Oneness of God

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I think you are using the logic of man to measure the greatness of God.

Can you show me where I am measuring the greatness of God?
I never did. I just showed that the trinity can logically not be considered monotheism.

Now its up to you if you wish to tell me that your religion is illogical, I am not making that conclusion I am simply using the logic given to me by God to analyse the truth.

And the truth is that the trinity is not monotheism.

The Koran does not have the word "royal plural" in it either........

Let us (plural) make man in our(plural) image. So God(singular) created man in his(singular) own image, in the image of God (singular)created he him..........

So you are saying that God using the plural=multiple Gods? Or multiple ;persons' in a God?

Anyway, this use of 'we' according to Islam is the Royal We. You may read this fatwa for more info: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=606&dgn=4

In arabic, it is not unusual to see a single arab say "naqool" (we say), when he is only one person. This is not evidence for trinity at all!

And why three? Why not four? Or five?
And why Christ as His son? Why not Moses? Or David? Or John the Baptist?

I need more proof than that, mule.

I was not asking you a question. I know what that means. I don't agree with your response. I also don't believe that all the sons of God are divine. Some are servants and others angels and yet in Jesus' case he called God his father.

many prophets were called son of God.

Wikipedia says about the tile "Son of God":

the title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10).


In Judaism, it is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba). In one midrash, the Torah is said to be God's "daughter" (Leviticus Rabbah xx.)"

How do we know which ones are divine and which aren't? Is it pick and choose? Is there an election?

Looking forward to your reply,
Ansar

 

[mule]

SpaceFalcon2001,

As I have mentioned before, it was well known before christianity existed that that refered to His Holy Court of Him and Angels, in their decision to create the world.

You are better using the argument that God is refering to himself as a royal plural.

You are not made in the image of Angels you are made in the image of God.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jesus is not Equal with HaShem, infact we Jews have a prayer called Avienu Malkeinu, Our Father Our King! We say it quite often, calling HaShem our father, yet none of us are magically transformed to become saviours of the universe and new Gods. Perhaps we lack the proper pagan mythology to back us up?

hm.....back then it must meant something different, because the passage says that he was about to get stoned for making himself equal to God. Pagan mythology? Gasp, that's not very nice.

Regardless, the very fact that Jesus broke the sabbath by picking grain and telling others to break the sabbath (in addition to many other instances of Jesus breaking the commandments) shows that he was not a good Jew, and could never be Moshiach:
The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of G-d”. (Isaiah 11:2)

That musta meant that he was Lord of the sabbath.

The Moshiach was a good man. You must consider the new testament reliable.

mule

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

You are better using the argument that God is refering to himself as a royal plural.

Sorry, I only have one God.

You are not made in the image of Angels you are made in the image of God.

Here is what has been true since the torah was written:

"And God said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of creation of theworld, 'Let us make Man'" (Tagum Jonathan)

When Moses wrote the Torah, and came to this verse (let us make), which is in the plural and implies that there is more than one creator, he said: "Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divines?" "Write!", HaShem replied. "Whoever wishes to err will err... Instead, let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man, He took counsel with the ministering Angels!" (Midrash)

Thus, HaShem taught that one shouls always consult others before embarking on major new initiatives, and He was not deterred by the possibility that some might choose to find a sacrilegious implication in the verse. The implication of HaShem's response, "Whoever wishes to err," is that one who sincerely seeks the truth will see it; one who looks for an excuse to blasphame will find it.

HaShem spoke with his Angels that he created out of respect to them, to show them that their creation was not meaningless! For HaShem would not want his closest servants to become enamored with the idea that they were not important.

The Moshiach was a good man. You must consider the new testament reliable.

Was? That interesting as none of the prophicies have been fulfilled. Jesus was a sinner, just like everyone else. He broke the sabbath and deserved to be stoned, as a failure for a Jew (and a dead one at that, if he even existed), he has no hope of being anyone's Moshiach.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

SpaceFalcon,

Sorry, I only have one God.

The Royal Plural does not indicate more than one God. It is used in many languages by an authority to refer to themself. So it refers to a single entity.

The problem I have with your interpretation that it refers to angels as well is that God ascribes actions to Himself using "we" which could not be done by angels. Angels are not creators. Angels do not give life and death. Angels are not the kings of the universe.

your interpretation places the angels on an equal level with God, Himself.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

The problem I have with your interpretation that it refers to angels as well is that God ascribes actions to Himself using "we" which could not be done by angels. Angels are not creators. Angels do not give life and death. Angels are not the kings of the universe.

your interpretation places the angels on an equal level with God, Himself.

Ah, I am sorry Al-haq that you are confused. True enough, it says "let us make man in our image" (that is to say Man would be fashioned to be self aware, and have a mind of his own), however, I did not say that Angels actually did the creating. "Let us" is simply providing the Angels with respect, to read on:

"Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness... So God created Man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He [singular] created them

Just as Man is unique, so the manner of his creation was unique and exalted. Throughout the chapter, God brought all things into being with an utterance, but He created Man with His own hands, as it were (Rashi)

 

[mule]

You're better off using the argument for royal plural.

