All Trinity discussion goes here!

[Sol Invictus]

It all means the same thing, the statement to 'beget a son' is so blasphemous and disgraceful in itslef, I think God said to 'take a son' as a more respectful way to refer to Himself, Glorified Be Allah, High above such claims.

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

all the best

 

[M.I.A.]

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

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

the same applies for all things.

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

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

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

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

those that bring falsehood are many times more

over a time the message is lost

nations are tested, rise and fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

This thread is now closed for a much needed house cleaning.

:threadclo"

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

 

[Woodrow]

The Janitorial Crew has completed their cleanup. Insha Allah the thread is no longer a war zone.

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

all the best

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

all the best

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

all the best

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

all the best

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

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

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

Vespasian, c.70, according to Josephus

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

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


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


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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) The OT prophecies are what started me doubting the existence of the Trinity. There are passages, in fact many passages in the OT that can be interpreted as prophesying the coming of the Messiah and can be applied to any of the following people. Not the same passages for each, but what can be interpreted easily as prophecies of them.

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

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

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

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

Vespasian, c.70, according to Josephus

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

i'll be waiting.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing.

No I don't believe they are synonymous.

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

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

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

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

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

OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

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

 

[جوري]

OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrible predicament indeed!

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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


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


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

i'll be waiting.

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

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

Addressing your concept of the oneness of the Trinity. Let us go back to one of your earlier posts, I added the numbers, to your post in hopes to clarify my reply :

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

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

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

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

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

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

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

It seems in my view there are several points being brought out in that paragraph. I do concede you have a very large vocabulary.

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

1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

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

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

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

3. God always was 3 entities inseperable from each other

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

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

None of the above.

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

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


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

 

[Grace Seeker]

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods..

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