Christians: Questions from Muslims

[Spiritus Naturae]

Lately I have been inundated by rather aggressive Muslims on Pal Talk who insist Christianity is a lie. One site I was directed to contained the following:

"Sacrifice = Love ?


Dear Christians,


I have read and been told;


"Jesus dying on the cross is a demonstration of how much God loves us. God wants us to see that, by sacrificing Jesus on the cross, it is a demonstration of His love."


This has been a puzzle to me and I would sincerely like to ask you "how"?


How does allowing someone to die a demonstration of love?


If I am not mistaken, didn't Jesus cry and beg to be saved according to the Bible.


"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" {Matthew 27:46}


If I had the power to save someone who was bleeding, crying, praying and begging to me to save him or her, I would save them. Not to save them would prove I was heartless, to save them would show I have Mercy, let alone love.


Not saving Jesus only demonstrates God does not listen to our prayers, does not have mercy, not even to his prophet according to the Bible.


Not to mention discrediting his prophethood to millions of Jews past present and future.


Please be logical in your explanation and kindly keep in mind that God is All Powerful and does not need "blood" to forgive sins.


One last question to consider in your reply, if Jesus's intention was to be a sacrifice, why would he "Beg" and "Pray" to God to be saved, and if your answer is that Jesus had a moment of weakness, than why say Jesus is 1/3 God, seeing many Christians say "Jesus is God in human form", because Jesus had the power to heal and raise people from the dead and walk on water, why then is Jesus at this moment helpless and powerless and most of all, not wanting to be sacrificed?


Wouldn't the point of love from God be to have peace, wouldn't there be peace between the Jews and the Christians, past present and future be a reality if Jesus was saved from the cross as clarified in the Koran??


Did you know that most of the original Muslims were Christians and Jews, who then searched, asked, and discovered peace and truth in Islam??


My concern is sincere, I would like to know the logic behind the thinking Sacrafice=Love.


If I were in a room full of people and there was one person singled out to be sacrificed so all the other people in the room could be saved, wouldn't the loving thing be not sacrifice at all, understand that if your sin is as large as a mountain, God Created the Mountains and can remove them as well.


If your sin is as deep as the Sea, God Created All the Seas in this world and the Universe and can remove them too, God loves and saved Jesus.

So let's take a shot at addressing this person's "sincere concern" in regards to Christ's sacrifice. I've been reading some apologetics literature, dealing with people of differing faiths and explaining why and what we as Christ's followers believe and they have helped a bit, but Muslims seem a bit more aggressive then dealing with a Buddhist or Hindu (my only experiences in dealing with differing faiths) and could use any and all insight from others who have dealt with those of the Islamic faith.

Thanks,
Jonathan :wink:

[Sparko]

quick response:

Jesus DID volunteer to be sacrificed. Right before the cross he said

Luke 22 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus knew exactly what he was doing. But that doesn't mean it was EASY!
He suffered on the cross. And the Father had to forsake him for a moment in order to put the judgement of our sins on Jesus. This was the first time ever that the Son was separated from the Father and he cried out his anguish. "Why have you forsaken me?" - yet he knew the answer to that. The answer is that Jesus sacrificed himself for US, each and every one of us.

Why did the Father let Jesus die on the cross? because of his love. His lover for US! Why did Jesus volunteer for this sacrifice? same answer, his love for US!

Our not having to suffer for eternity was worth Jesus suffering for a moment on the cross. And dying.


Jesus' own words, just before his sacrifice:

John 15:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+15:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

We are Jesus' Friends! He loved us that much.

But his death was not the end. He did not remain dead. but rose back to life on the third day to prove he has defeated death for all of us.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Check this out...I sign on to PalTalk to see whats shakin' and one of my Muslim "admirers" had left this IM for me to recieve when I sign on:

"In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful". Peace be upon those who follow the Guidance. After this, Verily I am a Sincerely advicer to you; I am calling and inviting you to the happiness of this life and in the life of herafter. Embrace ISLAM. Embrace Islam that you will find a true peace and Allah will give you a double reward. If you reject then on you shall rest the sin of your subjects and those who you misguides. Quran 3:64 "O People of the Book (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims."

I guess he really does care... :demure:

[Sparko]

Wow! It is like an Islamic chain letter. If you accept this you will get a double reward. If you refuse this, you will have bad luck, like going to hell.

[Spiritus Naturae]

:wink: Very good analogy, Sparko...yes he is determined that we Christians knowingly lie and decieve well intentioned Muslims into following Christ, and that Allah will make us pay for it in the afterlife.

[Jude3b]

Jesus Christ said "Not my will - but thy will be done" - He never begged to not proceed with the plan of God to redeem the Human race. He willingly went to the cross for you and me and whole human race. All the whosoever wills - that accept Him and His perfect sacrifice on their behalf are his children and will go to heaven.

Muslims like every other "religious" person on planet earth are trying to "earn" their way into heaven. But they cannot. Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE and no man, no Muslim, no Hindu, no Roman Catholic, no Buddhist, no atheist - no man will go to Heaven without having Him as their personal Lord and Savior. If He is your personal savior - than your religion is not the savior and your religious efforts are not the savior. All your righteousness is as filthy rags before a Holy God! You cannot and you will not ever be good enough to "earn" heaven. If you get to go, it will only be by the grace of God - provided by Jesus Christ, when He shed his blood for you and me. The Bible clearly states, "Without the shedding of blood, there is No remission of sins. Without the shed blood of Christ - on your behalf - you won't be in heaven.

The Koran teaches a false gospel, which is no gospel at all and those who trust it are being deceived. The Bible is the older of the two revelations and if you will read it and accept it as the true Word of God that it is - you will clearly see that the Koran is full of many many errors. You will also see how much Christ loves you - so much that He died for you, just like He did for me.
I urge you to read the New Testament and find out the truth. I also hope to meet you in heaven.

[bigsplit]

Well about what to tell the Muslim.

We know that they believe in eternal life and sacrifice.....Jihad is evident of this. What God showed through the cruxifiction of Christ is his love for humainity. Jesus could have easily raised an Army and expelled the Romans, but he did not, why? Jesus showed us that faith requires us to be willing to give up our lives for that which is right. Jesus showed us that our lives in this world are not what is important enough to sin in order to protect. What does a man profit if he saves his life but loses his soul. I find the message of the cross as this, there are many things worth dying for, but nothing worth killing for. To kill is of darkness no matter the reason, live by the darkness in this life and you will live in the darkness in the next...away from the light. Love you enemy, even those who would kill you.

Many Muslims would call this weakness and cowardess...The truth is that it would require much more bravery to not fight back with the sword, but with love in the valley of death. True faith means that you know you spirit is eternal and you will do nothing in this world to jeopardize that. Any man or ruler who tells you otherwise in the name of God....is a liar...

[Soundsurfr]

No one in this thread has yet addressed the central question posed by the Muslim, namely - why did Jesus need to die at all? Why would an all powerful God need blood to forgive sins?



This forum is for theists only. Please respect the forum guidlines. In previous posts you have said you are an atheist.

[Sparko]

Why Did Jesus have to Die?

Because God is just. He can't just forgive sins without payment for them. He did not create sin, he created free will, and we used it against him, and sinned. Therefore we deserve punishment. God being completely just must punish us for those sins. But instead, He came, himself, as the one who was offended, the victim of our sin, as Jesus, and paid the price himself. He is now able to give that covering of forgiveness to anyone who asks for it and submits to his Son as Lord and savior.

Without Jesus paying for our sins, we would be left to pay them ourselves. And we are not worthy of being in God's presence. So we would be condemned to hell.

Basically, God is the Judge, but the victim, and he not only judged our sin as worth of death, but then loved us so much, he came down from the bench and paid the price in our place. He paid our bail. We only have to accept it as a free gift.

[heaven]

Oh Moslems:

Mohammed is a false prophet and Jesus is the son of God.

You perjure yourselves when you claim the Mohammed improved upon the
Holy Bible, when you do not read the Book and do you not know that a curse is
upon anyone who adds or detracts from the Holy Bible.

Jesus said"I am theWay, the Truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father
but by me".

Besides Mohammed was a very immoral person who was a pedophile and polygamist preaching another God, Allah, who has not the attributes of the
christian God.

[SilverRain]

Oh Moslems:

Mohammed is a false prophet and Jesus is the son of God.

You perjure yourselves when you claim the Mohammed improved upon the
Holy Bible, when you do not read the Book and do you not know that a curse is
upon anyone who adds or detracts from the Holy Bible.

Jesus said"I am theWay, the Truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father
but by me".

Besides Mohammed was a very immoral person who was a pedophile and polygamist preaching another God, Allah, who has not the attributes of the
christian God.
I would like to begin by responding to this insulting claim. I am a very proud Muslim and will adhere to my ethics and respond with reason and history, rather than rhetoric and returning the insult.

First and foremost, if you were to do what you ask Muslims to do and read the Qur'an you would find that the Qur'an does not "add or detract" from the Bible. It is actually your own Christain church who has added and detracted from the Bible, beginning in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, when Constantine agreed with the Athanasians on the concept of the Trinity which is Biblically unsupported.

Later the interpolation was inserted of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This was found to be a fabrication as transaltor Benjamin Wilson describes it in his book "Emphatic Diaglott":

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

This is only one example of insertions and deletions in the Bible. Others are the deletion of "begotten" from John 3:16, and the deletion of the ascension in RSV Bible. The Gospels themselves are anonymous books. The ascribed names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply 2nd Century wishful thinking... but this is another topic altogether.

I could write essays on the other claims you have charged against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam... but time does not allow this at this time, so I will respond briefly but in detail.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was one of the most humble, kind, moral, God fearing man ever to walk the face of this earth. A simple study of his life and one would see this immediately. He used to donate generously to the poor, lived very modestly, and never asked anyone to do anything that he did not first do himself. He was known by his community, by even those who rejected him wholeheartedly as Al-Sadiq Al-Amin: "The Trustworthy and the Noble". I encourage you to read his biography entitled "The Sealed Nectar" which is widely acclaimed as historically accurate. You should educate yourself before making wild claims that you hear from decietful Christian missionaries. The wives he married (polygamy) were mostly politically motivated (i.e. to make ties between communities) and to support widows. Above all, he called for an end to tribalism and nationalism, and called all to the worship of the one true God.

Lastly, most Christians are not aware that Jesus Christ (PBUH) who spoke Aramiac (a sister language to Arabic... which Prophet Muhammad PBUH spoke), called God by the same name as Prophet Muhammad PBUH and Muslims do today. I invite you to go into the Aramaic lexicon dictionaries and type "God" and you will get "Elah, Alah"... which are the exact names Muslims call God today. Allah simply means "The God".

Here is the link to the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon proving this:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=0426&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

And a few points to be made about this:

1- "elahh" is the way the word "hhla" (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.
2- The words "Elahh", "hhla (read from right to left)" and "Allah" all have the "h" letter and pronunciation in them.

3- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

4- The Aramaic word "hhla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elahh" which means "GOD" is pronounced as "El-aw" as show above.

5- The Aramaic word "hla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elah" which means "oak" is pronounced as "Ay-law" also as shown above.

6- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

7- The Hebew word "Elohim" is the plural of "Elowah", which is derived from the Aramaic word "Alaha", or "Elahh"; the same as the Arabic word "Allah" or "Allawh" in pronunciation.

These points were made by a Muslim scholar on the topic.

[SilverRain]

Here is an excerpt from "What Did Jesus Really Say?" asking "Does God need blood atonement?" I encourage all of you to read this book, and it is available for free online. This will give you the Muslim perspective on the Bible and some incite on Biblically unsupported doctrines and practices.



This book is available at: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/contents.html



As seen in chapter one, when Paul came with his new and innovative ideas on how to improve upon the message of Jesus (pbuh), he began by dropping specific commandments. This continued until he decided that his alleged "visions" were sufficient authority to completely discard all of the commandments which both prophet Moses as well as prophet Jesus (pbut) both observed very strictly throughout their lives. The fact that both of these prophets are well known to have spent their lives commanding their followers to uphold these laws and commandments is casually brushed aside by "St. Paul." His "visions," we are told, are higher in authority than the commands of Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime.


Once Paul was finished nullifying the law of God through Moses and Jesus and simplifying the religion for them he began to get many converts. This is because his "Christianity" only required "faith" and no actual work (Romans 3:28). But faith without work was too flimsy a concept to build one's whole way of life around. Paul needed a stupendous and monumental event to have faith IN order for his claims to be accepted by anyone. Thus the original sin and the atonement were born.


Paul claimed that God Almighty had created mankind inherently sinful and as inheritors of "the sin of Adam." He claimed that this hereditary burden was so great that the creator of all of the heavens and earth, and yes, the creator of the concepts of sin and forgiveness themselves, could not forgive this sin. This, in Paul's estimation, was beyond God's capabilities. Paul preached that the only way the creator of the heavens and the earth and everything in-between could forgive this sin was to have his sinless "only begotten son" beaten, spat on, stripped, whipped, cut, humiliated, and finally killed in the most gruesome and drawn-out way known to man at the time; by hanging on the cross, and thus becoming a curse upon mankind.


"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree"

Galatians 3:13:


Only then would God be able to forgive this sin.


However, if we were to read the words of Jesus (pbuh) in Mark 2:9 we would find that Jesus (pbuh) informs us that for him to tell a man that his sins are forgiven is much easier than to cure a paralytic and cause him to walk, and since Jesus (pbuh) had the power to cure paralytics, therefore, he demonstrates to us that forgiving sins is much easier for him.


However, we already know that God Almighty the "Father" of all believers

"And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"

Matthew 23:9


We further know that God Almighty is greater in power than all humans, inluding Jesus:


"..my Father is greater than I",

John 14:28


Finally, we know that Jesus (pbuh) gets his power from God:


"I can of mine own self do nothing...,"

John 5:30


"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"

Acts 2:22


So it stands to reason that what is easy for Jesus (pbuh) is trivial and inconsequential for God Almighty Himself. Thus, if Jesus (pbuh) can forgive sins with the utmost ease simply by uttering the words "your sins are forgiven you," then it is well within the ability of God Almighty Himself to do the same simply by willing it, even without uttering a word. Indeed, we can even read in the Bible:


"Who [is] a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth [in] mercy."

Micah 7:18


"Nevertheless, He (God), [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity, and destroyed [them] not: yea, many a time turned He His anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. For He remembered that they [were but] flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again."

Psalm 78:38-39


"I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins."

Isaiah 43:25


Well, how then does God Almighty forgive our sins? Is He able to simply say "you are forgiven" to those who turn to Him in repentance or must He first sacrifice a sinless individual before He can do this? To get the answer let us read the Bible:


"It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."

Jeremiah 36:3


"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

Isaiah 55:7


"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah."

Psalm 32:5


"By mercy and truth iniquity is purged..."

Proverbs 16:6


"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

2 Chronicles 7:14


"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin."

Ezekiel 18:21-30


"To do righteousness and justice [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice."

Proverbs 21:3


"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Hosea 6:6


"Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Micah 6:6-8


"To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them]. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Isaiah 1:11-18


This is indeed the teachings of Islam. In the Qur'an, we are told that mankind were created to inhabit the earth. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were allowed to abide in the garden. However, soon after they ate from the tree and God sent them down to earth. Once Adam realized his error he was remorseful and repentant, however, he was the first man. He did not know how to repent or how to seek forgiveness. So, God Almighty provided him with a revelation teaching him how to ask for God's forgiveness. Adam did so and God accepted Adam's repentance. God did not mandate gruesome and torturous blood sacrifices of the sinless or anything else. He simply forgave Adam's sin. We can read this story in the Qur'an:


"And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise, and eat from it freely with pleasure and delight wherever you will, but do not approach this tree or you both will be of the wrongdoers. But Satan made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), such that he expelled them from that in which they were. And we said: Decend, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment until a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He pardoned him. Verily! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. We said: Decend, all of you, from hence; but whenever there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whosoever follows My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. But they who disbelieve and deny our revelations, such are the dwellers of the Fire. They shall abide therein forever"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):35-39


"Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt (through excessive sin)! Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):53


Anas ibn Malik narrated in Mishkat Al-Masabih the following:

"Allah's Messenger (pbuh) stated that Allah said, "O Son of Adam, as long as you supplicate to Me and have hope in me I will pardon you in spite of what you have done, and I do not care. O Son of Adam, if your sins were so numerous as to reach the lofty regions of the sky, then you asked My forgiveness, I would forgive you, and I do not care. O Son of Adam, if you were to meet Me with enough sins to fill the earth, then met Me, not associating anything with Me (in worship), I shall greet you with it's equivalent in forgiveness.'" Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi. And Ahmad and Al-Darimi transmitted it from AbuTharr.

Sorry, but posting of copywrited material is not permitted without moderator approval. Also back to back posts are not allowed unless it is in direct response to different members. Thank you

[Timothy Leary]

Wow! It is like an Islamic chain letter. If you accept this you will get a double reward. If you refuse this, you will have bad luck, like going to hell.

I'm not meaning to be rude, but there are many christian equivalents of that letter...

[Timothy Leary]

Besides Mohammed was a very immoral person who was a pedophile and polygamist preaching another God, Allah, who has not the attributes of the
christian God.

Abraham was a polygamist.

[CatholicSage]

I would like to begin by responding to this insulting claim. I am a very proud Muslim and will adhere to my ethics and respond with reason and history, rather than rhetoric and returning the insult.

