Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[Grace Seeker]

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.

He didn't quote the Psalm to justify his statement that he and the Father are one. That is why I keep saying telling you that you are reading this whole thing wrong.

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".

I have addressed it three times. I just haven't addressed it in a way which satisfies you. So, last time, because I leave on Wednesday for a week.

The use of Psalm 82 is a Jewish type of argument. The psalm is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and to defend the poor and the innocent. In doing so, God speaks to these judges and God says, "I say that you are "gods", sons of the Most High, all of you." The judge is commissioned by God to judge men, he is therefore in essence like a god to other men. So, men who are merely in positions of authority as judges over other men are called sometimes referred to in the scriptures as "gods" -- for another example see Exodus 22:9 for another example of this where the plural term elohim, usually translated singularly as "God" is in this instance translated as "judges". Thus we see that men who were specifically commissioned to some task by God were sometimes called gods, even in scripture. So, as the Jews are accusing him of being a mere man and yet calling himself God is committing blasphemy, Jesus reminds them that it is indeed scriptural for a person who is commissioned by God to do so. If that is their charge against him, they don't have a case, unless of course, they don't recognize his special commissioning. "Are you the Christ?" they have asked him. "Look at my works," is Jesus' response. But because they haven't responsed to those works, he makes a declarative statement, "I and the Father are one." The subsequent stoning the Jews are going to do is in response to that. Jesus use of the Psalm is in response to the stoning, not an explanation of his statement. "What is wrong with a mere man claiming to be God, if we see this very thing being declared of mere men by God himself in the scriptures?", putting the question back on them, not explaining away his comment is how Jesus uses the Psalm.

My reference to Greek grammar in this passage was specifically to Jesus' statement in verse 36, "I am God's son." This is a quote within a quote, Jesus quoting the Jews who have attributed the statement to Jesus. Jesus does not deny having made that type of statement. He merely challenges them to believe it or not believe it based on what they see of his actions, even if they won't believe his words. Exactly what you have asked for in asking, why didn't he do something to the effect of saying, "I am God, live with it."?

Now the grammar of that simple statement "I am God's son," is equally simple in Greek: υιος του θεου ειμι.
υιος is in the nominative case. Normally a noun in the nominative case would be the subject of the sentence, but in this sentence the subject is contained within the verb itself, so this is a predicate nominative.
There is no article. Now there is no indefinite article in Greek so it can be either "a son" or simply "son".
του θεου is in the genitive case which expresses relationship. Thus "son" belongs to "god", which does have the definite article "the" attached to it. (I'm using small "g" because if Greek doesn't use capitalization as we do in English, and we get that we mean "God" not "god" from the context and applying English grammar rules, not Greek grammar.)
ειμι is the present indicative of the verb "to be" in the first person singular, thus it translates "I am".

So, a very wooden transaltion would be "son of the god I am". Putting that sentence into proper English form it becomes simply, "I am God's Son." In terms of my statement that this particular use of the term in this verse said something grammatically about Jesus being THE son of God vs. being simply any old "a son" of God, I am going to have to retract that statement. I made it thinking of the phrase "Son of God" as a whole, which I do think is used to make a claim for Jesus divinity, but we will have to take that up in another thread. As I said above, there is no article in this sentence. As Greek does not have an indefinite article, when the noun is in the nominative singular, one cannot automatically assume that it should be either with or without the indefinite article. And context here does not help us with that determination.


Now that brings us to that wondeful John 1:1 where you believe that we need to insert the indefinite article. I would love to discuss it, but time is getting away from me, and certainly given that this single verse has been discussed for centuries, we can wait till I return to address it.

I do want to briefly address one other comment you made, though:

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.

It IS VERY TRUE that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct persons. If we were claiming that they were all one person, then what we would be talking about is schizoprenia. The whole concept of the Trinity was in answer to the question that the early church had to ask itself: How can we worship BOTH God the Father and God the Son, who are clearly two different persons, and still claim that we worship just one God? And that answer was to recognize there is a distinction of 3 separate persons. The Son is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Son. Nor is the Holy Spirit the Father nor the Son. They are three separate and distinct personages. We are not making them one in that sense. But we are saying that even though they are three distinct and separate persons that we are not talking about three separate gods. So, proving that the Father and the Son are both God and separate persons is something we would agree with. What we do not agree with is that in proving that statement that you have proved that they are separate gods. We submit to you that even in the reality of having three distinctly separate persons who are each themselves God, that we still have just one being who is God, a being that is himself three persons and yet just one being. As long as you look at each person as a separate being you will not understand the concept of the Trinity. And we Christians will come alongside you to reject as polytheism any belief which proposes that Jesus is a God separate and independent of the Father who is another God. We reject that, for even though we know that Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God, yet we also know that God is one and that there is no other God than the one God. That is what we mean when we say Trinity.

 

[Redeemed]

He didn't quote the Psalm to justify his statement that he and the Father are one. That is why I keep saying telling you that you are reading this whole thing wrong.

