy, Jesus reminds them that it is indeed scriptural for a person who is commissioned by God to do so. If that is their charge against him, they don't have a case, unless of course, they don't recognize his special commissioning. "Are you the Christ?" they have asked him. "Look at my works," is Jesus' response. But because they haven't responsed to those works, he makes a declarative statement, "I and the Father are one." The subsequent stoning the Jews are going to do is in response to that. Jesus use of the Psalm is in response to the stoning, not an explanation of his statement. "What is wrong with a mere man claiming to be God, if we see this very thing being declared of mere men by God himself in the scriptures?", putting the question back on them, not explaining away his comment is how Jesus uses the Psalm.

My reference to Greek grammar in this passage was specifically to Jesus' statement in verse 36, "I am God's son." This is a quote within a quote, Jesus quoting the Jews who have attributed the statement to Jesus. Jesus does not deny having made that type of statement. He merely challenges them to believe it or not believe it based on what they see of his actions, even if they won't believe his words. Exactly what you have asked for in asking, why didn't he do something to the effect of saying, "I am God, live with it."?

Now the grammar of that simple statement "I am God's son," is equally simple in Greek: υιος του θεου ειμι.
υιος is in the nominative case. Normally a noun in the nominative case would be the subject of the sentence, but in this sentence the subject is contained within the verb itself, so this is a predicate nominative.
There is no article. Now there is no indefinite article in Greek so it can be either "a son" or simply "son".
του θεου is in the genitive case which expresses relationship. Thus "son" belongs to "god", which does have the definite article "the" attached to it. (I'm using small "g" because if Greek doesn't use capitalization as we do in English, and we get that we mean "God" not "god" from the context and applying English grammar rules, not Greek grammar.)
ειμι is the present indicative of the verb "to be" in the first person singular, thus it translates "I am".

So, a very wooden transaltion would be "son of the god I am". Putting that sentence into proper English form it becomes simply, "I am God's Son." In terms of my statement that this particular use of the term in this verse said something grammatically about Jesus being THE son of God vs. being simply any old "a son" of God, I am going to have to retract that statement. I made it thinking of the phrase "Son of God" as a whole, which I do think is used to make a claim for Jesus divinity, but we will have to take that up in another thread. As I said above, there is no article in this sentence. As Greek does not have an indefinite article, when the noun is in the nominative singular, one cannot automatically assume that it should be either with or without the indefinite article. And context here does not help us with that determination.


Now that brings us to that wondeful John 1:1 where you believe that we need to insert the indefinite article. I would love to discuss it, but time is getting away from me, and certainly given that this single verse has been discussed for centuries, we can wait till I return to address it.

I do want to briefly address one other comment you made, though:
It IS VERY TRUE that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct persons. If we were claiming that they were all one person, then what we would be talking about is schizoprenia. The whole concept of the Trinity was in answer to the question that the early church had to ask itself: How can we worship BOTH God the Father and God the Son, who are clearly two different persons, and still claim that we worship just one God? And that answer was to recognize there is a distinction of 3 separate persons. The Son is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Son. Nor is the Holy Spirit the Father nor the Son. They are three separate and distinct personages. We are not making them one in that sense. But we are saying that even though they are three distinct and separate persons that we are not talking about three separate gods. So, proving that the Father and the Son are both God and separate persons is something we would agree with. What we do not agree with is that in proving that statement that you have proved that they are separate gods. We submit to you that even in the reality of having three distinctly separate persons who are each themselves God, that we still have just one being who is God, a being that is himself three persons and yet just one being. As long as you look at each person as a separate being you will not understand the concept of the Trinity. And we Christians will come alongside you to reject as polytheism any belief which proposes that Jesus is a God separate and independent of the Father who is another God. We reject that, for even though we know that Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God, yet we also know that God is one and that there is no other God than the one God. That is what we mean when we say Trinity.

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do. Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..." Yet the Muslims will say the Bible is not reliable; well, I could make a better argument that it is the same case for the Qur'an. I do not speak empty words. Can back up what I say, but I would like to see the Muslims back up that Christianity follows a pagan trinity concept and not the other way around! :)

[Woodrow]

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do. Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..." Yet the Muslims will say the Bible is not reliable; well, I could make a better argument that it is the same case for the Qur'an. I do not speak empty words. Can back up what I say, but I would like to see the Muslims back up that Christianity follows a pagan trinity concept and not the other way around! :)

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact.

