Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

we should approach the subject of trinity from the christian text:
part I

Matthew 4:10

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. It is sometimes stated that since we are to worship only God, and, because we are also supposed to worship Jesus, therefore he must be God. That argument is not valid because, although there is a special worship that is reserved just for God, we can "worship" certain people as well. This is an issue of the heart. There is no special word for "worship" reserved only for God. The special worship due Him comes from the heart. In fact the entire temptation of Christ by the Devil proves that Jesus was not God. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Also, if Jesus were God, the Devil would never have asked Jesus to worship him. It was for desiring to be like God (and thus be worshiped like God) that the Devil was thrown out of heaven in the first place (Isa. 14:12-15), and it is unreasonable to think that the Devil would have believed that God could now be persuaded to worship him.
2. In the biblical culture, the act of worship was not directed only to God. It was very common to worship (i.e., pay homage to) men of a higher status. This is hard to see in the English translations of the Bible. The translators usually translate the same Hebrew or Greek word as "worship" when it involves God, but as some other word, such as "bow before," or "pay homage to," when it involves men. Nevertheless, worship is clearly there in the Hebrew and Greek texts. For example:

• Lot "worshipped" the two strangers that came to Sodom (Gen. 19:1).
• Abraham "worshipped" the pagan leaders of the land in which he lived (Gen. 23:7).
• Jacob "worshipped" his older brother when they met after being apart for years (Gen. 33:3).
• Joseph had a dream that his parents and brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 37:10).
• Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).
• Joshua fell down and "worshipped" an angel (Joshua 5:14).
• Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).
• David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).
• Abigail "worshipped" David (1 Sam. 25:41).

The above list is just a small sampling of all the examples that could be drawn from Scripture. Checking the references in most Bibles will confirm what has already been pointed out - that the translators avoided the word "worship" when men are worshipping men, but used it in reference to worshipping God. These scriptures are more than enough proof that "worship" was a part of the culture, and a way of showing respect or reverence. Because of the theological stance that only God should be worshipped, translators have avoided the English word "worship," in spite of the fact that it is clearly in the original text. We assert that not translating what is clearly in the text has created a false impression in the Christian community. It is very clear in the biblical text that men "worshipped" men.
There is a sense, of course, in which there is a very special worship (homage, allegiance, reverent love and devotion) to be given only to God, but there is no unique word that represents that special worship. Rather, it is a posture of the heart. Scripturally, this must be determined from context. Even words like proskuneo, which are almost always used of God, are occasionally used for showing respect to other men (Acts 10:25). And the word "serve" in Matthew 4:10 is latreuo, which is sometimes translated worship, but used of the worship of other things as well as of the true God (Acts 7:42 - KJV), "worship the host of heaven" and Romans 1:25, "served created things"). Thus, when Christ said, "You shall worship the Lord thy God and Him only shall you worship," he was speaking of a special worship of God that comes from the heart, not using a special vocabulary word that is reserved for the worship of God only.
Understanding that in the Bible both God and men are worshipped forces us as readers to look, not at the specific word for "worship," but rather at the heart of the one doing the worship. It explains why God rejects the worship of those whose hearts are really not with Him. It also explains why there are occasions in the Bible when men reject the worship of other men. In Acts 10:26, Peter asks Cornelius to stand up. In Revelation 19:10, an angel stops John from worshipping him. In these cases it is not the worship, per se, that was wrong, or it would have been wrong in all the other places throughout the Bible. In the aforementioned accounts, the one about to be worshipped saw that it was inappropriate or felt uncomfortable in the situation. Actually, the example of John in Revelation is another strong proof that men did worship others beside God. If it were forbidden to worship anyone beside God, the great apostle John would never have even started to worship the angel. The fact that he did so actually proves the point that others beside God were worshipped in the biblical culture.
It is clear why people fell down and worshipped Jesus while he walked the earth and performed great miracles: people loved him and respected him greatly. It is also clear why we are to worship him now - he has earned our love and our highest reverence. He died to set us free, and God has honored him by seating him at His own right hand above all other powers and authorities.
Broughton and Southgate, pp. 194 and 195
Dana, p. 21
Morgridge, pp. 46-52
Norton, pp. 447 and 448
Snedeker, pp. 389 and 390


Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=73

part II

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. Eusebius (c. 260'c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as "the Father of Church History." Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words "in my name." For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," he would never have quoted it as "in my name." Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read "in my name," and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the "name of Jesus Christ," i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively "baptized." "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins'" (Acts 2:38). "They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16). "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48). "On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.
3. Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and "Holy Spirit" together make "one God." This verse refers to three, but never says they are "one." The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit (We say "holy spirit" instead of "Holy Spirit" because we believe that this verse is referring to God's gift of holy spirit that is born inside each believer. It is lower case because it refers to the gift of God and not God. The original Greek texts were all written in what scholars call "uncial script," which uses all capital letters. Thus, although we today make a distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit," in the originals every use was just "SPIRIT." Whether or not it should be capitalized is a translator's decision, based on the context of the verse. For more on the form of the early texts, see the note on Heb. 1:8).
It should be clear that three separate things do not make "one God." Morgridge writes:
No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject."
4. It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2).
5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one "name," so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to "confound the persons" (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one "name," especially since no such "name" is ever given in Scripture ("God" is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three "persons," then it should use the word "names." There is a much better explanation for why "name" is used in the singular.
A study of the culture and language shows that the word "name" stood for "authority." Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the "name" (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.
6. In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier. [For further study on the subject of baptism, read "Two Baptisms: Which Is Which?"]
Morgridge, pp. 13-15, 28, 98-101
Norton, pp. 215-218
Racovian Catechism, pp. 36-39
Snedeker, pp. 109-115

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=77


Matthew 28:19

by

Misha'al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.
Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"
"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103
This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It says:
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."
For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38.
These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.
Source: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.1.html



Feel free to contact me at [email protected]


