Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

['Abd-al Latif]

In math:

You have 1 apple and keep adding to it by one, up to 3 apples, completely separate prices of fruit that never were or can be 1 piece of fruit.
1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That's three apples and they do not and can not make not one whole apple as far as logic is concerned.

Now you have 1 apple, then smash the apple- still the same apple but in different form, bake the apple- still the same apple, same substance but in 3 different forms.

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

It's 3 apples mashed and then put together. it's illogical and unreasonable to say that they can be counted as one because the original number of apples were three. When these three apples were mashed and then put together they increased in size, weight, mass etc so one can then make an apple pie but that doesn't prove the trinity at all and this is a very poor example. There are also different kinds of apples i.e. red apple, green apple etc which differe in size and weight. Even if you want to accept this theory then this contains a major flaw; Jesus is a man, the holy spirit is the angel and god is the Almighty - neither are like the apples that look the same or are the same in any way or form. And if you truely compare god to an apple, you're telling me god will at one point turn rotten?

You can do this with water too 1 glass of water if you add 2 more glasses you have 3 glasses of water.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

OR

Take the 1 glass of water and freeze it, or turn it into steam- is the very same substance - water, just the physical property is changed.

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

What substance does love have? Don't know but I can see what happens when it is experienced or not. What substanece does the soul have? I don't know, yet we all have one.

Same as above.

Did I miss the answer to this question? Do muslims believe that Allah is incapable of manifesting in different ways? or is it that they just don't believe he did?

I answered you before, Allah can do anything He wants and He has no limitations as we do. But to say that Allah came down to us in a human form as jesus - again - won't prove anything.

 

[Grace Seeker]

When you love and follow someone to the exclusion of God, you are deifying them.

And I would agree with this part of that comment. And while I suspect that some people do this with regard to Mary, I do not find it to be the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[GreyKode]

Now you have 1 apple, then smash the apple- still the same apple but in different form, bake the apple- still the same apple, same substance but in 3 different forms.

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

I have no clue how you translated this into multiplication. A baked apple has different properties than an apple and cannot be an apple at the same time. Would you drink "baked apple juice" as opposed to "apple juice?" Do you think that Jesus pbuh has different powers than God the Father? Or that Jesus pbuh is a separate entity than Him?

Exactly my point.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You know that no one will every prove anything by way of either creating nor attacking analogies. Analogies are at best representations of one aspect of an idea, and they are often poor represenations at that. Analogies only serve to illustrate an idea to those who are seeking to understand it. There isn't an analogy for the Trinity that I couldn't take apart as well, for no material analogy will ever fully convey the essence of God who is an immaterial being.

But, it is God, and not the analogy, in which we believe.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

There isn't an analogy for the Trinity that I couldn't take apart as well, for no material analogy will ever fully convey the essence of God who is an immaterial being.

This is exctally what makes the trinity a mystery. God doesn't make a religion that will be hard for His followers to understand or explain. Rather it's made clear and easy but the trinity is a clear mystery.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is exctally what makes the trinity a mystery. God doesn't make a religion that will be hard for His followers to understand or explain. Rather it's made clear and easy but the trinity is a clear mystery.

So, don't believe in the Trinity. As strongly trinitarian as I am, I don't think that belief or lack of belief in the doctrine has anything to do with one's salvation. God is the "author" of our salvation and that story is told in the scripture. Human kind having read the scriptures and asked questions about what it says has add his own understanding of the nature of God, Christians have labelled this understanding as Trinity. But God is God and the doctrine of the Trinity is just so many words about God. They aren't the same thing. In other words, even the words of Tertullian and Athanasian and the entirety of the coucils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon are nothing more than a sophisticated form of writing an analogy and do so in finite words; thus, like all analogies, their words too fall short of fully conveying the essence of God who is an infinite being.


It is completely possible to truly worship God (whom I believe happens to be triune in nature) without worshipping him as a triune being. It wouldn't be my definition of Christian worship, but it could still be worship of the one true God.

 

[YusufNoor]

i found this article by Rev. MF Blume to be interesting:


The series of events and people who brought about the Trinity doctrine as it appears today is as follows. We find in the New Testament that the early church preached nothing about a trinity of three eternal persons. The Old Testament was based upon the Oneness of the Godhead as clearly revealed in Old Testament writings. The apostles believed in the fulness of Godhead as dwelling in Jesus Christ bodily.

