Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Christian3]

Forgiving sins can be done by the disciples though they are not God because John 20:23 mentions Jesus saying to them: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven.”

The disciples could only "forgive sins" based on the person of Jesus Christ and that person's faith in the Messiah, Jesus. See Acts 10:43-44.

Jesus also said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). Muslims reject the Son, Jesus.

[Same Hakeem]

The disciples could only "forgive sins" based on the person of Jesus Christ and that person's faith in the Messiah, Jesus. See Acts 10:43-44.

Jesus also said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). Muslims reject the Son, Jesus.

So was Jesus. Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will" in John 5:30 and "the Son can do nothing by himself" in John 5:19.

[Christian3]

You writing "You die because of your sins, you live because of faith. Even unbelief in itself is a sin" is true because the Bible in Ezk 18:4 says "the soul that sins shall die" and 2 Kings 14:6 says "every man is to die for his own sin" and therefore, Jesus could not die for men because Jesus was sinless.

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. (Ezekiel 18:20-21, NIV)

It's true that a father or a sinful person cannot bear the sin of his son or others, but a sacrifice for sin can. Look at these scriptures from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 40:39 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
39 Inside the portico of the gate there were two tables on each side, on which to slaughter the burnt offering, sin offering, and restitution offering.

Ezekiel 42:13 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
13 Then the man said to me, “The northern and southern chambers that face the temple yard are the holy chambers where the priests who approach the LORD will eat the most holy offerings. There they will deposit the most holy offerings—the grain offerings, sin offerings, and restitution offerings—for the place is holy.

Ezekiel 44:29 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
29 They will eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the restitution offering. Everything in Israel that is permanently dedicated to the LORD will belong to them.

Ezekiel 45:17 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
17 Then the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings for the festivals, New Moons, and Sabbaths—for all the appointed times of the house of Israel—will be the prince’s responsibility. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and fellowship offerings to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 45:25 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
25 At the festival that begins on the fifteenth day of the seventh month,[a] he will provide the same things for seven days—the same sin offerings, burnt offerings, grain offerings, and oil.

God provided sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. He did the same on the cross.

[Christian3]

So was Jesus. Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will" in John 5:30 and "the Son can do nothing by himself" in John 5:19.

Do not take verses out of context. Read all of John 5 and you will see Jesus claimed deity. Jesus claimed to do things that only God can do.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...5&version=HCSB

[37818]

Forgiving sins can be done by the disciples though they are not God because John 20:23 mentions Jesus saying to them: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven.”

Yes, believers can inform new believers. That being the purpose of God immerssing His with His Holy Spirit, Acts 1:8, ". . . But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. . . ." See Romans 8:16. John 16:7-11.

[Tassman]

Do not take verses out of context. Read all of John 5 and you will see Jesus claimed deity. Jesus claimed to do things that only God can do.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...5&version=HCSB

Well John claimed that Jesus claimed "to do things that only God can do". But John wrote his gospel 70 years after the death of Jesus and it's highly unlikely to be an accurate account of the words of Jesus.

[Christian3]

Well John claimed that Jesus claimed "to do things that only God can do". But John wrote his gospel 70 years after the death of Jesus and it's highly unlikely to be an accurate account of the words of Jesus.

I don't agree.

[JimL]

A sin is a transgression against the law of God. God punishing unbelievers is not a transgression against His own law.

The sin would be gods for making such an unjust law in the first place. We don't believe or disbelieve a thing simply out of desire. Our beliefs, whether right or wrong, I would hope, are based upon reason.

Perhaps, but even without the belief/unbelief issue we would still deserve nothing but death for our sins.

But again, according to you, whether we deserve to die for our sins or not, we don't die for our sins, we die for not believing a thing.

Having thought about this I admit you're actually right, in a way. Unbelief is certainly a sin in and of itself. But as I mentioned above, even without the issue of believing or not believing we would still deserve punishment for our sins. The alternative would be that God punishes everyone for their sins, as opposed to punishing only those who persist in their unbelief.

Being that we are imperfect beings to begin with then it would be unjust for our maker to kill us for our imperfections. And that takes us back to the reason for the punishment being non-belief which is not based on desire, but on our reasoning which again is imperfect.

[JonathanL]

Defining "revelation"---Revealed (as opposed to hidden) over time. In Islam, this understanding would be more appropriate for knowledge---such as physics/science...etc That is, knowledge exists---but it can be" hidden" until God wills it to be "revealed"/known. The term used for the Quran/creation is "sign" (ayah)...and if we were to use Buddhist terminology---it would be "a sign pointing towards God" which is more compatible with the notion of "guidance" (wisdom).

