Funny how we hit upon the central points of disagreement so succinctly and perhaps so honestly. These are also essential ellements of our respective faiths that you can never prove yours to me any more than I can prove mine to you.
Peace.
Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?
- Thread starter Redeemed
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Views 108K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Peace.
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Muslim Woman, go back and find that post. I addressed it shortly afterward. But, for a quit parallel, imagine that someone has knowledge of the Qur'an, but refuses to listen to its teachings. Will Allah have mercy on that person? Won't that person fair worse than those who have no knowledge or those who try to follow but still sometimes fail?
Well, the Holy Spirt's role is to lead us to truth. So, rejecting Jesus is bad, but the work he does in our lives is to grant forgiveness. So, forgiveness is still available, even if we don't accept it. But the Holy Spirit directs us to find the truth and is a light which makes God known to us in so doing. Rejecting the Holy Spirit leaves us living in falsehood and darkness. From that there is no escape except to seek the light and truth which you have rejected. That's what makes rejecting the Holy Spirit worse than rejecting Jesus, also worse than rejecting the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's divine presence in our lives to guide us, and without it we are totally lost and on our own. But no one can find God on their own, we always need God's help to find God and grow in God. So, rejecting the Holy Spirit is sentencing one's self to life without God, forever.
My post was responding solely to the irresponsible statement made that Christ was inferior to the angels. That's all.
The question you mention is another issue, but I will try to respond to it now.
No, it doesn't give a higher status to the Holy Spirit "than the other 2 dieties" because, first of all, they are not 2 other deities. There is only ONE Deity--- ONE God. If you mean the other two Persons of the Trinity, the answer is still no. The issue is the nature of the different sins, not just the different Persons. Actually, I would rather not get too detailed in my answer for fear that I would possibly accuse someone of the unpardonable sin, which is a very heavy burden for anyone to bear. Now, I know you Muslims do it all the time when you accuse us Christians of the unpardonable sin of associating with Allah, but I would rather step lightly and carefully when discussing this matter.
Suffice it to say that the Holy Spirit is the One Who convicts you of your sin and convinces you of your need for the Savior. When you thereafter receive the Son as Savior and Lord, the Holy Spirit comes in to dwell in you and regenerate you, making you a brand new person, cleaning up your life, and empowering you to live a godly life that is pleasing to the Lord. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one can ever be saved, sealed, or sanctified.
The unpardonable sin is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil, which amounts to rejecting not only Christ Whose reception must precede the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit as well. The Pharisees certainly rejected Jesus as Israel's promised Messiah, but more than that, though they knew He "was a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him'' (John 3:2), they nevertheless attributed His casting out of demons to the Devil, the prince of demons. In that state, they would not only be rejecting the only Savior that can save them from their sins, but the Spirit Who regenerates and gives them new life as well.
Someone can speak against the Son, as all of you Muslims have done repeatedly, and be forgiven, after proper repentance and faith in Him, but to also reject the Holy Spirit and consider His regenerating and life-giving work to be of the devil, puts a person beyond forgiveness because they will die in their sins in an unregenerate state, having rejected both the Son and the Spirit, as most of the Pharisees had done.
Peace
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Question: Are you wanting to learn what it is that Christians believe with regard to these passages? Or do you want to tell us what they mean? You are like a person walking into a furniture store, sitting down at the dining room table there, and asking for a waitress to bring you a menu. Your questions are so far amiss, and then you tell me that I am not addressing the context.
So, from the top with John 10.
The pericope begins with the Jews asking Jesus to tell them who he is - "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Notice Jesus' response, "I did." "I did tell you, but you did not believe."
So, what did Jesus tell them? Did he tell them that he was NOT the Christ, or did he tell them that he was the Christ?
Well, to the Jews the Christ (Greek for Messiah, which in English means "anointed one of God") would have been someone sent to them from God. And Jesus basically says, all you have to do is open your eyes and observe what you see to know the answer to that question: Look at the miracles I do in my Father's name; they speak for me.