I have addressed it three times. I just haven't addressed it in a way which satisfies you. So, last time, because I leave on Wednesday for a week.

The use of Psalm 82 is a Jewish type of argument. The psalm is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and to defend the poor and the innocent. In doing so, God speaks to these judges and God says, "I say that you are "gods", sons of the Most High, all of you." The judge is commissioned by God to judge men, he is therefore in essence like a god to other men. So, men who are merely in positions of authority as judges over other men are called sometimes referred to in the scriptures as "gods" -- for another example see Exodus 22:9 for another example of this where the plural term elohim, usually translated singularly as "God" is in this instance translated as "judges". Thus we see that men who were specifically commissioned to some task by God were sometimes called gods, even in scripture. So, as the Jews are accusing him of being a mere man and yet calling himself God is committing blasphemy, Jesus reminds them that it is indeed scriptural for a person who is commissioned by God to do so. If that is their charge against him, they don't have a case, unless of course, they don't recognize his special commissioning. "Are you the Christ?" they have asked him. "Look at my works," is Jesus' response. But because they haven't responsed to those works, he makes a declarative statement, "I and the Father are one." The subsequent stoning the Jews are going to do is in response to that. Jesus use of the Psalm is in response to the stoning, not an explanation of his statement. "What is wrong with a mere man claiming to be God, if we see this very thing being declared of mere men by God himself in the scriptures?", putting the question back on them, not explaining away his comment is how Jesus uses the Psalm.

My reference to Greek grammar in this passage was specifically to Jesus' statement in verse 36, "I am God's son." This is a quote within a quote, Jesus quoting the Jews who have attributed the statement to Jesus. Jesus does not deny having made that type of statement. He merely challenges them to believe it or not believe it based on what they see of his actions, even if they won't believe his words. Exactly what you have asked for in asking, why didn't he do something to the effect of saying, "I am God, live with it."?

Now the grammar of that simple statement "I am God's son," is equally simple in Greek: υιος του θεου ειμι.
υιος is in the nominative case. Normally a noun in the nominative case would be the subject of the sentence, but in this sentence the subject is contained within the verb itself, so this is a predicate nominative.
There is no article. Now there is no indefinite article in Greek so it can be either "a son" or simply "son".
του θεου is in the genitive case which expresses relationship. Thus "son" belongs to "god", which does have the definite article "the" attached to it. (I'm using small "g" because if Greek doesn't use capitalization as we do in English, and we get that we mean "God" not "god" from the context and applying English grammar rules, not Greek grammar.)
ειμι is the present indicative of the verb "to be" in the first person singular, thus it translates "I am".

So, a very wooden transaltion would be "son of the god I am". Putting that sentence into proper English form it becomes simply, "I am God's Son." In terms of my statement that this particular use of the term in this verse said something grammatically about Jesus being THE son of God vs. being simply any old "a son" of God, I am going to have to retract that statement. I made it thinking of the phrase "Son of God" as a whole, which I do think is used to make a claim for Jesus divinity, but we will have to take that up in another thread. As I said above, there is no article in this sentence. As Greek does not have an indefinite article, when the noun is in the nominative singular, one cannot automatically assume that it should be either with or without the indefinite article. And context here does not help us with that determination.


Now that brings us to that wondeful John 1:1 where you believe that we need to insert the indefinite article. I would love to discuss it, but time is getting away from me, and certainly given that this single verse has been discussed for centuries, we can wait till I return to address it.

I do want to briefly address one other comment you made, though:
It IS VERY TRUE that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct persons. If we were claiming that they were all one person, then what we would be talking about is schizoprenia. The whole concept of the Trinity was in answer to the question that the early church had to ask itself: How can we worship BOTH God the Father and God the Son, who are clearly two different persons, and still claim that we worship just one God? And that answer was to recognize there is a distinction of 3 separate persons. The Son is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Son. Nor is the Holy Spirit the Father nor the Son. They are three separate and distinct personages. We are not making them one in that sense. But we are saying that even though they are three distinct and separate persons that we are not talking about three separate gods. So, proving that the Father and the Son are both God and separate persons is something we would agree with. What we do not agree with is that in proving that statement that you have proved that they are separate gods. We submit to you that even in the reality of having three distinctly separate persons who are each themselves God, that we still have just one being who is God, a being that is himself three persons and yet just one being. As long as you look at each person as a separate being you will not understand the concept of the Trinity. And we Christians will come alongside you to reject as polytheism any belief which proposes that Jesus is a God separate and independent of the Father who is another God. We reject that, for even though we know that Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God, yet we also know that God is one and that there is no other God than the one God. That is what we mean when we say Trinity.

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do. Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..." Yet the Muslims will say the Bible is not reliable; well, I could make a better argument that it is the same case for the Qur'an. I do not speak empty words. Can back up what I say, but I would like to see the Muslims back up that Christianity follows a pagan trinity concept and not the other way around!