Islam believes that there has been other Holy Books before the Quran, that were revealed at various points in time, right? It seems to me like that would constitute revelation over time.

What God has done for us/humanity---I would agree that Christianity is focused on this aspect. Islam would be focused on the question---what can humanity do for God? The answer would be to "do God's will" which would be why the pragmatic aspect (ethics/morals/law) is as important as the spiritual aspect.(right belief that promotes right intentions).

What can humanity do for God? The Christian answer would be not really anything, apart from the grace of God. We're not really in a state where our actions can please God when every single one of them springs from our sinful and egoistical inwards inclination. And it's not possible to change that inwards inclination towards yourself by your own power, it's something you have to trust in God to do for you. But when God does do that for you it frees you to do what is right because of right intentions, and not simply because it's your obligation, or because you hope for some gain or reward.

mystery---Muslims believe Jesus Christ (pbuh) was a highly spiritual person...particularly the Sufis---but then, I am not a Sufi, I prefer the pragmatic, the reasoned, and applicable side of religio-philosophy.
What function or purpose (if any) does "mystery" have in the Christian paradigm?

I have not really thought about the issue that much, but to me the idea of a "mystery", at least in the sense of something that is beyond the human reason/intellect to grasp, is something that is axiomatic to the Christian paradigm. But at the same time it makes sense to me, because with God being unfathomable there's no surprise that there will at times be occasions of contemplating God and His actions that we will come to a point where our minds are simply unable to grasp His nature, capabilities and actions fully. Just because I cannot explain fully, or even adequately, how the Son was able to take on human nature and still not lose the infinite qualities of divinity in doing so, for example, does not mean that His doing so was an impossibility. If God then through revelation states that was exactly what happened around 2000 years ago in the land of Judea, then I will just have to accept that mystery, despite me being unable to fully grasp my head around it.

Time-space---God is independent of "time/space". Material creation is bound by "time/space" (birth/death, beginning/end). IMO, the soul in the material human body is therefore bound by time/space. The soul in heaven/hell are not. My understanding is that heaven and hell are "a long period as God wills."...after which we fold (destruct?) into God. A Sufi might explain that we/creation were thought/knowledge in God which he "created" into form, which he will destruct/end and thus will become memory/knowledge in God again. (except the concept of past, present, future does not apply as God is independent of time and is only used here as a grammatical limitation of language)

Presumably God would be able to uphold the existence of time/space for as long as He wanted to, including for eternity, if He so chose. It seems to me that God creating the universe out of his thought/knowledge simply to have it all destroyed and "fold back into memory/knowledge" again is quite a pointless endeavour. It seems to me like if God simply decided not to create anything at all, but simply kept all of it inside of Himself as "thought/knowledge" then the end result would still be exactly the same as if He did the former of creating and then destroying all of creation. Whatever happened between the two points of God existing eternally alone with this "thoughts/knowledge" and God folding all of creation back into himself as "memory/knowledge" appears to me to be ultimately meaningless and without any discernable worth.

Abraham---interesting interpretation.
...but, ....if God sent an angel to stop Abraham and substitutes a ram instead....it could also "foreshadow" what the Quran is implying---that God "substituted" so that Jesus did not have to die?
or....another perspective could also be that by substituting a ram, God shows that homicide (intent and action to kill another) and suicide (intent and action to kill oneself) are both "wrong" to God....?

Well, it could "foreshadow" that, but then again I believe the NT is far more trustworthy in it's account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus than the Quran is in it's account of what happened to Him, so the likelihood that the OT foreshadowed something in the NT, rather than in the Quran, is far more likely in my opinion...

Original sin---yr understanding of the concept is interesting. so...you do not agree fully with the "total depravity" idea?

Depends on how you understand the idea of total depravity. I believe in the idea that all of our thoughts and actions are affected by our inwards inclination towards ourselves, so in that sense our depravity (misguided inclination) is "total" in that it affects every fiber of our being, thought and actions. Even our loftiest and well-intentioned strivings are still affected by this egoistical inclination, so that none of our thoughts and actions are ever purely good. As Isaiah says:

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 64:6 ESV

We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

© Copyright Original Source

Justice tempered with compassion and mercy---How would a Christian know? As we discussed above---Christianity is not a pragmatic religio-philosophy. It has no systemic ethico-moral frameworks upon which to base and develop any wholistic structures applicable to realistic human progress.