First and foremost, if you were to do what you ask Muslims to do and read the Qur'an you would find that the Qur'an does not "add or detract" from the Bible. It is actually your own Christain church who has added and detracted from the Bible, beginning in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, when Constantine agreed with the Athanasians on the concept of the Trinity which is Biblically unsupported.


Absolutely false. The Trinity is quite a Biblical notion, and there have been numerous Biblical defenses of it throughout history. It is rather the Muslims who find themselves in a troubling position in which they must attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions that exist between the Qur'an and the Bible. Islam fails from the start because of these contradictions.


Later the interpolation was inserted of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This was found to be a fabrication as transaltor Benjamin Wilson describes it in his book "Emphatic Diaglott":

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."


It's rather common knowledge that this verse was not in the original manuscripts. Luckily for us, the doctrine of the Trinity was established far before this verse was (likely) fabricated and there are plenty of other defenses.


This is only one example of insertions and deletions in the Bible. Others are the deletion of "begotten" from John 3:16, and the deletion of the ascension in RSV Bible.


As far as I know, "begotten" is simply an alternate translation of the texts. Even without it, the meaning doesn't really change. You seem to believe that Christians hold individual translations of the Bible as infallible and authoritative. What we actually believe is the infallibility and truth of the original texts, though the meaning of them can occasionally be lost in translation to a modern language.


The Gospels themselves are anonymous books. The ascribed names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply 2nd Century wishful thinking... but this is another topic altogether.


Yes, it is. One that has been dealt with before by many intelligent scholars. The books were indeed written in the 1st century by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


I could write essays on the other claims you have charged against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam... but time does not allow this at this time, so I will respond briefly but in detail.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was one of the most humble, kind, moral, God fearing man ever to walk the face of this earth. A simple study of his life and one would see this immediately. He used to donate generously to the poor, lived very modestly, and never asked anyone to do anything that he did not first do himself. He was known by his community, by even those who rejected him wholeheartedly as Al-Sadiq Al-Amin: "The Trustworthy and the Noble". I encourage you to read his biography entitled "The Sealed Nectar" which is widely acclaimed as historically accurate. You should educate yourself before making wild claims that you hear from decietful Christian missionaries. The wives he married (polygamy) were mostly politically motivated (i.e. to make ties between communities) and to support widows. Above all, he called for an end to tribalism and nationalism, and called all to the worship of the one true God.


The man was a power-hungry conqueror in the same league as Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; the world would have been better if he had never been born. He and his successors conquered much of Christendom (the former Roman Empire) completely unprovoked. This Jihad by Mohammed himself and his immediate successors is why I believe that Islam a violent and bad religion.

[heaven]

Absolutely false. The Trinity is quite a Biblical notion, and there have been numerous Biblical defenses of it throughout history. It is rather the Muslims who find themselves in a troubling position in which they must attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions that exist between the Qur'an and the Bible. Islam fails from the start because of these contradictions.



It's rather common knowledge that this verse was not in the original manuscripts. Luckily for us, the doctrine of the Trinity was established far before this verse was (likely) fabricated and there are plenty of other defenses.



As far as I know, "begotten" is simply an alternate translation of the texts. Even without it, the meaning doesn't really change. You seem to believe that Christians hold individual translations of the Bible as infallible and authoritative. What we actually believe is the infallibility and truth of the original texts, though the meaning of them can occasionally be lost in translation to a modern language.



Yes, it is. One that has been dealt with before by many intelligent scholars. The books were indeed written in the 1st century by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.



The man was a power-hungry conqueror in the same league as Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; the world would have been better if he had never been born. He and his successors conquered much of Christendom (the former Roman Empire) completely unprovoked. This Jihad by Mohammed himself and his immediate successors is why I believe that Islam a violent and bad religion.
The Bible canon was not written nor agreed upon until the 4th century, by
the catholic church. The hebrew canon was the Septuagint. However in 98AD, the Hebrew canon was revised to the Hebrew and several books were
not included. Since the church continued to use the Septuagint in Greek,
the bible used by the christians includes the Septuagint and all of the books
in the catholic canon.

Emperor Constantine had several aryan priests and requested that council
be convened to determine if aryanism was correct. The church council
deemed aryanism a heresy. Constantine abided by the decision of the
church council.

Since Mohammed, did not follow the Scriptures and since the church wrote
the Scriptures and deemed aryanism heretical, Mohammed would have
nothing to do with these church matters, since he came along hundreds of
years later. Aryanism refutes the Trinity. Furthermore, aryanism was
put to rest before the canon of Scripture was compiled. The writings of
John, several hundred years prior were never changed for the council on
aryanism, nor the completion of the bibical canon. You could never make such an assertion, since you would have no knowledge and were not in existence.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[SilverRain]

LutheranSage, you have made plenty of claims, but no evidence to support any of your claims. I have supported my contentions with facts, but you simply allude to these ambiguous Christian scholars that conveniently support your assertions.

Please for the sake of making a worthy argument, support your claims with factual information. I will respond to what little you have provided, and because you have not responded to my other arguments, I will assume you accept them.

Starting from the top:

Absolutely false. The Trinity is quite a Biblical notion, and there have been numerous Biblical defenses of it throughout history. It is rather the Muslims who find themselves in a troubling position in which they must attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions that exist between the Qur'an and the Bible. Islam fails from the start because of these contradictions. It's rather common knowledge that this verse was not in the original manuscripts. Luckily for us, the doctrine of the Trinity was established far before this verse was (likely) fabricated and there are plenty of other defenses.I invite you to find any Biblical support for the trinity outside of 1 John 5:7. You will find there is not one explicit verse in the Bible in support of the trinity, and the word "trinity" itself is not found in the Bible. This alone has been a subject of controversy, namely between the Arians and Athanasians in early 4th century Rome, and between Unitaritians and Trinitarians today. Please state your evidence. What "others defenses" do you speak of that establish "the doctrine of the Trinity"? Please quote from your Scripture.

Moving on to your claim that the Bible contradicts the Qur'an. This argument is laughable. The Bible is not a history book, my friend, and there are plenty of Historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Plus, the Muslims believe that the current Bible is not the Gospel of Jesus (the Injeel in Arabic). The real Gospel of Jesus is non-existent today. We simply have the Gospels of Mattthew, Mark, Luke, and John... not the Gospel of Jesus. The revelation recieved from God by Jesus is what Muslims consider the real Gospel of Jesus, not the words and narrations of other men. Some portions of the Bible are considered authentic as they are presumed to be derived from the mysterious "Q" document which had authentic narrations of Jesus's sayings... but for the most part, the NT is not Jesus's words. The Qur'an corrects the Bible in many instances. Muslims believe that whenever there is an agreement between the Bible and Qur'an than it is correct but any "contradiction" means the Bible is in error. For example, in regards to Jesus's (PBUH) alleged crucifixion, the Qur'an says:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." [Qur'an 4:157]


As far as I know, "begotten" is simply an alternate translation of the texts. Even without it, the meaning doesn't really change. You seem to believe that Christians hold individual translations of the Bible as infallible and authoritative. What we actually believe is the infallibility and truth of the original texts, though the meaning of them can occasionally be lost in translation to a modern language.The word "begotten" is extremely controversial. Now it has been replaced with "made". This completely changes the meaning. The word "begotten" is attributing the function of sex to God Almighty. This is supreme blasphemy. God does not beget nor is he begotten as stated in the Qur'an: "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" [Qur'an 112:3]. The function of sex belongs to the creation of God and not God himself. God simply says "Be" and it is. This apparently is not a notion shared among Christians.


Yes, it is. One that has been dealt with before by many intelligent scholars. The books were indeed written in the 1st century by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.Au contraire, there have been many intelligent scholars saying the exact opposite. Randel Helms in his book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" says very clearly that the current Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all anonymous books. There is absolutely no internal evidence that indicates they were the authors.

As a review of the book clearly says: "The names we associate with the gospel writers are all second century guesses. If this comes as a surprise, welcome to the cutting edge of modern biblical scholarship. According to Helms, the gospels were written to convert or confirm their highly colored arguments of powerful authors, not just transparent windows upon the historical Jesus. If we adjust our focus from the brilliant imaginative pictures to the imaginations that produced them, to the situations out of which they arose, we get to the point of this book - a study of the minds of the authors."

The earliest extent, existing manuscripts on these Gospels dates back to the 2nd Century, not the 1st. Plus the NIV Bible agrees with Helms's assertions. This is a known fact. The Gospels are anonymous books. There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating that Mark did not write 'Mark'. The author of 'Mark' was ignorant of simple geography of Jerusalem, something a Palestinian Jew would surely know. Read Randel's book and you will discover plenty more. Plus, there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the Gospels were written after Paul's writings, suggesting that they were made to agree and written influenced by Paul's theology. The Qur'an makes a strong condemnation of this:

"Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and Woe to them for the gain they make thereby." [Qur'an 2:79]


The man was a power-hungry conqueror in the same league as Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; the world would have been better if he had never been born. He and his successors conquered much of Christendom (the former Roman Empire) completely unprovoked. This Jihad by Mohammed himself and his immediate successors is why I believe that Islam a violent and bad religion.Congratulations, you have successfully regurgitated the same commonly held misconceptions by many Non-Muslism worldwide. You have clearly demonstrated that you know little to nothing of the life and times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or the circumstances in which Islam came about in. The conquests of Islam were absolutely nothing like the barbarism of Genghis Khan and the Mongols, or for that matter the brutal slaughterings of the Crusades. The early conquests of Islam were simply preemptive strikes from forces gathering all around to destroy Islam once they saw it gaining power. Namely, the Persian empire from the east and the Romans gathering to fight the Muslims at the battle of Tabuk. Again, the circumstances surrounding these wars were not barbaric and "power-hungry" in nature... they were simply a fight to protect the religioin of God.

To quote from an earlier post of mine:

"My friend, you need to read your Islamic history. The early Caliphs, namely Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him) was one of the most just men and conquerors in the history of mankind. It was under him in which Jerusalem, North Africa, and the Persian empire were conquered. He was a man of principle and morality. He would never take a favor in which his people lacked, including the Non-Muslims. There are many sound stories to support this. One in which there once was a poor, old Jewish man in Jerusalem going around begging. Umar immediately went to him to ask why why he was begging, and ended up taking him to his house providing him with money and paying him a pension for his retirement. The Jews and Christians in Jersualem living under Umar were given full rights. They had their own court systems and were allowed to practice their religions freely. The justice of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and his leadership is unmatched, and brought in an era of tolerance never before seen by a non-secular government, and you would even be hard-pressed to find it in a secular government (i.e. US). I urge you to read up on this subject to educate yourself."

Please feel free to discuss these points with me.

[Krusader]

Lately I have been inundated by rather aggressive Muslims on Pal Talk who insist Christianity is a lie. One site I was directed to contained the following:

"Sacrifice = Love ?


Dear Christians,


I have read and been told;


"Jesus dying on the cross is a demonstration of how much God loves us. God wants us to see that, by sacrificing Jesus on the cross, it is a demonstration of His love."


This has been a puzzle to me and I would sincerely like to ask you "how"?


How does allowing someone to die a demonstration of love?


If I am not mistaken, didn't Jesus cry and beg to be saved according to the Bible.


"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" {Matthew 27:46}


If I had the power to save someone who was bleeding, crying, praying and begging to me to save him or her, I would save them. Not to save them would prove I was heartless, to save them would show I have Mercy, let alone love.


Not saving Jesus only demonstrates God does not listen to our prayers, does not have mercy, not even to his prophet according to the Bible.


Not to mention discrediting his prophethood to millions of Jews past present and future.


Please be logical in your explanation and kindly keep in mind that God is All Powerful and does not need "blood" to forgive sins.


One last question to consider in your reply, if Jesus's intention was to be a sacrifice, why would he "Beg" and "Pray" to God to be saved, and if your answer is that Jesus had a moment of weakness, than why say Jesus is 1/3 God, seeing many Christians say "Jesus is God in human form", because Jesus had the power to heal and raise people from the dead and walk on water, why then is Jesus at this moment helpless and powerless and most of all, not wanting to be sacrificed?


Wouldn't the point of love from God be to have peace, wouldn't there be peace between the Jews and the Christians, past present and future be a reality if Jesus was saved from the cross as clarified in the Koran??


Did you know that most of the original Muslims were Christians and Jews, who then searched, asked, and discovered peace and truth in Islam??


My concern is sincere, I would like to know the logic behind the thinking Sacrafice=Love.


If I were in a room full of people and there was one person singled out to be sacrificed so all the other people in the room could be saved, wouldn't the loving thing be not sacrifice at all, understand that if your sin is as large as a mountain, God Created the Mountains and can remove them as well.


If your sin is as deep as the Sea, God Created All the Seas in this world and the Universe and can remove them too, God loves and saved Jesus.

So let's take a shot at addressing this person's "sincere concern" in regards to Christ's sacrifice. I've been reading some apologetics literature, dealing with people of differing faiths and explaining why and what we as Christ's followers believe and they have helped a bit, but Muslims seem a bit more aggressive then dealing with a Buddhist or Hindu (my only experiences in dealing with differing faiths) and could use any and all insight from others who have dealt with those of the Islamic faith.

Thanks,
Jonathan :wink:
Please tell your Muslim buddy that the reason Jesus called out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," that He was referring to Pslam 22. It was common for Jews of Christ's time to quote the very first vss. of a Pslam in place of the entire Pslam.

When one read's Psalm 22, it is clearly speaking of Christ's crucifixion and His ultimate victory over sin and Satan.

Far from being a cry for help, His quoting the first verses of Psalm 22 was a cry of victory!

[CatholicSage]

LutheranSage, you have made plenty of claims, but no evidence to support any of your claims. I have supported my contentions with facts, but you simply allude to these ambiguous Christian scholars that conveniently support your assertions.

Please for the sake of making a worthy argument, support your claims with factual information. I will respond to what little you have provided, and because you have not responded to my other arguments, I will assume you accept them.


True, I don't particularly care about the etymology of "Allah."


Starting from the top:

I invite you to find any Biblical support for the trinity outside of 1 John 5:7. You will find there is not one explicit verse in the Bible in support of the trinity, and the word "trinity" itself is not found in the Bible. This alone has been a subject of controversy, namely between the Arians and Athanasians in early 4th century Rome, and between Unitaritians and Trinitarians today. Please state your evidence. What "others defenses" do you speak of that establish "the doctrine of the Trinity"? Please quote from your Scripture.


Certainly. I direct you to three marvelous defenses (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ99.HTM) that are far more articulate than I could ever be. Also see John 8:58, John 14:10 "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," Mark 14:61-62, Luke 22:70, and others. There are no explicit references saying that "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three parts of the Triune God, and the Son was made manifest in Jesus," but there doesn't have to be. There are numerous verses that all add up to the inevitable doctrine of the Trinity. You can find any number of scholars defending the Trinity with a quick search, with a few being Richard Baukham and that JP Holding fellow of Tektonics.


Moving on to your claim that the Bible contradicts the Qur'an. This argument is laughable. The Bible is not a history book, my friend, and there are plenty of Historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Plus, the Muslims believe that the current Bible is not the Gospel of Jesus (the Injeel in Arabic). The real Gospel of Jesus is non-existent today.


Right. :ahem: So you have no basis for claiming that this Gospel of Jesus ever existed except a strong Muslim desire for it to be so because the rest of the gospels invalidate the Qur'an. And you call my argument laughable :hehe:


We simply have the Gospels of Mattthew, Mark, Luke, and John... not the Gospel of Jesus. The revelation recieved from God by Jesus is what Muslims consider the real Gospel of Jesus, not the words and narrations of other men. Some portions of the Bible are considered authentic as they are presumed to be derived from the mysterious "Q" document which had authentic narrations of Jesus's sayings... but for the most part, the NT is not Jesus's words.


So what if Jesus did not write the Gospels Himself? That is no argument against the accuracy or truth of the other Gospels. It's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had some ulterior motive of undermining Islam hundreds of years before it came about.


The Qur'an corrects the Bible in many instances. Muslims believe that whenever there is an agreement between the Bible and Qur'an than it is correct but any "contradiction" means the Bible is in error. For example, in regards to Jesus's (PBUH) alleged crucifixion, the Qur'an says:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." [Qur'an 4:157]


Wow. You first deny that there are contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an, something necessary for the truth of Islam, and then you try to explain away the obvious contradictions that exist. In this regard, Islam fails from the start; it cannot be a legitimate continuation of God's revelation if it contradicts previous revelations.


The word "begotten" is extremely controversial. Now it has been replaced with "made". This completely changes the meaning. The word "begotten" is attributing the function of sex to God Almighty. This is supreme blasphemy. God does not beget nor is he begotten as stated in the Qur'an: "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" [Qur'an 112:3]. The function of sex belongs to the creation of God and not God himself. God simply says "Be" and it is. This apparently is not a notion shared among Christians.


I do not think that "begotten" does have necessarily sexual connotations, but I know that there are no Christians out there who believe that God actually had sex with Mary.


Au contraire, there have been many intelligent scholars saying the exact opposite. Randel Helms in his book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" says very clearly that the current Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all anonymous books. There is absolutely no internal evidence that indicates they were the authors.

As a review of the book clearly says: "The names we associate with the gospel writers are all second century guesses. If this comes as a surprise, welcome to the cutting edge of modern biblical scholarship. According to Helms, the gospels were written to convert or confirm their highly colored arguments of powerful authors, not just transparent windows upon the historical Jesus. If we adjust our focus from the brilliant imaginative pictures to the imaginations that produced them, to the situations out of which they arose, we get to the point of this book - a study of the minds of the authors."