Having been down both paths I feel that as a Muslim and looking from this view point I now have a better concept of the trinity then I did as a Christian. When I was Roman Catholic I saw no problem with seeing Mary as the "Mother of God(swt)" and that it was truly good to pray to her for intercession. During my various assorted times at trying to be a Baptist, Church of Christ and a few others I began to see that the love of Jesus(as) was no different than my former errors about Mary. It is true that Christians will not see themselves as believing they are actually separating God(swt) and praying to 3 separate deities, until they do escape from the falsehood and see it from an outside view. It is the same as a Catholic will never see themselves as praying to Mary until they leave Catholicism. I doubt very much that at this stage in your life you are able to see the truth with unbiased eyes yet.

[Phil12123]

Just some things I've found about the Trinity.

Some Christian traditions either reject the doctrine of the Trinity, or consider it unimportant. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves as "Nontrinitarians." They can vary in both their reasons for rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they describe God.

Criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine

Nontrinitarians commonly refer to the following points in objection to Trinitarian teaching.

etc.

The above diagram correctly shows the distinction of Persons and the Oneness of essence, substance and nature (that the 3 are the one Deity, God).

Other than that diagram, it is interesting how you selectively chose the criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine from the article, leaving out all the material that supported the doctrine. So, in order to have a balanced view, those reading this may go to the article and read it in its entirety at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

To save everyone the trip, but without copying and pasting the entire article, the following items from it were of note:

Old Testament, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant distinctions
Theophanies "God appeared" using a verb which means a physical manifestation that could be seen and heard and not a vision or dream.
Genesis 12:7; 18:1 to Abraham
Genesis 26:2, 24 to Isaac
Genesis 35:1, 9, 48:3 to Jacob
Exodus 3:16; 4:5 to Moses
Exodus 6:3 to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
Leviticus 9:4; 16:2 to Aaron
Deuteronomy 31:15 to Moses and Joshua
1 Samuel 3:21 to Samuel
1 Kings 3:5; 9:2; 11:9 to Solomon
2 Chronicles 3:1 to David
2 Chronicles 7:12 to Solomon

The Angel (Messenger) of the Lord
Genesis 16:7–14
Genesis 22:9–14
Exodus 3:2 (comp 4:5 Jehovah)
Exodus 23:20, 21
Numbers 22:21–35
Judges 2:1–5
Judges 6:11–22
Judges 13:3 (a woman)

God identified as "the Father" in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 32:6 (Moses' time)
Isaiah 63:15; 64:8 (pre-exile)
Malachi 2:10 (post exile)

God identified as "the Son" in the Old Testament
Psalms 2:12 "kiss the Son"
The "Anointed One" in verse 2 is called the "Son" in verse 12.
Both Jewish and Christian scholars say this Psalm speaks of the Messiah.
God's works are applied to "the Son" (comp. Psalms 24:1–2; Job 34:24;
Jeremiah 51:19–23

The "Son" is begotten (comp 2 Samuel 7:14; Acts 13:33)
Proverbs 30:4 "His son's name"

Two separate persons are spoken of, "His name or His son's name"
This can not be a metaphor or impersonal force.
This is not Hebrew parallelism.

Isaiah 9:6 "a son given"
"Wonderful Counselor" comp Judges 13:17-18
"born to us" comp Isaiah 7:14—"God with us"
"Mighty God" comp Isaiah 10:21
"Eternal Father" better translation "Father of Eternal Life"—the one who gives eternity to others.
"Prince of Peace" the divine ruler. Psalms 2:7–9

God the Spirit in the Old Testament
1 Samuel 10:10, 19:20, 23
2 Samuel 23:1
1 Kings 22:24
Nehemiah 9:30
Psalms 51:11
Isaiah 63:10,11
Micah 2:7

Deity of the Holy Spirit in the OT
Job 33:4
Psalms 104:30
Psalms 139:7

Words of the Holy Spirit called the words of God
1 Samuel 10:10
2 Samuel 23:2
Zechariah 7:12; 12:10 (comp Ps 84:11 who gives grace?)

Peace

[Talha777]

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do.

I personally do not believe that God is a Trinity. That is my belief, in line with my conviction in the religion of Islam. However, if a Christian could clearly and unambiguously demonstrate to me that his source of dogma, the Bible, states that Jesus is God, the same God as his Father, that despite the Son and Father being distinct manifestations or persons, they are in reality one in essence, one and the same. I have challenged any Christian to pick up his Bible and find me just one, one out of thousands and thousands of verses from Genesis to Revelation, cover to cover, that can address this simple, straightforward and fair challenge. If they could succeed in proving this, I would not suddenly say I believe in the trinity, but I would be honest and say that I understand why Christians believe what they do. But right now I do not even have this understanding of what is supposedly a basic and fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..."