Not being a pragmatic religio-philosophy does not equate to not having a systemic ethico-moral framework. Just because the main message and point of Christianity is not a system of moral and ethical guidelines does not mean that Christianity lacks such a system. There's a huge difference between something not being the main focus, and that something not being there at all...

Savior complex/only one able to save humanity----but does this not deprive humanity of agency? God creates the problem---and because he is a know-it-all---swoops in with a solution and "fixes" it---meanwhile humanity are helpless, ignorant recipients with no role to play in this story.
Another perspective could be---The human intellect, human free-will and our time on earth are God-given blessings in order that we might determine our own destination. Such a perspective would give agency, meaning and purpose to human existence on earth.

God creates the problem? How so? According to the story Adam and Eve acted in accordance with their own free will when they ate of the forbidden fruit, God didn't force, or lead them towards that decision in any way. The problem arose not because of anything God did or said, but because Adam and Eve trusted in the word of the snake/satan more than they trusted in the word of God.

When it comes to depriving humanity of agency...I honestly have to say that is not an issue that bothers me all that much. It seems to me like that (at least as it's presented here) is far more an expression of wanting freedom to live your life on your own terms rather than submitting to God/the will of God. Rejecting God's plan for salvation because it "deprives humanity of agency" seems to me to be taking that which should not be valued as highly (human agency) and putting it above that which is of far higher value (God's will).

[JonathanL]

The sin would be gods for making such an unjust law in the first place. We don't believe or disbelieve a thing simply out of desire. Our beliefs, whether right or wrong, I would hope, are based upon reason.

But it wouldn't be a sin, because per definition a sin is the act of breaking God's Law, and there is none of God's laws states that it is a sin for God to punish someone for their unbelief.

But again, according to you, whether we deserve to die for our sins or not, we don't die for our sins, we die for not believing a thing.

If a person didn't have any sins (including the sin of unbelief) they wouldn't die, so yes, they do die for their sins and they die because of their unbelief. It's not an either/or issue.

Being that we are imperfect beings to begin with then it would be unjust for our maker to kill us for our imperfections. And that takes us back to the reason for the punishment being non-belief which is not based on desire, but on our reasoning which again is imperfect.

1. God does not owe us anything, so there would be nothing unjust if He had simply decided that he wouldn't give us the offer of salvation at all but simply punished all of us without distinction.

2. But God did offer humans salvation, so your objection is nullified, because despite our imperfections we can still be saved through God's grace.

3. Our reasoning being imperfect is no hindrance to God's capabilities of leading a person to saving faith.

[JimL]

But it wouldn't be a sin, because per definition a sin is the act of breaking God's Law, and there is none of God's laws states that it is a sin for God to punish someone for their unbelief.

It would be unjust to punish people because of what they honestly believe, and to me injustice is a sin, it's wrong. To argue that it's not unjust when God does it denies of the term its meaning.

If a person didn't have any sins (including the sin of unbelief) they wouldn't die, so yes, they do die for their sins and they die because of their unbelief. It's not an either/or issue.

That doesn't resolve the issue. What people honestly believe is not desire based, it's reason based, ergo what one truly believes, rightly or wrongly, can't be a sin.

1. God does not owe us anything,

Hope you don't think of your kids that way.

so there would be nothing unjust if He had simply decided that he wouldn't give us the offer of salvation at all but simply punished all of us without distinction.

Again, what we honestly believe could not be a sin.

2. But God did offer humans salvation, so your objection is nullified, because despite our imperfections we can still be saved through God's grace.

Punishing some while rewarding others because of their honest beliefs is not grace, it's injustice.

3. Our reasoning being imperfect is no hindrance to God's capabilities of leading a person to saving faith.

Well, that would be on God then, wouldn't it?

[siam]

1) Islam believes that there has been other Holy Books before the Quran, that were revealed at various points in time, right? It seems to me like that would constitute revelation over time.

2) What can humanity do for God? The Christian answer would be not really anything, apart from the grace of God. We're not really in a state where our actions can please God when every single one of them springs from our sinful and egoistical inwards inclination. And it's not possible to change that inwards inclination towards yourself by your own power, it's something you have to trust in God to do for you. But when God does do that for you it frees you to do what is right because of right intentions, and not simply because it's your obligation, or because you hope for some gain or reward.