 

[Woodrow]

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do. Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..." Yet the Muslims will say the Bible is not reliable; well, I could make a better argument that it is the same case for the Qur'an. I do not speak empty words. Can back up what I say, but I would like to see the Muslims back up that Christianity follows a pagan trinity concept and not the other way around!

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact.

Having been down both paths I feel that as a Muslim and looking from this view point I now have a better concept of the trinity then I did as a Christian. When I was Roman Catholic I saw no problem with seeing Mary as the "Mother of God(swt)" and that it was truly good to pray to her for intercession. During my various assorted times at trying to be a Baptist, Church of Christ and a few others I began to see that the love of Jesus(as) was no different than my former errors about Mary. It is true that Christians will not see themselves as believing they are actually separating God(swt) and praying to 3 separate deities, until they do escape from the falsehood and see it from an outside view. It is the same as a Catholic will never see themselves as praying to Mary until they leave Catholicism. I doubt very much that at this stage in your life you are able to see the truth with unbiased eyes yet.

 

[Phil12123]

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.

etc.

The above diagram correctly shows the distinction of Persons and the Oneness of essence, substance and nature (that the 3 are the one Deity, God).

Other than that diagram, it is interesting how you selectively chose the criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine from the article, leaving out all the material that supported the doctrine. So, in order to have a balanced view, those reading this may go to the article and read it in its entirety at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

To save everyone the trip, but without copying and pasting the entire article, the following items from it were of note:

Old Testament, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant distinctions
Theophanies "God appeared" using a verb which means a physical manifestation that could be seen and heard and not a vision or dream.
Genesis 12:7; 18:1 to Abraham
Genesis 26:2, 24 to Isaac
Genesis 35:1, 9, 48:3 to Jacob
Exodus 3:16; 4:5 to Moses
Exodus 6:3 to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
Leviticus 9:4; 16:2 to Aaron
Deuteronomy 31:15 to Moses and Joshua
1 Samuel 3:21 to Samuel
1 Kings 3:5; 9:2; 11:9 to Solomon
2 Chronicles 3:1 to David
2 Chronicles 7:12 to Solomon

The Angel (Messenger) of the Lord
Genesis 16:7–14
Genesis 22:9–14
Exodus 3:2 (comp 4:5 Jehovah)
Exodus 23:20, 21
Numbers 22:21–35
Judges 2:1–5
Judges 6:11–22
Judges 13:3 (a woman)

God identified as "the Father" in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 32:6 (Moses' time)
Isaiah 63:15; 64:8 (pre-exile)
Malachi 2:10 (post exile)

God identified as "the Son" in the Old Testament
Psalms 2:12 "kiss the Son"
The "Anointed One" in verse 2 is called the "Son" in verse 12.
Both Jewish and Christian scholars say this Psalm speaks of the Messiah.
God's works are applied to "the Son" (comp. Psalms 24:1–2; Job 34:24;
Jeremiah 51:19–23

The "Son" is begotten (comp 2 Samuel 7:14; Acts 13:33)
Proverbs 30:4 "His son's name"

Two separate persons are spoken of, "His name or His son's name"
This can not be a metaphor or impersonal force.
This is not Hebrew parallelism.

Isaiah 9:6 "a son given"
"Wonderful Counselor" comp Judges 13:17-18
"born to us" comp Isaiah 7:14—"God with us"
"Mighty God" comp Isaiah 10:21
"Eternal Father" better translation "Father of Eternal Life"—the one who gives eternity to others.
"Prince of Peace" the divine ruler. Psalms 2:7–9

God the Spirit in the Old Testament
1 Samuel 10:10, 19:20, 23
2 Samuel 23:1
1 Kings 22:24
Nehemiah 9:30
Psalms 51:11
Isaiah 63:10,11
Micah 2:7

Deity of the Holy Spirit in the OT
Job 33:4
Psalms 104:30
Psalms 139:7

Words of the Holy Spirit called the words of God
1 Samuel 10:10
2 Samuel 23:2
Zechariah 7:12; 12:10 (comp Ps 84:11 who gives grace?)

Peace

 

[Talha777]

I don't know what the problem is. The concept of trinity is very clear to me. I don't understand why Muslims cannot understand it the way we explain it and see it from our perspective or is it that they don't want to understand it. We are not expecting them to believe it. We just want them to understand it the way we see it. If they do not have the ability to understand it the way Christians do that is understandable, but if they are purposely being obtuse about it, then they intend to offend and be of made up minds that don't want to be confused with what we see as fact. I would then find that reprehensible more than ever to say the least unless they have a fear of understanding it the way we do.

I personally do not believe that God is a Trinity. That is my belief, in line with my conviction in the religion of Islam. However, if a Christian could clearly and unambiguously demonstrate to me that his source of dogma, the Bible, states that Jesus is God, the same God as his Father, that despite the Son and Father being distinct manifestations or persons, they are in reality one in essence, one and the same. I have challenged any Christian to pick up his Bible and find me just one, one out of thousands and thousands of verses from Genesis to Revelation, cover to cover, that can address this simple, straightforward and fair challenge. If they could succeed in proving this, I would not suddenly say I believe in the trinity, but I would be honest and say that I understand why Christians believe what they do. But right now I do not even have this understanding of what is supposedly a basic and fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Maybe, if they weren't so against Paul, he could help clarify what they think he messed up. "He (Allah or G-d) has put all things under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." Paul clearly believes in one God here. And yet the one true God calls Jesus God in Heb 1:8 "But, thou Oh God..."

It is true that we Muslims don't care for the words of Paul, and we regard him as a fraud and a lunatic, but I have issued a very fair and simple challenge to Christians, and they are free to quote me their Paul as they see fit. Now I can see you Christians are getting desperate, and perhaps I am shaking the very core of your faith, which you may have been raised and brought up in since childhood, and are devoted to with all your heart and soul. I understand why you are becoming increasingly defensive and desperate to prove your point. My sincere advice to you is to look at the Bible from an objective and neutral standpoint, and you will realize the doctrines and dogmas you have go above and beyond what the Bible actually has to say.

I will also briefly address the verse you have quoted (out of context):

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Well it's a good one, you may even fool some people with this. Unfortunately, Paul is quoting a longer Pslam, verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45. But you can even just look at what is quoted entirely in Hebrews:

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you [Jesus] with the oil of joy." (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Looking at this passage in its proper context "O God" is not what refers to Jesus. Jesus is the one whom is being addressed as being annointed with the oil of joy, because obviously he is the Messiah (annointed one).

Another thing you have mentioned is that Paul says there is one God, so obviously Jesus must be the same as that one God, his "father". In truth, however, Paul did believe in one God, but he believed in a different kind of oneness, not a oneness in a numerical sense:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

So here Paul makes something clear. He personally does not believe that other gods that the Pagans worship exist, yet he admits that even if these gods do exist, they do not effect the oneness of his god, the "Father". This clearly shows that when Paul talks about God being "One", he is not talking in a numerical sense. In what sense he is talking may be discerned from another passage:

A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one (Galatians 3:20)

The Bible version which I have is the Today's English Version (TEV). In a footnote for this verse, it notes that "God is one" can be alternately translated as "God works alone". So we can just begin to understand what Paul says when he talks about God being "One".

 

[Redeemed]

Having been down both paths I feel that as a Muslim and looking from this view point I now have a better concept of the trinity then I did as a Christian. When I was Roman Catholic I saw no problem with seeing Mary as the "Mother of God(swt)" and that it was truly good to pray to her for intercession. During my various assorted times at trying to be a Baptist, Church of Christ and a few others I began to see that the love of Jesus(as) was no different than my former errors about Mary. It is true that Christians will not see themselves as believing they are actually separating God(swt) and praying to 3 separate deities, until they do escape from the falsehood and see it from an outside view. It is the same as a Catholic will never see themselves as praying to Mary until they leave Catholicism. I doubt very much that at this stage in your life you are able to see the truth with unbiased eyes yet.

I was born and raised Catholic too. I used to pray the Rossary, but when I started reading the Bible, I thought it strange to continue. I am biased to the Bible, but maybe not more than you are to the Qur'an. You say the Bible has been corrupted. I used to not think so, but did you know the same can be said and noted about the Qur'an?

 

[Redeemed]

I personally do not believe that God is a Trinity. That is my belief, in line with my conviction in the religion of Islam. However, if a Christian could clearly and unambiguously demonstrate to me that his source of dogma, the Bible, states that Jesus is God, the same God as his Father, that despite the Son and Father being distinct manifestations or persons, they are in reality one in essence, one and the same. I have challenged any Christian to pick up his Bible and find me just one, one out of thousands and thousands of verses from Genesis to Revelation, cover to cover, that can address this simple, straightforward and fair challenge. If they could succeed in proving this, I would not suddenly say I believe in the trinity, but I would be honest and say that I understand why Christians believe what they do. But right now I do not even have this understanding of what is supposedly a basic and fundamental doctrine of Christianity.




It is true that we Muslims don't care for the words of Paul, and we regard him as a fraud and a lunatic, but I have issued a very fair and simple challenge to Christians, and they are free to quote me their Paul as they see fit. Now I can see you Christians are getting desperate, and perhaps I am shaking the very core of your faith, which you may have been raised and brought up in since childhood, and are devoted to with all your heart and soul. I understand why you are becoming increasingly defensive and desperate to prove your point. My sincere advice to you is to look at the Bible from an objective and neutral standpoint, and you will realize the doctrines and dogmas you have go above and beyond what the Bible actually has to say.

I will also briefly address the verse you have quoted (out of context):

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Well it's a good one, you may even fool some people with this. Unfortunately, Paul is quoting a longer Pslam, verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45. But you can even just look at what is quoted entirely in Hebrews:

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you [Jesus] with the oil of joy." (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Looking at this passage in its proper context "O God" is not what refers to Jesus. Jesus is the one whom is being addressed as being annointed with the oil of joy, because obviously he is the Messiah (annointed one).

Another thing you have mentioned is that Paul says there is one God, so obviously Jesus must be the same as that one God, his "father". In truth, however, Paul did believe in one God, but he believed in a different kind of oneness, not a oneness in a numerical sense:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

So here Paul makes something clear. He personally does not believe that other gods that the Pagans worship exist, yet he admits that even if these gods do exist, they do not effect the oneness of his god, the "Father". This clearly shows that when Paul talks about God being "One", he is not talking in a numerical sense. In what sense he is talking may be discerned from another passage:

A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one (Galatians 3:20)

The Bible version which I have is the Today's English Version (TEV). In a footnote for this verse, it notes that "God is one" can be alternately translated as "God works alone". So we can just begin to understand what Paul says when he talks about God being "One".

I have to be honest I don't understand the trinity concept fully not even enough to explain it the way it really is; I just accept it, and I think it would be presumptuous of anyone to say they could. You might think that I am getting desperate and grasping at straws, but that isn’t the case. Even if I was getting weaker, when I am weak I am strong. I don’t know why you trust the Qur’an. It has been tampered with.mg:

 

[vpb]

You say the Bible has been corrupted. I used to not think so, but did you know the same can be said and noted about the Qur'an?

I don’t know why you trust the Qur’an. It has been tampered with.

no it's not. how did u come to that conclusion?

 

[جوري]

trinity displeases the heart and mind....Those who understand Islam, heart and Mind are pleased with it.... it shields from evil-- as easy as this!

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 48:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

I was informed by Abu Sufyan that Heraclius said to him, "I asked you whether they (followers of Muhammad) were increasing or decreasing. You replied that they were increasing. And in fact, this is the way of true Faith till it is complete in all respects. I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his (the Prophets) religion (Islam) became displeased and discarded it. You replied in the negative, and in fact, this is (a sign of) true faith. When its delight enters the heart and mixes with them completely, nobody can be displeased with it."

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 49:
Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'Both legal and illegal things are evident but in between them there are doubtful (suspicious) things and most of the people have no knowledge about them. So whoever saves himself from these suspicious things saves his religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious things is like a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima (private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of Allah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) things. Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it becomes good (reformed) the whole body becomes good but if it gets spoilt the whole body gets spoilt and that is the heart.

source

Ah so the secret does lie in the heart of man...

Alap.. you remind me of the man who set the devil free, thinking he'd done a great thing, but it was his ignorance that unleashed misery upon the world!---
The howling man!

 

[vpb]

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654: Narrated 'Umar:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."




Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship.' So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did you use to worship?'
They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What: do you want (now)?' They will say, 'We want You to provide us with water.' It will be said to them, 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, 'What keeps you here when all the people have gone?' They will say, 'We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship,' and now we are waiting for our Lord.' Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, 'I am your Lord,' and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.' And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, 'Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?' They will say. 'The Shin,' and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a wood (and they will not be able to prostrate). Then the bridge will be laid across Hell." We, the companions of the Prophet said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the bridge?'
He said, "It is a slippery (bridge) on which there are clamps and (Hooks like) a thorny seed that is wide at one side and narrow at the other and has thorns with bent ends. Such a thorny seed is found in Najd and is called As-Sa'dan. Some of the believers will cross the bridge as quickly as the wink of an eye, some others as quick as lightning, a strong wind, fast horses or she-camels. So some will be safe without any harm; some will be safe after receiving some scratches, and some will fall down into Hell (Fire). The last person will cross by being dragged (over the bridge)." The Prophet said, "You (Muslims) cannot be more pressing in claiming from me a right that has been clearly proved to be yours than the believers in interceding with Almighty for their (Muslim) brothers on that Day, when they see themselves safe.
They will say, 'O Allah! (Save) our brothers (for they) used to pray with us, fast with us and also do good deeds with us.' Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of one (gold) Dinar.' Allah will forbid the Fire to burn the faces of those sinners. They will go to them and find some of them in Hell (Fire) up to their feet, and some up to the middle of their legs. So they will take out those whom they will recognize and then they will return, and Allah will say (to them), 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of one half Dinar.' They will take out whomever they will recognize and return, and then Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant), and so they will take out all those whom they will recognize." Abu Sa'id said: If you do not believe me then read the Holy Verse:--
'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life.
They will grow on its banks, as a seed carried by the torrent grows. You have noticed how it grows beside a rock or beside a tree, and how the side facing the sun is usually green while the side facing the shade is white. Those people will come out (of the River of Life) like pearls, and they will have (golden) necklaces, and then they will enter Paradise whereupon the people of Paradise will say, 'These are the people emancipated by the Beneficent. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without sending forth any good (for themselves).' Then it will be said to them, 'For you is what you have seen and its equivalent as well.'"

 

[Talha777]

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Being in the form, or having the nature or having the likeness of God does not at all prove that one is God. In fact, the Bible itself says:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

But of course, just because man has the likeness or image of God does not mean that man is God. Now of course the New Testament authors, or at least Paul, did not consider Jesus to be a human being, but compares Jesus being in the form or likeness of God to Jesus being in the form or likeness of man in the very next verse (Philippians 2:7)

28. And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!''
29. Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.''

First of all, Jesus is clearly congradulating Thomas on believing in his resurrection, not his supposed "divinity". The context of this passage will clearly show that Thomas doubted whether the man in front of him was really Jesus or not (hence the phrase "doubting Thomas"), so Jesus invited him to observe the wounds on his body caused by the crucifixion.

Second of all, while Thomas is directing his comments to Jesus "My Lord and my God", it is still not clear, and perhaps cannot be clear, whether he is referring to Jesus as his "Lord and God". It seems to be an exclaimation on Thomas's part, he has just witnessed a resurrection, and is expressing his surprise, according to the author of the gospel of John.

Finally, for the sake of argument, suppose Thomas is referring to Jesus as his Lord and God in this verse, yet because this is a quote of a character in the gospel of John, it can hardly be regarded as proof. If it could be used as proof, than I could use the following quote to prove my point:

But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons." (Matthew 9:34)

So if you can use a quote from Thomas to prove that Jesus is God, than I can use a quote from a Pharisee that would prove that Jesus was (God forbid) the "prince of demons".

Revelation 1:8 has Jesus speaking and identifying himself to John as "the Lord God" and "the Almighty".

Completely false. Look at Revelation 1:8 in context:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:5-8)

IS JESUS IMMUTABLE?
At the outset, the Bible claims that Jesus is immutable:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

However, we know this is false, even the Christians here on this very thread have admitted that Jesus changed his nature. Here's what the Bible says:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

So he [Jesus] became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs (Hebrews 1:4)

Paul writes that Jesus gave up his divinity, or at least his divine qualities, and became the likeness of a human being (Philippians 2:7). This also proves that Jesus, at least while he was on Earth, was not 100% divine and 100% human simultaneously, as Christians most often believe. In fact, I have never come across a single verse of the Bible which shows that Jesus is or was 100% divine and 100% human simultaneously.

Immediately we can see that Jesus was not immutable, at one point he was inferior to Angels, than after his resurrection, when his glory was restored according to the Bible, he was again superior to the Angels. However, even after he was resurrected, the Bible shows that Jesus was not fully divine, and did not possess the divine quality of Self-Sufficiency, but instead was still subject to human quality of hunger:

And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he [Jesus] asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. (Luke 24:41-43)

Amazing, the Bible says after his resurrection, when Jesus was restored to his glory supposedly, he is still subject to the human condition. He still feels hunger? What kind of "god" is this?

So we have the Christians' own admission that Jesus is not immutable, that he voluntarily suspended some (or all) of his divine qualities:

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).

But as I have already demonstrated, even have he supposedly rose from the dead, Jesus was still subject to human frailties (Luke 24:41-43).

However, in order to justify their preposterous beliefs, the Christians have tried to say Islam teaches the same thing:

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.

At the outset, I will tell you very plainly, Allah is Eternal, He is God and possesses all the qualities and attributes of divinity. He never suspends or limits Himself or His qualities, they are constantly, eternally in operation. This is the concept of One God, believing in it is what makes you a Muwahid(monotheist).

Yes, we believe absolutely that Allah is Al-Aleem (All-Knowing), as well as Al-Qadeer (All-Powerful), a.k.a. Omnicient and Omnipotent. Another quality of Allah is Free Will, so while He is always Omnicient and knows everything, and He is always Omnipotent, that means He can do anything. That is the definition of omnipotence, the capability to do anything, the power over all things. The exercise of that power is subject to Allah's free will. Yes because it is subject to His free will does not in the least mean He has suspended His omnipotence, or has put it aside. This is our Lord and God, we believe in Him and all His qualities and attributes which He has revealed to us, He possess them eternally and is Immutable, and never puts them aside or suspends them:

Allah. There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (Al-Baqarah 2:255)

 

[Woodrow]

I was born and raised Catholic too. I used to pray the Rossary, but when I started reading the Bible, I thought it strange to continue. I am biased to the Bible, but maybe not more than you are to the Qur'an. You say the Bible has been corrupted. I used to not think so, but did you know the same can be said and noted about the Qur'an?

One of the attractions I find about the Qur'an is I have yet to find a single Qur'an of any age that differs from the Qur'an still in use. True the oldest Qur'an I have been able to see pictures of is only about 1,000 years old. But it is identical with what I read today. I have never seen any version of the Qur'an except for this one.

With yourself having been Catholic you should be very much aware as to how easy it is to associate another with God(swt) and still believe you are only prayint to God(swt) alone. Perhaps one day you will see that the misconceptions about Isa(as) are nearly identical with the adoration of Mary.