After the Apostolic age, the Post-Apostolic Age (AD 90-140) arrived. The writers Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hermas were the only writers of the age whose studies are intact today. In their writings, these men said nothing about a Trinity of three eternal persons. Calvin Beisner, the evangelical author, wrote in his book, God in Three Persons, that the earliest times exhibited no clear statements about any Trinity whatsoever and that the first two centuries promoted monotheism as the main thought. The post-apostolic writers simply stressed the One God concept as found in the Old Testament.

Then the Greek Apologists came along, writing studies that gave the name to the Age as the Greek Apologists from AD 130-180. In this Age the first clear changeover from biblical Oneness towards the trinitarian concept occurred. The main reason that changeover occurred was due to their idea of what the term "LOGOS", found in John 1:1, meant. The Greek philosophers of prechristian days taught the existence of a LOGOS. These Apologists entered Christianity in the second century and promoted this pagan idea in the church. They claimed that John meant for his readers to understand that Jesus was the same LOGOS that the prechristian Greeks believed in, although these Greeks knew nothing about the true God nor of Jesus Christ. They believed the LOGOS was a second divine person who was subservient to the Father. This is not believed today by trinitarians, as they feel the Son and the Father are equal, even though the ORIGIN of the idea of two persons comes from these Apologists.

The first roots of Trinity belief came in this age. There was a definite modification of the baptismal formula. They began baptising in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost, rather than invoke the name Jesus as we find it in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5. They denied the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. The points that these philosophers held to that are in agreement with modern-day trinitarianism are:

* 1) the LOGOS being a second divine person
* 2) the idea that the LOGOS was begotten before creation at a certain point of time
* 3) the LOGOS is the Son of God
* 4) a baptismal formula that consisted of a three-fold invocation
* 5) and the idea that the Spirit somehow linked the Father and the Son together.

They attempted to deal with the "plurality" issue of God. Trinity doctrine was not as yet invented as a solution.

The next age occurred between AD 170 and 325, and is called the Old Catholic Age. The process had already started towards a threesome of persons comprising One God in the previous Age. In the latter half of the fourth century, an orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was finally established.

Many writers of this Age commented about the Oneness doctrine, revealing that Oneness was the dominant doctrine held by believers in the first part of the Old Catholic Age. These writers gave evidence that proves that Jesus' Name baptism was carried on widely despite the new, growing popularity of a "Trinity" doctrine of God. Trinitarianism first came with the idea that Jesus was a separate person from the Father and a deity who was inferior to the Father. The *original* founders of the Trinity never departed from that belief. Only until the time of the fourth century did trinitarians begin changing this flaw of thinking. At that time they began saying that the three eternal persons were coeternal, coequal and cosubstantial.

It is notable that early trinitarians rejected the idea that Jesus is God.

Men continued rejecting a trinity of persons. Irenaeus wrote in the beginning of the Old Catholic Age and stated that God is One, and that Jesus is God. He believed that The WORD is the mind and expression of the Father and that the Son is the invisible Father's visible revelation. He said the name of Jesus reveals the Father and belongs to the Father. Although he did not fully teach a trinity of persons, he was partway there in believing a trinity since he looked at the LOGOS as originally being in God and that it somehow, later, became distinct from the Father.

TERTULLIAN

It was in this Age that the first man to coin the word "Trinity" came along, named Tertullian (150 - 225 AD) and the first who said that God was Three persons in one substance about the year 200. Never before Tertullian had anyone heard of the word "Trinity". This man was originally "Binitarian" - having believed in two persons. He believed that the Holy Ghost was more of a "thing" and not God, Himself. But the "Montanists" taught him to believe in the Paraclete as being more personal than what he formerly felt. Thus the Holy Spirit became the third eternal person in his later thinking.

In his book Against Hermogenes, Tertullian believed God was originally alone and not yet, therefore, a Father. The Son was created at a certain point, making God into a Father. He wrote, "The Trinity, flowing down from the Father, does not at all disturb the Monarchy [one sovereign God], whilst at the same time guards the state of the Economy [three persons]," in his book Against Praxeas, a book which taught against Modalism or Oneness. He said that the Father and the Son are like the Sun and its light rays.