3) I have not really thought about the issue that much, but to me the idea of a "mystery", at least in the sense of something that is beyond the human reason/intellect to grasp, is something that is axiomatic to the Christian paradigm. But at the same time it makes sense to me, because with God being unfathomable there's no surprise that there will at times be occasions of contemplating God and His actions that we will come to a point where our minds are simply unable to grasp His nature, capabilities and actions fully. Just because I cannot explain fully, or even adequately, how the Son was able to take on human nature and still not lose the infinite qualities of divinity in doing so, for example, does not mean that His doing so was an impossibility. If God then through revelation states that was exactly what happened around 2000 years ago in the land of Judea, then I will just have to accept that mystery, despite me being unable to fully grasp my head around it.

4)Presumably God would be able to uphold the existence of time/space for as long as He wanted to, including for eternity, if He so chose. It seems to me that God creating the universe out of his thought/knowledge simply to have it all destroyed and "fold back into memory/knowledge" again is quite a pointless endeavour. It seems to me like if God simply decided not to create anything at all, but simply kept all of it inside of Himself as "thought/knowledge" then the end result would still be exactly the same as if He did the former of creating and then destroying all of creation. Whatever happened between the two points of God existing eternally alone with this "thoughts/knowledge" and God folding all of creation back into himself as "memory/knowledge" appears to me to be ultimately meaningless and without any discernable worth.

Well, it could "foreshadow" that, but then again I believe the NT is far more trustworthy in it's account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus than the Quran is in it's account of what happened to Him, so the likelihood that the OT foreshadowed something in the NT, rather than in the Quran, is far more likely in my opinion...

5) Depends on how you understand the idea of total depravity. I believe in the idea that all of our thoughts and actions are affected by our inwards inclination towards ourselves, so in that sense our depravity (misguided inclination) is "total" in that it affects every fiber of our being, thought and actions. Even our loftiest and well-intentioned strivings are still affected by this egoistical inclination, so that none of our thoughts and actions are ever purely good. As Isaiah says:

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 64:6 ESV

We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

© Copyright Original Source

6) Not being a pragmatic religio-philosophy does not equate to not having a systemic ethico-moral framework. Just because the main message and point of Christianity is not a system of moral and ethical guidelines does not mean that Christianity lacks such a system. There's a huge difference between something not being the main focus, and that something not being there at all...

7) God creates the problem? How so? According to the story Adam and Eve acted in accordance with their own free will when they ate of the forbidden fruit, God didn't force, or lead them towards that decision in any way. The problem arose not because of anything God did or said, but because Adam and Eve trusted in the word of the snake/satan more than they trusted in the word of God.

8) When it comes to depriving humanity of agency...I honestly have to say that is not an issue that bothers me all that much. It seems to me like that (at least as it's presented here) is far more an expression of wanting freedom to live your life on your own terms rather than submitting to God/the will of God. Rejecting God's plan for salvation because it "deprives humanity of agency" seems to me to be taking that which should not be valued as highly (human agency) and putting it above that which is of far higher value (God's will).

1) Epistemology is an important concept in the Quran because the argument for One God is being made in opposition to belief in many Gods(polytheism.) How is anyone "to know" if "One God", "Many Gods", "No Gods" is the better concept? The Quran separates "to know" into 2 categories "Truth" and "Superstition". The Quranic story of Abraham is an example of how to discern this separation. But also the concept of "Fitra"/Human nature plays a part. According to the Islamic understanding---all humanity "Knows" God because of the primordial "covenant" (story of Adam) but we are forgetful. Wisdom teachings are reminders of "knowing"(sign) that is timeless for all humanity/all generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
A somewhat related concept to "Fitra" might be concluded from some of the presumptions of evolutionary psychology.....?....
"Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment. Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory), and thus understanding psychology as a branch of biology"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

Therefore...In Islam, "One God" is a universal and timeless "Truth" permeating all Wisdom teachings and "signs" (including all of creation)...its understanding, interpretation and application differ over time = this is "knowledge". The correct understanding, interpretation and application of knowledge falls under the general heading of Tawheed(Unity) but, Misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misapplication of knowledge falls under the general heading of Shirk(Division).
(polytheism / superstition = Shirk)

2, 8) In Islam, Since humanity has free-will and intelligence---we have the "freedom" (this life) to determine our destiny and this brings with it "restrictions" (after-life). Other ways to see it would be (God-given) rights balanced with (God-given) responsibilities. Balance or Equilibrium is a theme both in the Quran(Sign) and in Nature(sign) and it is "Gods will". Human nature is exactly as "God wills" which is why wisdom teachings are (should be) geared towards what most benefits humanity/human nature that promote balance and harmony that leads to peace. In Islam, humanity are active participants within God's will/God's plan---not passive observers. We are sent to earth to live life by exercising our right to (God-given) free-will so as to fulfill our responsibilities as Trustees (on Earth). There is purpose and meaning to the existence/creation of Humanity.