In other words he is saying, "Yes, I am the Christ. If only you had eyes to see that."
But he goes on to tell them that even though it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, that they can't see it. That they are too blind to see it, and one of the reasons is that really only those who belong to God (Christians talk about the "elect") are going to be able to believe. These Jews, by their vary actions and questions, show that they are not among those who really belong to God (even if they do trace their heritage all the way back to Abraham). If they did, they would see God in what Jesus does and they would not question who he was. Those who belong to him are the same as those who really belong to God as their Father. And vice versa, those who belong to God as their Father are those who belong to him. (Compare these comments of Jesus with John 6:37, 6:42, 8:42, 8:47) It is like with a shepherd, the shepherd speaks and calls to all the sheep at pasture in a field (shepherds would often pasture their flocks with one another, and then separate them at the end of the day by calling to them) and those who belong to the shepherd know his voice and follow him. So, using the analogy, if these Jews really belonged to God like they liked to think that they did, then they would hear Jesus speak his message and recognize it because, as he says, "I and the Father are one."
Now, clearly the Jews understood this to be the equivalent of Jesus saying that he was God. Indeed they say as much when questioned as to why they were about to stone Jesus: "We are not stoning you for any if these [miracles that Jesus had done], but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Well, how should Jesus respond to this charge? What are his options?
1) If it is not true he can simply tell them that he was not saying that he was God. That he was only speaking of the oneness he felt with God when he was doing miracles or how he loved people like God does. Or pretty much make any other sort of statement to a similar effect that they misunderstood what he was saying. But that is not what Jesus chose to say--
Instead Jesus replies with proposing a different way of looking at the issue:
2) He references some of the scripture that they would be familiar witih. The reference is to a Psalm of David, Psalm 82, where God speaking to mere men uses the term "gods" while referring to them. (These supposed "gods" were earthly kings who were accustomed to thinking of themselves as "gods" in relation to their subjects, except now, in the Psalm, they are in the court of the true KING, God, who will judge everyone, including these kings.) If God could speak of mere men that way, what is wrong with Jesus speaking of himself as he did? After all, if he was who he said that he was, then it wasn't blasphemy. It was simply the truth.
Jesus then reasserts his connect with God. If God is going to call "gods" mere mortal men that he calls into court for judgement, what do you think God is going to call the one person he actually anoints as his very own and sends to earth? And then he admits that he has called himself God's son. Now, to me at least, it is clear from the context that Jesus does not mean "son" as in all people are children of God. First the Jews of Jesus' day did not believe that. Yes, they spoke of the Fatherhood of God, but they meant it in a metaphorical sense. Here Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. They saw themselves as specially chosen people. But their chosenness came from being the children of Abraham. No human being could call themselves the progeny of God without it also being the same as making a claim to being divine themselves. And thus Jesus pointed again at his miracles for proof to his divine connection. And then he repeats the very idea that started all of the trouble -- not something you want to do if people have misunderstood you. Jesus is NOT saying that he is some sort of little "god". He is not saying that the Jews are misunderstanding his point about his unique connection with God. He is instead emphasizing it: "Get this. Here is how my statement 'I and the Father are one' works-- the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Even if you don't believe me when I tell you, just look at what you see, the miracles should speak for themselves.
The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, but they would have none of it. If he was going to call himself God's son, claim he was one with the Father, claim that his miracles proved he was from God, then he has gone to far. They didn't believe that he was who he said he was. They believed he was a man, claiming to be God. And so they went to seize him yet again.
Like the Jews, you can claim that Jesus wasn't really God or God's Son if you want to. But to say that Jesus never claimed to be God, just isn't true. He did it here and was clearly understood to have done it here. When called on it, rather than deny it, he affirmed it a second time.
