Can you defend the trinity?

[Sparko]

All I did was suggest that he stop giggling in his posts and actually put forth his argument instead of merely linking to some other thread. That set him off so I responded.

I have not been insulting or flaming.

Moose, your original post does not present the trinity correctly, so you arguments do not even affect our doctrine. It is what is called a strawman argument.

There is nothing to refute.

It would be like me arguing against Islam by claiming that Mohammed was not a God. You would shrug your shoulders and say "Huh? We never claimed he was"

You seem to think we see Jesus as a different God than the Father, but we don't. They are the SAME God. So when Jesus died, we don't think God died, since the Father was still alive, and Jesus' spirit did not die it went to be with the Father. Only his human body died (and was resurrected). Jesus was unique in that he had two natures, fully God and fully human. His human nature was not omnipresent, but his divine nature was. So your arguments about the "omnis" are strawman arguments too. They have no bearing on Jesus' divinity.

so you whole argument is nonsense. There is nothing to refute.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Firstly, I said that kindness should be used by everyone here, that includes brother heisonly1. Next, since you said that we should "take the heat" I didn't think it was necessary to include anyone anymore about insults. Also, if Bill the Cat didn't block the last post by heisonly1, he would have shown that you are not answering any of his challenges AP. Also, I don't get it, his post got blocked because he was flaming, yet so were you and sparko. And he is arguing by link, which I do, and so does Narnian in the Islam forum and so does Dan Zebiri and nothing of theirs got blocked, I don't know why heisonly1's post did. Also, Apologia, you haven't even refuted my original post.

Um. Your OP is full of misconceptions on the Trinity.

Lastly, I can take the heat. I didn't even report the post of the maniacal1. Someone else did. When I saw what he said, it didn't faze me. Really. I can take the heat. What bothers me though is that you condemn others for doing it but when it's done on your side, all is well and good. I can read what he said and I still say a case has NOT been made.

[anewlife]

Hello and Peace be to all,
What really stinks is why everybody here can't use kindness in their language. With that being said, I think brother heisonly1 has made a great challenge and I don't see a reason why AP isn't defending the trinity using biblical scriptures. After all if our salvation depended on the belief that God is triune surely this theology would be very conspicuous in the bible but it isn't. Keep up the good work heisonly1 may Allah bless you for trying to show people the right path. Take care my brother.


Salam

The greatest malodor is the flagrant misinterpretation of the Trinity by the OP. There have been challenges early on against the view of Trinitarianism (and of course the alternative views) and were resolved long ago. I view this discussion as a good thing because it keeps things in balance. However, the main issue is their (Unitarians) lack of historicity and not addressing any writings that were either during the first-fourth centuries or what has been available within the last 300 years. They also fail to address the epistemology behind the nature of Christ. Let it be known that the Unitarians also have problems with their view of (limited proof-texts) Scripture and of Christ.

What you view as good work Moose; some view as misconceptions of Christianity and typical stereotyping. I have looked at that Unitarian website that has been used in this argument, I see nothing as far as credentials or any backing by majority of scholarship. What are you trying to imply by giving kudos to a site in which you have no understanding? So basically what you are suggesting is to take the website as a final authority, but never mind any history, fact checks, or paper trail? I find this absurd.

The most important question (via reasoning) that needs to be addressed--as Jesus himself asked--who do you say I am. This is where the epistemology of who Christ is and is not determines the conclusion of Christ's nature and our view of Trinitarianism. What you are missing here is the reasoning behind why we believe what we believe. The Trinity isn't based solely upon proof-texts there is also a trifle bit of reason/deductions that also have not been discussed in this thread by the OP. To make special qualifiers without looking at the scripture as a whole, and the process by which we draw the conclusion behind the articulation of the Trinity goes beyond reasoning and leans towards presuppositions.

We have already addressed your strawman argument (OP).