The earliest extent, existing manuscripts on these Gospels dates back to the 2nd Century, not the 1st. Plus the NIV Bible agrees with Helms's assertions. This is a known fact. The Gospels are anonymous books. There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating that Mark did not write 'Mark'. The author of 'Mark' was ignorant of simple geography of Jerusalem, something a Palestinian Jew would surely know. Read Randel's book and you will discover plenty more. Plus, there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the Gospels were written after Paul's writings, suggesting that they were made to agree and written influenced by Paul's theology. The Qur'an makes a strong condemnation of this:

"Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and Woe to them for the gain they make thereby." [Qur'an 2:79]


Sheesh. I for one have no degree in ancient textual scholarship, but these objections seem pitiful. All these objections of dating and authorship are dealt with by other scholars (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html). Suffice it to say that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the authorship and early dating of the Gospels.


Congratulations, you have successfully regurgitated the same commonly held misconceptions by many Non-Muslism worldwide. You have clearly demonstrated that you know little to nothing of the life and times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or the circumstances in which Islam came about in.


No, I am actually quite interested in history, and I know what I am talking about. I won't dispute anything about Muhammed's moral character because I don't really care; what concerns me is his violent and unprovoked invasions of good, civilized nations.


The conquests of Islam were absolutely nothing like the barbarism of Genghis Khan and the Mongols, or for that matter the brutal slaughterings of the Crusades. The early conquests of Islam were simply preemptive strikes from forces gathering all around to destroy Islam once they saw it gaining power. Namely, the Persian empire from the east and the Romans gathering to fight the Muslims at the battle of Tabuk.


I don't know about the Persians, but I know for certain that the Byzantine Empire had no desire to conquer the Arabian peninsula. It had recently reconquered Egypt and Palestine from the Persians, but its territorial ambitions ended there. Imagine the surprise of the Byzantines when a violent stranger appeared and set up a camp in Tabuk for the express purpose of fighting them.


Again, the circumstances surrounding these wars were not barbaric and "power-hungry" in nature... they were simply a fight to protect the religioin of God.


They certainly did not need to "protect" their religion from the Byzantine Romans. And last I checked, "protection" is something separate from sweeping conquests of massive amounts of land and people.


To quote from an earlier post of mine:

"My friend, you need to read your Islamic history. The early Caliphs, namely Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him) was one of the most just men and conquerors in the history of mankind. It was under him in which Jerusalem, North Africa, and the Persian empire were conquered. He was a man of principle and morality. He would never take a favor in which his people lacked, including the Non-Muslims. There are many sound stories to support this. One in which there once was a poor, old Jewish man in Jerusalem going around begging. Umar immediately went to him to ask why why he was begging, and ended up taking him to his house providing him with money and paying him a pension for his retirement. The Jews and Christians in Jersualem living under Umar were given full rights. They had their own court systems and were allowed to practice their religions freely. The justice of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and his leadership is unmatched, and brought in an era of tolerance never before seen by a non-secular government, and you would even be hard-pressed to find it in a secular government (i.e. US). I urge you to read up on this subject to educate yourself."


Yes, I read that post. I really don't care what a nice guy he was, he still had no right to conquer already-civilized and prosperous lands. This really just proves that violence and war are conventional aspects of Islam.

[SilverRain]

Certainly. I direct you to three marvelous defenses (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ99.HTM) that are far more articulate than I could ever be. Also see John 8:58, John 14:10 "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," Mark 14:61-62, Luke 22:70, and others. There are no explicit references saying that "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three parts of the Triune God, and the Son was made manifest in Jesus," but there doesn't have to be. There are numerous verses that all add up to the inevitable doctrine of the Trinity. You can find any number of scholars defending the Trinity with a quick search, with a few being Richard Baukham and that JP Holding fellow of Tektonics.I do not have time or the interest in reading essays on other websites at this point, weaving through the text to find a suitable response to my argument. Please, since you have read it, quote it out of the essay, so that I may get to the point of the matter. In response to what you have typed here: Perfect, we are in agreement, there is not one single explicit verse in the Bible in support of the trinity. Strange that Jesus left his closest and dearest followers so completely and utterly baffled and lost that they never even realized the "true" nature of God? Did he leave them in such black darkness that neither they nor their children, nor yet their children's children would ever come to recognize the "true" nature of the One they are to worship? Do we really want to allege that Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in the discharge of his duties that he left his followers in such utter chaos that it would take them fully three centuries after his departure to finally piece together the nature of the One whom they are to worship? Why did Jesus never, even once, just say "God, the Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one Trinity. Worship all of us as one"? If he had only chosen to make just one such explicit statement to them he could have relieved Christianity of centuries of bitter disputes, division, and animosity.

Interestingly enough, even Martin Luther himself demanded that there be Scriptual evidence for many of the practices and doctrines of the Church. Unfortunately, by the 16th Century, the Trinity Doctrine had been around for so long, it was not questioned by him. I believe this is a logical fallacy - Appeal to Tradition. In Islam, every doctrine and practice is backed by the Qur'an or Sunnah, we have no councils meeting to add or subtract doctrines from our faith. Our faith is complete.


Right. :ahem: So you have no basis for claiming that this Gospel of Jesus ever existed except a strong Muslim desire for it to be so because the rest of the gospels invalidate the Qur'an. And you call my argument laughable :hehe:

So what if Jesus did not write the Gospels Himself? That is no argument against the accuracy or truth of the other Gospels. It's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had some ulterior motive of undermining Islam hundreds of years before it came about.You are missing the point, and not very educated in Islamic theology. The history itself supports the fact that the real 'Gospel of Jesus,' known as the 'Injeel' to Muslims, was simply never recorded. If you were familiar with the revelation of the Qur'an you would know what I am speaking of. The Qur'an was revealed from Arch Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These were the direct words of God. These words are precisely what make up the Qur'an today. Prophet Muhmmad (PBUH), unlike Prophet Jesus (PBUH), had the liberty and freedom to commission scribes to write the words of the Qur'an. As described in the NT, Jesus (PBUH) and the early disciples lived in a state of fear and persecution. His closest disciples were relatively few in number. It is a known fact that Jesus (PBUH) never wrote a single word in his life, nor commissioned anyone else to do so. So the revelation Jesus (PBUH) recieved from Arch Angel Gabriel was not committed to writing. Reading the Bible you read over and over again "And Jesus went to so-and-so and preached the Gospel". But what is this Gospel? He certainly didn't have a copy of the King James Version under his arm while he was preaching. So Muslims believe he was preaching the revelation he recieved from God. This is what constitutes the Injeel. This was never committed to writing, hence it was lost. All we have is the narrations from anonymous writers who are conveniently named after the early disciples of Jesus (PBUH). If you compare this to the Qur'an you will note an extraordinary difference. The Qur'an is the first person Word of God, the Bible is the narration and story-telling of anonymous men, even if they be the disciples themselves.


Wow. You first deny that there are contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an, something necessary for the truth of Islam, and then you try to explain away the obvious contradictions that exist. In this regard, Islam fails from the start; it cannot be a legitimate continuation of God's revelation if it contradicts previous revelations.And with that said again, you are completely missing the point. It is not the Qur'an that contradicts the Bible, it is the Bible that contradicts the Qur'an. From the Muslim perspective the Qur'an does not contradict the Bible, it corrects it. Read over what I have said above. The accurate and full revelation of Jesus (PBUH) was never documented. Even the earliest manuscripts of the NT date back to 2 centuries after Christ... plenty of time for corruption of even the accounts of the true disciples. (Assuming they wrote the Gospels).



I do not think that "begotten" does have necessarily sexual connotations, but I know that there are no Christians out there who believe that God actually had sex with Mary.I have heard by many Christians that it was the Holy Ghost that "overshadowed" Mary. I leave that up to you to figure out what that is suggesting.

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is." [Qur'an 19:35]



Sheesh. I for one have no degree in ancient textual scholarship, but these objections seem pitiful. All these objections of dating and authorship are dealt with by other scholars (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html). Suffice it to say that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the authorship and early dating of the Gospels.Again, please quote, and offer sound evidence. Ofcourse your scholars have vested interest in proving that the Gospels were indeed written by the disciples they are named after. I have taken classes in World Religions and Ancient Civilizations, where the Professors have stated the exact same thing: There is simply no internal evidence that suggests they indeed were written by the disciples.



No, I am actually quite interested in history, and I know what I am talking about. I won't dispute anything about Muhammed's moral character because I don't really care; what concerns me is his violent and unprovoked invasions of good, civilized nations.You show complete ignorance about the conquests and "unprovoked invasions of good, civilized nations". The Persians revolted against their own leaders to fight alongside the Muslims. The conquests of Islam united a variety of cultures and begin a new era of economic, social, and educational prosperity. From Persia to Spain, this was the age of math, science, and astronomy. The Islamic conquests were not violent and uprovoked. These were the carrying of the message of Islam, which the surrounding empires denied the Muslims to preach the message of Islam to their people. Once these nations were conquered, the citizens were given the option to become Muslims or choose not to. There is no compulsion in religion in Islam. Plus, an important note is that a majority of nations became Muslims not through conquest. For example Indonesia, the nation with the most total Muslims, became Muslim after the ecounters of Muslim traders to their country. They were very impressed with the ethical standards and ideals of Islam, and so they became Muslims willingly. Included are Malaysia, Korea, and China which all have substantial Muslim minorites. Islam has thrived and grown exponentially even in the most desperate times. Islam today is the fastest growing religion worldwide and even in the US where it is growing at an annual rate of 6.2%... Simply put, when people are offered Islam, and they don't have the disease of the heart, they accept it. This has been demonstrated throughout history and especially in modern times.


I don't know about the Persians, but I know for certain that the Byzantine Empire had no desire to conquer the Arabian peninsula. It had recently reconquered Egypt and Palestine from the Persians, but its territorial ambitions ended there. Imagine the surprise of the Byzantines when a violent stranger appeared and set up a camp in Tabuk for the express purpose of fighting them.

They certainly did not need to "protect" their religion from the Byzantine Romans. And last I checked, "protection" is something separate from sweeping conquests of massive amounts of land and people.Actually you have proven you do not know very much about the Byzantine Empire and its encounter with Islam. The Roman Empire itself, be it Byzantium or otherwise, has had a solid reputation throughout history of conquering militarily and expanding the empire. These campaigns were largely unprovoked, violent, and simply expansionalist in nature. When the Byzantine Empire began seeing the strength and growth of Islam, they percieved it as a threat, and wanted to extinguish it. Particularly the progressive danger threatening its borders, especially the neighboring Arab lands. Heraclius decided the demolition of Muslim power must be achieved before the Muslims became too powerful to conquer and raise troubles in adjacent Arab territories. This is not very surprising. America is doing this today. Putting in check and moving militarily against any country that may be a threat to American interests (i.e. Iraq, Iran). The feud between the Muslims and the Byzantines started when an ambasador (Al-Harith Ibn 'Umair Al-Azdi) was sent by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the ruler of Basra. On his way he was intercepted by Sharhabeel Ibn 'Amr Al-Ghassani, the governor of Al-Balqa' and a close ally to the Byzantine Emporer. Al-Harith was tied and beheaded by Al-Ghassani. The killing of envoys and messengers is considered a declaration of war by any nation in the world. When the news reached the Prophet he was absolutely shocked and ordered an army of 3,000 to discipline these transgressors. The Prophet was kind enough to give the people an invitation to Islam, in which case no war would be fought, otherwise fighting them would be the only alternative. This was to be the Battle of Mu'tah.

When the Muslim army reached the borders of Syria, news came that Heraclius, the Byzantine Emporer, had organized an army of 100,000 troops together with another 100,000 from other Arab tribes allied to the Byzantines, to fight the Muslims. The Muslims counting on their faith in God rather than their numbers decided to fight 3,000 vs. 200,000. Needless to say the Muslims fought bravely and held back the Byzantine army. Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed, the brilliant military strategist, cast fear into the hearts of the Byzantines by deluding them into thinking that fresh reinforcements had arrived. The Muslims maintained and engaged in sporadic skirmishes but gradually and judiciously retreating in a fully organized and well-planned manner. The Muslims sustained only twelve martyrs and even though did not satisfy the Muslims' objective, it certainly resulted in a great reputation of the Muslims in the battlefields.

Then we have the Battle of Tabuk which took place roughly one year later. Heraclius musteres a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanide tribes to launch a descisive bloody battle against the Muslims. There are plenty of Hadiths demonstrating that the Muslims were anticipating the Byzantine and Ghassanide armies to attack them. The Prophet (PBUH) understood the consquences of this and knew that the Muslims must fight this battle at their own borders. So he put together an army of 30,000 for this expedition and marched up to Tabuk. Upon learning of the Muslims' march, the Byzantines and their allies dared not come out and fight them. On the contrary they scattered inside their own territory. The Muslims gained serious political profits that were far better than the ones they could have aquired had their been a military confrontation.


LutheranSage, I offer you a piece of advice once given to me: "Be a student of fact, not rhetoric".

[Krusader]

You miss the point: It is the Quran that contradicts both the New Testament and the Jewish Scriptures. The basic stories contained in the Quran (Noah's Ark, for instance) are totally distorted. The Quran quotes the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas and the Nativity - wherein Jesus speaks as a newborn and creates live birds from clay.

Your disgusting insinuation regarding the Holy Spirit and Mary might be directed toward Mormonism, but hardly against Christianity. Some Christians teach the perpetual virginity of the BVM. Of course, Mohammed couldn't get anything about Mary right - making her give birth under a palm tree to a talking baby, not to mention confusing her with a member of the Holy Trinity.

"Be a student of fact, not rhetoric," yourself. You simply quote Islamic arguments that have no basis in reality. The Muslim fantasy world has spawned a religion that is mythological and derived from pagan folklore. Get your facts straight before attacking others.

[CatholicSage]

I do not have time or the interest in reading essays on other websites at this point, weaving through the text to find a suitable response to my argument. Please, since you have read it, quote it out of the essay, so that I may get to the point of the matter. In response to what you have typed here: Perfect, we are in agreement, there is not one single explicit verse in the Bible in support of the trinity. Strange that Jesus left his closest and dearest followers so completely and utterly baffled and lost that they never even realized the "true" nature of God? Did he leave them in such black darkness that neither they nor their children, nor yet their children's children would ever come to recognize the "true" nature of the One they are to worship?


Um, I believe they did realize it. Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35, and many other verses reference the Holy Spirit, and there are innumerable verses referencing the Father and Son. I'm sure the disciples understood at least the basic idea of the Trinity, especially if they paid any attention to Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." They may not have developed the complete doctrine of Triunity, but I'm sure they did have fairly good understanding.


Do we really want to allege that Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in the discharge of his duties that he left his followers in such utter chaos that it would take them fully three centuries after his departure to finally piece together the nature of the One whom they are to worship?


Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity, much like the Biblical canon, was generally accepted and believed before it was officially proclaimed doctrine. It was declared official because of the recent challenges that had arose against it, not because Christian thinkers had only just thought of the idea of the Trinity.


Why did Jesus never, even once, just say "God, the Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one Trinity. Worship all of us as one"? If he had only chosen to make just one such explicit statement to them he could have relieved Christianity of centuries of bitter disputes, division, and animosity.


Talk about rhetoric :ahem:


Interestingly enough, even Martin Luther himself demanded that there be Scriptual evidence for many of the practices and doctrines of the Church. Unfortunately, by the 16th Century, the Trinity Doctrine had been around for so long, it was not questioned by him. I believe this is a logical fallacy - Appeal to Tradition. In Islam, every doctrine and practice is backed by the Qur'an or Sunnah, we have no councils meeting to add or subtract doctrines from our faith. Our faith is complete.


There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the Trinity, which is why Martin Luther believed it.


You are missing the point, and not very educated in Islamic theology. The history itself supports the fact that the real 'Gospel of Jesus,' known as the 'Injeel' to Muslims, was simply never recorded.


Then this Islamic spin on history is wrong. The Gospel is present in the collected works of the New Testament, especially the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are called Gospels on their own. The only motive that you have to claim that this nonexistent Gospel actually does exist is an attempt to justify your Islamic faith. Muslims, seeing that the Gospel clearly contradicts the Qur'an (something devastating to Islam), decided to invent some mystical "Gospel of Jesus" to cover their butts.


If you were familiar with the revelation of the Qur'an you would know what I am speaking of. The Qur'an was revealed from Arch Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These were the direct words of God. These words are precisely what make up the Qur'an today. Prophet Muhmmad (PBUH), unlike Prophet Jesus (PBUH), had the liberty and freedom to commission scribes to write the words of the Qur'an. As described in the NT, Jesus (PBUH) and the early disciples lived in a state of fear and persecution. His closest disciples were relatively few in number. It is a known fact that Jesus (PBUH) never wrote a single word in his life, nor commissioned anyone else to do so. So the revelation Jesus (PBUH) recieved from Arch Angel Gabriel was not committed to writing. Reading the Bible you read over and over again "And Jesus went to so-and-so and preached the Gospel". But what is this Gospel? He certainly didn't have a copy of the King James Version under his arm while he was preaching. So Muslims believe he was preaching the revelation he recieved from God. This is what constitutes the Injeel. This was never committed to writing, hence it was lost.


It was committed to writing by the disciples. You have no reason other than circular reasoning to claim that the gospel books written by the disciples do not contain the "true" Gospel. I think they had a far better idea about what the "true" Gospel was/is than any Muslim speaking centuries later did.