And if you understood the scriptures you would know that Jesus' statement, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) was another example of Jesus making the same statement -- to which, not surprisingly, they picked up stones to stone him on that occassion also. Those who do not see that Jesus did in fact call himself God are simply about as able to see as the Jews in this pericope. Jesus' life is replete with evidence, but they still only see a mere man because they do not belong to him, but to someone else.
Last edited:
Talha777
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 86
GraceSeeker said:
You completely lost me at this point. You were supposed to explain clearly that Jesus was not claiming to be god in the same sense the Psalm quoted in john 10:34 calls the israelites as "gods". going through your entire post, i did not even find one instance where you could clearly prove the distinction between jesus claiming to be god, and the psalm calling the israelites as god. you tried to prove it contextually, you failed, you tried to prove it by saying jesus claimed to be the messiah, but that will backfire on you.
yes jesus claimed to be the messiah, and if you ask any jew, or better yet, any rabbi, they will tell you that yes the messiah will be someone who will perform great miracles and will be sent from God. the title son of god is not a literal description, it is a metaphorical title of honour, and it has been used many times in the old testament, including genesis 6:4, psalm 82:6. even in the new testament, the title "Sons of God" is used for ordinary humans: matthew 5:9, romans 8:14-19, romans 9:26, galatians 3:26, and hebrews 12:7.
therefore, no matter how many quotes you use of jesus calling himself the son of god, or god is his father, etc., it is not proof at all that he is divine, but actually proves the contrary taking into account how pious people are given the title son of god throughout the bible.
yes, jesus, being the promised messiah, performed many great miracles and exorcisms, including raising people from the dead. this is not proof that he is divine. many prophets of the old testament performed great miracles, such as moses and daniel (peace be upon them).
then you try to use the fact that the new testament claims that jesus was created before abraham as proof that he is god. Islam believes the same thing about the seal of the prophets, Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam):
But you have yet to provide one solid proof that Jesus is god, the same god as his "Father" according to your own bible. I am giving you such a great opportunity, from genesis to revelation, give me just one verse where you can prove jesus is the one god.
Last edited:
Talha777
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 86
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion, but it seems you (GraceSeeker) are having a difficult time finding verses to prove that Jesus is the same god as his father, that they are one god. So in order to make the discussion run along smoothly, I have decided to help you out by giving you a few hints:
look up john 1:18 and john 17:11.
look up john 1:18 and john 17:11.
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Is it that I failed to make my case, or as with the Jews that Jesus spoke to, that you fail to believe in the evidence that Jesus himself presents? They wanted to stone him for his false claims. You want to dismiss him as having not made any claims. I prefer to believe him for having made claims that are true.
Every time that the title "Son of God" (or "Son of Man" for that matter) is used it is being used metaphorically. But what is the metaphor? Someitmes it is simply to say that we are children of God, brothers and sisters in the family of God. But not every time. And when Jesus uses it in this case, the grammatical construction of the Greek that John tells the story in, indicates that Jesus was saying that he was the Son of God in exactly the sense that Muslims say that he never would have said. So your best argument is that Jesus never actually said those words. Either that this was an invention of another who didn't know -- except that it was written down by John, one who has among the closest companions of Jesus -- or you can claim that since Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and John wrote in Greek that we can't know exactly what he said. But again, John is the one who wrote it down, and if Jesus had meant it to be understood differently could have chosen a different way to express what Jesus says. So, John wants us also to understand that Jesus was indeed claiming to be God's unique son. Not just one of many, like all other humans, but the unique one belonging to the Father, because he comes from the Father.
Argue that you don't believe it to be true all you want. Argue that someone later changed it after John wrote it. But that is THE Jesus that is presented to us in John's gospel over and over again. If you don't see it, don't say that it isn't there, just admit that you are blind.
What can I say? Just another thing that we believe differently about. No human being can be created before the beginning. To be from before the beginning is to be divine.
No, I haven't proved that Jesus is God. What I have shown for those who have eyes to see is that Jesus claimed to be God. But for one more verse where it is plainly stated, but I am assured that you will still not see it, try 1 John 5:20 -- "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He [which refers to Jesus as the immediate antecedent for the pronoun] is the true God and eternal life."