Return to Refuting Trinity in the New Testament

Return to Homepage

part III

Luke 1:35

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. There are some Trinitarians who insist that the term "Son of God" implies a pre-existence and that Jesus is God. Once the doctrine of pre-existence was propounded, a vocabulary had to be developed to support it, and thus non-biblical phrases such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal Son" were invented. Not only are these phrases not in the Bible or secular literature, they do not make sense. By definition, a "Son" has a beginning, and by definition, "eternal" means "without beginning." To put the two words together when they never appear together in the Bible or in common usage is doing nothing more than creating a nonsensical term. The meaning of "Son of God" is literal: God the Father impregnated Mary, and nine months later Mary had a son, Jesus. Thus, Jesus is "the Son of God." "This is how the birth [Greek = "beginning"] of Jesus Christ came about," says Matthew 1:18, and that occurred about 2000 years ago, not in "eternity past."
2. When the phrase "Son of God" is studied and compared with phrases about the Father, a powerful truth is revealed. The phrase "Son of God" is common in the New Testament, but the phrase "God the Son" never appears. In contrast, phrases like "God the Father," "God our Father," "the God and Father" and "God, even the Father" occur many times. Are we to believe that the Son is actually God just as the Father is, but the Father is plainly called "God, the Father" over and over and yet the Son is not even once called "God the Son"? This is surely strong evidence that Jesus is not actually "God the Son" at all.
3. Anyone insisting that someone is somehow God simply because he is called "Son of God" is going to run into trouble explaining all the verses in the Bible that call other beings "sons of God." The phrase, "son of God" was commonly used of angels in the Old Testament (see Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1 (the phrase in these verses is often translated as "angels"), and used of Israel (Ex. 4:22; etc.). In the New Testament, it is used of Christians, those who are born of God (see 1 John 3:1 and 2 -occasionally, "sons" gets translated into "children" to be more inclusive, but the original language is clear). A study of Scripture reveals quite clearly that "son of God" does not in any way mean "God."
4. Trying to prove the Trinity from the phrase "Son of God" brings up a point that often gets missed in debates about whether or not the Trinity exists, and that point has to do with words and the way they are defined. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and its vocabulary was in common use in the culture of the times. Words that are spoken "on the street" every day have a meaning. If someone writes a letter, it is natural for the reader to assume that the definitions of the words in the letter are the definitions common to the contemporary culture. If the person writing uses the words in a new or unusual way, he would need to say that in the letter, or the reader might misunderstand what he was saying.
The word "son" is a good example. We know what the word means, and we know that if there is a father and a son, the son came after the father. God is clearly called the Father and Christ is clearly called the Son. Thus, the meaning should be simple and clear. But according to Trinitarian doctrine, the Father and Son are both "eternal." This teaching nullifies the clear definitions of the words and makes the vocabulary "mysterious." There is no place in Scripture where the meanings of the words describing the Son are said to be changed from their ordinary meaning to some "new and special" meaning.
To explain the problem their doctrine has created, Trinitarians say that the Son was "eternally begotten," but that phrase itself creates two problems. First, it is not in Scripture, and leads to the erroneous teaching that the Bible does not contain a vocabulary sufficient to explain its own doctrines. Second, the phrase itself is nonsense, and just lends to the belief that the Bible is basically "mysterious" and cannot be fathomed by the average Christian. After all, "eternal" means "without beginning," and "begotten" means "born," which clearly indicates a beginning. The fact that the two words are inherently contradictory is why we say that combining them makes a nonsense word.
The doctrine of the Trinity has caused a number of problems with the vocabulary of the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 1:2 mentions that Jesus Christ was made "heir" by God. By definition, no one is his own heir. To say that Christ is God and then say that Christ is the heir of God is nonsense, and abuses the vocabulary that God used to make His Word accessible to the common Christian and believable to those not yet saved. It changes the simple truth of the Bible into a "mystery" no one can understand.
There are many words that indicate that Jesus was not equal to the Father. Christ was "made Lord"; he was "appointed" by God; he "obeyed" God; he did God's will and not his own; he prayed to God; he called God "my God," etc., etc. Trinitarian teaching contradicts the conclusion that any unindoctrinated reader would arrive at when reading these scriptures, and insists that the Father and the Son are co-equal. Trinitarians teach that the human nature (but not the God nature) of Christ was subservient to the Father and that is why the Bible is worded the way it is. We believe that teaching twists the clear and simple words of Scripture, and we point out that there is not one verse that says that Christ had two natures. Historians admit that the doctrine of the two natures was "clarified" late in the debates about the nature of Christ (actually six out of the seven Ecumenical Councils dealt in some way with the nature of Christ), and we believe that the only reason the doctrine of the two natures was invented was to support the Trinity.
The Trinitarian concept of the two natures also forces a "mysterious" interpretation of the otherwise clear verses about Jesus' humanity. Interpreting the verses about Jesus is quite simple. He was from the line of David and "made like his brothers in every way" (Heb. 2:17). He was "the Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) because, like Adam, he was a direct creation of God. Over and over, the Bible calls him a "man." However, these words are less than genuine if Christ were both 100 percent God and 100 percent man. How can anyone honestly say that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and then say that he is like his brothers in every way? The standard "explanation" given is that, "It is a mystery and no one can understand it." We ask the reader to consider carefully the choice before you. We are arguing for reading the words in the Bible and then just believing what they say. We assert that one cannot do that if he believes in the Trinity. Trinitarian doctrine forces the meanings of clear and simple words like "Father," "Son," "heir" and "man" to take on new and "mysterious" meanings.
Buzzard, pp. 155-157
Morgridge, pp. 139-142

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=80




Feel free to contact me at [email protected]


Return to Refuting Trinity in the New Testament

Return to Homepage

___________________

more to come later..

Trinity Part:2

Having noted the trouble with the approach (let's show chrsitians how they misunderstood the trinity proof text),as we have shown that not only the approach deals with the problem from only one aspect,but also It is more proper with those unitirians whom their faith stands or fall on the validity of the way they interpret the trinity so called proof texts..........


I repeat that point again and again,as I met,spoke to many muslims who would fear the idea that the writers of the new testament could have believed that Jesus is God !!!!
in other words, they would accept the idea that Paul and the other writers believed not in Jesus as God ,just their writings were misunderstood by christians !!!!
the writers of the New Tetament were innocents, and the New Testament itslef is fully innocent ...it is just those ignorant chrsitians who misunderstood it !!!!

Again that is exaggeration and more important (NON-ISLAMIC VIEW)

when the Quran says
005.017 In blasphemy are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
does it exclude the writers of the New Testament ? no ,it doesn't

but due to just imitiating the uniterians in their style of criticising the trinity,muslims won't put in their consideration ever the possibility that indeed the writers of the new testament put phrases on jesus' mouth claiming divinity,or even putting their own beliefs that Jesus is God !