[Weboh2]

The greatest malodor is the flagrant misinterpretation of the Trinity by the OP. There have been challenges early on against the view of Trinitarianism (and of course the alternative views) and were resolved long ago. I view this discussion as a good thing because it keeps things in balance. However, the main issue is their (Unitarians) lack of historicity and not addressing any writings that were either during the first-fourth centuries or what has been available within the last 300 years. They also fail to address the epistemology behind the nature of Christ. Let it be known that the Unitarians also have problems with their view of (limited proof-texts) Scripture and of Christ.

In the writing of the early church fathers, we have Polycarp who pervaricates to learn about the attributes of the true God by pretending to have known the apostles, the Valentinian Ignatius, the somewhat Ebionite deist Clement of Rome, Hegessipus who confuses John the Baptist and Jesus' prophecy with James the Just, Justin Martyr who believes some strange stoic crap about the world going into flames, Irenaeus who is binitarian because of Polycarp's idiocy, Hippolytus who doesn't know Valentinus' doctrines are original and from drug use, Hermas who is none other than Valentinus' student Marcus, and etc. I don't think their is much merit in using the early church fathers as proof of the trinity doctrine.

[heisonly1]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Cut out the vitriolic disruption. You are out of control for the tenor of the forum, which is pretty hard for TheologyWeb.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Assalamaleykum brother Moose,

SubhanAllah these Trinitarians are cowards and cannot defend their dobious Trinity doctrine, even if their life depended on it.

Moderators had no justification in deleting my most recent post here where I challenged AP to refute my arguments. AP erroneously accused me of not providing the correct link and complains that there was nohing to refute:

If you wanna whine about your moderation, go to the unnamed forum and whine. For someone wanting to act all big and brave, you do whine a lot. Personally, I can defend the Trinity. It's just that you haven't said anything. I'm not going to wade through 13 pages of garbage arguments that I've already heard a thousand times before.

All I did in most recent post that was unjustly deleted was provide the correct link to AP since he was to stupid to know how to use his mouse to click on the right reference that exposes his bogus Trinity doctrine. I provided the correct internal link (within the forum) and then what happens? a stupid infraction!!! I only provided the reference to avoid repetition and duplication of arguments already discussed in detail elsewhere.

Whine whine whine. Argument by weblink. Try presenting the argument here.

THAT IS A LIE !!!!! AP Re -read post # 91on this thread and refer to the the appropriate link within that post, which you avoided to counter respond cos you got no credibility, just like Sparko.

Hey. I'm ready to face you any time. By the way, accusations of lying go against campus decorum. Personally, I've got loads of credibility. It's these bogus arguments from Unitarians and others that go against the grain of the understanding of Christ by leading scholars, even those who disagree with his claims.

I'll try and be a little more nice to you two cowards,

peace2u,

heisonly1

Nah. Go ahead and rant and whine all you want. I think it's funny.

[anewlife]

In the writing of the early church fathers, we have Polycarp who pervaricates to learn about the attributes of the true God by pretending to have known the apostles, the Valentinian Ignatius, the somewhat Ebionite deist Clement of Rome, Hegessipus who confuses John the Baptist and Jesus' prophecy with James the Just, Justin Martyr who believes some strange stoic crap about the world going into flames, Irenaeus who is binitarian because of Polycarp's idiocy, Hippolytus who doesn't know Valentinus' doctrines are original and from drug use, Hermas who is none other than Valentinus' student Marcus, and etc. I don't think their is much merit in using the early church fathers as proof of the trinity doctrine.

No one implied the early church fathers are considered proof of the Trinity doctrine other than yourself. Step outside the box and try again.

[heisonly1]

Anewlife - "Your original post is a strawman argument (which is illogical or unable to be logically debated), which in turn defeats itself. You grossly and incessantly misrepresent the Christian beliefs and you could be doing this out of ignorance, intolerance, arrogance, or you could be simply profiling, so I will leave the [sic] rebuking up to God--on his time. Again, you confuse Trinitarianism with Tritheism which was condemned long, long, long ago and you will not accept any chastening on this matter. I believe that we should leave you at your own devices in your extending path to destruction (of the misrepresentation of Christian and Muslim beliefs that is).