And with that said again, you are completely missing the point. It is not the Qur'an that contradicts the Bible, it is the Bible that contradicts the Qur'an. From the Muslim perspective the Qur'an does not contradict the Bible, it corrects it. Read over what I have said above. The accurate and full revelation of Jesus (PBUH) was never documented. Even the earliest manuscripts of the NT date back to 2 centuries after Christ... plenty of time for corruption of even the accounts of the true disciples. (Assuming they wrote the Gospels).


You have no proof or evidence that the Bible does not contain the true Gospel of Jesus.


Again, please quote, and offer sound evidence. Ofcourse your scholars have vested interest in proving that the Gospels were indeed written by the disciples they are named after.


There are plenty of people, namely you, you have a vested interest in proving otherwise, too. That does not discount their arguments.


I have taken classes in World Religions and Ancient Civilizations, where the Professors have stated the exact same thing: There is simply no internal evidence that suggests they indeed were written by the disciples.


Other professors would disagree. Heck, you're completely ignoring external evidence for dating and authorship, too.


You show complete ignorance about the conquests and "unprovoked invasions of good, civilized nations". The Persians revolted against their own leaders to fight alongside the Muslims. The conquests of Islam united a variety of cultures and begin a new era of economic, social, and educational prosperity. From Persia to Spain, this was the age of math, science, and astronomy. The Islamic conquests were not violent and uprovoked.


They were conquests. By definition, they were violent.


These were the carrying of the message of Islam, which the surrounding empires denied the Muslims to preach the message of Islam to their people. Once these nations were conquered, the citizens were given the option to become Muslims or choose not to. There is no compulsion in religion in Islam.


Of course, if they chose the second option, they received a greeting from the point end of a scimitar. :ahem: Especially the pagans, even if the Jews and Christians were spared.


Plus, an important note is that a majority of nations became Muslims not through conquest. For example Indonesia, the nation with the most total Muslims, became Muslim after the ecounters of Muslim traders to their country. They were very impressed with the ethical standards and ideals of Islam, and so they became Muslims willingly. Included are Malaysia, Korea, and China which all have substantial Muslim minorites.


Well, I wouldn't say that a "majority" of Muslim nations became so through conquest, but I did already know about Indonesia and the others, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum.


Islam has thrived and grown exponentially even in the most desperate times. Islam today is the fastest growing religion worldwide and even in the US where it is growing at an annual rate of 6.2%... Simply put, when people are offered Islam, and they don't have the disease of the heart, they accept it. This has been demonstrated throughout history and especially in modern times.


Actually, a number of religions are growing faster; that's just a false Islamic exaggeration. Conversion rates don't account for the large growth rate as much as huge birth rates in poor Islamic nations.


Actually you have proven you do not know very much about the Byzantine Empire and its encounter with Islam. The Roman Empire itself, be it Byzantium or otherwise, has had a solid reputation throughout history of conquering militarily and expanding the empire. These campaigns were largely unprovoked, violent, and simply expansionalist in nature.


Yes, I know that. For the most part, Rome expanded for unprovoked reasons (though there were exceptions). But Byzantium formed peacefully because it was simply the eastern half of the Roman empire that remained after the Western Empire disintegrated.


When the Byzantine Empire began seeing the strength and growth of Islam, they percieved it as a threat, and wanted to extinguish it. Particularly the progressive danger threatening its borders, especially the neighboring Arab lands. Heraclius decided the demolition of Muslim power must be achieved before the Muslims became too powerful to conquer and raise troubles in adjacent Arab territories.
[/QUOTE}

Wow. Way off. Byzantium and its emperor were war-weary after long campaigns to fight off the invading Persians (who were provoked about as much as Mohammed, that is to say they were not) and recapture Byzantine lands. The last thing they wanted was a fight.

[QUOTE]
This is not very surprising. America is doing this today. Putting in check and moving militarily against any country that may be a threat to American interests (i.e. Iraq, Iran). The feud between the Muslims and the Byzantines started when an ambasador (Al-Harith Ibn 'Umair Al-Azdi) was sent by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the ruler of Basra. On his way he was intercepted by Sharhabeel Ibn 'Amr Al-Ghassani, the governor of Al-Balqa' and a close ally to the Byzantine Emporer. Al-Harith was tied and beheaded by Al-Ghassani. The killing of envoys and messengers is considered a declaration of war by any nation in the world.


Basra? Basra seems more likely to have been ruled by the Persians than the Byzantines or their allies. In any case, this is all rather fishy.

Bah. I have to go; I'll finish up later.

[Krusader]

Um, I believe they did realize it. Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35, and many other verses reference the Holy Spirit, and there are innumerable verses referencing the Father and Son. I'm sure the disciples understood at least the basic idea of the Trinity, especially if they paid any attention to Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." They may not have developed the complete doctrine of Triunity, but I'm sure they did have fairly good understanding.



Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity, much like the Biblical canon, was generally accepted and believed before it was officially proclaimed doctrine. It was declared official because of the recent challenges that had arose against it, not because Christian thinkers had only just thought of the idea of the Trinity.



Talk about rhetoric :ahem:



There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the Trinity, which is why Martin Luther believed it.



Then this Islamic spin on history is wrong. The Gospel is present in the collected works of the New Testament, especially the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are called Gospels on their own. The only motive that you have to claim that this nonexistent Gospel actually does exist is an attempt to justify your Islamic faith. Muslims, seeing that the Gospel clearly contradicts the Qur'an (something devastating to Islam), decided to invent some mystical "Gospel of Jesus" to cover their butts.



It was committed to writing by the disciples. You have no reason other than circular reasoning to claim that the gospel books written by the disciples do not contain the "true" Gospel. I think they had a far better idea about what the "true" Gospel was/is than any Muslim speaking centuries later did.



You have no proof or evidence that the Bible does not contain the true Gospel of Jesus.



There are plenty of people, namely you, you have a vested interest in proving otherwise, too. That does not discount their arguments.



Other professors would disagree. Heck, you're completely ignoring external evidence for dating and authorship, too.



They were conquests. By definition, they were violent.



Of course, if they chose the second option, they received a greeting from the point end of a scimitar. :ahem: Especially the pagans, even if the Jews and Christians were spared.



Well, I wouldn't say that a "majority" of Muslim nations became so through conquest, but I did already know about Indonesia and the others, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum.



Actually, a number of religions are growing faster; that's just a false Islamic exaggeration. Conversion rates don't account for the large growth rate as much as huge birth rates in poor Islamic nations.



Yes, I know that. For the most part, Rome expanded for unprovoked reasons (though there were exceptions). But Byzantium formed peacefully because it was simply the eastern half of the Roman empire that remained after the Western Empire disintegrated.

[QUOTE]
When the Byzantine Empire began seeing the strength and growth of Islam, they percieved it as a threat, and wanted to extinguish it. Particularly the progressive danger threatening its borders, especially the neighboring Arab lands. Heraclius decided the demolition of Muslim power must be achieved before the Muslims became too powerful to conquer and raise troubles in adjacent Arab territories.
[/QUOTE}

Wow. Way off. Byzantium and its emperor were war-weary after long campaigns to fight off the invading Persians (who were provoked about as much as Mohammed, that is to say they were not) and recapture Byzantine lands. The last thing they wanted was a fight.



Basra? Basra seems more likely to have been ruled by the Persians than the Byzantines or their allies. In any case, this is all rather fishy.

Bah. I have to go; I'll finish up later.
I've always thought it remarkable that the Muslims claim that Christians somehow lost or corrupted the Injil (The Gospel). How incredibly dumb! Jesus Christ is the Gospel, the Good News, and Christians have been proclaiming it for centuries. Too bad that Mohammed didn't listen to his concubine Mary the Copt!

[CatholicSage]

Yikes. Sorry for the sloppy editing up there. For my Indonesia repy, I meant to say that "I wouldn't say that a "majority" of Muslim nations became so through conversion only." There's also a reply stuck in the middle of that last quote. Anway, where did I leave off...


When the news reached the Prophet he was absolutely shocked and ordered an army of 3,000 to discipline these transgressors. The Prophet was kind enough to give the people an invitation to Islam, in which case no war would be fought, otherwise fighting them would be the only alternative. This was to be the Battle of Mu'tah.

When the Muslim army reached the borders of Syria, news came that Heraclius, the Byzantine Emporer, had organized an army of 100,000 troops together with another 100,000 from other Arab tribes allied to the Byzantines, to fight the Muslims. The Muslims counting on their faith in God rather than their numbers decided to fight 3,000 vs. 200,000. Needless to say the Muslims fought bravely and held back the Byzantine army. Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed, the brilliant military strategist, cast fear into the hearts of the Byzantines by deluding them into thinking that fresh reinforcements had arrived. The Muslims maintained and engaged in sporadic skirmishes but gradually and judiciously retreating in a fully organized and well-planned manner. The Muslims sustained only twelve martyrs and even though did not satisfy the Muslims' objective, it certainly resulted in a great reputation of the Muslims in the battlefields.


Mohammed should have had some patience; he was far too hasty with his sword. One dead ambassador and a lack of knowledge about why he was killed does not warrant immediately attacking the Byzantines.


Then we have the Battle of Tabuk which took place roughly one year later. Heraclius musteres a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanide tribes to launch a descisive bloody battle against the Muslims. There are plenty of Hadiths demonstrating that the Muslims were anticipating the Byzantine and Ghassanide armies to attack them. The Prophet (PBUH) understood the consquences of this and knew that the Muslims must fight this battle at their own borders. So he put together an army of 30,000 for this expedition and marched up to Tabuk. Upon learning of the Muslims' march, the Byzantines and their allies dared not come out and fight them. On the contrary they scattered inside their own territory. The Muslims gained serious political profits that were far better than the ones they could have aquired had their been a military confrontation.


The Muslims camped an army at a border area of the Byzantine Empire in an aggressive show of strength, and you have the nerve to insult the Byzantines and claim that the Byzantines were the ones at fault. Words escape me; Heraclius barely knew of Mohammed and his unification of the tribes, and didn't care to attack them either.


LutheranSage, I offer you a piece of advice once given to me: "Be a student of fact, not rhetoric".


Muslims are the kings of rhetoric; I've learned that Islam's intellectual bark is far worse than its bite.

[heaven]

LutheranSage, you have made plenty of claims, but no evidence to support any of your claims. I have supported my contentions with facts, but you simply allude to these ambiguous Christian scholars that conveniently support your assertions.

Please for the sake of making a worthy argument, support your claims with factual information. I will respond to what little you have provided, and because you have not responded to my other arguments, I will assume you accept them.

Starting from the top:

I invite you to find any Biblical support for the trinity outside of 1 John 5:7. You will find there is not one explicit verse in the Bible in support of the trinity, and the word "trinity" itself is not found in the Bible. This alone has been a subject of controversy, namely between the Arians and Athanasians in early 4th century Rome, and between Unitaritians and Trinitarians today. Please state your evidence. What "others defenses" do you speak of that establish "the doctrine of the Trinity"? Please quote from your Scripture.

Moving on to your claim that the Bible contradicts the Qur'an. This argument is laughable. The Bible is not a history book, my friend, and there are plenty of Historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Plus, the Muslims believe that the current Bible is not the Gospel of Jesus (the Injeel in Arabic). The real Gospel of Jesus is non-existent today. We simply have the Gospels of Mattthew, Mark, Luke, and John... not the Gospel of Jesus. The revelation recieved from God by Jesus is what Muslims consider the real Gospel of Jesus, not the words and narrations of other men. Some portions of the Bible are considered authentic as they are presumed to be derived from the mysterious "Q" document which had authentic narrations of Jesus's sayings... but for the most part, the NT is not Jesus's words. The Qur'an corrects the Bible in many instances. Muslims believe that whenever there is an agreement between the Bible and Qur'an than it is correct but any "contradiction" means the Bible is in error. For example, in regards to Jesus's (PBUH) alleged crucifixion, the Qur'an says:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." [Qur'an 4:157]


The word "begotten" is extremely controversial. Now it has been replaced with "made". This completely changes the meaning. The word "begotten" is attributing the function of sex to God Almighty. This is supreme blasphemy. God does not beget nor is he begotten as stated in the Qur'an: "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" [Qur'an 112:3]. The function of sex belongs to the creation of God and not God himself. God simply says "Be" and it is. This apparently is not a notion shared among Christians.


Au contraire, there have been many intelligent scholars saying the exact opposite. Randel Helms in his book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" says very clearly that the current Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all anonymous books. There is absolutely no internal evidence that indicates they were the authors.

As a review of the book clearly says: "The names we associate with the gospel writers are all second century guesses. If this comes as a surprise, welcome to the cutting edge of modern biblical scholarship. According to Helms, the gospels were written to convert or confirm their highly colored arguments of powerful authors, not just transparent windows upon the historical Jesus. If we adjust our focus from the brilliant imaginative pictures to the imaginations that produced them, to the situations out of which they arose, we get to the point of this book - a study of the minds of the authors."

The earliest extent, existing manuscripts on these Gospels dates back to the 2nd Century, not the 1st. Plus the NIV Bible agrees with Helms's assertions. This is a known fact. The Gospels are anonymous books. There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating that Mark did not write 'Mark'. The author of 'Mark' was ignorant of simple geography of Jerusalem, something a Palestinian Jew would surely know. Read Randel's book and you will discover plenty more. Plus, there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the Gospels were written after Paul's writings, suggesting that they were made to agree and written influenced by Paul's theology. The Qur'an makes a strong condemnation of this:

"Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and Woe to them for the gain they make thereby." [Qur'an 2:79]


Congratulations, you have successfully regurgitated the same commonly held misconceptions by many Non-Muslism worldwide. You have clearly demonstrated that you know little to nothing of the life and times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or the circumstances in which Islam came about in. The conquests of Islam were absolutely nothing like the barbarism of Genghis Khan and the Mongols, or for that matter the brutal slaughterings of the Crusades. The early conquests of Islam were simply preemptive strikes from forces gathering all around to destroy Islam once they saw it gaining power. Namely, the Persian empire from the east and the Romans gathering to fight the Muslims at the battle of Tabuk. Again, the circumstances surrounding these wars were not barbaric and "power-hungry" in nature... they were simply a fight to protect the religioin of God.

To quote from an earlier post of mine:

"My friend, you need to read your Islamic history. The early Caliphs, namely Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him) was one of the most just men and conquerors in the history of mankind. It was under him in which Jerusalem, North Africa, and the Persian empire were conquered. He was a man of principle and morality. He would never take a favor in which his people lacked, including the Non-Muslims. There are many sound stories to support this. One in which there once was a poor, old Jewish man in Jerusalem going around begging. Umar immediately went to him to ask why why he was begging, and ended up taking him to his house providing him with money and paying him a pension for his retirement. The Jews and Christians in Jersualem living under Umar were given full rights. They had their own court systems and were allowed to practice their religions freely. The justice of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and his leadership is unmatched, and brought in an era of tolerance never before seen by a non-secular government, and you would even be hard-pressed to find it in a secular government (i.e. US). I urge you to read up on this subject to educate yourself."

Please feel free to discuss these points with me.
The early history of the church, beginning with the Apostles and their
successors and succeeding successors is called the Deposit of Faith, the
Hebrew Septuagint Scriptures were read and circulated were many sacred
writings, some of which formed the New Testament 400 years later, and some
were not included in the canon. The archives of the Orthodox and Catholics,
which were the original Catholic church contain the succinct records of the
Deposit of Faith, which can be researched. The archives are too enormous
for this website. There is no speculation. These historical traditions form the
New Testament and contain the beliefs of the Apostles and successors, who
were personally mentored.

The partial list of Scriptures which support the Trinity are:

Genesis 1
Genesis 1;26 And God said:"Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness."
Genesis 18:2
Exodus 3:6 "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob".
Exodus 4:5
Psalm 33:6
Isaiah 6:3
Isaiah 34:16
Isaiah 48:16
Isaiah 61:1
Matthew 3:16
Matthew 10:20
Matthew 17:5
Matthew 28:19
Luke 22:46
John 3:34f
John 14:16
John 14:26
1 John 5:7

Because the numbering of some bibles are slightly different the bible used was
The New American Bible.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a totally christian doctrine. It is an explanation of the ways God is experienced by man and by which God refers to Himself.

I hope you are able to enter the archives of the Vatican and Orthodox
church and find the New American Bible. I have entered two bibical verses.

Loyola University should prove most helpful.:wink:

[SilverRain]

Um, I believe they did realize it. Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35, and many other verses reference the Holy Spirit, and there are innumerable verses referencing the Father and Son. I'm sure the disciples understood at least the basic idea of the Trinity, especially if they paid any attention to Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." They may not have developed the complete doctrine of Triunity, but I'm sure they did have fairly good understanding.If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.

Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:

"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"

"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103

I see that it is very clear that it does not bother Christians that their entire faith sits on a very weak foundation. The doctrines of their faith were the product of Council deliberations, not God Almighty. But that doesn't bother you. The theology and founder of Christianity has been credited to Paul of Tarsus, and not Jesus Christ. Jesus says go up, Paul says go down. You follow Paul. Paul's alleged visions take precedence over the teachings of Jesus, when Jesus made it very clear that "the disciple is not greater than the master". But that doesn't bother you.


Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity, much like the Biblical canon, was generally accepted and believed before it was officially proclaimed doctrine. It was declared official because of the recent challenges that had arose against it, not because Christian thinkers had only just thought of the idea of the Trinity.Generally accepted by whom? Not the Arians, not the Unitarians, and certainly not those early Christain sects that we now refer to as the "gnostics". Please if you are going to make claims like these, enlighten me as to whom you are speaking about. I agree that that there were sects of early Christianity believing in the Trinity, i.e. the Athanasians, but this was one among many other theologies floating around.