The light rays and the Sun are one, but yet they are two different things. He taught a new concept saying that the Son is merely "a portion of the whole Godhead".

He did not believe the three persons were eternal, as do the Trinitarians today.

ORIGEN

[B]After Tertullian, came Origen (185 AD - 254 AD). This man derived much of his thoughts from pagan philosophy of the Greeks.[/B] He believed that souls pre-existed conception and that even Satan would eventually be saved. He believed Jesus was born of the Father before all other creatures, and that "the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not," according to his book, On the Principles.

[B]Origen was the first who clearly taught that there were three persons who were eternal. He taught that the Son eternally was being generated from the Fathe[/B]r. (1:2:2; 1:2:4).

Towards the end of this Age, more and more writers began expressing their beliefs about God in trinitarian terms. Yet they still saw the Son and the Spirit as inferior to the Father. Only two men seemed to write in what is agreeable to the modern trinitarian doctrine. These men were Gregory Thaumaturgus and Dionysius of Rome.

Most of the Fourth Century passed before the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was created. Please note that Trinitarianism was originated by people who did not believe in the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. Modern day Trinitarians do not even agree with what the originators of the Trinity believed!

By the end of the fourth century there was a great controversy between those who believed that Jesus was another being separate from God and inferior to God, and those who believed that Jesus was a coeternal person beside the Father making up one God. Athanasius led the group who believed in three persons while Arius led the other group.

[B]In 325 AD, Athanasius' view won the day at the Nicean council. But the idea of a Trinity was not completely declared until the Council at Constantinople in 381 where they declared God to be three eternal person[/B]s. At this latter council they declared the Holy Spirit was a third eternal person. The Athanasian Creed is the declaration held by Roman Catholics and most Protestants today. It was created in the fifth century. Modern orthodox trinitarianism stands on this creed.

In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the "Church" formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the "Church" said it was true.

God did NOT intend us to think we could add to the words of the Bible by formulating doctrines which were not taught in Scripture. In fact, God placed a curse upon all who add to the Word of God (Rev. 22:18). Hence, the Trinity doctrine, since it was not even formulated until the end of the fourth century, must be referred to as the "word of man" rather than the "Word of God." And since it is the Word of Man, it must not be elevated as truth.

Jesus said, "thy Word is truth," - not "man's word is truth." John 17:17


http://mikeblume.com/origin.htm

 

[Walter]

OK Grace Seeker:

I thought that you had finished your accusations, but I see that you have now added heretic to the list. I suppose that had we met 1,000 years ago, that you would have condemned me to death, or tried to mercilessly force a confession out of me, while I would be asking God to forgive you for your actions borne of ignorance.

I have repeatedly asked you to simply look at the evidence. But so far you have refused, preferring instead to declare that your interpretation is the only correct one, and then behaving as violently as your fathers did.

Have you learnt nothing from our violent history? Why are you so unwilling to discuss the issue? Why are you so willing to throw around accusations of ‘heretic’ as carelessly as your fathers did, especially when you are fully aware of the violent consequences that ensued?

Let me strongly recommend (and I do not strongly recommend very often) that you, at the very least, read the evidence before making any further premature conclusions and irresponsible accusations. The Book includes a summary of the over 20,000 pages of early church historical documents between the time of Jesus and Mohammed that describe the development of Christian religious tradition.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Follower]

Abd-al-Latif - You are confused in the multiplication forumula. We are using just 1 apple, not 3. It doesn't matter what kind of apple it is just 1 apple. Your wanting to add different kinds of apples changes it to 3 red apples x 2 yellow apples x 1 huge apple =6 apples of various kinds which is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about 1 apple.

The 1 apple may have different physical properties but it is still an apple. It does not become say an orange. And yes apple juice heated is very good especially when you add some cinnamon!!

Aadfil77 asked Why continue to use that stupid number anology? Because some people understand math better.

I may have posted this before.

Bible Translation By Grade Level
It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level

KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th
HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd

The physical forms may change but the substance stays the same.

This lesson is the third in a three-part series that addresses a concept that is central to the understanding of the water cycle—that water is able to take many forms but is still water. This series of lessons is designed to prepare students to understand that most substances may exist as solids, liquids, or gases depending on the temperature, pressure, and nature of that substance. This knowledge is critical to understanding that water in our world is constantly cycling as a solid, liquid, or gas.