I think it is time for muslims to understand their own position which has to be Quranic ... putting into consideration that we are not a unitarian sect whose problem with the trinity is much more simpler than ours.....our problem is more profound ......

I would elaborate a point mentioned in the previous post
I said that the trouble with trinity so called proof text ,is that none of them is crucial and could be esily interpret in two meanings(or more),which weaken the case,and establishes no concept firmly...

I would give some examples:

1-Jesus claimed,according to the New Testament, to be Lord of the Sabbath,Is that to be accepted with certainity?

Mark 2:27-28 And he [Jesus] said unto them [the Pharisees], "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."



Christians commonly take the phrase "son of man" in this passage to refer to Jesus himself. Alternatively, many scholars believe the passage may be more accurately rendered as "a man" or "humanity" in this pericope. This is due to the sequence of "man" "son of man" as a common literary device in semitic writing as demonstrated earlier. wikipedia



There remains in this passage a difficulty which is not possible to solve with absolute certainty. The difficulty lies in the last phrase "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." This phrase can have two meanings it may mean that Jesus is claiming to be the lord of the Sabbath ,in the sense that he is entitled to use the Sabbath as he thinks fit. that may be said to be the traditional interpretation of that sentence but there are real difficulties in it. On this occasion jesus is defending himself for anything that he did on the Sabbath, he is defending his disciples ,and the authority which he is stressing here is not so much his own authority as the authority of human need.
And it is to be noted that when Mark tells of his incident he introduces another saying of jesus as a part of the climax of it: he says that The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)
To this we must add the fact that in hebrew and Aramic the phrase (son of man) can have several meanings and is not necessarily a title at all ,it can simply be a way of saying a man .
When the rabbies began a parable ,they often began it (there was a man who……..
What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?
We may well conclude that what jesus said here is (Human beings are not slaves of the Sabbath ,rather they have control of it ,to use it for their own good .

The Gospel of Matthew
By William Barclay

.......................

A number of scholars Jewish, and Christians ,have proposed that in jesus Aramaic saying the meaning was (Man is the lord of the Sabbath),that is human need must take precedence over the abstentions required by the Sabbath commandment.
Matthew
By Douglas R. A. Hare
...............................


There are several possibilities for interpreting the meaning as it stands ,In the context of the story ,the basic point seems to be that human need takes precedent over the pedantic rules of religious authorities .citing an example from the scriptures about no less a person than king David, Jesus made the point that «The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath) the subsequent saying is the crucial one. "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." It is just possible that originally the saying may have meant "So Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. “this would make the saying then consistent and can easily be explained as a misunderstanding of the common Semitic term (son of man) ,Since however ,the term was usually used by jesus as a title ,It was so understood here as well.
The New Testament writings: history, literature, and interpretation
By James M. Efird
...........................



to sum up the first proof text ,the passage has two possible meanings and nothing to be taken with certainity,hence no way to establish a belief upon it...


Till Part 3


peace for all

Trinity P.3

2-The biblical claim of a pre-human existence of Jesus,proves him as God?


for example:

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

and
John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

and
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.


the previous verses are one of the commonly used by trinitarians to argue for Jesus being God !.... however, just as the other texts won't establish the belief as they are so controversal .....

eg; John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

It has been understood in 3 different ways:

1- The Trinitarian view,pre-existence to Abraham means he is God

2- but hold on, the fact of the matter is that the text does not at all indicate how long Jesus supposedly lived before Abraham, just a pre-existence to Abraham or the whole world doesn't necessarily means he is God.... the prehuman Jesus could have been a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things,or that he was God's first and only direct creation, that God then created everything else by means of him....Such understanding is one common among unitarians before and after Arius,Jehovah's Witnesses etc....

3- Away from the two previous literal understandings,is there a place here for the metaphorical understanding?


Before Abraham was born,I was marked out in the divine counsels as the messiah ...In the patriarch’s age ,some prophetic intimations must have been given of the future designs of divine providence ,and by these intimations the day of Christ was so far anticipated ,that ,in this view of the subject
And taken in connection with what precedes it, the text under consideration may be interpreted without including the idea of actual pre-existence and may be supposed merely to signify ,that previously to the birth of Abraham ,the coming of Christ was foretold .(Belsham on the person of Christ,the monthly review of literally journal, , Volume 68)
By Ralph Griffiths)

...........................