Let me parse the key sentence for you:
Subject -- He (Jesus)
Verb -- is
Direct Object -- God
Adjective modifying "God" -- true
conjunction -- and
2nd Direct Object -- life
Adjective modifying "life" --eternal.
The simple form of the sentence: He (Jesus) is God.
Now, in truth in the Greek the pronoun is not "he" it is "ουτος", which might more literally be translated "this one", but either way it still refers back to Jesus for its antecedent. John is telling us that Jesus is God, and not just any old God or some lesser God or "little" God, but the true God. And furthermore, Jesus is also eternal life. That is the proclamation. You don't have to believe it to be true. But you do have to believe that it is what it says if you're going to want anything to think you are credible in any other testimony you should ever give as to what people mean, say or do.
Last edited:
Redeemed
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
no, I was saying bye to the individual I posted to. Not to you
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I don't find this an interesting conversation. I find it a sad conversation. When I have a conversation with some of the more mature thinking persons on this forum, I find that we do not always agree, but their response is usually that while they disagree with me, that they can usually see why I have arrived at the conclusions and beliefs I have. But you are unable to see anything except through your own set of preconceptions. You continually force verses to be interpreted falsely and won't accept the wisdom of others (not just me but many others, the interpretations of the ages) that show you that these words are understood differently, and were written to say something different than you, in error, try to force them to say.
Reading your statements that I have proved nothing, when I'm not trying to prove anything, only stating what Christians see in these verses, makes me think of the saying:
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You do not need to accept my teaching. But to deny that this was the intent of the author makes me doubt your credibilty in other things that you might seek to explain to me in the future. You are merely a dogmatic individual. One who thinks as preprogrammed to think. And not worthy of seeking to have truly intellectual conversation with, because you are incapable of the crucial element of give and take and seeing things through another's eyes. It is not your beliefs that I find repulsive, it is your manner. I despise them among Christians when I encounter them; I now see that they are no more attractive on a Muslim either.
Now, for those others who actually care to hear, some information that you may or may not have considered.
One of the chief, and reasonable, arguments challenging the concept of the Trinity is that Jesus sees himself as less than the Father. That he worships and prays to the Father. That he says that he is sent from the Father. And that He does nothing of his own accord, but only that which is given to him by the Father. One totally reasonable way to understand this is that Jesus is a servant of the Father. And one might therefore conclude that if a servant, then Jesus could not be equal with the Father, and certainly could not himself be God. Muslims do believe that if Jesus was truly God that he would ALWAYS be omniscent, ALWAYS be omnipotent, ALWAYS be all that they understand to be true of ALLAH.
Well, YES, indeed GOD is always all of those things. But God also has the power to limit himself in those areas as well. Example: a person is about to commit haraam. Allah is omniscient and knows this. Allah wills for a person to not commit haraam. Allah is omnipotent and can make a person do what ever Allah wills for that person. The goes ahead and actually commits haraam. Why is that? Is it because:
a) Allah actually willed for the person to commit haraam.
b) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam but was unable to stop it.
c) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam, was able to stop it, and yet choose not to exercise his power to stop it.
The anwser, of course, is C. Allah limited his omnipotence in order to allow the person to exercise their free will -- which in our example they exercised unwisely. So, while God is always all powerful, God can also limit his exercise of that power.b) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam but was unable to stop it.
c) Allah did not will for the person to commit haraam, was able to stop it, and yet choose not to exercise his power to stop it.
Now, this is exactly what Christians say is true with regard to Jesus. In his human life on earth, Jesus voluntarily shared in our natural limitations. He experienced life like any other human being. So, though divine, the human Jesus was in fact relating to God the Father just like any other human would. After he rose from the dead, jesus returned to the glory he had with the Father before he came to earth (Philippians 2:9-11, John 17:5). In that restored glory, Jesus was able to send the Holy Spirit and empower his disciples to do even greater works than he did while he was here in the flesh (John 14:12, 14:26-28).