 

[Grace Seeker]

OK Grace Seeker:

I thought that you had finished your accusations, but I see that you have now added heretic to the list.

I spoke of heresies, those beliefs identified by the church throughout history as heresies. I don't believe that you will see that I called any living person a heretic.

I suppose that had we met 1,000 years ago, that you would have condemned me to death, or tried to mercilessly force a confession out of me, while I would be asking God to forgive you for your actions borne of ignorance.

I don't know. 1000 years ago would have been about the time of the split between the eastern and western portions of the empire. The issues that you are raising today were not the primary matters being discussed. You would definitely have been the odd man out at that point in the church's history. But if you read church history you will see that the Arians sought to power of the state and exercised it when they had it just as much as any other group.

I have repeatedly asked you to simply look at the evidence. But so far you have refused, preferring instead to declare that your interpretation is the only correct one, and then behaving as violently as your fathers did.

It is your opinion that I am not looking at the evidence. Given that the issues you attempt to present are nothing but a rehashing of issues discussed and (IMO) resolved centuries ago, I believe it is you who is failing to look at the evidence.

Have you learnt nothing from our violent history? Why are you so unwilling to discuss the issue? Why are you so willing to throw around accusations of ‘heretic’ as carelessly as your fathers did, especially when you are fully aware of the violent consequences that ensued?

You are the one throwing around accusations. You seem to be accusing me of accusing you of being a heretic. I have said some strong things with regard to your beliefs; I don't back away from those assertions either. But check what I have said, I have stopped short of calling you a heretic, rather you have chosen to infer that from what I have said:

Grenville is free to believe whatever he wants, but when he says that the Bible does not teach the incarnation, I am likewise free to say that I disagree and that his interpretation is so far afield from the teachings of the Christian faith as to no longer be appropriate for the adjective Christian to be applied to it.

Please continue your discussion. But do not ask me to say that the views that you are presenting are Christian in character. They are not.

Time and again scriptural interpretation is at the core of disputes between positions that would be declared orthodox and those that would be declared heretical. (That is exactly what is happening between me and Grenville in this thread as well.) Heretics, for example, frequently make use of Scripture -- drawing on the same sources as the orthodox in many cases.

In the last passage, which seems to be the one that has excited you to make this accusation, the use of the terms "heretical" and "heretics" is in the context of my discussion with Muhammad about the development of Christian doctrine and are not directed at you. I made parentheical allusion to our present conversation to show how it might look when that conversation was ongoing and unresolved, but I did not use that term to describe you personally. And please don't play innocent here, you have asserted that I am the one who is tied to a particular interpretation which you call a misinterpretation of scripture. You have made it clear that we cannot both be right. So, you are in essence saying that your position is orthodox and mine is not. That comes just as close to calling me a heretic as you accuse me of doing with you.

Let me strongly recommend (and I do not strongly recommend very often) that you, at the very least, read the evidence before making any further premature conclusions and irresponsible accusations. The Book includes a summary of the over 20,000 pages of early church historical documents between the time of Jesus and Mohammed that describe the development of Christian religious tradition.

Regards,
Grenville

Grenville, I have people recommend that I read this or that book at least a half dozen times a week. I don't have time to read them all. I might read half dozen books a year. And I don't have much interest in the one you propose, so I have no intention of going out and getting it on my own. (BTW, my library doesn't have it on their shelves, either.) But I did offer to read it if you are so serious about feeling that I need to read it if you send it to me. I don't say that very often. The book you describe sounds to me like other books that I have already read, with nothing new that I haven't heard someplace else before. But I am offering to read it if you choose to supply it. I believe that is more than meeting you halfway.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i found this article by Rev. MF Blume to be interesting:

MF Blume writes for Word Aflame, this group is a part of a Pentecostal group know as "in Jesus name only" or "Oneness Pentecostalism". They do represent a group of non-Trinitarians within the Christian community. You might guess that I disagree not only with his assertions but think he incorrectly describes the theology of the chuch and the development of that theology over the course of church history. What I will concede is that they do indeed represent a non-Trinitarian witness that is Christian. I make this last statement based not on the writings of MF Blume (what was produced of it above is too limited in scope to make such a statemnet), but other Pentecostal Christians I know who are also part of this "in Jesus name only" movement.