Sorry, I only have one God.

Sigh........so do I.

Was? That interesting as none of the prophicies have been fulfilled. Jesus was a sinner, just like everyone else. He broke the sabbath and deserved to be stoned, as a failure for a Jew (and a dead one at that, if he even existed), he has no hope of being anyone's Moshiach

At least I can say you believe he existed.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

At least I can say you believe he existed.

Well, that's not too hard to believe. Jesus was probbly real, just like Shabbat Zevi we know was real. Both became acclaimed messiahs, although Jesus has had his name dragged through more mud. Not to mention the texts about Jesus that predate the Gospels that speak of him, not as a God, but as a quote worthy man Read: Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Q.

 

[mule]

I don't believe in a gospel of Q. I have never read the Gospel of Thomas. Don't know a thing about it.

I have enough work just reading the bible. If I want to predate the gospels I go to the old testament.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

I don't believe in a gospel of Q. I have never read the Gospel of Thomas. Don't know a thing about it.

I have enough work just reading the bible. If I want to predate the gospels I go to the old testament.

When you're ready to move beyond "church approved" writings:
www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ah, I am sorry Al-haq that you are confused. True enough, it says "let us make man in our image" (that is to say Man would be fashioned to be self aware, and have a mind of his own), however, I did not say that Angels actually did the creating. "Let us" is simply providing the Angels with respect, to read on:

Are we in the image of the angels as well? This means that the angels have the same image as God right?

There are many more difficulties withi this interpretation.

And may I ask which jewish groups supports this interpretation? Because all the Jewish websites I have been to use the 'royal we' explanation.
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5761/bereishis.html

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

It is (as I quoted) a Midrash, taught to better understand the text's intention, and of the great commentator Rashi.

Further, we are made in the image of HaShem, just as the angels are, for even though they are created purely as servants of HaShem, they too have the ability to think as we do: the ability to rationalize their actions, and make choices.

 

[mule]

In the bible does it say that angels are made in the image of God?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

...[angels can] make choices.

According to Islam they cannot. They can only do what Allah swt commands them to. They have no choice in any matter. They do what is programmed into their nature.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

According to Islam they cannot. They can only do what Allah swt commands them to. They have no choice in any matter. They do what is programmed into their nature.

Well that is a difference of our theologies I suppose.

My question here is, why do you think Satan is a Jinn if he was to rule over all the angels? Why would Allah bother puting a lower life form in charge of Angels?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't think he was a lower life form, and I don't think he was put in charge of the angels. That may be another difference in our theologies.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

In the bible does it say that angels are made in the image of God?

Not quite specifically, but we do see them as early as Genesis 18/19 walking sometimes as Men, and other times as Angels, paying attention to customs and the ways of other peoples.

The defenition of an Angel is a function HaShem wishes to be performed, they are not puppets (or why not have HaShem do any job that needs to be done himself?), they need to be independant enough to make the choices that will result in their mission being fulfilled.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

I don't think he was a lower life form, and I don't think he was put in charge of the angels. That may be another difference in our theologies.

Sorry, I was working off this:

In Islam, Satan is known as Iblis إبليس or "Shaitan شيطان", who was the chief of the angels until he disobeyed Allah by refusing to prostrate himself before Adam because he refused to accept Man as his superior. Islam describes Satan as a Jinn, an entity made of fire, and not of the angels made from light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan, is this not true entirely?

 

[kadafi]

Sorry, I was working off this:
Quote:
In Islam, Satan is known as Iblis إبليس or "Shaitan شيطان", who was the chief of the angels until he disobeyed Allah by refusing to prostrate himself before Adam because he refused to accept Man as his superior. Islam describes Satan as a Jinn, an entity made of fire, and not of the angels made from light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan, is this not true entirely?

That is not correct. Iblis was the highest of the Jinns before he disobeyed. Now, he is the chief of the Shaytans (Devils).

Please bear in mind that wikis are unreliable sources. They are forum encies that are often very inaccurate.

For more info --:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

Peace!

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

Please bear in mind that wikis are unreliable sources. They are forum encies that are often very inaccurate.

Of course it's unreliable, it's a public encyclopedia, that has many advantages and disadvantages to it. The best thing is that you can still go in there and make it correct!

 

[Burninglight]

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-- in one divine being.

The only thing that happened in the 4th century was Constantine coined the term trinity, but He is not the inventer of the Father calling Jesus His Son nor is he the inventer of the Holy Spirit who is God according to the Bible. If Constantine were never a factor we would still have the message Paul gives. That we are only saved by grace through faith. It is a gift that cannot be earned or worked for.

All have sinned and come short of God's glory and standard; the wages of sin is death, but God's gift is eternal life through Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift that can only be received by faith not by works otherwise a person can take the credit and God doesn't get the glory. Don't blame some 4th century pagan for Christianity or taking from the onesness of God. It was written before Constantine was born: he that has the son has life; he that doesn't have the son, has not life but the wrath of God abides on him. The Lord our God is one.