Another well-thought out objection: 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that even in the culmination of all things that the Son will be made subject to God the Father. If Jesus is God, and this is after the resurrection, why will this be?
Jesus humbly and voluntarily submits himself to the Father's will. We find in the internal relationships of the Godhead a relationship that serves as a typology for all human relationships, namely that we be submissive, one to another (Ephesians 5:21). We see Jesus' submission in his willingness to come to earth and even though he is God take on the nature of a servant (Philippians 2:7). For God, this is equal to make himself nothing, yet he willingly does it. But because he submits himself in this way does not make him any less the pre-existent and eternal Son, co-equal with God the Father. Just as a wife who submits to her husband in the nature of their relationship with one another does not become inferior to her husband by doing so. Jesus is NOT inferior to the Father; he is NOT a "little god". The Son is still all that he ever was and will be, that does not change simply because he submits in his relationship with the Father.
Last edited:
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
we have already discussed the logic example of being mortal and immortal at the same time. and it fails.
why do u distort with your own mouth the oneness of God by claiming that he had a son??? have u ever contemplated enough about God having a son??? or God being in human flesh???? God is in no need of a son or anything. He has power over all things. Everything he created are own by Him. I can't understand how you guys don't percept this and just twist it and subtitute it with something that is not even explainable??
Surah Tawba 9:31-32
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
God has no need for human beings either, but He still saw fit to create them. Although I don't know how a human being can presume to know what God "needs" or wants. Have I "contemplated" why God would go to such lengths to grant me forgiveness? Many, many, many times. Makes more sense to me each time I contemplate it. Of course, being in agreement with God is like a raindrop being in agreement with a thunderstorm. To you it is "unexplainable", but to me it is my faith. A faith I am very comfortable with. Grace Seeker, as always, has done a thorough job of explaining from where our faith is derived. Accept that it is our faith, and that our faith comes from the Word of Christ, as we see it. Nobody is asking you to convert, only to understand the roots of our faith.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
well you seem you can't make the difference between "I want to" and "I need to".
We need water cuz we can't live without it
but We don't choocolate cuz we can live without it. but we buy it bc we like it, and just to please our selves but no bc we can't live without choocolate. so God is not in need of a son , nor of our worship, but he just created us so we please him.
You like to not work anything , and just recieve salvation?? is that what prevents from contemplating about the question, lol everyone likes free money without working, but not possible. we do you guys always jump on about the word 'convert', it's not here about converting , it's about telling what is right, which has already been made clear from error, but......
Redeemed
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
We show our faith by our works, but we do not put our faith in our works, because there is no amount of good works we could ever do to earn eternal life. It is written: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life NO one comes to the Father but by ME" Jesus said it; I believe it, and that settles it.well you seem you can't make the difference between "I want to" and "I need to".
We need water cuz we can't live without it
but We don't choocolate cuz we can live without it. but we buy it bc we like it, and just to please our selves but no bc we can't live without choocolate. so God is not in need of a son , nor of our worship, but he just created us so we please him.
we do you guys always jump on about the word 'convert', it's not here about converting , it's about telling what is right, which has already been made clear from error, but......
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
we have already discussed about the thing on working good deeds and getting to paradise, which there is no need to discuss again but the fact that you recieve salvation just by accepting that Jesus died for you sins on the cross.. is what stops you contemplating the right way, bc you like to have that type of gift, that u just believe it and u're saved. It is true that at your work if you say to your boss "ye I believe I can do it" , but you don't do it, then you will probably end up being fired if u do that 2 or 3 times. and humans by nature love free things, and you see many people buying lotto tickets, and they spend all their life, but 99% of them never win, bc they like free stuff, while other people work hard, and get the same amount of money . So the thing is that this idea of salvation by just believing on Jesus's crussifiction, is what prevents you from contemplating about that question on the right way, and is what makes you disstort the oneness of God, by ending up ascribing son to Him . God is perfect, he doesn't mix with human anomalities.