This Oneness theology rejects the trinitarian formula, but does believe that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit holding that these are not three distinct persons (which would be the trinitarian view that would also maintain that the three distinct persons are yet one being) but only that they are unique titles of the one God who manifests himself in different ways known as theophanies. Jesus is seen as the most perfect of these theophanies for they hold that Jesus is indeed the incarnation of this one God.

 

[Follower]

Yusef Noor- We find in the New Testament that the early church preached nothing about a trinity of three eternal persons.

You are correct that the word Trinity was not used. But the early church fathers did in fact preach about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and divinity of Christ.

Polycarp 69-155 AD a disciple of the Apostle John.

Near the end of his short epistle, Polycarp prays, ". . . may He (God the Father) grant unto you a lot with and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and GOD Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html
Polycarp 7:1
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the
testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert
the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is
neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of
Satan.

Ignatius 98-117AD an early church father, disciple of the apostle John and bishop of Antioch. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html


http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/who-said.htm
To the Ephesians: Ignatius opens his first epistle by telling the Ephesian church it is ". . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD" (introduction). He commends them for ". . . having your hearts kindled in THE BLOOD OF GOD" (1:1 compare Acts 20:28).

"There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, GOD IN MAN, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:2).

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Abd-al-Latif - You are confused in the multiplication forumula. We are using just 1 apple, not 3. It doesn't matter what kind of apple it is just 1 apple. Your wanting to add different kinds of apples changes it to 3 red apples x 2 yellow apples x 1 huge apple =6 apples of various kinds which is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about 1 apple.

The 1 apple may have different physical properties but it is still an apple. It does not become say an orange. And yes apple juice heated is very good especially when you add some cinnamon!!

Aadfil77 asked Why continue to use that stupid number anology? Because some people understand math better.

I may have posted this before.

Bible Translation By Grade Level
It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level

KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th
HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd

The physical forms may change but the substance stays the same.

This lesson is the third in a three-part series that addresses a concept that is central to the understanding of the water cycle—that water is able to take many forms but is still water. This series of lessons is designed to prepare students to understand that most substances may exist as solids, liquids, or gases depending on the temperature, pressure, and nature of that substance. This knowledge is critical to understanding that water in our world is constantly cycling as a solid, liquid, or gas.

When an object has changed in it's form it also changes in it's state or properties. For example, mud that has been baked turns into clay. In the trinity, the apple does not remain in the same form and even when an attempt is made to change it then it only takes two forms i.e. the original state and the mashed state.

Water, ice and steam are not the same form and looking at it is proof enough, let alone scientific proof.

God, is not an angel, nor is he a man and He is only the Almighty. Neither of the three are in any way or form the same. Either all three are gods, humans as well as angels or all 3 are part of a god that make a complete god or this just does not make sense.

This is why Allah says in the Qur'an "do not say three" because Allah is only One god.

 

[Grace Seeker]

When an object has changed in it's form it also changes in it's state or properties. For example, mud that has been baked turns into clay. In the trinity, the apple does not remain in the same form and even when an attempt is made to change it then it only takes two forms i.e. the original state and the mashed state.

Water, ice and steam are not the same form and looking at it is proof enough, let alone scientific proof.

Either you don't understand the application of the analogy or you still don't understand what it is that trinitarians mean by Trinity. We DO say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons. We also say the three persons are of one essence, hence the analogy that Follower has given. An object may change form, but it still retains the essence of its elemental nature. A solid, liquid and gas of a particular molecule will act differently, but it will still have the same molecular composition. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit may interact with the world in different ways, but it is still the same one God who is interacting with the world in each person. We are not saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit have one form. Indeed they do not. The Son takes on human form while, according to Jesus, the Father must be worshipped in spirit, and the form of the Holy Spirit is, as the name itself attests, spirit also. So, thee three persons do have different forms but their being is of the same essence, being God.

The analogy doesn't illustrate all things that would true about the trinity, but the objection of different forms is not one where it fails.

 

[Follower]

The physical forms may change but the substance stays the same.