Talk about rhetoric :ahem:Rhetoric is necessary in making strong, articulate, pervasive arguments. The problem arises when all you have is rhetoric and no factual basis. This is what the large majority of your arguments consist of. There is no meat to them.

There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the Trinity, which is why Martin Luther believed it.Luther's intentions were not bent on causing disunity among Christians or a huge reformation to doctrines already established in Christian belief. His beef was with the Roman Catholic church and all of its practices. Had Luther dug deeper into the authorship of the Gospels and explicit scriptual evidence for most of Christian belief, I am certain he would have been shocked, but he had his plate full.


Then this Islamic spin on history is wrong. The Gospel is present in the collected works of the New Testament, especially the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are called Gospels on their own. The only motive that you have to claim that this nonexistent Gospel actually does exist is an attempt to justify your Islamic faith. Muslims, seeing that the Gospel clearly contradicts the Qur'an (something devastating to Islam), decided to invent some mystical "Gospel of Jesus" to cover their butts.Wow, you really do have a way of twisting the integrity of the ideas in my post. This shows that Christians have a very different idea of what Revelation is. If the disciples of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wrote sayings and narrations of 3 years of Prophet Muhammad's life, I can assure you, we would not hold it as scripture, or "Divinely Inspired". It is simply a list of narrations and quotes, with the underlying theme/motive being religious propagation. It is NOT the full culmination of the exact revelation and message of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made it very clear, that Hadith (traditions, narrations, etc.) and Revelation (text of the Qur'an), are mutually exclusive. They do not transgress. One is man's words and advices, the other is God's Words. You spew the "Either, Or" logical fallacy: Either the NT is truly the "Gospel of Jesus", Or the Muslims "decided to invent some mystical "Gospel of Jesus" to cover their butts." Hmmmm... maybe there is more to it than is being said...

It was committed to writing by the disciples. You have no reason other than circular reasoning to claim that the gospel books written by the disciples do not contain the "true" Gospel. I think they had a far better idea about what the "true" Gospel was/is than any Muslim speaking centuries later did.I believe I made it very clear that Historically speaking there is no evidence linking the real disciples of Jesus as the authors of the Gospels. Plus, as I stated above, even if they were... it would not be considered the Divine Revelation. It may contain parts of it... but it is the words, thoughts, narrations, and understandings of the disciples, not the actual Divine Revelation. Read the Qur'an some day, you will know what I am talking about.
I have quoted from your own Bibles and books on the subject concerning the authorship of the Gospels. You have provided me with nothing except external links to Christian Missonary websites. You quote implicit verses that can be taken to mean anything, but you say it means the Holy Trinity, when Jesus never mentioned it.

"Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition."

"Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion; some speculate that the work was actually produced by a group of early Christians somewhat isolated from other early Christian communities. Tradition also places its composition in or near Ephesus, although lower Syria or Lebanon are more likely locations. The most likely time for the completion of this gospel is between 90 and 110 CE."

"An Introduction to the Gospels" and "The Gospel of John," Marilyn Mellowes. This was a documentary done by PBS and can be found on PBS.org, hardly the bastion of anti-Christian propaganda.

These are the Gospels which you believe in. You are willing to die for the theology and ideals in these Gospels. Kind of scary when you think about it... we don't even know who the authors were. Thank God the Qur'an was documented and saved from such corruption.

You have no proof or evidence that the Bible does not contain the true Gospel of Jesus.I dealt with this above. Islam maintains that Revelation is what is Revealed from God through Arch Angel Gabriel to the Prophet. Not the writings of disciples or anonymous men writing from the writings of disciples. Christianity obviously does not hold to this standard.

There are plenty of people, namely you, you have a vested interest in proving otherwise, too. That does not discount their arguments.You are right. I do have a vested interest. I have a vested interest in the truth, not disclosing it because it may throw the whole Chritian faith apart. Namely salvation, no works - only faith, etc.

Other professors would disagree. Heck, you're completely ignoring external evidence for dating and authorship, too.Hmmm... What external evidence. What were you waiting for? You could have saved plenty of time by introducing these already...

Of course, if they chose the second option, they received a greeting from the point end of a scimitar. :ahem: Especially the pagans, even if the Jews and Christians were spared.Apparently you are not reading my posts. I made it very clear that the People of the Book were treated extremely fairly and given full freedoms under the Muslim state. They were NEVER forced to convert to Islam. Of course there were some Muslim leaders who violated this, but the not the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Christians didn't return the favor, it wasn't just the Pagans that were slaughtered, but also the Muslims and Jews. Remember the Crusades? Surely, you simply forgot about that, didn't you?

Actually, a number of religions are growing faster; that's just a false Islamic exaggeration. Conversion rates don't account for the large growth rate as much as huge birth rates in poor Islamic nations.My friend, get out of denial. This has been reported by many sources throughout the world. CNN, BBC, scholarly journals, on and on. Let me link you to a CNN article reporting on this:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam

The 2nd paragraphs has some stats. I personally have a number of friends/aquaintances that converted from Christianity to Islam, including an ex-Preacher turned Sheikh. You don't hear about many scholarly Muslims converting to Christianity.

As for the birth rates in third world Muslim countries, I agree with you... it may be a big factor in the alarming growth rates. But in the US, where the borders have been virtually closed to Muslims since post-9/11, the US has seen a phenomenal growth rate in Muslims... as I mention about 6.2% annually. Surely this cannot be because of the birth rate. The US is currently growing at a rate of 0.8%. 90% of mosques have been built just in the past 12 years alone.

Yes, I know that. For the most part, Rome expanded for unprovoked reasons (though there were exceptions). But Byzantium formed peacefully because it was simply the eastern half of the Roman empire that remained after the Western Empire disintegrated.Simply a passing of the torch, as far as the Byzantine and Roman empire is concerned. But I am speaking of the establishment of Rome itself, not a changing of the capital to Constantinople. The establishment of Rome was bloody, brutal, and many times oppressive in nature. I do not think anyone, even you, would deny this.

Wow. Way off. Byzantium and its emperor were war-weary after long campaigns to fight off the invading Persians (who were provoked about as much as Mohammed, that is to say they were not) and recapture Byzantine lands. The last thing they wanted was a fight.The Byzantine military was still the mightiest of its time. It fended off the Persians and the Muslims for quite sometime. This was largely credited to their use of Greek Fire. But when any imperialist empire, as Rome was, sees its power or interests being threatened, it will respond. And so Byzantium did.

Basra? Basra seems more likely to have been ruled by the Persians than the Byzantines or their allies. In any case, this is all rather fishy.Read over what I said. It was the Ghassanide leader, who was in the neigboring borders of Byzantium who killed the ambassador of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Ghassanide leader (Sharhabeel Ibn 'Amr Al-Ghassani) killed the ambassador Al-Harith while he was on his way to Basra, inevitably crossing into or near Byzantine territory.

I will get to your other post momentarily.

[SilverRain]

Mohammed should have had some patience; he was far too hasty with his sword. One dead ambassador and a lack of knowledge about why he was killed does not warrant immediately attacking the Byzantines.That is hilarious. You have to be kidding me. The only reason you call him hasty is because he is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Prophet of Islam. Had he been an ambassador of the Pope sent to some barbaric nation and beheaded, you would defend that. Don't even play that card. That is a very clear declaration of war. Any peacefully sent messenger murdered is begging for conflict. I am certain they knew why he was killed, and he was definately killed unjustly... he was sent in peace. They initially went with 3,000 to discipline those who committed this atrocity. It was Heraclius that decided to summon an army to fight the Muslims. Rather than accepting the responsibility for the crime and looking to make peace with the Muslims, they decided to launch an army against them. The Muslims would have negotiated peace agreements, but the Emperor clearly wasn't interested. Please read your history book... I had to explain this history to you.



The Muslims camped an army at a border area of the Byzantine Empire in an aggressive show of strength, and you have the nerve to insult the Byzantines and claim that the Byzantines were the ones at fault. Words escape me; Heraclius barely knew of Mohammed and his unification of the tribes, and didn't care to attack them either.The reason why the Muslims marched to Tabuk was because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) knew very well that had they have to fight the war on their own borders it would be potentially catastrophic for the Muslims. There were very dangerous internal enemies in Makkah and Madinah who would not hesitate to stab the Muslims in the back if they saw they were being attacked. Please read about the Battle of Al-Khundak, Battle of the Trench, when the Jews betrayed an agreement with the Muslims and attacked Madinah while the Muslims were fighting the Makkans outside of Madinah. Again, you show phenomenal ignorance of Islamic history. I should not even waste my time talking to you. Go read a book and you will realize the context of these battles and events, you are just simply throwing dirt on anything you can find. If you truly knew the teachings of Islam you would know that it teaches compassion, mercy, justice, and faith. You are trying to paint it your own way that does not reflect the ideals of Islam. This is quite insulting, especially when you are ignorant of the teachings of Islam.

Muslims are the kings of rhetoric; I've learned that Islam's intellectual bark is far worse than its bite.You must have forgotten. It was the Muslims who were the pioneers in the sciences, math, and astronomy. While Christian Europe was in its Dark Age, we had lights in Cordoba. Please don't be so arrogant. What we have today built upon the discoveries made under Islam. Islam places a great deal of importance on knowledge. The first verses of the Qur'an start with "Read!". The Hadith by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saying, "Seek knowledge even if it takes you to China." And there are many other fine examples. Ignorance is not bliss.

Here is an Arabian Proverb that describes it best:

There are four sorts of men:
He who knows not and knows not he knows not : he is a fool - shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not : he is simple - teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows : he is asleep - wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows : he is wise - follow him.

I place you and Crusader in the first category. Neither of you are interested in contructive dialogues with Muslims. You resort to slander and ignorance. You know not of Islamic history/theology/ethics and you continue insulting it. You know not and you know not you know not. This is supreme ignorance. That is why I am seeing it is not worth wasting my time here. Atleast admit you are in the 2nd category in this regard, and we can build bridges instead of walls.

I am currently in Finals week, and have not the time or energy to continue with this dialogue at this time. The net benefits simply don't add up, and I was never a fan of worthless argumentation.

So in the end of it all, I will have to follow the advice of God Almighty:

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." [Qur'an 109:1-6]

[Spiritus Naturae]

I am currently in Finals week, and have not the time or energy to continue with this dialogue at this time. The net benefits simply don't add up, and I was never a fan of worthless argumentation.


:hi: Before you head off for finals I was hoping you could address my questions here http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43734

Thanks

[Krusader]

That is hilarious. You have to be kidding me. The only reason you call him hasty is because he is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Prophet of Islam. Had he been an ambassador of the Pope sent to some barbaric nation and beheaded, you would defend that. Don't even play that card. That is a very clear declaration of war. Any peacefully sent messenger murdered is begging for conflict. I am certain they knew why he was killed, and he was definately killed unjustly... he was sent in peace. They initially went with 3,000 to discipline those who committed this atrocity. It was Heraclius that decided to summon an army to fight the Muslims. Rather than accepting the responsibility for the crime and looking to make peace with the Muslims, they decided to launch an army against them. The Muslims would have negotiated peace agreements, but the Emperor clearly wasn't interested. Please read your history book... I had to explain this history to you.


The reason why the Muslims marched to Tabuk was because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) knew very well that had they have to fight the war on their own borders it would be potentially catastrophic for the Muslims. There were very dangerous internal enemies in Makkah and Madinah who would not hesitate to stab the Muslims in the back if they saw they were being attacked. Please read about the Battle of Al-Khundak, Battle of the Trench, when the Jews betrayed an agreement with the Muslims and attacked Madinah while the Muslims were fighting the Makkans outside of Madinah. Again, you show phenomenal ignorance of Islamic history. I should not even waste my time talking to you. Go read a book and you will realize the context of these battles and events, you are just simply throwing dirt on anything you can find. If you truly knew the teachings of Islam you would know that it teaches compassion, mercy, justice, and faith. You are trying to paint it your own way that does not reflect the ideals of Islam. This is quite insulting, especially when you are ignorant of the teachings of Islam.

You must have forgotten. It was the Muslims who were the pioneers in the sciences, math, and astronomy. While Christian Europe was in its Dark Age, we had lights in Cordoba. Please don't be so arrogant. What we have today built upon the discoveries made under Islam. Islam places a great deal of importance on knowledge. The first verses of the Qur'an start with "Read!". The Hadith by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saying, "Seek knowledge even if it takes you to China." And there are many other fine examples. Ignorance is not bliss.

Here is an Arabian Proverb that describes it best:

There are four sorts of men:
He who knows not and knows not he knows not : he is a fool - shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not : he is simple - teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows : he is asleep - wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows : he is wise - follow him.

I place you and Crusader in the first category. Neither of you are interested in contructive dialogues with Muslims. You resort to slander and ignorance. You know not of Islamic history/theology/ethics and you continue insulting it. You know not and you know not you know not. This is supreme ignorance. That is why I am seeing it is not worth wasting my time here. Atleast admit you are in the 2nd category in this regard, and we can build bridges instead of walls.

I am currently in Finals week, and have not the time or energy to continue with this dialogue at this time. The net benefits simply don't add up, and I was never a fan of worthless argumentation.

So in the end of it all, I will have to follow the advice of God Almighty:

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." [Qur'an 109:1-6]
Oh, but you sure have the time to post this brainless garbage, don't you? And then say that anyone who points out the errors of Islam and its false prophet, Mohammed, does so out of ignorance.....and then run away.

Muslims like to quote the sura you quoted, but in actuality, when they take over a land by conquest, non-Muslims have three choices:

1. Submit to Islam and worship the moon god, Allah, and call Mohammed a prophet.

2. You can continue as a Christian or Jew, but pay a special penalty tax to your Muslim rulers. You cannot build new houses of worship or repair old ones. You cannot hold public office or testify at a trial.

3. Die.

Muslims are surely masters of deceit. In the West they love to appear as a religion of "peace and justice." But, ask the Christians in Nigeria, for instance, what it's like to live in a Muslim-dominated community.

How many Christians there have been decapitated (a Muslim sign of love), and their heads put on poles and paraded around.

How about the Pakastani Muslim who found Christ and converted to Christianity? What happened to him - he was murdered by Muslims for changing his faith.

How about the many Indonesian Muslims who have found Christ - their houses burned, their lives endangered, or they are murdered.

Oh yes, Islam is such a peaceful, loving religion.......not.

[heaven]

Dear Silver Rain:

You scoffed because only one Scripture verse pointed towards the Trinity and so I
gave you a list of Scripture verses pointing to the Trinity and a place to find the history of the church
from the Apostles onward.
You also state that God has no son.
For starters in the Hebrew Scriptures Rashi comments on (B"resheet 49:24) that
in the Hebrew the word rock is also a contraction of the words Father & Son.
The use of rock is used constantly in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.

I believe I have answered your questions, that the Scriptures do point to a Trinity and
that the entire bible points out Father & Son through the use of the word rock from the Hebrew. I will find some more info. for you. I would appreciate an answer.

[SilverRain]

The early history of the church, beginning with the Apostles and their
successors and succeeding successors is called the Deposit of Faith, the
Hebrew Septuagint Scriptures were read and circulated were many sacred
writings, some of which formed the New Testament 400 years later, and some
were not included in the canon. The archives of the Orthodox and Catholics,
which were the original Catholic church contain the succinct records of the
Deposit of Faith, which can be researched. The archives are too enormous
for this website. There is no speculation. These historical traditions form the
New Testament and contain the beliefs of the Apostles and successors, who
were personally mentored.

The partial list of Scriptures which support the Trinity are:

Genesis 1
Genesis 1;26 And God said:"Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness."
Genesis 18:2
Exodus 3:6 "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob".
Exodus 4:5
Psalm 33:6
Isaiah 6:3
Isaiah 34:16
Isaiah 48:16
Isaiah 61:1
Matthew 3:16
Matthew 10:20
Matthew 17:5
Matthew 28:19
Luke 22:46
John 3:34f
John 14:16
John 14:26
1 John 5:7

Because the numbering of some bibles are slightly different the bible used was
The New American Bible.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a totally christian doctrine. It is an explanation of the ways God is experienced by man and by which God refers to Himself.

I hope you are able to enter the archives of the Vatican and Orthodox
church and find the New American Bible. I have entered two bibical verses.

Loyola University should prove most helpful.:wink:heaven,

Most of the verses you quoted for me have nothing to do with the trinity and some of them only prove to show that Jesus (PBUH) was no more than a Prophet. None of these verses explicitly state the concept of trinity, and I have dealt with 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 in earlier.

I am sure the Jewish members of this forum would be more than pleased to make it very clear that in Judaism, the concept of a "Holy Trinity" is non-existent. They maintain a strict monotheism, a belief in One God, not a Triune God: See 1st Commandment. Many of the verses you quoted are from the Hebrew Old Testament, and a rather feeble attempt to justify Christian doctrine.

As far as the other verses from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 10:20, John 14:16,26... these are in full agreement with the theology of Islam.

Matthew 10:20, "For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you," makes it very clear that Jesus (PBUH) is a prophet. He is simply a messenger.

The Qur'an says the same:

"And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things." [Qur'an 6:116-117]

This verse makes it very clear that Jesus (PBUH) was a prophet of God, not God incarnate, or part of a Holy Trinity.

