Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[Talha777]

Do you know what "Bible" means and where the word came from?

Yes, you have raised a very good point. How do we know that all the books in the Bible are supposed to be part of it. I mean how can Paul's letters be considered as part of scripture? Christians say the "holy spirit" guided the process of the bible, and preserved it (in which case it did an awful job). Of course, catholics and protestants can't even agree what is and what isn't part of the bible. even martin luther doubted if the book of revelation is part of the bible.

we have repeatedly challenged any christian to come forward and tell us straightforwardly how was the bible canon compiled?

 

[Keltoi]

i'm not talking about the meaning or where it came from, I'm talking about that the word Bible itself is not mentioned in the Bible.

Since the Christian Bible is made up of numerous books, 66 if I'm not mistaken, there wasn't one name for all of them. They all have their own names. So the Greek word "Biblos" was used to name the entirety of these books when they came together in one. It wouldn't make any sense for the word "Bible" to appear in the Bible.

 

[Keltoi]

Yes, you have raised a very good point. How do we know that all the books in the Bible are supposed to be part of it. I mean how can Paul's letters be considered as part of scripture? Christians say the "holy spirit" guided the process of the bible, and preserved it (in which case it did an awful job). Of course, catholics and protestants can't even agree what is and what isn't part of the bible. even martin luther doubted if the book of revelation is part of the bible.

we have repeatedly challenged any christian to come forward and tell us straightforwardly how was the bible canon compiled?

The New Testament had pretty much come together by 150AD but there continued to be discussion about a few books until about 400 AD. It was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The three criteria used were similar to the criteria used by the Jewish clergy to compile the Old Testament.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book's teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?

In both Old and New testaments, the books included had to be generally viewed as the work of divinely inspired writers who faithfully converted God's Word into written form.

 

[vpb]

Since the Christian Bible is made up of numerous books, 66 if I'm not mistaken, there wasn't one name for all of them. They all have their own names. So the Greek word "Biblos" was used to name the entirety of these books when they came together in one. It wouldn't make any sense for the word "Bible" to appear in the Bible.

yes, of course, bc these gospels are human-made books, bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible

 

[Keltoi]

yes, of course, bc these gospels are human-made books, bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible

Of course they are "human made" books, God doesn't work with paper and ink. I don't really see the relevance of your other point either. "bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book"...where did this divine logic come from?

 

[Trumble]

if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book, but since everybody put his head on the "inspiration from God", people who didn't even met Jesus, and they write many books, of course the word Bible does not appear on the Bible

I don't see your logic. Why would being the word of God necessarily mean that a book must include reference to its own title? And of course it would be nonsense to say that any book that includes a reference to its own title must be the word of God!

 

[vpb]

Of course they are "human made" books, God doesn't work with paper and ink. I don't really see the relevance of your other point either. "bc if it would have been the word of God, than there would be just one name and that name would be mentioned in the book"...where did this divine logic come from?

of course that God doesn't work with paper and ink, but bible is written from people, who just write whatever they know (we don't know how accurate they are), while for example Qur'an , came directly from God , through Gabriel (the arch-angel) to Muhammed saws. You see the difference?

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

I don't see your logic. Why would being the word of God necessarily mean that a book must include reference to it's own title? And of course it would be nonsense to say that any book that includes a reference to its own title must be the word of God!

if you buy a book, and the title of the book is not included on the book, how do you know if it is that book??? or do u have to wait till people assign a name for it?

i haven't come across a single book which does not include in its papers the name of the book itself that the author gave. bc as for religious texts, i'm not even discussing that, but let's just take example for ordinary books.
on the bible you just have nems "Gospel of John, of mathew, of luke, of of of....."

btw, not everything works with logic cuz login bring "why"s and that why another why and leads at the end to commiting suicide.

 

[Keltoi]

of course that God doesn't work with paper and ink, but bible is written from people, who just write whatever they know (we don't know how accurate they are), while for example Qur'an , came directly from God , through Gabriel (the arch-angel) to Muhammed saws. You see the difference?