You seem to be mixing two issues here but perhaps they are related. We already discussed, as you point out, that Muslims are depending in part on their good works to get them to Heaven, while Christians are depending on Christ's redemptive Work as payment for their sins and the gift of eternal life given to all who believe. But then you use an analogy of a job, which really does not relate. Of course on the job a worker has to work or he will get fired. Is that how you see your Heaven? Something you get at the end of your life for working hard and earning it. If that is the case, you would deserve Heaven for all your work, right? But we agreed to those 9 statements, one of which is:
But then you say, "this idea of salvation by just believing on Jesus's [crucifixion], is what prevents you from contemplating about that question on the right way." Not so. The "right way" to Heaven is Jesus. The "right way" to live our life down here while we're on our way to Heaven, is what would please Jesus, as we are led and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The "right way" when it comes to the doctrine of God and His nature and attributes is that taught by the Word of God as revealed by the Spirit of God, as He leads and guides us into all Truth.
Consider this: If you have the doctrine of God correct (His oneness, etc.), why is it that you are so wrong on the "right way" to get to Heaven? There is NO WAY a zillion good works will make a bit of difference when it comes to having ANY of your sins forgiven. You're still relying on your repentance and Allah's mercy to get ANY of your sins forgiven, and even that you have no assurance of till it's too late.
So, if I were non-Christian and non-Muslim and viewed both religions from a neutral position, I might think the Trinity is too hard for me to understand, but I sure enough would KNOW that I wasn't going to be sure of Heaven the Muslim way, working myself and hoping for mercy without any real promise of it, and with no one paying for my sins but ME if that mercy did not come.
Knowing here and NOW my sins (past, present and future) are all forgiven, paid for in full, gives me peace, joy and happiness that you will never know about if you stay on your "right way."
Peace
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I don't get your point???
True, Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic as his native language, and would have probably actually spoken these words in Aramaic, not English. But in the same way that I generally trust the quality of the scholarship of the translators to properly translate from the Greek in which this was originally written to English (yep, most of the time I depend on translators, though I can read the Greek if I feel a need to look something up in it), I also trust John in writing it in Greek to properly record in Greek what it was that Jesus said in Aramaic. And it is wonderful for you that you can read the Qur'an in its original Arabic. But, I don't feel any great loss in just having Jesus' words in Greek. Let me explain why.
I spent the summer of 2005 living in Chile. During that time my host family and I had many conversations about hundreds of things -- all of them in Spanish. I got home and my family and friends wanted to hear about my experiences, but they don't speak Spanish. Now, when I share one of the conversations I had with my "sister" Kattia with my wife, I report: Kattia said, "___________". What should I fill in the blank with, the original Spanish phrase or an English phrase? In truth, when talking to my wife, I'm only thinking in English, and I even remember Kattia's words as if she had spoken them in English. My wife trusts me to provide her a faithful rendering of what it is that Kattia and I said to one another, the actual words are not nearly as significant to her as the nature of our conversation. When there is something significant in the language or cultural context, I stop the narration of the conversation and explain that element to her and, once done with that, then return to sharing the conversation with her again. Now I am sure you understand that already from your own personal experience of speaking multiple lanuages.
John does the same thing for those he wrote to faithfully rendering the conversations he had in Aramaic with Jesus in Greek for his Greek understanding readers. I trust him to be at least as good at this as I am for he actually grow up in a multi-lingual world. The only question pertinent then is what is the quality of the translation from Greek to English? If you'll trust my Greek, I would say it is pretty good. The particular verse in question is one that is very straightforward in the Greek, so there is little room for questioning how it should translate into English.