It is true that we Muslims don't care for the words of Paul, and we regard him as a fraud and a lunatic, but I have issued a very fair and simple challenge to Christians, and they are free to quote me their Paul as they see fit. Now I can see you Christians are getting desperate, and perhaps I am shaking the very core of your faith, which you may have been raised and brought up in since childhood, and are devoted to with all your heart and soul. I understand why you are becoming increasingly defensive and desperate to prove your point. My sincere advice to you is to look at the Bible from an objective and neutral standpoint, and you will realize the doctrines and dogmas you have go above and beyond what the Bible actually has to say.

I will also briefly address the verse you have quoted (out of context):

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Well it's a good one, you may even fool some people with this. Unfortunately, Paul is quoting a longer Pslam, verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45. But you can even just look at what is quoted entirely in Hebrews:

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you [Jesus] with the oil of joy." (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Looking at this passage in its proper context "O God" is not what refers to Jesus. Jesus is the one whom is being addressed as being annointed with the oil of joy, because obviously he is the Messiah (annointed one).

Another thing you have mentioned is that Paul says there is one God, so obviously Jesus must be the same as that one God, his "father". In truth, however, Paul did believe in one God, but he believed in a different kind of oneness, not a oneness in a numerical sense:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

So here Paul makes something clear. He personally does not believe that other gods that the Pagans worship exist, yet he admits that even if these gods do exist, they do not effect the oneness of his god, the "Father". This clearly shows that when Paul talks about God being "One", he is not talking in a numerical sense. In what sense he is talking may be discerned from another passage:

A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one (Galatians 3:20)

The Bible version which I have is the Today's English Version (TEV). In a footnote for this verse, it notes that "God is one" can be alternately translated as "God works alone". So we can just begin to understand what Paul says when he talks about God being "One".

[Redeemed]

Having been down both paths I feel that as a Muslim and looking from this view point I now have a better concept of the trinity then I did as a Christian. When I was Roman Catholic I saw no problem with seeing Mary as the "Mother of God(swt)" and that it was truly good to pray to her for intercession. During my various assorted times at trying to be a Baptist, Church of Christ and a few others I began to see that the love of Jesus(as) was no different than my former errors about Mary. It is true that Christians will not see themselves as believing they are actually separating God(swt) and praying to 3 separate deities, until they do escape from the falsehood and see it from an outside view. It is the same as a Catholic will never see themselves as praying to Mary until they leave Catholicism. I doubt very much that at this stage in your life you are able to see the truth with unbiased eyes yet.

I was born and raised Catholic too. I used to pray the Rossary, but when I started reading the Bible, I thought it strange to continue. I am biased to the Bible, but maybe not more than you are to the Qur'an. You say the Bible has been corrupted. I used to not think so, but did you know the same can be said and noted about the Qur'an?

[Redeemed]

I personally do not believe that God is a Trinity. That is my belief, in line with my conviction in the religion of Islam. However, if a Christian could clearly and unambiguously demonstrate to me that his source of dogma, the Bible, states that Jesus is God, the same God as his Father, that despite the Son and Father being distinct manifestations or persons, they are in reality one in essence, one and the same. I have challenged any Christian to pick up his Bible and find me just one, one out of thousands and thousands of verses from Genesis to Revelation, cover to cover, that can address this simple, straightforward and fair challenge. If they could succeed in proving this, I would not suddenly say I believe in the trinity, but I would be honest and say that I understand why Christians believe what they do. But right now I do not even have this understanding of what is supposedly a basic and fundamental doctrine of Christianity.




It is true that we Muslims don't care for the words of Paul, and we regard him as a fraud and a lunatic, but I have issued a very fair and simple challenge to Christians, and they are free to quote me their Paul as they see fit. Now I can see you Christians are getting desperate, and perhaps I am shaking the very core of your faith, which you may have been raised and brought up in since childhood, and are devoted to with all your heart and soul. I understand why you are becoming increasingly defensive and desperate to prove your point. My sincere advice to you is to look at the Bible from an objective and neutral standpoint, and you will realize the doctrines and dogmas you have go above and beyond what the Bible actually has to say.

I will also briefly address the verse you have quoted (out of context):

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Well it's a good one, you may even fool some people with this. Unfortunately, Paul is quoting a longer Pslam, verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45. But you can even just look at what is quoted entirely in Hebrews:

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you [Jesus] with the oil of joy." (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Looking at this passage in its proper context "O God" is not what refers to Jesus. Jesus is the one whom is being addressed as being annointed with the oil of joy, because obviously he is the Messiah (annointed one).