That's all we hear from you, Sparko and AP. Typical Trinitarian responses when thay have been exposed as polytheists, - "you muslims don't understand the trinity or " you confuse Trinitarianism with Tritheism" and "you produce strawman arguments" and blah blah blah blah !!!!

Anewlife, I have engaged you in debate before regarding the trinity and you fled like a coward.You have yet to counter respond to my challenge in post # 91of this thread, where within that specific post, I cite a reference that has your name on it, where I challenged you to counter respond to the evidence that exposes you as a polytheist (Tritheism) Rather than you responding with "you muslims don't understand the trinity or " you confuse Trinitarianism with Tritheism" and "you produce strawman arguments" and blah blah blah blah !!!! show some credibility and refute/explain WHY by directly engaging the biblical evidence I produced that exposes you as a believer in Tritheism !!!!

hahahahahahah What excuses will you come up with now to avoid responding to my challenge (in post #91) on this thread.

"you muslims don't understand the trinity or " you confuse Trinitarianism with Tritheism" and "you produce strawman arguments" and blah blah blah blah !!!!

[Lili]

Oh I don't know. Marrying and having sex with a 9 year old girl is not a sin?
It will get you several years in prison nowadays.

In the Islam section, some of the Muslims have actually been arguing that it was fine for Muhammad to have sex with that 9 year old, if she had started puberty. They're not even aware that(1)it's very unlikely that she had started puberty because the onset of puberty was later at that time since people were not as healthy as they are now and (2)even if she had started puberty, she was still emotionally immature and couldn't consent because she was only 9!

What a bunch of sickos (referring to those particular Muslims, not all Muslims)

[moose7237]

In the Islam section, some of the Muslims have actually been arguing that it was fine for Muhammad to have sex with that 9 year old, if she had started puberty. They're not even aware that(1)it's very unlikely that she had started puberty because the onset of puberty was later at that time since people were not as healthy as they are now and (2)even if she had started puberty, she was still emotionally immature and couldn't consent because she was only 9!

What a bunch of sickos (referring to those particular Muslims, not all Muslims)

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

If you have actually read some of my posts(the rather recent ones about the issue) you would know that the age of Aisha is in contradiction with the hadiths. The person who said she was 9, the one who recorded that hadiths was known to be a liar. Now some Hadiths conclude that mathematically she was 18 and not 9. The main point is, the hadiths are in contradiction with each other, you can do a google search and find out. Also, this thread is not dedicated for Islam, so please take this subject to the Islam forum and it could be answered more in depth. Take care.

[moose7237]

If you wanna whine about your moderation, go to the unnamed forum and whine. For someone wanting to act all big and brave, you do whine a lot. Personally, I can defend the Trinity. It's just that you haven't said anything. I'm not going to wade through 13 pages of garbage arguments that I've already heard a thousand times before.





Whine whine whine. Argument by weblink. Try presenting the argument here.







Hey. I'm ready to face you any time. By the way, accusations of lying go against campus decorum. Personally, I've got loads of credibility. It's these bogus arguments from Unitarians and others that go against the grain of the understanding of Christ by leading scholars, even those who disagree with his claims.






Nah. Go ahead and rant and whine all you want. I think it's funny.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

AP, you said you have heard these arguements 1000 times, I'm sure you have debated what heisonly1 is challenging you to, so why not debate him? You and Sparko just say that these arguements are strawmen and that heisonly1 isn't saying anything, yet you haven't even tried to debate him on the issue. If you have an answer then post it. If not, and you are just stalling, then why even waste time here?