As for John 14:16,26 - and I will include John 15:26, because it is part of the same prophecy:

John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever."

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Muslims maintain that this prophecy is pointing to no other than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the last prophet of God. This is a topic all by itself, but suffice it to say that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the only prophet after Prophet Jesus (PBUH) that testified of Jesus (PBUH) and maintained the integrity of Jesus's teachings centralized around the concept of One God.

Salam

[Krusader]

heaven,

Most of the verses you quoted for me have nothing to do with the trinity and some of them only prove to show that Jesus (PBUH) was no more than a Prophet. None of these verses explicitly state the concept of trinity, and I have dealt with 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 in earlier.

I am sure the Jewish members of this forum would be more than pleased to make it very clear that in Judaism, the concept of a "Holy Trinity" is non-existent. They maintain a strict monotheism, a belief in One God, not a Triune God: See 1st Commandment. Many of the verses you quoted are from the Hebrew Old Testament, and a rather feeble attempt to justify Christian doctrine.

As far as the other verses from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 10:20, John 14:16,26... these are in full agreement with the theology of Islam.

Matthew 10:20, "For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you," makes it very clear that Jesus (PBUH) is a prophet. He is simply a messenger.

The Qur'an says the same:

"And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things." [Qur'an 6:116-117]

This verse makes it very clear that Jesus (PBUH) was a prophet of God, not God incarnate, or part of a Holy Trinity.

As for John 14:16,26 - and I will include John 15:26, because it is part of the same prophecy:

John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever."

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Muslims maintain that this prophecy is pointing to no other than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the last prophet of God. This is a topic all by itself, but suffice it to say that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the only prophet after Prophet Jesus (PBUH) that testified of Jesus (PBUH) and maintained the integrity of Jesus's teachings centralized around the concept of One God.

Salam
The Jewish Scriptures contain the Trinity in the very first chapter of the Bible:

"Let US make man in our own image."

See Jews for Jesus website for O.T. verses dealing with the Trinity.

[Snarf]

The Jewish Scriptures contain the Trinity in the very first chapter of the Bible:

"Let US make man in our own image."

See Jews for Jesus website for O.T. verses dealing with the Trinity.

That is evidence for polytheism, since "us" refers to a plural. "One" is not referred to as "us," in English.

[Snarf]

Please tell your Muslim buddy that the reason Jesus called out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," that He was referring to Pslam 22. It was common for Jews of Christ's time to quote the very first vss. of a Pslam in place of the entire Pslam.

When one read's Psalm 22, it is clearly speaking of Christ's crucifixion and His ultimate victory over sin and Satan.

Far from being a cry for help, His quoting the first verses of Psalm 22 was a cry of victory!

Ah yes, the classic strategy of "if the literal meaning doesn't support the evangelical Christian's case, change the meaning of the verse."

Face it Crusader, Jesus begged for mercy on the cross. You can't even believe the literal words of your own God! What denial! HAHAHA!!!!

[Krusader]

Ah yes, the classic strategy of "if the literal meaning doesn't support the evangelical Christian's case, change the meaning of the verse."

Face it Crusader, Jesus begged for mercy on the cross. You can't even believe the literal words of your own God! What denial! HAHAHA!!!!
Many scholars have pointed to Psalm 22. Check it out yourself - you who call yourself a Christian but seem very content with demeaning the Lord. Henceforth, I will have nothing to say to you.

[Snarf]

Many scholars have pointed to Psalm 22. Check it out yourself - you who call yourself a Christian but seem very content with demeaning the Lord. Henceforth, I will have nothing to say to you.

As I said, you can't even believe the simple words of Jesus crying in pain!
Clearly, you are one of the many Christians who can only preach to the choir, when you run into opposition you run for comfort, probably trying to convince yourself that you are superior to ilk like me, who have the audacity to point out your mistakes

Run away!!!!!

[revivalfire]

As I said, you can't even believe the simple words of Jesus crying in pain!
Clearly, you are one of the many Christians who can only preach to the choir, when you run into opposition you run for comfort, probably trying to convince yourself that you are superior to ilk like me, who have the audacity to point out your mistakes

Run away!!!!!
Actually, you could both be right...God turned his head from his son when he was loaded down with sin....but Christ also was fulfilling prophecy... Look at Gesemane if you want proof of the weight of sin on Christ...It was the sin of all time of everyone....

[CatholicSage]

If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.

Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:

"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"

"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103

I see that it is very clear that it does not bother Christians that their entire faith sits on a very weak foundation. The doctrines of their faith were the product of Council deliberations, not God Almighty. But that doesn't bother you. The theology and founder of Christianity has been credited to Paul of Tarsus, and not Jesus Christ. Jesus says go up, Paul says go down. You follow Paul. Paul's alleged visions take precedence over the teachings of Jesus, when Jesus made it very clear that "the disciple is not greater than the master". But that doesn't bother you.


Honestly, SilverRain, your technique here is incredibly foolish. I have displayed individual verses that lend some degree of support to the doctrine of the Trinity while admitting that none of them alone explicitly prove the doctrine; only all of them together combined with a reasonable mind truly prove the Trinity. If you are too lazy to read a more comprehensive article like the one I presented earlier, then that is your problem.


Generally accepted by whom? Not the Arians, not the Unitarians, and certainly not those early Christain sects that we now refer to as the "gnostics". Please if you are going to make claims like these, enlighten me as to whom you are speaking about. I agree that that there were sects of early Christianity believing in the Trinity, i.e. the Athanasians, but this was one among many other theologies floating around.


"Generally accepted" is another way of saying "accepted by the majority."


Rhetoric is necessary in making strong, articulate, pervasive arguments. The problem arises when all you have is rhetoric and no factual basis. This is what the large majority of your arguments consist of. There is no meat to them.


I respond to rhetoric with rhetoric, and I respond to meat with meat. Suffice it to say that many of your comments deserve little more than a :ahem:. You really are giving yourself too much credit.


Luther's intentions were not bent on causing disunity among Christians or a huge reformation to doctrines already established in Christian belief. His beef was with the Roman Catholic church and all of its practices. Had Luther dug deeper into the authorship of the Gospels and explicit scriptual evidence for most of Christian belief, I am certain he would have been shocked, but he had his plate full.


It's really funny that you follow your speech on rhetoric with this load. Zero evidence, only assertions.


Wow, you really do have a way of twisting the integrity of the ideas in my post. This shows that Christians have a very different idea of what Revelation is. If the disciples of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wrote sayings and narrations of 3 years of Prophet Muhammad's life, I can assure you, we would not hold it as scripture, or "Divinely Inspired". It is simply a list of narrations and quotes, with the underlying theme/motive being religious propagation. It is NOT the full culmination of the exact revelation and message of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made it very clear, that Hadith (traditions, narrations, etc.) and Revelation (text of the Qur'an), are mutually exclusive. They do not transgress. One is man's words and advices, the other is God's Words. You spew the "Either, Or" logical fallacy: Either the NT is truly the "Gospel of Jesus", Or the Muslims "decided to invent some mystical "Gospel of Jesus" to cover their butts." Hmmmm... maybe there is more to it than is being said...


Maybe, but you certainly haven't shown it. The Islamic scenario here is internally consistent, as is the Christian one. Why then should we believe the Islamic one, which came after the Christian one and provides no evidence that it is correct and that the old one is false.


I believe I made it very clear that Historically speaking there is no evidence linking the real disciples of Jesus as the authors of the Gospels.


Still haven't found the time to read through those articles I posted? Oh well, I suppose that lets you sit contentedly and spew assertions with utmost confidence.


Plus, as I stated above, even if they were... it would not be considered the Divine Revelation. It may contain parts of it... but it is the words, thoughts, narrations, and understandings of the disciples, not the actual Divine Revelation.


Okay, I'll just say it directly now: prove it. And saying something as flimsy as "the Muslim view is different..." again won't cut it.


Read the Qur'an some day, you will know what I am talking about.
I have quoted from your own Bibles and books on the subject concerning the authorship of the Gospels. You have provided me with nothing except external links to Christian Missonary websites. You quote implicit verses that can be taken to mean anything, but you say it means the Holy Trinity, when Jesus never mentioned it.

"Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition."

"Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion; some speculate that the work was actually produced by a group of early Christians somewhat isolated from other early Christian communities. Tradition also places its composition in or near Ephesus, although lower Syria or Lebanon are more likely locations. The most likely time for the completion of this gospel is between 90 and 110 CE."

"An Introduction to the Gospels" and "The Gospel of John," Marilyn Mellowes. This was a documentary done by PBS and can be found on PBS.org, hardly the bastion of anti-Christian propaganda.

These are the Gospels which you believe in. You are willing to die for the theology and ideals in these Gospels. Kind of scary when you think about it... we don't even know who the authors were. Thank God the Qur'an was documented and saved from such corruption.


My goodness, you truly are arrogant. You quote bits and pieces of those who support your opinion and act as though that should be enough to settle the issue, and as though it is absolutely shocking that anyone might dare to challenge your opinion. Your post is replete with rhetoric and assertions, while your only arguments come from others. I suggest you admit that you have no expertise in the issue of Classical texts as I have done, because otherwise all we can do with this issue is throw quotes and links at each other. You seem happy to do just that, but I don't have the patience for it.


I dealt with this above. Islam maintains that Revelation is what is Revealed from God through Arch Angel Gabriel to the Prophet. Not the writings of disciples or anonymous men writing from the writings of disciples. Christianity obviously does not hold to this standard.


I don't care what Islam maintains; the fact that Islam maintains it does not make it true. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the New Testament does not express the true Gospel of Jesus except to say that Islam has a different view.


You are right. I do have a vested interest. I have a vested interest in the truth, not disclosing it because it may throw the whole Chritian faith apart. Namely salvation, no works - only faith, etc.


More pointless rhetoric.


Hmmm... What external evidence. What were you waiting for? You could have saved plenty of time by introducing these already...


You could have dragged your mouse pointer to read the linked articles I gave you, because this is a far better method than my simply quoting pieces of the article and acting authoritative.


Apparently you are not reading my posts. I made it very clear that the People of the Book were treated extremely fairly and given full freedoms under the Muslim state. They were NEVER forced to convert to Islam. Of course there were some Muslim leaders who violated this, but the not the Rightly Guided Caliphs.


Apparently you are not reading my posts, as I specifically referred to the pagans being slaughtered while the Christians and Jews were shown some mercy.


The Christians didn't return the favor, it wasn't just the Pagans that were slaughtered, but also the Muslims and Jews. Remember the Crusades? Surely, you simply forgot about that, didn't you?


I do remember the Crusades, and apparently better than you do; at least regarding Jerusalem, tales of Christian brutality are grossly exaggerated, though I am ashamed of the anti-Semitic escapades in the Rhine river valley. As far as Jerusalem goes, it is now generally accepted by historians that the violence there was not unusual for the time; the city was besieged and many of the defenders were killed, but there was little killing of innocents, at least compared to some outrageous accounts. An interesting and famous account of the taking of Jerusalem can be found here: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm

Of course, there were other Crusades besides the First Crusade of which I have spoken, but I don't have the time to examine all of them here.


My friend, get out of denial. This has been reported by many sources throughout the world. CNN, BBC, scholarly journals, on and on. Let me link you to a CNN article reporting on this:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam

The 2nd paragraphs has some stats. I personally have a number of friends/aquaintances that converted from Christianity to Islam, including an ex-Preacher turned Sheikh. You don't hear about many scholarly Muslims converting to Christianity.

As for the birth rates in third world Muslim countries, I agree with you... it may be a big factor in the alarming growth rates. But in the US, where the borders have been virtually closed to Muslims since post-9/11, the US has seen a phenomenal growth rate in Muslims... as I mention about 6.2% annually. Surely this cannot be because of the birth rate. The US is currently growing at a rate of 0.8%. 90% of mosques have been built just in the past 12 years alone.


It may be the fastest-growing large religion in the world, but it is still a fallacy to claim that it is the fastest-growing religion in the world. Certain smaller religions have had a higher percentage growth, and Muslims only continue to propagate this falsehood (usually unknown to even those who propagate it) because it sounds quite good.


Simply a passing of the torch, as far as the Byzantine and Roman empire is concerned. But I am speaking of the establishment of Rome itself, not a changing of the capital to Constantinople. The establishment of Rome was bloody, brutal, and many times oppressive in nature. I do not think anyone, even you, would deny this.


Correct, I wouldn't. Of course, I wouldn't claim that the Romans were justified in making most of these conquests, either, as you do with Islam.


The Byzantine military was still the mightiest of its time. It fended off the Persians and the Muslims for quite sometime. This was largely credited to their use of Greek Fire. But when any imperialist empire, as Rome was, sees its power or interests being threatened, it will respond. And so Byzantium did.


This has little bearing on what I said, but at least now you admit that the Byzantines were genuinely threatened by the Muslims.


Read over what I said. It was the Ghassanide leader, who was in the neigboring borders of Byzantium who killed the ambassador of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Ghassanide leader (Sharhabeel Ibn 'Amr Al-Ghassani) killed the ambassador Al-Harith while he was on his way to Basra, inevitably crossing into or near Byzantine territory.


I have a very difficult time believing that the Ghassanids killed the ambassador for no reason whatsoever. There is certainly more to this story.


That is hilarious. You have to be kidding me. The only reason you call him hasty is because he is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Prophet of Islam. Had he been an ambassador of the Pope sent to some barbaric nation and beheaded, you would defend that. Don't even play that card. That is a very clear declaration of war. Any peacefully sent messenger murdered is begging for conflict. I am certain they knew why he was killed, and he was definately killed unjustly... he was sent in peace. They initially went with 3,000 to discipline those who committed this atrocity. It was Heraclius that decided to summon an army to fight the Muslims. Rather than accepting the responsibility for the crime and looking to make peace with the Muslims, they decided to launch an army against them. The Muslims would have negotiated peace agreements, but the Emperor clearly wasn't interested. Please read your history book... I had to explain this history to you.


It's an obscure bit of history that serves to show how Mohammed was quick to find any excuse to expand his empire. This is really a rather similar situation to the American war with Mexico in the 1840s, with a flimsy excuse propping up an underlying motive. No sensible statesman declares war due to the death of an ambassador without knowing all the facts: why the ambassador was killed, if it was state-sanctioned or done individually, etc. Oh, and 3,000 people have nothing to do with "discipline."


The reason why the Muslims marched to Tabuk was because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) knew very well that had they have to fight the war on their own borders it would be potentially catastrophic for the Muslims. There were very dangerous internal enemies in Makkah and Madinah who would not hesitate to stab the Muslims in the back if they saw they were being attacked. Please read about the Battle of Al-Khundak, Battle of the Trench, when the Jews betrayed an agreement with the Muslims and attacked Madinah while the Muslims were fighting the Makkans outside of Madinah. Again, you show phenomenal ignorance of Islamic history.


My interest is in Byzantine and European history, and how Islamic expansion fits into that.


I should not even waste my time talking to you. Go read a book and you will realize the context of these battles and events, you are just simply throwing dirt on anything you can find. If you truly knew the teachings of Islam you would know that it teaches compassion, mercy, justice, and faith. You are trying to paint it your own way that does not reflect the ideals of Islam. This is quite insulting, especially when you are ignorant of the teachings of Islam.


These events all revolve around an aggressive Islamic state desiring to expand and conquer unjustly everyone they could. Revisionist and idiotic history have deemed Christendom to be the bad guy, and this is horrendously false. The way that you can call Islam a religion of compassion, mercy, and justice while simultaneously attempting to defend its violent wars of conquest is simply ludicrous.


You must have forgotten. It was the Muslims who were the pioneers in the sciences, math, and astronomy. While Christian Europe was in its Dark Age, we had lights in Cordoba.


You show either your ignorance or your bigotry here. You must know that few historians use the term Dark Ages any more, as most have acknowledged that the negative connotations there are undeserved. While Muslim scholars did indeed preserve much of the old knowledge, Irish, Italian, and other European monks performed just as much scholarly work. It may also benefit you to note that the Byzantine Empire reached the height of its power in this "Dark Age," as a great center of culture and learning. The reason the Muslims were able to achieve a degree of cultural supremacy is because they conquered and warred their way to it, which is really nothing to be proud of.


Please don't be so arrogant. What we have today built upon the discoveries made under Islam. Islam places a great deal of importance on knowledge. The first verses of the Qur'an start with "Read!". The Hadith by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saying, "Seek knowledge even if it takes you to China." And there are many other fine examples. Ignorance is not bliss.


Matthew 22:37, "Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."


I place you and Crusader in the first category. Neither of you are interested in contructive dialogues with Muslims. You resort to slander and ignorance. You know not of Islamic history/theology/ethics and you continue insulting it. You know not and you know not you know not. This is supreme ignorance. That is why I am seeing it is not worth wasting my time here. Atleast admit you are in the 2nd category in this regard, and we can build bridges instead of walls.


I am more than interested in constructive dialogue with Muslims, and have done so often; what I am not interested in is a rhetoric match with a haughty casuist, blindly (yet humorously) convinced of his own superiority.

[heaven]

Honestly, SilverRain, your technique here is incredibly foolish. I have displayed individual verses that lend some degree of support to the doctrine of the Trinity while admitting that none of them alone explicitly prove the doctrine; only all of them together combined with a reasonable mind truly prove the Trinity. If you are too lazy to read a more comprehensive article like the one I presented earlier, then that is your problem.



"Generally accepted" is another way of saying "accepted by the majority."