I am before Abraham ; that is, before Abraham was born, it was decreed that christ should come… why should the Jews go to stone him for this answer? because they misunderstood it.
The theological works of the Rev. Charles Leslie, Volume 2
By Charles Leslie

...............


Before Abraham was born, I have been appointed to the office I am now filling,' the world to be supplied is Messiah ,anointed, which necessarily refers, not to existence ,but to designation to office, and this alone was necessary ,that Abraham might foresee his day . If anyone ,accustomed only to our modes of speech ,should think it is strange that our lord should thus assert his appointment before the time of Abraham, let him consider the following and similar expressions. Revelation 13:8The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world
That is appointed to be slain in the Divine counsels …
whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 17:8)
Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
Letters on the Logos, By Charles Wentworth Upham
..............

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Allow me to participate .in that which your own greatest glory, the glory of recovering lost mankind to virtue and happiness ,a glory which was intended and reserved for me in the eternal immutable counsel of infinite wisdom and benevolence .
Unitarians interpret it as affirming as jesus might have said to have existed, as the messiah,in the purpose and decree of God;that is, he was designated to his office,before Abraham was born.( The Scripture testimony to the Messiah)
By John Pye Smi

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

in sum, we have found out how such texts open to speculations from every kind... and hardly establishes any belief with absolute certainity.....

I won't discuss the other so called trinity proof text ,and would suspend this point,till may be one christian member would like to resume it again ,in the condition that he provides a trinity proof text that is straight,clear enough to be taken with certainity,and leave no chance for speculation.....
but note,that doesn't mean ,as I said before , that muslims should believe in the dogma if it is to be there clearly in the bible,as I said before the muslim problem with the trinity is bigger than that.....
I would also resume it in case if a muslim bro or sis ,who has any comment or objection against my approach..........

next part,will be dealing with a supposed origin(not neccesarily pagan!!!) of the belief of Jesus as divine

peace for all

Trinity P.4

Trinity origin,a pagan concept that has crept into Christianity, or the bad Jewish seed that grew the trinity fruit?

I have always been puzzled ,wondering what prompted those who regarded Jesus as divine and pre-existed alongside one God, how is it possible for the pious jews of the first century ,who had been brought up with strong monotheistic belief in one God ,to be able to accept that?

I used to be convinced to the answer that the belief of Jesus as God ,trinity etc….. is nothing but a pagan concept that has crept into Christianity by the pagans who formed Christianity ,departing it from the Judaism …..
As a matter of fact that is the common way Jews, Muslims ,some secular writers would view the matter…..
But I no longer in favor of such argument…. I found out that the problem is more profound, and the Jewish contribution to the problem is a huge one…..

The claim that the early Christians (those who believed of Jesus as God) divorced the Old testament and the Jewish traditions, speculations is a false one… as the fact is that they often used quotations from the OT to demonstrate their belief of a strong link between the old testament and the new testament, but the fact is in their attempt to do so, they have gone to the extreme , misapplied the text ,corrupting concepts eg, the messiah(his nature&role),the holy spirit etc….

I’m going to give clues that the trinity is nothing but an illegal child that came from the womb of Judaism, who been brought up later by some deviant Hellenistic Jews and pagan converts……….
Trinity is a Jewish speculation based on the language of personified divine attributes, and the nature and function of intermediary figures ….
It was an interpretation to some old testament text ,liked by few Jews ,that would later develop , may be turns into scripture itself……

Details:

The Idea of physical manifestation , personification to the divine ,is one that exists in both the old testament and the Jewish traditions….
Eg;
Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
1 Kings 22:19
I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Jewish Personifying of abstract powers:

We already knew John's prologue, The word was with God and the word was God
If we accept with certainty that the text denotes the writer’s belief in a divinity of Jesus,or in other words personifying the abstract (the word of God) ,we shouldn’t wonder neither supposing him as pagan writer …. Pagan concepts has already crept into some Jews’ mentalities :

Quotes:


The opening five verses of the prologue(of the gospel of John), offer an interpretation of jesus against the backdrop of creation .He is God’s logos ,existing from eternity, through whom the cosmos came into existence. The Johannine logos appears to be informed principally from the function of (the word) in the old testament, as especially seen in the wisdom writings such as proverbs, sirach and the wisdom of Solomon,and in speculative tradition, such as what we have in philo.rabbinic midrash and interpretive traditions in the targums also cohere with certain interpretive features presupposed by the prologue . It is possible that the johannine logos may also represent a late first -century analogue of the targumic memra .This is not to say that the johannine logos is identical to the targumic memra,or that the memra must be understood as hypostasis. Rather, the coherence between the prologue’s logos and some of the functions of the memra(as presented in the targums),suggests that the former may reflect the latter ,as it was coming to expression in the synagogue of the late first century .
Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of John's prologue
By Craig A.Evans


.......................................