[moose7237]

[

Firstly, you are correct; in spirit form, God the Father exhibits these characteristics. Secondly, Jesus was incarnate (in the flesh) and was bound by time in the effect he was in the flesh (could have the ability to die although resurrected to sit on the right hand of the Father). Thirdly, only God can forgive sins, beyond the miracles performed by Jesus no other prophet could ever make a statement that they could forgive sins. Jesus alone (in human form) is the only one that ever made this statement.



The concept is not illogical just beyond your grasp simply because you are; after all human. We have Jesus in the flesh born of a woman when he took on this form. John also described in John 1 speaking that the word that was with God (before time, space, matter) became flesh. If John refers to Jesus as the Word, then we cannot say that the word was after God because God was not created, nor was his word (outside of God in a manner of speaking). It seems as if you are putting qualifications on who God can or cannot be, which in turn could be limiting God. Who is that one talked about in Revelation that sits on the judgment throne?

I have seen nothing in your argument to support Jesus as part of the Trinity as illogical, difficult to grasp yes, but not illogical. Maybe you will need to articulate how it is illogical in-depth, considering all options (even the Christian option).



The verse states:
Matt 13:32 “But as for that day or hour no one knows it – neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son – except the Father. 13:33 Watch out! Stay alert! For you do not know when the time will come. 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey. He left his house and put his slaves in charge, assigning to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to stay alert. 13:35 Stay alert, then, because you do not know when the owner of the house will return – whether during evening, at midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn – 13:36 or else he might find you asleep when he returns suddenly. 13:37 What I say to you I say to everyone: Stay alert!”

I will give possible answers:
1. The Father did not allow Jesus to know this (whilst becoming human form) in his limitations as a human
2. Jesus knew but he was not at liberty to disclose the information
3. Jesus did not tell them, so they would remain alert not becoming otiose
4. The kenosis theory (gave up some of his deity)



Correct Jesus was given the authority while he was on earth (means of submission in the ontological viewpoint, remember we are humans trying to explain God i.e. shaky ground). So could any prophet before Christ forgive anyone of his or her sins? So Muhammad (if he had any authority) could forgive anyone of his or her sins and still be considered nothing special? Then what makes Muhammad special for he did not perform miracles, nor did he forgive anyone’s sin (as described in the Qur’an). So are you saying miracles are nothing special, or just that Jesus was nothing special? By this qualifier, Muhammad would neither be anything special, other than circular reasoning which would be a rather weak case.

Miracle can be defined as:

A marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of God



I like the terminology… Note some mis-spellings in the OP may be corrected in my reply.

Let us see what an authoritative source states:

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 1:5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.

Jesus is the word, how can Jesus be with the Father before he was in the womb? This word was fully God in John 1:1.


John goes on to state:
1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 1:7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. 1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’”
John clearly states (1:9) that Christ created the world.
Omnipresent?
Matt 18:20 For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them.”
Matt 28:20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”


I should hope so.



No not necessarily, no other man made claims to a resurrected body after 3 days. No other man made all the claims that Jesus made (e.g. the claim to forgive sins) before/after Christ. No one was claimed to be virgin born (mere man) in Judaism (to my knowledge) Christ is unique in many ways and the Muslims and others would agree with this. Christ had many followers before his death and numerous more after his death, apart from other religions, no other man claimed to be the only way to salvation.



While some resurrections took place before Christ, I disagree with your assertion and so would the first century followers (who were more authoritative then either of us). This is what Paul stated “hinges” our faith as Christians. So the Apostles, Paul, all of Christianity community would disagree with you. I am also sure some Muslims would also agree that Jesus was special. No resurrection=no Christianity=no followers of Christ, period. (The impossible faith)



Firstly, Does God the Father have a heartbeat? Can you verify that he does?
Secondly, you have not explained how a mere man can forgive sins and redefine covenants (Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7 But I say to you…) We all know that Christ was in the flesh, no one is contesting that, so yes he had a heartbeat, but that is hopefully not a mainstay in your case. (if so, it is very weak indeed).