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

if you buy a book, and the title of the book is not included on the book, how do you know if it is that book??? or do u have to wait till people assign a name for it?

i haven't come across a single book which does not include in its papers the name of the book itself that the author gave. bc as for religious texts, i'm not even discussing that, but let's just take example for ordinary books.
on the bible you just have nems "Gospel of John, of mathew, of luke, of of of....."

btw, not everything works with logic cuz login bring "why"s and that why another why and leads at the end to commiting suicide.

I see the difference to you, as you believe Gabriel brought the Qu'ran to Muhammed...we don't believe that, so that line of reasoning doesn't work well in this context.

 

[vpb]

I see the difference to you, as you believe Gabriel brought the Qu'ran to Muhammed...we don't believe that, so that line of reasoning doesn't work well in this context.

ok, so if didn't come directly, but people like Paul john luke.... wrote them based on the knowledge they had, then we need to examine the accuracy of the statement they made.
if they say "and Jesus said this and this", you need to show me the source and the chain of the narration.
so I am asking u kindly could u please show me a source and chain of narration of a single statement of Jesus that went till it reached Paul or mark or john...whoever.. You choose which ever saying of Jesus u want .

 

[vpb]

for example, this is how a chart of narration of a hadith looks like:

 

[جوري]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ofend you. I will have to pray about how to respond to you.

Don't bother addressing me in any more of your posts... you can go cower some dark cyber corner for a few more days ( we all know that is the sort of praying you do), cut and paste as many anti-Islamic articles as you can, until you feel a false sense of ammunition, and come back hurl it here as you so often do in one of your numerous nauseating repetitive posts!

Unlike you, everyone here, in the very least those who have reverted, have given this a great deal of study, and I hope that they wouldn't show you any kindness, because you are not an honorable man! I have more scathing words to say to you, but will refrain myself. You want to learn how to be a good Christian, then take lessons from Eric H-- though I don't believe sincerity and intent can be taught.

I am unsubscribing from this thread!

peace!

 

[Trumble]

ok, so if didn't come directly, but people like Paul john luke.... wrote them based on the knowledge they had, then we need to examine the accuracy of the statement they made.

Why?

if they say "and Jesus said this and this", you need to show me the source and the chain of the narration.

Why?

There is no "need" to do anything of the sort. Suggesting there is is as absurd as saying "OK, so Mohammed got the Qur'an from God via the Angel Gabriel. Show me the eye witness reports of those who were there at the time(s) and SAW the Angel Gabriel".

There is no need as it is sufficient to assume that Bible is "inspired" by God to assume in turn that it says what He wishes it to say. I'm sure you would agree that that is comfortably within His power? Your point only makes any sense at all if you assume otherwise, which obviously Christians do not. In both cases, the issue is one of faith , not "sources and chains of narration", or indeed eye witnesses. A faith I don't share in the case of either Bible or Qur'an, of course, but then faith is like that - you have it or you don't.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

Not even the word 'Bible' itself is mentioned in the Bible .

I heard that Trinity is also not mentioned in Bible.

I was listening to late Ahmeed Deedat ( may Allah be pleased with him).

verses of the Day & Night


O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)!

Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of God aught but the truth.


The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of God and His Word, ("Be!" -- and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rûh) created by Him; so believe in God and His Messengers.



Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you.


For God is (the only) One Ilâh (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son.

To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.


The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God, nor the angels who are near (to God).

And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together unto Himself.


Quran 4: 171-172

 

[vpb]

NO. I disagree. We see that God directed more than one person to write, by his inspiritation, more than one book. Each book was written for its own particular reason. The Church would in time collect all of these writing together and keep them in one place. Though they had many different human scribes and spoke to many different sitatuations over a large number of years, they all had one thing in common, they were the word of God for the people of God. And that is why we collected them together into one place, and declared them to be the standard of faith and practice (i.e. the canon). So, the creation of the writing was a work of God through human agents. The collation of the Bible was a work of God's people though the Holy Spirit.

are you telling me that about 1400 people were inspiried by God to write a book??? and 4 of them were choosen as the real inspired ones? when you have inspiration from God, you don't need outside source .

 

[Grace Seeker]

can you please point at me the source of narration, the chain of the narration, of just a single saying of Jesus on the Bible???

Sure.

1) Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
2) John, the companion of Jesus, heard this with his own ears.
3) Late in his life, he recorded this saying by writing it down.
4) This record came to be know by the early church as the 4th gospel. It was given the title the Gospel of John, because it was believed that John was the author. This was on the testimony of:

a. some of John's own disciples (Polycarp and Ignatius) who wrote that they had heard John himself testify himself that he had written the 4th gospel.
b. the consensus tradition of the early church that it was written by John the Apostle.​

 

[Grace Seeker]

are you telling me that about 1400 people were inspiried by God to write a book??? and 4 of them were choosen as the real inspired ones? when you have inspiration from God, you don't need outside source .

What 1400 people are your referring to?

 

[vpb]

NO. I disagree. We see that God directed more than one person to write, by his inspiritation, more than one book. Each book was written for its own particular reason. The Church would in time collect all of these writing together and keep them in one place. Though they had many different human scribes and spoke to many different sitatuations over a large number of years, they all had one thing in common, they were the word of God for the people of God. And that is why we collected them together into one place, and declared them to be the standard of faith and practice (i.e. the canon). So, the creation of the writing was a work of God through human agents. The collation of the Bible was a work of God's people though the Holy Spirit.

i understand you, but we're are trying tell you guys that there is no diety of worship but Allah , and not joining him in partnership.



Surah An-Nisa 4:48:
Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.

Ibn Kathir says: "Allah swt warned us that he does not forgive shirk, so he does not gives mercy to a slave, who dies on joining partnership to Allah, whereas the other sins are forgiven.

From the above ayat, we understand that shirk is the greatest sin, because Allah swt told us that he does not forgive it except with tewbe, whereas the sins under the level of shirk are put under the will of Allah swt; if Allah wants he forgives then, if not he punishes. So, it is an obligation for a muslim to be afraid of this big sin, because it is the biggest injustice and the worst behavious, it contains on itself underestimation for Allah swt and trying that the truth that is only for Allah swt, to give it to somebody else, as Allah swt says:

Luqman 31:13
Behold, Luqman said to his son by way of instruction: "O my son! join not in worship (others) with Allah: for false worship is indeed the highest wrong-doing."

 

[Grace Seeker]

Are you joking?

no , i'm sorry I can't accept just blindly somebody's work just like that,

Are you joking?


You blindly accept somebody's work every time you pick up your Qur'an. You blindly accept that Muhammad was telling you the truth. You blindly accept that:
1) he got the message from another source and not his own creation. You have convinced yourself that Muhammad was not intelligent enough man to have composed the recitations over time. I have a higher degree of respect for Muhammad's intelligence than that.
2) the source was indeed the angel Gabriel and not some other source. You believe this because that is who Muhammad told you told him, and you believe Muhammad to be telling the truth. In part because if he didn't get it from Gabriel, then he was either lying (you can't believe that of Muhammad's character), fooled (you won't believe that of Muhammad's person), or crazy (a crazy man doesn't do the things that Muhammad did).
3) Gabriel got his message from God. The alternative to this option is too scary to even conceive for the Muslim, yet this alternative option is exactly what you claim has happened with regard to the Bible. If it could happen to our holy book, why could it not have happened to yours?


Ultimately there is an element of blind faith in both of our choices for our respective Holy Books.





P.S. While some will see this as an attack on either Muhammad or the Qur'an (or even both), I hope those who know me here know that I do not mean it that way at all. I am merely questioning the logic being presented, and even that I don't mean as a personal attack on vpb.

 

[vpb]

It was given the title the Gospel of John, because it was believed that John was the author. This was on the testimony of:

it was believed ehh?? subhanallah

a. some of John's own disciples (Polycarp and Ignatius) who wrote that they had heard John himself testify himself that he had written the 4th gospel.

is there any information about the Polycarp and Ignatius??

What 1400 people are your referring to?

1400 writing like the 4 ones u have.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i understand you, but we're are trying tell you guys that there is no diety of worship but Allah , and not joining him in partnership.

Which makes sense if the Qur'an is truly a work of God and the Bible is false. But not if it is the other way around.

What you are therefore also doing is asking us to throw away our Bibles, because they do teach those "truths" that we believe which you declare to be false beliefs. We merely want to show you that what we believe is taught, not just by "other" sources, but within the very pages of the Bible itself.