The same appears true for some elements of the false doctrines which led to the development of the Trinity. The apocryphal Jewish Book of Enoch held that the "Son of man" figure personally pre-existed (1 Enoch 48:2-6; 62:6,7). The idea of personal pre-existence was held by the Samaritans, who believed that Moses personally pre-existed (8). Indeed the idea of a pre-existent man, called by German theologians the urmensch , was likely picked up by the Jews from the Persians during the captivity. Christians who believed that Jesus was the prophet greater than Moses, that He was the "Son of man", yet who were influenced by Jewish thinking, would therefore come to assume that Jesus also personally pre-existed. And yet they drew that conclusion in defiance of basic Biblical teaching to the opposite.
Jewish Influence On The TrinityJewish Myths Deconstructed.by Duncan heaster
..................................................


Martin Hengel suggests that Christians attempted to answer the Jewish ideas of pre-existent Torah, Wisdom and Logos by developing the idea that Jesus pre-existed, as a kind of answer to their claims (10). This would indicate that the Christians simply sought to make their Jesus attractive to the surrounding world, paying more attention to justifying their beliefs and silencing other alternatives than to simply proclaiming the Biblical Christ.

...............................

The worship of jesus by early Christians was not a product of syncretistic tendencies from Hellenism but a significant mutation or innovation in jewish monotheistic tradition as a result of drawing upon important resources in ancient Judaism by the earliest Christians.
From Messiah to preexistent son: Jesus' self-consciousness and early .By Aquila H. I. Lee
....................................

In his examination of rabbinic literature of the second century AD and later Alan segal has shown that some Jewish (heretics) were accused of giving so much reverence to principal angels and hypostatic manifestations in heaven from his argument that elements within NT Christianity represent one of the earliest examples of the (two powers heresy).which was developed from jewish interests in figures other than God on the throne in Jewish apocalyptic literature. ed

................................
The tendency of Hebrew imagery to personify abstract powers,such as sheol,wisdom is evident also in the manner in which the divine word or speech is represented in poetry and elevated language. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 16
By James Hastings
......................................

What have become clear to me time and time again is that even over so wide an arena,the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use that word.the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in pre-christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels…
The great angel: a study of Israel's second god By Margaret Barker
...................................

This leads me to infer that Christianity and Judaism distinguished themselves in antiquity not via the doctrine of God ,and not even via the question of worshiping a second (although the jewish heresiologists would make it so)but only in the specifics of such doctrine of this incarnation.not even the appearance of the logos as human,I would suggest but rather the ascription of actual physical death and resurrection to the logos was the point at which non-christian jews would have to part company theologically with those Christians –not all of course who held such doctrines.
Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity By Daniel Boyarin

see more
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...M&search=logos


I have lots of other Quotes(saved for other occasions) supporting the same idea, the bad seed in the Old testament and Jewish speculations been grown as the rotten fruit of taken a man as God.....


more related issues in future posts (inshaAllah).....

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

How about this source:



Of course, you did ask for an "historical source", and that was written long after the fact. Not exactly the sort of contemporaneous record that would used to verify anything from the first century.

Not sure how this is exactly a case for the trinity? if we are using the Quran for a historical record then the Jesus of the Quranic message is completely at odds with the jesus mangod you worship!

all the best

Regarding the trinity The verse below says

2 Samuel 22:11

"And He ( God ) rode on a cherub and flew "

A Cherub as we know is a small child like girl angel with wings like the one below





By "he" does it mean " 3 person Father ,son and Holy Ghost" or only one God

Does it mean 3 person actually rode on one Cherub ,








The Holy spirit is a dove and can fly on its own , Why does it need to ride a Cherub ?


And these Gods ( Father and Son) of ours, they didnt know about a flying saucer or a helicopter or they couldnt fly on their own and they ride little girls .

