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????????
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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;
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks