Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[Redeemed]

With respect, isn't the argument that God says in the Qur'an that the Qur'an is from God and the Bible is not from God a rather circular argument proving nothing.

yes

 

[vpb]

With respect, isn't the argument that God says in the Qur'an that the Qur'an is from God and the Bible is not from God a rather circular argument proving nothing.

maybe you should have made the statement a little bit clearer of what you want, cuz u said,

We Christians have always been asked to prove it. Now, I think it is appropriate to ask you to prove it was "God Almighty" that spoke to him regarding the Bible being distorted.

well, God told Muhammed in the Qur'an, no whether you were asking for like proof that if it is true, this goes to the same thing as with math, if you prove theorem of Pythagoras, and then u come up to another theory , u use the pythagoras's theory to prove the new theory.
so same is with Qur'an, if you prove Muhammed saws was a Messenger then there is no need to ask whether what Qur'an is true or not. It doesn't make sense. And we have shown proof on this forum that Muhammed was a true messenger.

 

[جوري]

Why do you call it a Paul-invented religion? No doubt Paul was influential in its spread. And he had issues with those who suggested that one had to be a Jew in order to be a Christian. But Paul didn't decide that issue, James and the apostles did. Don't you see that the very things that you object to where taught and preached by others before Paul even became a Christian.

No I don't-- I am sorry I don't see things from your point of view.... To me Jesus was sent to "bani Israel"... I have posted a rather large thread alluding to that, here-- and not so long ago! entitled Muhammed the natural successor to Christ!... In that post are Jesus' true words along with biblical quotes and events to support them...people whined and complained about the length of the post, others jabbered on things that are completely irrelevant from a historical point of view, rather than further entertain a pseudo intellect who is under deceitful pretenses, I had the thread closed, you are free to read it agree or disagree with it. Everything from that point forth is an aberration from Christ's true teachings... I have no quarrels with you sir.. I don't wish to invite this further than where it has gone.. We differ on our views so we can amicably part ways.. To you your religion and to me mine!.. However when I see someone down right ignorant and contemptuous to Islam, prophet Mohammed PBUH or to God. I WILL SPEAK MY MIND ABOUT IT!

peace to you Gene!

 

[Redeemed]

I am not your sister..




keep your love for the needy!


No I am afraid I don't!



Stop confabulating!









No! I can't!


your God is eros now?

that sounds serious...


lol.. thank you.. I knew you were bound to have a Freudian slip ;D you seem confused most of the time..


Indeed I feel the love of Allah in this sura.. and here is its explanation..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVTT3rBeIrs









you do?


re-read sura and explanation provided above and we can have a discussion of it...


then stop annoying everyone!



How sweet! :rollseyes


same to you fellow!

I didn't understand what he was singing, but it was a pretty combinaton of culture and religion .

 

[جوري]

I didn't understand what he was singing, but it was a pretty combinaton of culture and religion .

He wasn't singing, he was reciting!... what you do in your churches is called singing, what we do in our mosques is called praying!.. I have already included the translation in the previous post, if you didn't read it, it is up to you, it is inconsequential to me, however that is the answer to your post as to whether or not I feel love and care from Allah.. further there is nothing cultural about this... this is how 1.86 billion Muslims pray the world over!

peace!

 

[Grace Seeker]

maybe you should have made the statement a little bit clearer of what you want, cuz u said,

Well, first, it wasn't me, but another who asked the question. But that is no matter, I was just questioning your response.

well, God told Muhammed in the Qur'an, no whether you were asking for like proof that if it is true, this goes to the same thing as with math, if you prove theorem of Pythagoras, and then u come up to another theory , u use the pythagoras's theory to prove the new theory.
so same is with Qur'an, if you prove Muhammed saws was a Messenger then there is no need to ask whether what Qur'an is true or not. It doesn't make sense. And we have shown proof on this forum that Muhammed was a true messenger.

Sure, if you have proven that Muhammad (pbuh) is actually a messenger of God, then one might suppose that the message he delivers is God's message and thus true. (Though just because one is a messenger of God does not necessarily mean that every thing he says is from God and that he cannot say something else. But we will assume a degree of integrity with regard to Muhammad, pbuh, so as to leave this issue aside.) And you assert that you have proved this to be true elsewhere in the forum. However, as the forum as been around a long time and not all current posters in this thread would necessarily have read those proofs, it might be helpful if you could provide a link to what you understand those proofs to be.

To just assert that Muhammad said that the Qur'an is the word of God and the Qur'an says that Muhammad is God's messenger is still by itself a circular argument.

BTW, it is OK to say that you accept this as true as a part of your faith. But it is not the same as "proof" for one who does not share that same faith. I assert that the Bible is not corrupted, but I don't think I could ever "prove" it to your satisfaction as a Muslim or to any Muslim who held to the authority of the Qur'an , even if I was able to convince the rest of the world of the Bible's veracity. I think that for some of these things we are just going to have to accept the fact that we have different views as to how and through whom God has spoken and the validity of the records which purport to record those revelations, history, or interpretations of their meanings.

 

[doorster]

I assert that the Bible is not corrupted

no comment on nt for now but would like to know why ot is not same as The Jewish Bible

 

[Redeemed]

No I don't-- I am sorry I don't see things from your point of view.... To me Jesus was sent to "bani Israel"... I have posted a rather large thread alluding to that, here-- and not so long ago! entitled Muhammed the natural successor to Christ!... In that post are Jesus' true words along with biblical quotes and events to support them...people whined and complained about the length of the post, others jabbered on things that are completely irrelevant from a historical point of view, rather than further entertain a pseudo intellect who is under deceitful pretenses, I had the thread closed, you are free to read it agree or disagree with it. Everything from that point forth is an aberration from Christ's true teachings... I have no quarrels with you sir.. I don't wish to invite this further than where it has gone.. We differ on our views so we can amicably part ways.. To you your religion and to me mine!.. However when I see someone down right ignorant and contemptuous to Islam, prophet Mohammed PBUH or to God. I WILL SPEAK MY MIND ABOUT IT!

peace to you Gene!

That is another difference we have. If someone is contemptuous to Christianity or Jesus Christ, I don't feel God needs me to speak my mind in a belligerent way or defend him. God can and will avenge Himself. Don't you think so; he is all wise and powerful - I am not. It is written, "Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them" Maybe if you see things that way you can be a little less caustic toward me. You can at least try since we are both God's creation and brother and sister of humanity. Remember God doesn't make no junk! I can only think of you my dear sister as greater than myself, because we are both operating in the amount of light we have received and believed. I am not trying to patronize you here. I am truly sincere in what I write. This doesn't mean I am going to stop calling things the way I see them, but please don't take it personally. You don't have to be cruel and mean spirited. I am not the enemy - You are not the enemy. It is the devil that is the liar. He comes to steal, kill and destroy.
Peace sister

 

[Keltoi]

no comment on nt for now but would like to know why ot is not same as The Jewish Bible

1000-50 BC: The Old Testament books are written.

200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures.

AD 90: Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Javneh and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew. This "officially" separates Jewish Scripture from Christian Scripture.

AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate").

 

[جوري]

That is another difference we have. If someone is contemptuous to Christianity or Jesus Christ, I don't feel God needs me to speak my mind in a belligerent way or defend him.

You are nothing but belligerent!

I have stopped reading after that... I have just downed a couple of tylenols and I am really in no mood to entertain you..

I think this post should come to a close, and I kindly ask a mod to put this dog to sleep... this thread that is!

 

[Grace Seeker]

no comment on nt for now but would like to know why ot is not same as The Jewish Bible

Actually, there is some good discussion of this in the "Questions about Judaism" thread. But basically it is the same.

Amplifying on what Keltoi has written above:
As far as the differences, it has to do with the Jews not formally establishing their canon (that means "rule") of scripture until after the Christian era had begun. When they did the Christians had already started using the Jewish scriptures. As most all of the early Christians spoke Greek and few spoke Hebrew, what the earlies Christians accepted as scripture ended up coming from a Greek translation of the Jewish books called the Septuagint, the same translation used by Greek-speaking Jews of their day. However, when the Jews later formally established their canon they used their Hebrew versions which were not identical to the Greek translation that the Christians had used. Later some Christians questioned whether or not it was correct to included in the canon of the Christian scriptures Jewish books that the Jews themselves did not use. Thus the only difference between the books used by protestants today and by Jews is the order they are placed in the Hebrew Bible versus their order in the Christian Bible. Catholic and Orthodox Christians still use the same list of books that Christians used from the first days of Christianity, and thus include some books that were later not adopted as canonical by the Jews. This explains both the major difference you are asking about between some Christian Bibles and the Tanakh and at the same time the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles. The books included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bible that are the Jews would say were never meant to be understood as scripture are those that Protestants also dispute and don't include in their bibles.

The remaining differences that you might find among the books that all accept are because while all Bibles today try to translate the Hebrew of the Tanakh to make the Old Testament. Sometimes there are questions as to what is the best way to translate a particular Hebrew passage and then Christian translators refer back to the Greek Septuagint translation to help guide them, something that Jews would never do.

 

[doorster]

1000-50 BC: The Old Testament books are written.

200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures.

AD 90: Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Javneh and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew. This "officially" separates Jewish Scripture from Christian Scripture.

AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate").

Salam and Thanx, I was beginning to think I had become invisible (since I had to repeat the question)

What I had in mind was something more for example, If I read a Jewish held book of same name as an ot book they have different meanings

salam (peace)

 

[Grace Seeker]

What I had in mind was something more for example, If I read a Jewish held book of same name as an ot book they have different meanings

salam (peace)

No, if you read Genesis from the Tanakh published by a Jewish publishing house, and Genesis from the Old Testament published by a Christian publishing house (be it Protestant, Catholic or whatever), they should have exactly the same meaning. Any difference you find in them will be the result of different translators (just as you have with different English interpretations of the Qur'an), not differences in what they actually say.

That's not to say that a Jew and a Christian won't read the very same passage, say Isaiah 53, and have different understandings of what the text means, but what you read in each instance should be the same -- save for the personal variations between translators.

 

[vpb]

(Though just because one is a messenger of God does not necessarily mean that every thing he says is from God and that he cannot say something else.

what in the world are you saying??? how is it possible for someone to be messenger of God, and to not believe what he says?? ;D lollll

But we will assume a degree of integrity with regard to Muhammad, pbuh, so as to leave this issue aside.) And you assert that you have proved this to be true elsewhere in the forum. However, as the forum as been around a long time and not all current posters in this thread would necessarily have read those proofs, it might be helpful if you could provide a link to what you understand those proofs to be.

I wasn't talking about specific posts, and I didn't say 'me' , but I said 'we'

And we have shown proof on this forum that Muhammed was a true messenger.

which means that I am not talking for certain posts, but I'm talking for the forum in general. We have shown scentifical, logical, psychological, prophetic facts about Qur'an, and none of them contradicts the true knowledge we have nowdays. Also Allah swt has challenged you, and we quoted the verses you to challenge the Qur'an, the only thing we had is Phil making is own version o translation lolll.
as no one has been able to produce something as Qur'an. But bc you want to close your eyes, and believe what u want to believe that is a different thing, I have no problem with that. But no one can say that we didn't bring proofs in this forum. We brough proofs in every single field. And we don't want to start talk about Bible, because we know that it has been altered (sorry I don't mean to offend but that's the truth), but let us not start on this, bc our intention in this forum is not to prove Bible is wrong, but rather teach people about Qur'an, about the Oneness of Allah. About the authenticity of Bible , it is something that you yourself should have opened your heart and find out yourself that it has been altered. I don't need to go to somebody to tell him that he is a male, he can see that himself.

To just assert that Muhammad said that the Qur'an is the word of God and the Qur'an says that Muhammad is God's messenger is still by itself a circular argument.

It's two choices, if you prove Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah, than Qur'an is true, same is with vice versa. But in this case we can bring proof for both

BTW, it is OK to say that you accept this as true as a part of your faith. But it is not the same as "proof" for one who does not share that same faith.

Yes, faith is part of our believe, we believe in the unseen, but don't forget that you don't accept blind faith, we rather base our deen (religion) on knowledge. So we have plenty of proof, it's just that ppl don't want to take them, or not willing to go over them.

I assert that the Bible is not corrupted, but I don't think I could ever "prove" it to your satisfaction as a Muslim or to any Muslim who held to the authority of the Qur'an , even if I was able to convince the rest of the world of the Bible's veracity.

I don't know how can you make such a statement, there are clear proofs that Bible has been altered. I've even showed u in this thread, even changes made during this decade, let alone earlier. Please I don't want to start on this, cuz again I'm saying I don't want to offend anyone here, it's something that you yourslef should have find out long time ago.

I think that for some of these things we are just going to have to accept the fact that we have different views as to how and through whom God has spoken and the validity of the records which purport to record those revelations, history, or interpretations of their meanings.

I'm sorry but things are very clear, nothing is to be confused. Allah has made truth clear from error, and it's doesn't take u to be rocket scientist to find that out, what prevents ppl from accepting the truth, is the fear of society, family , culture (what religion your fathers were), giving up many things, that is what ppl fear, and prevents them from accepting the truth. It is like when someone finds out that his husband cheated on her, someone can come with pictures to tell her, and she will still not believe, although she knows the truth, but she still doesn't accept it, cuz she's afraid of how people will react, she's afraid of accepting the fact that her husband cheated on her.
But at the end, again I'm saying, we have nothing to do with Bible, we don;t have to prove anything about it to ppl, already things are laid on the table. It is the fear of searching for the truth.

 

[MustafaMc]

He wasn't singing, he was reciting!... what you do in your churches is called singing, what we do in our mosques is called praying!..

Yes, Sister Purest, this recitation of the Quran in Arabic is most beautiful. As an English speaking American I am amazed at the beauty of proper Quranic recitaion. I know a few short Surahs (chapters), but my Arabic enunciation is embarassing at best compared to this. May Allah accept my effort.

The video reminded me of this hadith:

Al-Tirmidhi 691 Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib & Darimi transmitted it: Al-Bara' heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) say, "Beautify the Qur'an with your voices, for the beautiful voice increases the beauty of the Qur'an."

Fiqh-us-Sunnah 1:114a It is sunnah to make one's voice beautiful and nice while reciting the Qur'an. The Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "Beautify your voices with the Qur'an." He also said, "He is not one of us who does not chant the Qur'an," "The one with the best voice with the Qur'an is the one that when you hear him, you feel that he fears Allah," and "Allah never listened to anything like he listened to his Prophet chanting the Qur'an with a beautiful voice."

 

[vpb]

Yes, Sister Purest, this recitation of the Quran in Arabic is most beautiful. As an English speaking American I am amazed at the beauty of proper Quranic recitaion. I know a few short Surahs (chapters), but my Arabic enunciation is embarassing at best compared to this. May Allah accept my effort.

our lifestyle is very happy, just imagine everyday in morning (around 5 o'clock AM), we start our day by hearing the imam reciting the Qur'an it's just beautiful.

Subhanallah

Just to make some commercial , Shuraim is da best recitator

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't know how can you make such a statement, there are clear proofs that Bible has been altered. I've even showed u in this thread, even changes made during this decade, let alone earlier. Please I don't want to start on this, cuz again I'm saying I don't want to offend anyone here, it's something that you yourslef should have find out long time ago.

I'm sorry but things are very clear, nothing is to be confused. Allah has made truth clear from error, and it's doesn't take u to be rocket scientist to find that out, what prevents ppl from accepting the truth, is the fear of society, family , culture (what religion your fathers were), giving up many things, that is what ppl fear, and prevents them from accepting the truth. It is like when someone finds out that his husband cheated on her, someone can come with pictures to tell her, and she will still not believe, although she knows the truth, but she still doesn't accept it, cuz she's afraid of how people will react, she's afraid of accepting the fact that her husband cheated on her.
But at the end, again I'm saying, we have nothing to do with Bible, we don;t have to prove anything about it to ppl, already things are laid on the table. It is the fear of searching for the truth.

Perhaps then Purest Ambrosia is right. This thread is going to ultimately be fruitless. If you understand the Bible to be in error, then it matters not that Christians can show how, even though the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, that the concepts which became later forumalted as the Doctrine of the Trinity are themselve revelations with regard to God found in the Bible. Proving this would be of no value to a Muslim, simply because a Muslim does not accept it as a true revelation of God. Why should a Muslim then accept any of the teachings derived from such a false book?

And likewise, as Christians do not accept that the Qur'an is truly a record of a message from God for Muhammad deliver to all people, then all the verses that are shared with us from the Qur'an to tell us how much in error we are, are received as being just as baseless.

(This is what makes the arguments that take place here where people try to evangelize or proselytze each other so silly. No one is really listening on the other end. We are all just talking to ourselves in those posts.)

The only value in the conversation would be wherein Muslims actually wish to learn and understand how or why it is that Christians understand the Trinity as they do. Or wherein Christians wish to understand what it is about the Trinity that Muslims cannot ever accept and why that is the case. Unless our goal is to seek to understand where the other is coming from and why it is that they see things that way, there is little purpose to these sorts of thread. At least that is my humble opinion.

If I might, may I suggest to those not willing to try on the other person's shoe (I'm not saying to walk in them, but to at least try it on) that they find other venues more appropriate to the types of conversations and discussions they wish to have.


MODS: Please delete this post if you think I am wrong in making this request.

 

[جوري]

Yes, Sister Purest, this recitation of the Quran in Arabic is most beautiful. As an English speaking American I am amazed at the beauty of proper Quranic recitaion. I know a few short Surahs (chapters), but my Arabic enunciation is embarassing at best compared to this. May Allah accept my effort.

The video reminded me of this hadith:

Al-Tirmidhi 691 Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib & Darimi transmitted it: Al-Bara' heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) say, "Beautify the Qur'an with your voices, for the beautiful voice increases the beauty of the Qur'an."

Fiqh-us-Sunnah 1:114a It is sunnah to make one's voice beautiful and nice while reciting the Qur'an. The Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "Beautify your voices with the Qur'an." He also said, "He is not one of us who does not chant the Qur'an," "The one with the best voice with the Qur'an is the one that when you hear him, you feel that he fears Allah," and "Allah never listened to anything like he listened to his Prophet chanting the Qur'an with a beautiful voice."

I didn't put this particular surah in there as a random flip of the coin end up on chapter 93... it holds special meaning to one who listens and discerns, hence I put its meaning in a long quote above... it is full of hope, love and tenderness, it isn't just for its poetic words or its recitations.. It is Allah sobhan wat3ala, telling you of your state as a mortal, and how he hasn't forgotten you, bid you farewell, neglected you, or hates/d you. I swear to God it makes me shiver when I read it, and I don't think it is something that can be translated to another human being, it is a personal experience. I don't need to augment its affect or tell anyone oh my religion is better than yours, yours sucks. I am completely contented with this religion from all facets, I need for nothing else. Now I understand how the poor afghan man is probably the richest in the world for it Allah has stated and is mentioned in a hadith Qudsi.." will not encompass me all that is in my heaven and on earth but will contain me the heart of the believer!"

 

[Balthasar21]

It seems that you simply wish to attack my personally. If you have given step by step, verse by verse where the langauge came from than you are right I am blind, because I don't see that you have address the issue of what langauge John was written it at all. You have made assertions, and if I fill in some of the gaps you may have made a case for what language was spoken, but that has zero to do with what language the Gospel of John was written in, the only thing under discussion between us. Which also makes me wonder what the purpose of your final comment with regard to Luke and Paul was for, though I guess I did mention them in the last post, so my mistake in distracting you from the question I was seeking you to inform me on, which is, why do you believe that John was written in Aramaic/Syriac rather than in Greek?

Let try this one more time ok . When the By - Bill was first written it wasn't keyword here wasn't written in Greek / Latin / English , Later on it was translation Into Greek / Latin / And Even English Overstand , You claim to be a minister Yes , Those name you gave me were people talking about the language that the By - Bill had been change to Greek / Latin / English . So the language that the prophet's speaking at the beginning was Aramic , Not Greek . This also means the John was speaking aramic also . in the beginning .


Belief & Believe" are two of the most deceptive words in religion. Belief is ignorance. Belief is to ignore the facts, intentionally or ignorantly. If one has to believe, it means he or she does not know, and if one does not know, that is ignorance. Anyone can believe anything and this means that a person can believe, and be 100% wrong. But knowledge is knowing and knowledge is correct information. "To know" gives one confidence, but belief infers doubt.

To believe is to accept things that you do NOT know. Either you know or you don't. Once you know - then you no longer have to believe and belief is the fuel of most religions. Belief = acceptance of things that youdon't know .

Like said I gave you verse by verse where the language came from in your By - Bill , Being you claim you're minister you should know these things . reson why I said you had to be a mail order minister because your the first so-called minister Who didn't know the first language the discilpe spoke was Aramic , And Not Greek / Latin / English . But your use to christian agreeing with you and that because they don't know any better . by the way your the one who spoke of luke / paul in your post first . Paul is the anti - christ of the By - Bill . Any way this post is about the trinity which is a fake Yashu'a never claim to be his own father . The first teaching of Yashu'a was he was call the son of God , Then Some keyword Some of you christian trun Yashu'a into his father .

 

[Redeemed]

Perhaps then Purest Ambrosia is right. This thread is going to ultimately be fruitless. If you understand the Bible to be in error, then it matters not that Christians can show how, even though the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, that the concepts which became later forumalted as the Doctrine of the Trinity are themselve revelations with regard to God found in the Bible. Proving this would be of no value to a Muslim, simply because a Muslim does not accept it as a true revelation of God. Why should a Muslim then accept any of the teachings derived from such a false book?

And likewise, as Christians do not accept that the Qur'an is truly a record of a message from God for Muhammad deliver to all people, then all the verses that are shared with us from the Qur'an to tell us how much in error we are, are received as being just as baseless.

(This is what makes the arguments that take place here where people try to evangelize or proselytze each other so silly. No one is really listening on the other end. We are all just talking to ourselves in those posts.)

The only value in the conversation would be wherein Muslims actually wish to learn and understand how or why it is that Christians understand the Trinity as they do. Or wherein Christians wish to understand what it is about the Trinity that Muslims cannot ever accept and why that is the case. Unless our goal is to seek to understand where the other is coming from and why it is that they see things that way, there is little purpose to these sorts of thread. At least that is my humble opinion.

If I might, may I suggest to those not willing to try on the other person's shoe (I'm not saying to walk in them, but to at least try it on) that they find other venues more appropriate to the types of conversations and discussions they wish to have.


MODS: Please delete this post if you think I am wrong in making this request.

Yes, but one of these religions is right and the words of God are powerful and will not return void but will accomplish its purpose whether we get the satifaction or not. Jesus will get the reward of His suffering!