I respond to rhetoric with rhetoric, and I respond to meat with meat. Suffice it to say that many of your comments deserve little more than a :ahem:. You really are giving yourself too much credit.



It's really funny that you follow your speech on rhetoric with this load. Zero evidence, only assertions.



Maybe, but you certainly haven't shown it. The Islamic scenario here is internally consistent, as is the Christian one. Why then should we believe the Islamic one, which came after the Christian one and provides no evidence that it is correct and that the old one is false.



Still haven't found the time to read through those articles I posted? Oh well, I suppose that lets you sit contentedly and spew assertions with utmost confidence.



Okay, I'll just say it directly now: prove it. And saying something as flimsy as "the Muslim view is different..." again won't cut it.



My goodness, you truly are arrogant. You quote bits and pieces of those who support your opinion and act as though that should be enough to settle the issue, and as though it is absolutely shocking that anyone might dare to challenge your opinion. Your post is replete with rhetoric and assertions, while your only arguments come from others. I suggest you admit that you have no expertise in the issue of Classical texts as I have done, because otherwise all we can do with this issue is throw quotes and links at each other. You seem happy to do just that, but I don't have the patience for it.



I don't care what Islam maintains; the fact that Islam maintains it does not make it true. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the New Testament does not express the true Gospel of Jesus except to say that Islam has a different view.



More pointless rhetoric.



You could have dragged your mouse pointer to read the linked articles I gave you, because this is a far better method than my simply quoting pieces of the article and acting authoritative.



Apparently you are not reading my posts, as I specifically referred to the pagans being slaughtered while the Christians and Jews were shown some mercy.



I do remember the Crusades, and apparently better than you do; at least regarding Jerusalem, tales of Christian brutality are grossly exaggerated, though I am ashamed of the anti-Semitic escapades in the Rhine river valley. As far as Jerusalem goes, it is now generally accepted by historians that the violence there was not unusual for the time; the city was besieged and many of the defenders were killed, but there was little killing of innocents, at least compared to some outrageous accounts. An interesting and famous account of the taking of Jerusalem can be found here: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm

Of course, there were other Crusades besides the First Crusade of which I have spoken, but I don't have the time to examine all of them here.



It may be the fastest-growing large religion in the world, but it is still a fallacy to claim that it is the fastest-growing religion in the world. Certain smaller religions have had a higher percentage growth, and Muslims only continue to propagate this falsehood (usually unknown to even those who propagate it) because it sounds quite good.



Correct, I wouldn't. Of course, I wouldn't claim that the Romans were justified in making most of these conquests, either, as you do with Islam.



This has little bearing on what I said, but at least now you admit that the Byzantines were genuinely threatened by the Muslims.



I have a very difficult time believing that the Ghassanids killed the ambassador for no reason whatsoever. There is certainly more to this story.



It's an obscure bit of history that serves to show how Mohammed was quick to find any excuse to expand his empire. This is really a rather similar situation to the American war with Mexico in the 1840s, with a flimsy excuse propping up an underlying motive. No sensible statesman declares war due to the death of an ambassador without knowing all the facts: why the ambassador was killed, if it was state-sanctioned or done individually, etc. Oh, and 3,000 people have nothing to do with "discipline."



My interest is in Byzantine and European history, and how Islamic expansion fits into that.



These events all revolve around an aggressive Islamic state desiring to expand and conquer unjustly everyone they could. Revisionist and idiotic history have deemed Christendom to be the bad guy, and this is horrendously false. The way that you can call Islam a religion of compassion, mercy, and justice while simultaneously attempting to defend its violent wars of conquest is simply ludicrous.



You show either your ignorance or your bigotry here. You must know that few historians use the term Dark Ages any more, as most have acknowledged that the negative connotations there are undeserved. While Muslim scholars did indeed preserve much of the old knowledge, Irish, Italian, and other European monks performed just as much scholarly work. It may also benefit you to note that the Byzantine Empire reached the height of its power in this "Dark Age," as a great center of culture and learning. The reason the Muslims were able to achieve a degree of cultural supremacy is because they conquered and warred their way to it, which is really nothing to be proud of.



Matthew 22:37, "Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."



I am more than interested in constructive dialogue with Muslims, and have done so often; what I am not interested in is a rhetoric match with a haughty casuist, blindly (yet humorously) convinced of his own superiority.
Dear Muslims:

You know not the Scriptures which you refute.

The entire Trinity is mentioned in the incarnation of Luke 1:28 on

And coming to her he said(Angel Gabriel), "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."....................................................Then the angel said to her
:Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God". (Father God)
italics mine......................................................"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will
give Him the throne of his father, David and He will rule over the House of
Jacob forever,, and of His kingdom there will be no end...........................
The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the child to be born will be called Holy, the Son of God."

The above is an account of the Trinity nature of God and the fact that
Jesus is the Son of God.

This is in direct contradiction of the koran, which says "God has no son".

In Matthew, Joseph is advised in a dream that Mary is carrying the Messiah.

[Krusader]

And the Angel told Joseph that the babe would be called Emanuel, meaning "God with us." How much more clear can you get?

[heaven]

And the Angel told Joseph that the babe would be called Emanuel, meaning "God with us." How much more clear can you get?


Furthermore, Luke equates Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. The Ark

of the Covenant was the resting place for the God of the Israelites in the

wilderness and in the temple. As the New Ark of the Covenant of the

Living God, the womb of Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, in it's

entirety and by means of the incarnation and birth of Jesus, Jesus is

the Son of God and Divine.

[mikey123]

I wonder if Jesus made a list of who would or would not go to Heaven??Some where i remember Him saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you??Or maybe i am deceived as well !!--mikey123
Jesus Christ said "Not my will - but thy will be done" - He never begged to not proceed with the plan of God to redeem the Human race. He willingly went to the cross for you and me and whole human race. All the whosoever wills - that accept Him and His perfect sacrifice on their behalf are his children and will go to heaven.

Muslims like every other "religious" person on planet earth are trying to "earn" their way into heaven. But they cannot. Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE and no man, no Muslim, no Hindu, no Roman Catholic, no Buddhist, no atheist - no man will go to Heaven without having Him as their personal Lord and Savior. If He is your personal savior - than your religion is not the savior and your religious efforts are not the savior. All your righteousness is as filthy rags before a Holy God! You cannot and you will not ever be good enough to "earn" heaven. If you get to go, it will only be by the grace of God - provided by Jesus Christ, when He shed his blood for you and me. The Bible clearly states, "Without the shedding of blood, there is No remission of sins. Without the shed blood of Christ - on your behalf - you won't be in heaven.

The Koran teaches a false gospel, which is no gospel at all and those who trust it are being deceived. The Bible is the older of the two revelations and if you will read it and accept it as the true Word of God that it is - you will clearly see that the Koran is full of many many errors. You will also see how much Christ loves you - so much that He died for you, just like He did for me.
I urge you to read the New Testament and find out the truth. I also hope to meet you in heaven.

[Alberta girl]

Please tell your Muslim buddy that the reason Jesus called out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," that He was referring to Pslam 22. It was common for Jews of Christ's time to quote the very first vss. of a Pslam in place of the entire Pslam.

When one read's Psalm 22, it is clearly speaking of Christ's crucifixion and His ultimate victory over sin and Satan.

Far from being a cry for help, His quoting the first verses of Psalm 22 was a cry of victory!
That's the answer I would have gone with also. I would tell the woman the same thing. I would add that God is perfect mercy and perfect justice at the same time. Justice needed to be served, that is why God let Jesus die on that cross, to pay a penalty only He could pay, in our place, a payment we could never make. This is why His last words before He died were 'It is finished'.

[heaven]

That's the answer I would have gone with also. I would tell the woman the same thing. I would add that God is perfect mercy and perfect justice at the same time. Justice needed to be served, that is why God let Jesus die on that cross, to pay a penalty only He could pay, in our place, a payment we could never make. This is why His last words before He died were 'It is finished'.
The Bible, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament are read as a

continuum. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of the christians.

This God is experienced in a trinitarian manner, ie. speaking from a burning bush and residing in the Holy of Holies simultaneously and then speaking
through others. For this reason the Shema Israel is recited "Hear O Israel,
the Lord your God , Your God is One."

To the christians, this same God, resided within them, resided within the community and appeared to them. From this experience came the Doctrine
of the Trinity.

There is no evidence of polytheism, only a God who is so big, He must be
experienced in various manners.

The god of islam is not known by adherants.

The God as known by christians came in the flesh and taught love.

[Alberta girl]

I would just like to add to something from the original post. The person being quoted asks the respondant to 'please keep in mind that God does not need blood to forgive sins'. I think that statement is at the heart of the arguement. If you take that quote for granted and accept it as true, then obviously we have no need of Jesus or a savior or an atonement. It would seem to me that the very statement is the thing which must be delt with. It is perhaps the 'poison pill' of the whole arguement.

[InChristAlways]

Furthermore, Luke equates Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. The Ark

of the Covenant was the resting place for the God of the Israelites in the

wilderness and in the temple. As the New Ark of the Covenant of the

Living God, the womb of Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, in it's

entirety and by means of the incarnation and birth of Jesus, Jesus is

the Son of God and Divine.Womb of Mary as the Ark OTC???? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and as prohecied would be born through a "young woman/virgin". What about the bosom of Abraham in luke 16? You appear to put too much focus on Mary instead of Christ, the Cross and eternal life though His Name, Jesus Christ. THere is of course only ONE GOD, but the NAME of Jesus is the only name one can be saved(acts 2). I would actually join Islam than Judaism, as they at least believe in Christ, though not as the Heir of Abram(before his name was changed to Abraham).

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

luke 16:22 `And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham--and the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 and in the hades having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he doth see Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom,

gene 15:3 Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."

Even the muslims share in Abraham's blessings if they come to the faith that is of him through the NAME of Jesus Christ, as ALL his descendants, both of Isaac and Ishmael were born to him, one of the slave/flesh and one of the "spirit/promise". Jesus said no one would ever worship in Jerusalem again as Christ now reigns in us and in the new jerusalem ABOVE!!!. Present day Jerusalem now represents Hagar the slave woman, while those of Christ are in the new jerusalem now, no matter what part of the world we live in. Unfortunately, even the jews fail to see this, as they are still waiting on their "own messiah" but my prayer is the muslims will see this also and know they can also inherit the "promise" through the NAME of Jesus.God bless.

Gala 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 "God [is] Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

[heaven]

Womb of Mary as the Ark OTC???? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and as prohecied would be born through a "young woman/virgin". What about the bosom of Abraham in luke 16? You appear to put too much focus on Mary instead of Christ, the Cross and eternal life though His Name, Jesus Christ. THere is of course only ONE GOD, but the NAME of Jesus is the only name one can be saved(acts 2). I would actually join Islam than Judaism, as they at least believe in Christ, though not as the Heir of Abram(before his name was changed to Abraham).

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm (http://users.aristotle.net/%7Ebhuie/lazarus.htm)

luke 16:22 `And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham--and the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 and in the hades having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he doth see Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom,

gene 15:3 Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."

Even the muslims share in Abraham's blessings if they come to the faith that is of him through the NAME of Jesus Christ, as ALL his descendants, both of Isaac and Ishmael were born to him, one of the slave/flesh and one of the "spirit/promise". Jesus said no one would ever worship in Jerusalem again as Christ now reigns in us and in the new jerusalem ABOVE!!!. Present day Jerusalem now represents Hagar the slave woman, while those of Christ are in the new jerusalem now, no matter what part of the world we live in. Unfortunately, even the jews fail to see this, as they are still waiting on their "own messiah" but my prayer is the muslims will see this also and know they can also inherit the "promise" through the NAME of Jesus.God bless.

Gala 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 "God [is] Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
Jesus was begotten of the Father before the Foundation of the World!

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Through the miracle of the Incarnation Jesus was born in Bethlehem of

Mary.

The Ark of the Covenant was the resting place of YHVH on earth.

The Living Ark of the Covenant, Mary, birthed Jesus and thus Divine. This is


very important, for many fail to see the Divinity of Jesus, only His humanity


The Scriptures in their entirety must be read as a continuum, ongoing

revelation of God.

The God of the Israelites, YHVH , the God of Abraham , Isaac, Jacob.

Through Jesus Christ, christians come to know God the Father, who is the

God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (same God).

I believe your quote that he who is born of the bondwoman originally refers

to Isaac being born of Sarah and Ishmael being born of Hagar(bondwoman).

The firstborn in Scripture refers to Jesus.

Although the firstborn inherits the birthright, the Scripture grants the

birthright to Isaac and Jacob, because the natural comes before the

spiritual.(This refers to Ishmael being the natural and Israel the spiritual.

With the coming of Christ, Israel is the natural and the church the spiritual.

Thus you can never have the spiritual without first the natural.

To worship in spirit and truth does not mean the church is invisible.

Romans validates that Israel had the true worship(along with the covenants) etc.)

Since the church is patterned by the Apostles from the jews, we should

expect similarities.
==============================================

There is no remisssion of sin without the shedding of blood..This is first

in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve were told to wear animal skins.

The first substitutionary sacrifice to cover sin (of Adam and Eve).

The shedding of blood is necessary because of the perfect justice and the

perfect mercy of God. God is holy and one cannot approach or come near

God if there is any sin. Jesus took on every sin that was ever

committed in His humanity and so the sin of humanity is no more. GONE

But we have to respond .:smile:

[InChristAlways]

My focus is on Jesus as God Himself, the Name by which all are saved(acts 2). I don't really know how much of the NT the muslims believe in so I can only hope they study the OT prophecies very carefully as it is written about God Himself coming to save mankind from their sins and Dwell with us.
The jews of course have a problem concerning the birth of Jesus and though I don't use the word "incarnation" (it is not in the Bible so I don't use it) instead I use "Born" to us as in Isaih 9(as we also are "reborn/alive In Christ). If the muslims believe in the OT they would see the "Heir" of Abraham would be God Himself being born/manifested as a "Child".
The Bible is truly devine and spiritually symbolic so I can agree with other interpretations easily enough as long as they don't take away the Deity of Christ as God. God bless.
For muslims who want to study on why Jesus is God, this site is very good and I am actually at odds with the majority of "church" interpretation of scripture, especially the "creeds" which have always been a "stumbling rock" to the church of the True God and have confused more christians on the devine and spiritual Word of the Bible itself. God bless.
http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/sonisgod.html

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Do muslims see this "Precious Stone" as "Jesus"? The jews fail to see that after this "Stone" is layed, their temple and jerusalem would be destroyed, as prophecied.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone("Child is Born/Heir"), a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. 17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW12.htm (http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW12.htm)

Now let us read Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given ... His name shall be called ... the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. "It does not say mighty man, but Mighty God. A little child is called the Mighty God. The child mentioned here refers to the child born in the stable in Bethlehem, who is not only named the Mighty God, but also the Everlasting Father. As a child born to us, He is called the Mighty God; as a Son given to us, He is called the Everlasting Father. When the child is called the Mighty God, is He the child, or God? And, when the son is called the Everlasting Father, is He the son or the Father? If you try to figure it out, you cannot do it. You must take it as a fact, unless, of course, you do not believe the scriptures. If you believe the authority of the scriptures, you must accept the fact that since the child is called the Mighty God, it means the child IS the Mighty God; and since the Son is called the Father, it means the Son IS the Father! If the child is not the Mighty God, how could the child be called the Mighty God? And if the Son is not the Father, how could the Son be called the Father? And if we believe the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, we must believe that HE IS THE FATHER! So, then, how many Gods do we have? We have only one God, because the child Jesus is the Mighty God, and the Son is the Everlasting Father.

"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Jesus is the "brightness of His glory", the "express image": "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things(gen 15:4), through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).

[heaven]

My focus is on Jesus as God Himself, the Name by which all are saved(acts 2). I don't really know how much of the NT the muslims believe in so I can only hope they study the OT prophecies very carefully as it is written about God Himself coming to save mankind from their sins and Dwell with us.
The jews of course have a problem concerning the birth of Jesus and though I don't use the word "incarnation" (it is not in the Bible so I don't use it) instead I use "Born" to us as in Isaih 9(as we also are "reborn/alive In Christ). If the muslims believe in the OT they would see the "Heir" of Abraham would be God Himself being born/manifested as a "Child".
The Bible is truly devine and spiritually symbolic so I can agree with other interpretations easily enough as long as they don't take away the Deity of Christ as God. God bless.
For muslims who want to study on why Jesus is God, this site is very good and I am actually at odds with the majority of "church" interpretation of scripture, especially the "creeds" which have always been a "stumbling rock" to the church of the True God and have confused more christians on the devine and spiritual Word of the Bible itself. God bless.
http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/sonisgod.html

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Do muslims see this "Precious Stone" as "Jesus"? The jews fail to see that after this "Stone" is layed, their temple and jerusalem would be destroyed, as prophecied.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone("Child is Born/Heir"), a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. 17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW12.htm (http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW12.htm)

Now let us read Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given ... His name shall be called ... the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. "It does not say mighty man, but Mighty God. A little child is called the Mighty God. The child mentioned here refers to the child born in the stable in Bethlehem, who is not only named the Mighty God, but also the Everlasting Father. As a child born to us, He is called the Mighty God; as a Son given to us, He is called the Everlasting Father. When the child is called the Mighty God, is He the child, or God? And, when the son is called the Everlasting Father, is He the son or the Father? If you try to figure it out, you cannot do it. You must take it as a fact, unless, of course, you do not believe the scriptures. If you believe the authority of the scriptures, you must accept the fact that since the child is called the Mighty God, it means the child IS the Mighty God; and since the Son is called the Father, it means the Son IS the Father! If the child is not the Mighty God, how could the child be called the Mighty God? And if the Son is not the Father, how could the Son be called the Father? And if we believe the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, we must believe that HE IS THE FATHER! So, then, how many Gods do we have? We have only one God, because the child Jesus is the Mighty God, and the Son is the Everlasting Father.