Talha777
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 86
Bismillahi Arrahmani Arraheem
(In the Name of Allah; the Most Beneficient; the Most Merciful)
(In the Name of Allah; the Most Beneficient; the Most Merciful)
Alhamdulillah, this is my 300th post, so by the grace of Allah, I hope to make it a worthy one. Satan is constantly trying to lead astray the Believers, he injects poisonous doctrines to confuse us about the most fundamental and essential belief of all - the absolutely Oneness and Unity of God Almighty. The Oneness of Allah is so important to understand and believe in, and any belief or practice which in the very least derails or degrades this unity is clear and manifest idolatry. Idolatry in turn is the root of sin, the root of man's transgression:
For ye do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return. (Al-Ankabut 29:17)
The trinity is another transgression against the absolute and perfect Oneness of Allah. Like all false and satanic doctrines, it makes no sense and is completely illogical. So compare what Allah teaches and makes clear with that which Satan tries to deceive man, and you will see that Truth prevails, but falsehood always suffers defeat and shatters to pieces. May Allah Taala grant victory to the Believers, and may He destroy Christianity. Ameen.
In response to GraceSeeker:
GraceSeeker said:
Yes, it is true we Muslims don't care for the writings and postulations of this John. Not to speak of the rest of the New Testament, we don't even care for the four so called "Gospels". The Holy Quran says we believe in the real and true Gospel of Jesus Christ (alaihi salaam), not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Furthermore, even the quotes and words of Jesus in these four "gospels" are not completely reliable, as you have correctly pointed out, they are Greek translations of his teachings in Aramaic, which adds further doubt and skepticism to their authenticity.
Nevertheless, my original challenge is very fair to you, in fact you have the advantage in it. I as a Muslim don't even believe in your New Testament, yet I have asked you to show me even one verse in your entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, which perspicuously states that Jesus is The God (capital G), and is one and the same as the "Father". This challenge still stands, and you have failed miserably to even address it. It seems you are reluctant to take on this challenge. No doubt, it is a very fair and honest challenge. You believe Jesus is God, that he is the same God as his "Father", the One and Only true God. You believe this to be your concept of the "trinity". Obviously such a strange and unique belief must be substantiated by the Bible which you believe in. Yet many of us Muslims are surprised that such a fundamental belief of your is not at all clearly spelled out in your scripture. In fact, I will clearly show you with many proofs and passages from your Bible that Jesus is a distinct and separate "deity" from "God the Father". I have already quoted many verses to this effect, which you completely ignored, nevertheless I will quote many new verses.
Now you are saying something that the Greek grammatical construct of John's writings prove that Jesus is God, in an altogether different sense than what Psalm 82 says about the Israelites: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' (John 10:34)
Please explain who these "gods" are, and why Jesus quoted this Psalm to justify his claim that he and the father are one (John 10:30). Upon hearing this claim of Jesus, his enemies began to stone him, accusing him of blasphemy. Now if Jesus really is God, the One and Only, he wouldn't have tried to justify himself or clarify what he meant, he would have simply said: "Yes I'm God, live with it" or something to that effect. Instead, we clearly see that Jesus clarified the nature of his claim by quoting Pslam 82. Until and unless you address this, you cannot use John 10:30 as proof that Jesus is God, one and the same with the "Father". You are talking about Greek grammatical construct, but you have yet to explain this grammar, so please do so.
But since we are on the subject of Greek grammar and John, let me point you and my Muslim brothers to the infamous John 1:1:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Here is the literal English rendering: In beginning) was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word
Notice two different Greek words are used, one for "the God", and the other for the "Word", which is called as "a god". It will also interest you and my Muslim brothers that John 1:1 is a plagiarization on the ideas of the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo, who predated both Jesus and John, who came up with the concept of logos (word).
Again you will have to explain it in Greek grammar, because the English grammar of the translation you are giving is pretty ambiguous. He can refer to God or the "son of God" (Jesus). If you examine the verse, however, it is yet another proof that Jesus is clearly distinct from the "Father", and the two are completely separate gods (if he is referring to Jesus, which is debatable).