I fail to see your case… We are not talking about the kenosis theory here per say, nor did you even discuss this as a possibility in your case. You have not constructed a dissertation against the Bible nor against the historicity of Christianity. I recommend you start with the historical arguments, and then try to debate them before making any bold statements. The OP seems rather infantile on your part.



You must disprove John 1 and to date no one has performed this task. They have debated it but have never refuted it because the word still stands as inspired from God. (It’s in the canon)



This is irrelevant due to progressive revelation carried out throughout the Bible both OT and the NT. By the same qualifier, we could ask for your proof in the OT that speaks of the prophet Muhammad coming to correct the OT and Gospel. I have not seen any proof of this to date from you or the Muslim community as a whole. You still have no case for Muhammad or against Trinitarianism.



Maybe, but you cannot deny the plural incantations that it suggests. We know that angels do not have to power to create anything. Then of course, we have the Kingship-plurality theory. Genesis 1 is not what we call an end-all verse to prove the Trinity in the OT, you may think this on your own, but you do not speak for the Christian community. Historically Christians have used this plurality to suggest the Trinity but not all agree with its usage as such. The concept is throughout the NT. Also, keep in mind some people like to put limitations on God (who he can or cannot be).

So you have not proven that the word “elohim” can not be used as a plurality for God at this point either. So basically how can a husband and wife be one yet two, as explained in the Bible? Are you also suggesting this is incorrect scripture as well? You are leaving many loose ends in your so-called argument.



Can you be more specific, were they referred to as God or god(s). For the most part, Christians do not care what Unitarians believe, this is what separates the Christian from the non-Christian (doctrine). It may sound brash, but the term Christianity needs a clear definition. BTW an argument by web link can be a sure sign you cannot build your own thesis. Can you supply a link that will cover both sides of the coin, and then create your own argument? Or can you just highlight on the points you agree with so we have some indication of what you are trying to convey?



Well that is a bit intolerant from someone that claims to be tolerant (Muhammad) of other religions. We do not consider Jesus a god so 005:0072 would not apply to Christians. 005:073 I would consider as hate speech from Muhammad, he does not speak on any authority other than his own IMO. As Christians we believe in one God despite what you believe, historically this is what Christians have always believed (one God). The view you are espousing is Tritheism not Trinitarianism, there is a difference, and you seem nescient of the two terms. (not to sound harsh).

I am a Christian and I would like everybody to deeply think about the Trinity. This concept is not new and there have been scores of literature written on the subject and the articulation of the Trinity throughout the ages. Do you have to believe or understand the Trinity to be saved?

I hold the following…

Essential Objectivity:
1. Faith Alone
2. Christ’s Deity
3. Existence of God
4. Death, Burial, Resurrection of Christ
5. The Atonement[/QUOTE]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Firstly, if Jesus was incarnate and was LIMITED, notice the word limited because God is infinite, yet Jesus was bound to a body hence he was limited. So if he was bound to the body, he can't be omnipresent thats for sure. Next he can forgive sins. Thats easily explained:

Matthew 28:18
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The keyword is GIVEN. So what makes Jesus so special if he was given the authority to forgive sins? Not much.

Next, in to regard of John 1, this is from biblicalunitarian:

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):

* speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
* a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
* a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
* preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
* command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
* proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
* message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
* assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
* the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).
* revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
* God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
* a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
* an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
* a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [16]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [17]

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.

So clearly, the unitarians show that the translation of the word "logos" shown in a trinitarian perspective is wrong. you can read the rest of the article about john 1 on the site I provided with at the opening post.

Next, a response to the hour:
1. if Jesus is God, he didn't need the father rejecting him the knowledge of the hour? Does the father have command over the son when he is in human form? If yes, then Jesus is not God he is just a man, because God is not rejected knowledge nor does anything "not allow" him to know information. He is the almighty. How is the almighty prohibited from knowing certain things?