3) So..."mystery" (What God has done for humanity) is the anchor upon which the Christian paradigm revolves and it therefore serves to define religion/spirituality/God?---Ok...
....I begin to see why the term "religion" was not defined as philosophy in Western academia for so long.
The idea that "God will make right" along with this sense of "mystery" perhaps makes Christianity a good "path" for the oppressed peoples?.....but historically it became a tool for the powerful. Do you think Christianity might lost/forgot its flavor/core because of it?

4) I think the idea is that God continues with his creation/destruction cycle---as it says in the Quran somehwere---God will create a "new world"...and according to a Jewish person---this cycle continues---after all "Time" has no conceptual place with God.....In any case---what God chooses to do/not do is not my concern...what I am interested in is what can I DO for God---and that is to fulfill my God-given responsibility as a Trustee(Khalifa) on Earth.
God's will=Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.

5) Interesting.
Does it promote a somewhat dark/pessimistic view of humanity? If it were meant to give comfort to the oppressed---that is, give them a reason why their oppressors are "bad" ---it might work....?....
...to me, a positive/optimistic view of human nature/humanity works best if the religio-philosophy applies to all humanity as a universal---not just the oppressed---with justice as a tool to correct and balance human relations that have become unbalanced and corrupted.....?.....but then the historical climate/circumstance in which our respective religio-philosophies emerged was different so it had to address different needs of humanity....I suppose....

Isaiah 64
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible...Chapter-64.htm
This interpretation seems to make it more of a lament/prayer to God for help/attention
line 8 says..."Be not wroth, O Lord, so very greatly, and remember not iniquity forever; please look, all of us are Your people."

6) Does Christian moral system come from the Roman system or from others?

7) In Christianity, Did God create Satan or does he exist "eternally" like God?

[Same Hakeem]

Ezeliel's instuctions were given under the Law of Moses, where offerings where to be made in the Temle, Levitecus, 17:11, ". . . For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. . . ." Hebrews 9:22, ". . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. . . ." That is, without the blood there is no forgivness under the Law.

So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14, the Prophet Jesus, Deuteronomy 18:18-19, would also be an unrighteous sinner, Romans 3:10. James 2:10, Matthew 5:19.

"So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14" is not true because John 1:14 says "The Word (not God) became flesh". Jesus cannot be God because Jesus himself described in name the Father as "the ONLY TRUE God" in John 17:3.

Do you understand the meaning of Jesus own words "ONLY TRUE" in John 17:3?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

"So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14" is not true because John 1:14 says "The Word (not God) became flesh". Jesus cannot be God because Jesus himself described in name the Father as "the ONLY TRUE God" in John 17:3.

Look, I'm certainly no Christian, but you seem to be very curiously cherry picking verses here. John 1:14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us" (Gk., Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν). At no point does it say that the Word was not God, as you claim in your parenthetical. Quite the contrary, in John 1:1 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," (Gk., Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). Even if one doesn't assent to Trinitarianism, it seems fairly clear that the author of this gospel believed the Word to be a hypostasis of God and that this author identified Jesus with the Word.

Do you understand the meaning of Jesus own words "ONLY TRUE" in John 17:3?

The phrase here is τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν. Again, even as a non-Christian, it seems perfectly clear that Jesus' reference to "the one true deity," here, doesn't contradict the notion that hypostases of this one true deity might exist.

[37818]

"So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14" is not true because John 1:14 says "The Word (not God) became flesh". Jesus cannot be God because Jesus himself described in name the Father as "the ONLY TRUE God" in John 17:3.

What you choose not to acknowjadge, John explained the Word was both "with the God," and "was God." Not was "the" God. We Christains understand the Word is not the same Person as the God, but is the same God, not another god.

Do you understand the meaning of Jesus own words "ONLY TRUE" in John 17:3?

That there is only One God. In the same way the Son, the Word is the true light, John 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:3, John 1:3, Colossians 1:14-18.