I forgot to add the link to the article:

http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/lessons.cfm?BenchmarkID=3&DocID=161

"This lesson is the third in a three-part series that addresses a concept that is central to the understanding of the water cycle—that water is able to take many forms but is still water. This series of lessons is designed to prepare students to understand that most substances may exist as solids, liquids, or gases depending on the temperature, pressure, and nature of that substance. This knowledge is critical to understanding that water in our world is constantly cycling as a solid, liquid, or gas."

Not to confuse you even more but notice that all the water of the world does not have to be in the same form at the same time.

Just as when GOD made His WORD incarnate not all of GOD came to earth in human form.

Graceseeker have you ever noticed that Christians say Jesus is GOD but we never say GOD is Jesus. That would be far too limiting.

 

[Walter]

Dear Follower:

We must be as conscientious looking for evidence that does not support our views as those that do if we really wish to know the Truth. The Truth is explicitly stated in the Bible, which I believe, and uncompromisingly so, and which every Christian should.

You are quoting from the early church leaders. However, perhaps you are not aware that there were quite a few forgeries of Polycarp’s and Ignatuis’ letters as persons tried to prove that later teachings actually developed earlier. One authoritative source for these letters is the Ante-Nicene Christian library by Philip Schaff. Polycarp’s epistle does not state:

"who shall believe on our Lord and GOD Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead"​

as you have quoted, but

“who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who raised Him from the dead”​

Regarding Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, there are two versions. One is as you have written “the blood of God”, and the other states “the blood of Christ”. You now have a choice. You can decide which of these two is consistent with the explicit biblical evidence, or you can choose to entrust that decision to your spiritual elders. If you are a juvenile, then entrusting that decision to adults is appropriate. However, if you are an adult, then it is time that you examined the evidence for yourself.

Best regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

Either you don't understand the application of the analogy or you still don't understand what it is that trinitarians mean by Trinity.

Graceseeker have you ever noticed that Christians say Jesus is GOD but we never say GOD is Jesus. That would be far too limiting.

Perhaps the two above statements explain what this argument is all about. Two groups are presented: Trinitarians and Christians.

Christians should believe what is explicitly written in the Bible. While Trinitarians are Christians who, in addition, believe what is not explicitly stated, for example, that Jesus is God.

I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible describes Him to be: the Son of God and Messiah who was sent to reconcile all people to God through His sacrifice on the cross, that they may know God as their Father and inherit eternal life. Is Jesus God? Perhaps He is? The point is that there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to conclude that He is. Therefore it should remain a personal matter between the individual and God, and not a mandatory belief with violent consequences for those who do not share it.

Christian doctrines (obligatory beliefs) should comprise what is explicitly stated in the Bible, and not something that is vulnerable to diverse interpretations. There is sufficient evidence in the Bible to show that Jesus is not God. Any interpretation that He is must resolve, not ignore, this contrary evidence.

At this point in this thread, there is still harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an, despite the best efforts of my brothers. Rather than disturb this thread any further on the trinity issue, I shall open a new one inviting “Trinitarians” to discuss any Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus is God. Why would I do such a thing? Because I want to know the Truth.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Graceseeker have you ever noticed that Christians say Jesus is GOD but we never say GOD is Jesus. That would be far too limiting.

We do speak this way, I suspect it is because so much of our conversation is a re-action to other people's questions. As a proactive statement the Bible itself declares:
"God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ]..." (Colossians 1:19)
"in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Colossians 2:9)

 

[Grace Seeker]

Christian doctrines (obligatory beliefs) should comprise what is explicitly stated in the Bible, and not something that is vulnerable to diverse interpretations. There is sufficient evidence in the Bible to show that Jesus is not God. Any interpretation that He is must resolve, not ignore, this contrary evidence.

What poppycock!

If doctrines were to be devoid of what can be inferred from scripture, then there would only be the Bible itself. And people who had questions as to its meaning would be left to flounder adrift without the benefit of any guidance of other believers. Your own views are not explicitly stated in the scripture. They are filled with inferences. In other words you are creating doctrine, or buying into that doctrine created by the author of the book you so want me to read, but don't accept my offer to read it when you send it to me. The fact is that there is every bit as much evidence in the Bible to show that Jesus is God, and further that this was the opinion of the disciples themselves. For what reason would Paul have persecuted them if they were not preaching such a message?

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

What poppycock!

You are still making premature conclusions without even looking at the evidence. Nevertheless, I have opened a new thread where we can discuss this matter further.

Regards,
Grenville