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I didn't read your post as part of a conversation about the Trinity, just the usual questioning of all things Christian, so much so that you even insinuated that one cannot prove the historical authenticity of the person of Jesus:

Indeed

Just found that an incredible statement coming from one who accepts the Qur'an as able to tell us historical details about the person Jesus.

and as I stated the Jesus of the Quran isn't the mangod you speak of!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

stuff.

How is God having complete dominion of the heaven comparable to god riding on a cherub? are you that desperate for a simile?

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

How is God having complete dominion of the heaven comparable to god riding on a cherub? are you that desperate for a simile?

It isn't, nor did I compare them. What I did compare and what I do believe is comparable is the idea that God rides anything with the idea the Allah grasps anything. Both reuqire the taking of sayings as being literal descriptions of events that are presumably observable. I contest the idea that in eiher case there was something to be observed, for that would imply things about God and Allah to be true that are elsewhere revealed differently -- namely the concept that either God or Allah is exists in some sort of observable physical body. You may not be in agreement with my particular understanding of the meaning behind the metaphor (and it is a metaphor, not a simile), but a metaphor it remains nevertheless. That's the important point as far as Airforce's question is concerned.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

It isn't, nor did I compare them. What I did compare and what I do believe is comparable is the idea that God rides anything with the idea the Allah grasps anything. Both reuqire the taking of sayings as being literal descriptions of events that are presumably observable. I contest the idea that in eiher case there was something to be observed, for that would imply things about God and Allah to be true that are elsewhere revealed differently -- namely the concept that either God or Allah is exists in some sort of observable physical body. You may not be in agreement with my particular understanding of the meaning behind the metaphor (and it is a metaphor, not a simile), but a metaphor it remains nevertheless. That's the important point as far as Airforce's question is concerned.

they are not comparable, further you are basing your judgment if I can call it that on a translation, the verse denotes that it is Allah swt that holds the dominion of the heavens, hardly comparable to going riding on a cherub!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

So, which do you hold? Do you hold that Jesus decided that despite the divine commandment found in Exodus to "Remember the Sabbath nd keep it holy" that he set himself up as "Lord of the Sabbath". Or do you believe that despite this divine command, Jesus taught that a man could do with and on the Sabbath whatever he personally desired?

my opinion is, IF Jesus really said that ,and our belief that the basic goals of his mission was,besides affirming true monotheism eg,5:17,to allow part of that which had been forbidden to the Jews,as in verse (Quran, 3:5O),then I find the unitarian understanding making much sense ,He he may have wanted to say ,though the Sabbath should be kept holy,but not everything has to be unlawful such day......

anyway whether is that what he meant or any other sense,you seem to agree that the passage and alone wouldn't give a direct message that Jesus is God.... and instead you find it consistent with the rest of what Jesus taught and did.
though the fact that the rest of what Jesus taught and did is as equal (if not weaker) as the passage ,won't give a straight proof text that Jesus claimed deity..
the proof text makes every understanding possible,but nothing certain....
and that is one of the problems with the concept (the bible says that Jesus is God)
not (was Jesus really God) which is another issue,the first is of much concern to the non-muslim unitarians,the second is of concern to the Muslims .

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I understand why Jews and Muslims would object to the concept of the Trinity

I would suggest why the Jews object to the concept of the Trinity?

I think if Jesus fulfilled their wishful thinking (which been interpreted on a text of messianic prophecies ) of such guy who will be descended from King David via Solomon ,who will bring the Israeli to their homeland,and in his reign
Death will be swallowed up forever,There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease , All of the dead will rise again , The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness and the Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel etc,etc,etc ..........!!!!!

I think had he fulfilled that ,they had never had a problem of accepting the trinity or any other things , would have suggested such guy about himself.......

but instead of that...they found him bringing nothing new on the scene, they got bored of the prophets and their miracles.... bored of being asked to follow the laws and be responsible for conveying God's message ..and forming such community of goodness.... they wanted heaven on Earth and glory , not through making the efforts to be so,but instead such man arrives and glory comes automatically without seeking that through piousness and good work....

Jews were bored of being criticised by the prophets ,bored of being remided again and again that they are responsible to praech God's message through the nations and should be a living example of piousness among the other nations........
that is why they tried to kill Jesus ,as they tried to kill other prophets before ....