2. If Jesus knew the information then he would have lied to his disciples because he said only the father knows and the son doesn't.

3. Jesus told them to be alert and told them that he doesn't know the hour.

4. If he gave up some of his deity, then he is not God, for God is omniscient. If Jesus is not omniscient then he is not God, he is just a man.

Muhammad did have the authority to forgive sin, but not any sin, only what Allah allows him to forgive. Allah called Muhammad a mercy to all mankind and a mercy to all the worlds. Jesus was GIVEN the authority to forgive sin. If he already had this power independent of the father, then you would have a better case, but since he was given the authority that doesn't make him divine.

Now you asked how can Jesus be with the father before he was in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah was with God before he was in the womb.

Now as far as John 1 goes, please do read my above response.

Now on to the verses in Matthew:
Matt 18:20 For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them.”
Matt 28:20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

When Jesus said I am always with you that doesn't mean he is everywhere. He could only be with his disciples. If Jesus was omnipresent then like I said, Judas and the chief priests did not have to go and look for him, since he is omnipresent. But since Jesus was limited to a human body then he couldn't have been omnipresent. Now Jesus said if 2 or 3 are assembled in his name he is with them, what about the people that don't assemble in his name?

Hosea 6
1 "Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.

2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

Jesus was not the only 1. Also, Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale, but Christianity doesn't dwell on this much at all. Now on to Jesus and salvation. You said that Jesus said he is the way to salvation correct? Why didn't he tell this person here the same thing?

Luke 10
25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28. "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

Why did he refer to the mosaic law? Why didn't he tell the man to believe in him and he will have salvation? Why didn't Jesus say, "believe that I will die and be resurrected for you and you will be in the kingdom of heaven?"

His physical resurrection was not different then people before him. Muslims would agree that Jesus was special, but they wouldn't say that he is God. In Islam Solomon was special, so was Joseph, so were all of the prophets. Now Paul never met Jesus, that's why he never quotes anything Jesus says, so I don't think he has much authority to talk on Jesus' behalf.

No God the Father does not have a heart beat. Assuming that God the father is not in a body whatsoever, because if he did have a heart beat then he is in need of a heart to live. God isn't in need of anything. Jesus was only a man. He can forgive sins because he was given the authority to.

John 5:19
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

The son can do nothing by himself? Is that a statement God would say? I don't think so.

The unitarians have shown that John 1 is in no way showing that Jesus is God, and it makes more sense that he isn't.

The mention of the trinity in clear detail is very important because it relys on salvation. The trinity theology is that God came in the flesh because he loved us and he died for us, and the belief in that is what leads you to heaven. Yet the trinity is not clear in the bible at all. Clearly, I wouldn't put my salvation on the line for something that is not mentioned clearly in one verse of the bible, that's why the Quran is clear on the fate of trinitarians.

Well I'm glad that genesis 1 is not used to prove the trinity. If you want an explanation about it read the site I provided and it would explain a lot.

My thesis is very clear at the opening post. the site just shows the explanation of trinitarian verses. I don't use many trinitarian verses in my arguement, the site is a bonus to explain the verses used to prove the trinity.

You don't consider Jesus to be a God? Really? so Jesus isn't God? That's good to know. Muhammad is speaking out of hate? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, so everytime I hear that when I reject christ I would be damned to hell, that's not hate speaking on Paul's authority correct? Riiiiiiiiiite. Now verse 5:73 in other translations is "associating partners with God" exactly what the trinity is a a 3 person partnership to form one God.

[anewlife]

That's all we hear from you, Sparko and AP. Typical Trinitarian responses when thay have been exposed as polytheists, - "you muslims don't understand the trinity or " you confuse Trinitarianism with Tritheism" and "you produce strawman arguments" and blah blah blah blah !!!!

Sorry we cannot debate illogical strawman statements. It is true that you do not understand the Trinity and you confuse it with Tritheism by your posts. The consensus agrees with this, you tend to not take any constructive criticism well which can lead to closed minded thinking.