"And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ"
His is the pronoun referring to God, another clear proof that the Son is not the same as God (or Father), because "his" is possessive, and the "son" is the possession.
And no matter how many verses in the New Testament you come up with which you think shows that God is one, you cannot overlook the fact that Jesus is never called as God (The God) in the Bible. On the contrary, the New Testament makes a clear distinction between Jesus as "Lord" and the Father as the only one "God":
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (1 Corinthians 8:6)
The concept of trinity is the each person (Father, son, holy spirit) is God, but this verse clearly refutes such a falsehood by unequivocally proclaiming that only the “Father” is God.
Finally, I had suggested to you two verses from the New Testament that you might want to use to prove your case that Jesus is the same God as the Father, that they are one and the same. For some reason, however, you did not take my suggestion, but nevertheless I would like to talk about those verses, because the Muslims might become curious about them:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18)
This wording of this verse does indeed prove that Jesus, who is mentioned as being at the Father's side, is "God the One and Only". However, this verse seems to be an interpolation/fabrication. Different manuscripts have an alternative wording to the phrase "God the One and Only", which is the "only Son" and not one and only God. The fact that a formula of Christology in the New Testament seems to have been interpolated, and that different manuscripts have different wordings which completely alter the meaning, having completely different implications for Christian belief tells me that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the New Testament.
The other verse says: I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. (John 17:11)
Jesus says that he and is father are one, but compares that unity to the unity of different individual disciples, which again shows that this is a metaphorical unity Jesus is talking about, as he was evidently talking about in John 10:30. Furthermore, if you read the rest of John chapter 17, you will see how Jesus compares his relationship with God with the relationship amongst the disciples:
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." (John 17:16-26)
This whole passage, which is ironically authored by John (or attributed to him), basically proves that whenever Jesus has been speaking about his Father as being one with him, or that he is in the father and the father is in him, he was saying it in a metaphorical sense. Similarly, Jesus compares him being sent by the Father to him personally sending out his disciples. And what did Jesus send his disciples to do? To share the good news of his gospel, his teachings and revelations from God. Similarly, God sent Jesus to share the message which He revealed to him. And regarding Jesus being the "Son of God", you claim this is a literal description of him, that he was truly "begotten" by the Father, and for others it is a metaphorical description but they are not begotten or born of the Father like Jesus. However, as usual, the Bible proves you wrong:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)
So in the end I pray that may Allah Taala help the misguided to see the Light and the Truth, to identify the Seal of Prophets whom He has sent as a Giver of Glad Tidings and a Warner, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (Sallallahu alaihi wa salaam). May they accept him, and may they believe in the Final Testament the Holy Quran, wherein Allah Taala says:
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Al-Maidah 5:73)
Just some things I've found about the Trinity.
Some Christian traditions either reject the doctrine of the Trinity, or consider it unimportant. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves as "Nontrinitarians." They can vary in both their reasons for rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they describe God.
Criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine
Nontrinitarians commonly refer to the following points in objection to Trinitarian teaching.
* That it does not follow the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled.
* That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.
* That it is paradoxical and therefore not in line with reason.
* That it reflects the influence of pagan religions, some of which have divine triads of their own.
* That the doctrine contradicts the Holy Scriptures, such as when Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is, or the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."[41]
* That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God's person (hypostasis).
* That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible.
* Three persons in one or a personal Trinity suggests polytheism.
Some Christian traditions either reject the doctrine of the Trinity, or consider it unimportant. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves as "Nontrinitarians." They can vary in both their reasons for rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they describe God.
Criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine
Nontrinitarians commonly refer to the following points in objection to Trinitarian teaching.
* That it does not follow the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled.
* That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.
* That it is paradoxical and therefore not in line with reason.
* That it reflects the influence of pagan religions, some of which have divine triads of their own.
* That the doctrine contradicts the Holy Scriptures, such as when Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is, or the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."[41]
* That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God's person (hypostasis).
* That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible.
* Three persons in one or a personal Trinity suggests polytheism.