Another thing you have mentioned is that Paul says there is one God, so obviously Jesus must be the same as that one God, his "father". In truth, however, Paul did believe in one God, but he believed in a different kind of oneness, not a oneness in a numerical sense:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

So here Paul makes something clear. He personally does not believe that other gods that the Pagans worship exist, yet he admits that even if these gods do exist, they do not effect the oneness of his god, the "Father". This clearly shows that when Paul talks about God being "One", he is not talking in a numerical sense. In what sense he is talking may be discerned from another passage:

A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one (Galatians 3:20)

The Bible version which I have is the Today's English Version (TEV). In a footnote for this verse, it notes that "God is one" can be alternately translated as "God works alone". So we can just begin to understand what Paul says when he talks about God being "One".

I have to be honest I don't understand the trinity concept fully not even enough to explain it the way it really is; I just accept it, and I think it would be presumptuous of anyone to say they could. You might think that I am getting desperate and grasping at straws, but that isn’t the case. Even if I was getting weaker, when I am weak I am strong. I don’t know why you trust the Qur’an. It has been tampered with.:omg:

[vpb]

You say the Bible has been corrupted. I used to not think so, but did you know the same can be said and noted about the Qur'an?

I don’t know why you trust the Qur’an. It has been tampered with.

no it's not. how did u come to that conclusion?

[جوري]

trinity displeases the heart and mind....Those who understand Islam, heart and Mind are pleased with it.... it shields from evil-- as easy as this!

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 48:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

I was informed by Abu Sufyan that Heraclius said to him, "I asked you whether they (followers of Muhammad) were increasing or decreasing. You replied that they were increasing. And in fact, this is the way of true Faith till it is complete in all respects. I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his (the Prophets) religion (Islam) became displeased and discarded it. You replied in the negative, and in fact, this is (a sign of) true faith. When its delight enters the heart and mixes with them completely, nobody can be displeased with it."

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 49:
Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'Both legal and illegal things are evident but in between them there are doubtful (suspicious) things and most of the people have no knowledge about them. So whoever saves himself from these suspicious things saves his religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious things is like a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima (private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of Allah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) things. Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it becomes good (reformed) the whole body becomes good but if it gets spoilt the whole body gets spoilt and that is the heart.

source

Ah so the secret does lie in the heart of man...

Alap.. you remind me of the man who set the devil free, thinking he'd done a great thing, but it was his ignorance that unleashed misery upon the world!---
The howling man!

[vpb]

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654: Narrated 'Umar:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."




Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship.' So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did you use to worship?'
They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What: do you want (now)?' They will say, 'We want You to provide us with water.' It will be said to them, 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, 'What keeps you here when all the people have gone?' They will say, 'We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship,' and now we are waiting for our Lord.' Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, 'I am your Lord,' and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.' And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, 'Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?' They will say. 'The Shin,' and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a wood (and they will not be able to prostrate). Then the bridge will be laid across Hell." We, the companions of the Prophet said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the bridge?'
He said, "It is a slippery (bridge) on which there are clamps and (Hooks like) a thorny seed that is wide at one side and narrow at the other and has thorns with bent ends. Such a thorny seed is found in Najd and is called As-Sa'dan. Some of the believers will cross the bridge as quickly as the wink of an eye, some others as quick as lightning, a strong wind, fast horses or she-camels. So some will be safe without any harm; some will be safe after receiving some scratches, and some will fall down into Hell (Fire). The last person will cross by being dragged (over the bridge)." The Prophet said, "You (Muslims) cannot be more pressing in claiming from me a right that has been clearly proved to be yours than the believers in interceding with Almighty for their (Muslim) brothers on that Day, when they see themselves safe.
They will say, 'O Allah! (Save) our brothers (for they) used to pray with us, fast with us and also do good deeds with us.' Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of one (gold) Dinar.' Allah will forbid the Fire to burn the faces of those sinners. They will go to them and find some of them in Hell (Fire) up to their feet, and some up to the middle of their legs. So they will take out those whom they will recognize and then they will return, and Allah will say (to them), 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of one half Dinar.' They will take out whomever they will recognize and return, and then Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant), and so they will take out all those whom they will recognize." Abu Sa'id said: If you do not believe me then read the Holy Verse:--
'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life.
They will grow on its banks, as a seed carried by the torrent grows. You have noticed how it grows beside a rock or beside a tree, and how the side facing the sun is usually green while the side facing the shade is white. Those people will come out (of the River of Life) like pearls, and they will have (golden) necklaces, and then they will enter Paradise whereupon the people of Paradise will say, 'These are the people emancipated by the Beneficent. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without sending forth any good (for themselves).' Then it will be said to them, 'For you is what you have seen and its equivalent as well.'"