Christians tend to fall so far away from God(swt0 that every since the time of Paul they have feared talking to God(swt) and have felt a need to place an intermediary between them and God(swt). They first elevated Isa(as) to that role, but some of them did such a good job at it they built Isa9as) up to be so godlike that they had to use Mary as an intermediary and when she became unapproachable there had to be the promotion of eathly intermediaries.

Christians have lost the direct straight path to God(as) and have had to create a very complex round about road to reach Him. Sadly the round about paths have become viewed as God(swt) and very few Christians are left that feel they can speak directly to God(swt) and ask Him alone for forgiveness.

 

[vpb]

I am currently reading the history of quranic text, the chapter on the corruption of bible, and it is showing on the example of the greek minuscule script, (Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV), where John 1:18 could be read either as 'an only One, God' or 'God, the only begotten' , due to the lack of seperators between adjacent words as well as sentences. so they read the second option, which brings us the trinity concept.

also shows some other divergences like:

John 1:18 'an only One, God has a variant , 'the only begotten son'.
John 1:34 'The son of God' has a variant of 'the chosen One of God'
John 8:16 The phrase 'the Father who sent me' has a variant of 'he who sent me'
John 9:35 Jesus appellation 'the son of God' has a variant of a greater documentary evidence 'the son of man'
Mark 16:9-20 The concluding twelve verses of Mark are replaces by a much shorter ending in several manuscripts, negating any reference to Jesus reappearance to his disciples and his subsequent ascension.
Luke 3:22 'You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased' has a variant 'You are my son, this day I have begotten you.
Luke 24:6 and 24:12 'He is not here but is risen' and all of verse 12 (where Peter discovers Jesus burial clothes but no body) are excluded from a few older manuscripts.

i just wrote some from the book.

it's worthy of reading it.

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7626.html

 

[AB517]

One of the attractions I find about the Qur'an is I have yet to find a single Qur'an of any age that differs from the Qur'an still in use. True the oldest Qur'an I have been able to see pictures of is only about 1,000 years old. But it is identical with what I read today. I have never seen any version of the Qur'an except for this one.

With yourself having been Catholic you should be very much aware as to how easy it is to associate another with God(swt) and still believe you are only prayint to God(swt) alone. Perhaps one day you will see that the misconceptions about Isa(as) are nearly identical with the adoration of Mary.

Christians tend to fall so far away from God(swt0 that every since the time of Paul they have feared talking to God(swt) and have felt a need to place an intermediary between them and God(swt). They first elevated Isa(as) to that role, but some of them did such a good job at it they built Isa9as) up to be so godlike that they had to use Mary as an intermediary and when she became unapproachable there had to be the promotion of eathly intermediaries.

Christians have lost the direct straight path to God(as) and have had to create a very complex round about road to reach Him. Sadly the round about paths have become viewed as God(swt) and very few Christians are left that feel they can speak directly to God(swt) and ask Him alone for forgiveness.

Here is the problem, and why the two will have trouble getting together. In fact all religions will have trouble for this reason.

We must separate religion from God. Period ... that’s it.

Religious doctrine is of men and has the flaws associated with men. Until Christians and Islamic people (and all else) realize this ... they will not unite

Christians believe the Bible is infallible. Islam believes the Koran is infallible.
Gods needs us to rise above such egocentric beliefs.

If you don’t understand that Mohammed’s' Angle Michael and the idea of a Trinity are religious doctrines you miss the truth of God.

If you don’t understand the notions of last Profit or only saved by Jesus are religious doctrines that is ok, but when someone else asked you to lift your head, look, feel, and listen ... do not condemn or pretend you know because “look .. it says here”. Those of us who experienced him know too.

My children, he is here now and he is there then, and he is in the future. God looks in dismay at how we misunderstand him. Follow these books to see how to treat others, but do not suppose that you know the God in heaven or how he will or will not speak.

This creation was made in love ... he loves us all … use it that way.

AB

 

[vpb]

Here is the problem, and why the two will have trouble getting together. In fact all religions will have trouble for this reason.

We must separate religion from God. Period ... that’s it.

Religious doctrine is of men and has the flaws associated with men. Until Christians and Islamic people (and all else) realize this ... they will not unite

Christians believe the Bible is infallible. Islam believes the Koran is infallible.
Gods needs us to rise above such egocentric beliefs.

If you don’t understand that Mohammed’s' Angle Michael and the idea of a Trinity are religious doctrines you miss the truth of God.

If you don’t understand the notions of last Profit or only saved by Jesus are religious doctrines that is ok, but when someone else asked you to lift your head, look, feel, and listen ... do not condemn or pretend you know because “look .. it says here”. Those of us who experienced him know too.

My children, he is here now and he is there then, and he is in the future. God looks in dismay at how we misunderstand him. Follow these books to see how to treat others, but do not suppose that you know the God in heaven or how he will or will not speak.

This creation was made in love ... he loves us all … use it that way.

AB

yep, anything else to add??

 

[Phil12123]

Christians tend to fall so far away from God(swt) that ever since the time of Paul they have feared talking to God(swt) and have felt a need to place an intermediary between them and God(swt). They first elevated Isa(as) to that role, but some of them did such a good job at it they built Isa(as) up to be so godlike that they had to use Mary as an intermediary and when she became unapproachable there had to be the promotion of eathly intermediaries.

Christians have lost the direct straight path to God(as) and have had to create a very complex round about road to reach Him. Sadly the round about paths have become viewed as God(swt) and very few Christians are left that feel they can speak directly to God(swt) and ask Him alone for forgiveness.

Woodrow, I'm not sure who or what "Christians" you are referring to, unless you're talking about Catholics from your own experience as one. No Christians that I know have any problem talking directly to God, as Jesus taught His disciples to do, "Our Father who is in Heaven, holy is your Name, your kingdom come..etc." But it was Jesus who also taught that no one comes to the Father except through HIM. So He taught that we can ask the Father anything "in my Name" (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24). But we can also ask Jesus Himself because HE is God. That's what Paul did, though Jesus did not grant his request but instead, Jesus said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength[Greek, dunamis] is made perfect in weakness.'' Paul's response? "Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power[Greek, dunamis] of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

I don't believe there is any scriptural support for praying to anyone but God, which, of course, includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but no one else.

1 Tim. 2: 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

To put anyone else in between God and men as a mediator, either to get to God or to get to Christ, is to violate this verse.

Christians ask God alone for forgiveness based on the "ransom for all" that Jesus gave Himself as.

Peace

 

[Redeemed]

no it's not. how did u come to that conclusion?

I didn't mean to say the Bible is corrupted if that is what you understood. I meant that I use to think the Qur'an was not corrupted, but as I learn more history, I have changed my mind. I have reason to believe it has been very much so; for instance, since Muhammad couldn't read or write, Scribes wrote for him. They wrote on anything that was available leaves, stones, leather and bones and many committed to memory his words that were killed and scattered. Qoraishi dialect was supposed to be the standard Arabic, but there is confusion between that and modern Arabic. Moreover, copies of Zaid’s collection some twenty-four were burned. The final choice for a canon seems to have had little to do with authenticity. During the time of Uthman, “No two Qur’ans were alike, yet in one edit they were all destroyed - except one” There are also contradictions in the Qur’an. Muhammad even changed the words of Allah to please certain people and there are severe misrepresentations of the Christian believe. The true Christian belief is a spirit that the Qur'an fails to convey and grossly misrepresents. If it were God (ALLAH) speaking, He would have known what the true spirit of Christianity is and not misrepresent it. Nowhere in the Bible is Mary considered part of a trinity. It is not even implied. Muhammad must have applied his understand to what he thought Allah was saying, and he didn’t correct this mistake like he did other times. Sometimes he would change what Allah said by saying that Satan deceived him into thinking it was Allah. When I read this and think about how he received visions by inspiration and revelations by dreams involving seizures and the painful thongs of bells in where he shivered and foamed at the mouth and roared like a camel, I wonder who is the true apostle between him and Paul. Yes, he would cancel some lines of what Allah said, because it was condoning or allowing the worship of idols. Some of his disciples left him because they thought how could he be so audacious to alter Allah’s words. Muhammad saw that it shocked his disciples so he said Gabriel came to him and said to “Cancel what Satan interjects.” I don’t know about you, but I am sure that Muhammad was supernaturally empowered. The question is by whom? Even He thought his revelations were demonically inspired and his women assured the tormented prophet that they are from Allah. That satisfied him even though he believed the witness of a woman is half that of a man because of their lack of intelligence or deficiency of their mind. My point is how could I be accountable to Allah for not receiving Muhammad’s witness when he doubted his own revelations and visions? No prophet in the Bible ever doubted the source of revelation or visions. You say the Bible is not reliable. I don’t believe that. It is written "He that has the Son has life; He that has not the Son has not life but the wrath of God abides on them."hew

 

[MustafaMc]

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654: Narrated 'Umar:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."




Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship.'

...
'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life.
They will grow on its banks, as a seed carried by the torrent grows. You have noticed how it grows beside a rock or beside a tree, and how the side facing the sun is usually green while the side facing the shade is white. Those people will come out (of the River of Life) like pearls, and they will have (golden) necklaces, and then they will enter Paradise whereupon the people of Paradise will say, 'These are the people emancipated by the Beneficent. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without sending forth any good (for themselves).' Then it will be said to them, 'For you is what you have seen and its equivalent as well.'"

Although this post went off topic, the hadith is a beautiful demonstration of the Mercy of Allah for the believers. Al-hamdulillah!

 

[MustafaMc]

I don’t know why you trust the Qur’an. It has been tampered with.mg:

Bring forth your proof how the Quran that I have today is not letter-for-letter exactly what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recited over 1400 years ago.

 

[Redeemed]

Bring forth your proof how the Quran that I have today is not letter-for-letter exactly what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recited over 1400 years ago.

Are you sure you want to get me started on this? You could start reading what i wrote above.