Anewlife, I have engaged you in debate before regarding the trinity and you fled like a coward.

Firstly you have never challenged me to any formal debate. I value my time, and no longer waste it on ideals that are not founded upon sound principles. How I choose my time and responses are my own. I choose the right to not respond to any fainéant remarks. No reason to bring emotion into this discussion if you want to be formal. If it is in humor, then fine, I can accomodate with a response.

I found error with The OP presentation, and could not and would not respond to it or your so called case. I never fled, I am still waiting for you to back your arguments with history, and scholarly sources.

You have yet to counter respond to my challenge in post # 91of this thread, where within that specific post, I cite a reference that has your name on it, where I challenged you to counter respond to the evidence that exposes you as a polytheist (Tritheism)

I do not need to counter your repsonse because I am directly responding to the OP which has not in-turn responded to me. You call me a polytheist, but who are you to make such claims? You do not speak from authority, and I have stated I believe in one God. I do not support Tritheism or polytheism, nor do I put God into a box or try to use mere human logic to paint myself or God into a corner. Again, I need to see evidence supported by an authoritative source, not mere assertions or opinions.

...exposes you as a believer in Tritheism !!!!

I fail to see where Trinitarianism is Tritheism... Have you even looked at the Chalcedonian Creed? Can you show any historical writings in the 4th century that would suggest the Chalcedonian Creed in error? What you think now is really irrelavent to the statement made by the Body Of Christ. I do believe your theology is irrelavent.

hahahahahahah What excuses will you come up with now to avoid responding to my challenge (in post #91) on this thread.

When you do proper research, then I will respond accordingly. Opinions do not matter to me much at all. When you can show us some credentials or at least some sourcework that would suggest "fact checks" then please by all means start a new thread. Expecting us to acknowledge you to know more about Christianity (our beliefs and history) or Scripture (Sensus Plenior) is rather absurd. If you cannot construct a sound argument why should I or anyone else waste my time with your antics?

[Lili]

The trinity is not the same as tritheism. Tritheism is (obviously) a type of polytheism. In every polytheistic religion that I have read about, there are a number of finite, usually imperfect, deities that have conflicting wills. The three persons of the trinity are eternal, all knowing, all good, and all powerful and their wills are the same. By the way, the concept of the trinity is not just found in the New Testament. There are also verses in the Old Testament that teach the concept. Here's one:

Proverbs 8:22-23 - The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Notice that the being in this verse is self aware, therefore he is a person. In addition, this being existed eternally. He "was set up from everlasting" therefore this is not a created being. There is only one explanation: this being is God himself. However, he is not the Father, because he refers to the father in the third person. This being, who is the Father's Word and Wisdom, is Christ.

[moose7237]

The trinity is not the same as tritheism. Tritheism is (obviously) a type of polytheism. In every polytheistic religion that I have read about, there are a number of finite, usually imperfect, deities that have conflicting wills. The three persons of the trinity are eternal, all knowing, all good, and all powerful and their wills are the same. By the way, the concept of the trinity is not just found in the New Testament. There are also verses in the Old Testament that teach the concept. Here's one:

Proverbs 8:22-23 - The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Notice that the being in this verse is self aware, therefore he is a person. In addition, this being existed eternally. He "was set up from everlasting" therefore this is not a created being. There is only one explanation: this being is God himself. However, he is not the Father, because he refers to the father in the third person. This being, who is the Father's Word and Wisdom, is Christ.

Hello and Peace be to you Lili,

Actually this was a created being! Read the very next verse:

Proverbs 8:22-25
22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [b] , [c]
before his deeds of old;

23 I was appointed [d] from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.

24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;

25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,

Hence, this person was a created being! He was the first of the Lords works, what do you think that means? And who APPOINTED him? God is not apointed, he is the one who appoints not the one who is appointed. Clearly this person is lower then God.