"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Jesus is the "brightness of His glory", the "express image": "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things(gen 15:4), through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).
===============================

Dear Inchristalways,

Jesus was begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world and

the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father before the Incarnation of Jesus.

As far as the creeds, they are not the problem, heresies are, which

necessitated creeds and doctrines.

[InChristAlways]

===============================

Dear Inchristalways,

Jesus was begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world and

the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father before the Incarnation of Jesus.

As far as the creeds, they are not the problem, heresies are, which

necessitated creeds and doctrines.Well if the christian church creeds prevent heresies, why the heck can't they bring the churches into ONE belief? Why so many doctrines? Why are there both protestants and catholics? Are there 2 different Holy Spirits?
I wonder how muslims interpret this scripture where Jesus says all things written would be fulfilled upon the destruction of Jerusalem. According to the "creeds", Jesus just meant "some" not all. Muslims don't go by church "Creeds" so I wonder how they view this passage and wonder if they feel Jesus meant just "some" or ALL would be fulilled. God bless.

Luke 21:20 " But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that ALL things which are WRITTEN may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and WRATH upon this people.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot [for] forty-two months..............17 saying: "We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. 18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth."

[Krusader]

Heaven, the reason "In Christ Always" has problems with the historic creeds is that he is "Oneness," believing the Father became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. This is an unorthodox interpretation of the Godhead and has been soundly rejected by evangelical believers.

Those that attack "church doctrine or dogma," are really saying they reject Christianity and have set up for themselves other doctrines and dogmas (which they don't call by that name) - they have set themselves up as the sole determiners of doctrine apart from the historic body of Christ.

Note, he will not use the term "incarnation," because it isn't in Scripture - but I would suppose he'd have no problem using the term "Bible," which isn't in Scripture either.

Paul does call Jesus God manifest in the flesh - having the same meaning as incarnation.

Among the "Oneness" cults are the Branhamites, Apostolics and United Pentecostals.

[InChristAlways]

Heaven, the reason "In Christ Always" has problems with the historic creeds is that he is "Oneness," believing the Father became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. This is an unorthodox interpretation of the Godhead and has been soundly rejected by evangelical believers.

Those that attack "church doctrine or dogma," are really saying they reject Christianity and have set up for themselves other doctrines and dogmas (which they don't call by that name) - they have set themselves up as the sole determiners of doctrine apart from the historic body of Christ.

Note, he will not use the term "incarnation," because it isn't in Scripture - but I would suppose he'd have no problem using the term "Bible," which isn't in Scripture either.

Paul does call Jesus God manifest in the flesh - having the same meaning as incarnation.

Among the "Oneness" cults are the Branhamites, Apostolics and United Pentecostals.Hi Crusader. My problem with the historic "CREEDS" has nothing to do with Jesus being God or "incarnation" but church dogma. He was BEGOTTEN not reincarnated so please use the Correct word from the "scripture", not a word that isn't in the "Book". 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him.]
Just for your sake I will say "scriptures" instead of "Bible". The CREEDS have also failed to bring ALL churches together in Unity (note protestants/catholics etc). The Muslims have no interest in the "manmade church creeds" and I have never seen anyone yet describe the "trinity" as described in the church "creeds" so you have presented a strawman on both "incarnation" and "trinity" neither of which is in the sacred "Scriptures". And of course the Creeds also leave Jesus Christ as a liar, and thus when trying to get Muslims to see that maybe just "possibly" revelation might be the fulfillment of Luke 21 and showing that the Name of Jesus is also the Name of God. luke 21:22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.When God mentions His Name in Malachi, what does that imply to you? The jews are cursed(not the muslims/gentiles) of course as the chosen first born nation, they also betrayed their own Savior and Lord and thus like the firstborn of Egypt, they were destroyed in the first century except for a "remnant".
Revelation is showing those "curses" of Deuteronomy 28 coming on them which I hope to show the muslims that fulfillment, and of course the Pride of the "jews"(Judah) prevent them from interpreting their own scripture correctly. God bless.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

This also includes Muslims as "Gentiles".

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, And her salvation as a lamp [that] burns. 2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader. My problem with the historic "CREEDS" has nothing to do with Jesus being God or "incarnation" but church dogma. He was BEGOTTEN not reincarnated so please use the Correct word from the "scripture", not a word that isn't in the "Book".
Just for your sake I will say "scriptures" instead of "Bible". The CREEDS have also failed to bring ALL churches together in Unity (note protestants/catholics etc). The Muslims have no interest in the "manmade church creeds" and I have never seen anyone yet describe the "trinity" as described in the church "creeds" so you have presented a strawman on both "incarnation" and "trinity" neither of which is in the sacred "Scriptures". And of course the Creeds also leave Jesus Christ as a liar, and thus when trying to get Muslims to see that maybe just "possibly" revelation might be the fulfillment of Luke 21 and showing that the Name of Jesus is also the Name of God.When God mentions His Name in Malachi, what does that imply to you? The jews are cursed(not the muslims/gentiles) of course as the chosen first born nation, they also betrayed their own Savior and Lord and thus like the firstborn of Egypt, they were destroyed in the first century except for a "remnant".
Revelation is showing those "curses" of Deuteronomy 28 coming on them which I hope to show the muslims that fulfillment, and of course the Pride of the "jews"(Judah) prevent them from interpreting their own scripture correctly. God bless.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

This also includes Muslims as "Gentiles".

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, And her salvation as a lamp [that] burns. 2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.In Christ Always, you are mixing up the occult doctrine of reincarnation with the Christian doctrine of incarnation.

Reincarnation is the teaching that human souls are reborn numerous times as different individuals on earth.

Incarnation, as Christians understand it, means that the second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, was the Word made flesh - in other words, the God-Man. Jesus was not born repeatedly on earth.

Christians teach that Christ did not cease being God, but took on the additional nature of humanity (free from sin) in the womb of Mary and was born as the Messiah.

The Father did not become man, the Son became man.

Don't put down Church dogma until you understand what it is saying. You should really study some of the historic creeds - and then let me know what you disagree with.

Furthermore, the use of words not in the Bible is acceptable, when they are describing incidents in Scripture. For instance, we use the word ascension to describe Christ's ascent to heaven; we use the word communion to describe the Lord's Supper. There is no RULE in Scripture which suspends our human ability to define events by words not found in Scripture. That is a man-made rule.

The Church of Christ attempts to say they do not use unscriptural terms, but they always end up doing so - read their literature.

[InChristAlways]

Don't put down Church dogma until you understand what it is saying. You should really study some of the historic creeds - and then let me know what you disagree with.

Furthermore, the use of words not in the Bible is acceptable, when they are describing incidents in Scripture. For instance, we use the word ascension to describe Christ's ascent to heaven; we use the word communion to describe the Lord's Supper. There is no RULE in Scripture which suspends our human ability to define events by words not found in Scripture. That is a man-made rule.

The Church of Christ attempts to say they do not use unscriptural terms, but they always end up doing so - read their literature. Hi Crusader. Studying church creeds would be alright if one would read and study the scriptures also (catholics are not allowed to interpret scripture as an example). I agree in respect to "describing incidents" in scripture but we must also use the words that are used in scripture as much as possibe I believe. (I don't know about communion, as my communion is with Christ In Me already).
I want to show muslims Jesus also died for them not just for us and the "jews" of today, and it is the "jews" that actually misinterpret the scripture (as bad as the muslims do), just to show Jesus wasn't the Begotten of God, by using the Talmud and Cabala Freemasonry is Jewish MagicOne of the unheralded and least known facts about Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge is its Jewish origins and nature. The religion of Judaism, based on the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jewish Cabala (or, Kabala), an alchemical system of magic and deviltry, form the basis for the Scottish Rite's 33 ritual degree ceremonies.If both jews and muslims read the same OT scriptures as we do, then maybe God planned to have 3 different world views of it.
Thanks for your post and hopefully we can continue on with a friendly dialogue. God bless with peace and happiness through Jesus our Lord.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Gene 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Deut 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: 16 "Cursed [shall] you [be] in the city, and cursed [shall] you [be] in the country. ....................

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader. Studying church creeds would be alright if one would read and study the scriptures also (catholics are not allowed to interpret scripture as an example). I agree in respect to "describing incidents" in scripture but we must also use the words that are used in scripture as much as possibe I believe. (I don't know about communion, as my communion is with Christ In Me already).
I want to show muslims Jesus also died for them not just for us and the "jews" of today, and it is the "jews" that actually misinterpret the scripture (as bad as the muslims do), just to show Jesus wasn't the Begotten of God, by using the Talmud and CabalaIf both jews and muslims read the same OT scriptures as we do, then maybe God planned to have 3 different world views of it.
Thanks for your post and hopefully we can continue on with a friendly dialogue. God bless with peace and happiness through Jesus our Lord.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Gene 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Deut 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: 16 "Cursed [shall] you [be] in the city, and cursed [shall] you [be] in the country. ....................
In Christ: Am I to understand that you do not partake of the Lord's Supper (Communion)? Please give Scriptural references for abstaining.

Furthermore, Masonry has no Jewish origins. In fact, my father who was a long-time Mason and an officer in the lodge, told me that Jews were rarely, if ever, allowed to become Masons.

PS: I do not agree with Masonry, so please don't think I'm defending it.

[InChristAlways]

In Christ: Am I to understand that you do not partake of the Lord's Supper (Communion)? Please give Scriptural references for abstaining.

Furthermore, Masonry has no Jewish origins. In fact, my father who was a long-time Mason and an officer in the lodge, told me that Jews were rarely, if ever, allowed to become Masons.

PS: I do not agree with Masonry, so please don't think I'm defending it.Hi Crusader. I just happen to see that topic and never really heard much about freemasons and just looked at a few sites. So you may be right.
As far as the LS, that is for another topic brother.
Israelites(jews) and muslims both to believe that God did send His Son/precious cornerstone as promised in the scripture

I really don't see how jews or muslims can dispute Malachi 3 and Isaiah 28 and I feel they just need to interpret their scripture TRUTHFULLY and find out how they could have missed their own messiah coming. But half the world doesn't believe in Christ, so the harvest is plentifull.
I will be gone a few days and it was nice talking with you brother. God bless with peace and LOVE.

.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 28 shows both the Lord coming then destruction on Jerusalem. Both events happened as prophecied. I and others believe revelation is showing that event.

Isaiah 28:14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. 17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place. 18 Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader. I just happen to see that topic and never really heard much about freemasons and just looked at a few sites. So you may be right.
As far as the LS, that is for another topic brother.
Israelites(jews) and muslims both to believe that God did send His Son/precious cornerstone as promised in the scripture

I really don't see how jews or muslims can dispute Malachi 3 and Isaiah 28 and I feel they just need to interpret their scripture TRUTHFULLY and find out how they could have missed their own messiah coming. But half the world doesn't believe in Christ, so the harvest is plentifull.
I will be gone a few days and it was nice talking with you brother. God bless with peace and LOVE.

.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 28 shows both the Lord coming then destruction on Jerusalem. Both events happened as prophecied. I and others believe revelation is showing that event.

Isaiah 28:14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. 17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place. 18 Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.




In Christ, I'm your sister not your brother.

Also, What do you do with Romans 11:25-36. Does it not appear that the Jews are blinded, at least in part, until we Gentiles have all come in to the New Covenant.

As for the Muslims, this is a false religious system, the invention of a false prophet. They must be delivered from that system by the Holy Spirit - and only then will they see who Christ is.

[InChristAlways]

In Christ, I'm your sister not your brother.

Also, What do you do with Romans 11:25-36. Does it not appear that the Jews are blinded, at least in part, until we Gentiles have all come in to the New Covenant.

As for the Muslims, this is a false religious system, the invention of a false prophet. They must be delivered from that system by the Holy Spirit - and only then will they see who Christ is.Hi crusader. Sorry about that.
It says Israel would be blinded in part. That depends on whether it is talking about all the original 12 tribes of Israel. The house that was blinded were the jews of Judah/Levi, which was "part" of all Israel.
Judah no longer exists, so there are in essence no more OT jews left. Do you feel everyone who calls themselves a jew today is of the house of Judah? Or is it because they practice the OC Law/religion of Judaism? What makes judaism different from Islam?
The way I view Hebrew 8, the NC doesn't include Judah/Harlot. The remnant left of Judah after jerusalem was destroyed is now all of Israel I believe. I believe revelation is showing that event.

Hebrew 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Nahu 3:4 Because of the multitude of harlotries of the seductive Harlot,(Judah/Jerusalem) The mistress of sorceries, Who sells nations through her harlotries, And families through her sorceries. 5 " Behold, I [am] against you," says the LORD of hosts; "I will lift your skirts over your face, I will Show The Nations your nakedness, And the kingdoms your shame. 6 I will cast abominable filth upon you, Make you vile, And make you a spectacle. 7 It shall come to pass [that] all who look upon you Will flee from you, and say, 'Nineveh is laid waste! Who will bemoan her?' Where shall I seek comforters for you?" reve 17:16 "And the ten horns/KINGS which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 "For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth

[Krusader]

Hi crusader. Sorry about that.
It says Israel would be blinded in part. That depends on whether it is talking about all the original 12 tribes of Israel. The house that was blinded were the jews of Judah/Levi, which was "part" of all Israel.
Judah no longer exists, so there are in essence no more OT jews left. Do you feel everyone who calls themselves a jew today is of the house of Judah? Or is it because they practice the OC Law/religion of Judaism? What makes judaism different from Islam?
The way I view Hebrew 8, the NC doesn't include Judah/Harlot. The remnant left of Judah after jerusalem was destroyed is now all of Israel I believe. I believe revelation is showing that event.

Hebrew 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Jews are not only those from the house of Juhah. The Jews as a race are those descended from Abraham; there are also Jews by conversion, etc.

Paul explicitly says that "all Israel" will be saved - put it together.

[heaven]

Jews are not only those from the house of Juhah. The Jews as a race are those descended from Abraham; there are also Jews by conversion, etc.

Paul explicitly says that "all Israel" will be saved - put it together.
=====================================================

If one of your ancestors was a jew, you are classified today as of the tribe of
Judah, which includes all of the tribes, in Jerusalem, today.

Mohammed is the false prophet and might be the false prophet of the AC.
=========================================================

Rabbinical judaism is totally unaware of the Messiah in Jeshua and is not
properly understanding Scripture, lacking the cornerstone, Yeshua.
It should be interesting to note that Israeli school children are taught the
New Testament , since Yeshua is so prominant in their history. This is the
glimmer of light needed for the jews.

[InChristAlways]

Jews are not only those from the house of Juhah. The Jews as a race are those descended from Abraham; there are also Jews by conversion, etc.


Paul explicitly says that "all Israel" will be saved - put it together. They were all hebrew Israelites before God split them up, divorcing Israel and and later destroying Judah and Jerusalem as prohecied. To be a jew simply means to practice the OC law of "judaism" minus the sacrifices, as God took care of their temple in the first century and planted a nice beautifull looking Gold Dome over it, which should signify to Israel God doesn't really care to have another one built.

According to Hebrew 8 the NC was to be made only with the house of Israel and "remnant" of Judah after the final destruction of Jerusalem And another thing is, it would not be like the OC law and ordinances, so even if this is future, there will be no sacrifices, feasts and festivals. All of those were types and shadows of the NEW THING God brought through His Son Jesus, the Holy Spirit, which the jews fail to comprehend and hopefully muslims will.

Hebrew 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

gene 49:[i]8 "Judah, you [are he] whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand [shall be] on the neck of your enemies; Your father's children shall bow down before you. 9 Judah [is] a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.

[heaven]

They were all hebrew Israelites before God split them up, divorcing Israel and and later destroying Judah and Jerusalem as prohecied. To be a jew simply means to practice the OC law of "judaism" minus the sacrifices, as God took care of their temple in the first century and planted a nice beautifull looking Gold Dome over it, which should signify to Israel God doesn't really care to have another one built.

According to Hebrew 8 the NC was to be made only with the house of Israel and "remnant" of Judah after the final destruction of Jerusalem And another thing is, it would not be like the OC law and ordinances, so even if this is future, there will be no sacrifices, feasts and festivals. All of those were types and shadows of the NEW THING God brought through His Son Jesus, the Holy Spirit, which the jews fail to comprehend and hopefully muslims will.

Hebrew 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

gene 49:[i]8 "Judah, you [are he] whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand [shall be] on the neck of your enemies; Your father's children shall bow down before you. 9 Judah [is] a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.







Inchristalways,

Ezekiel 36:8-10,10-12,22-24

"For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all the countries, and bring you into your own land".

The return to Israel from the diaspora.

If the Lord God breaks His promises to Israel, He will break His promises to
you.

Read the rest of the promises and understand that what He promises He will do, not based upon merit of Israel, but based upon God's faithfulness to
His word.

[InChristAlways]

Inchristalways,

Ezekiel 36:8-10,10-12,22-24

"For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all the countries, and bring you into your own land".

The return to Israel from the diaspora.

If the Lord God breaks His promises to Israel, He will break His promises to
you.

Read the rest of the promises and understand that what He promises He will do, not based upon merit of Israel, but based upon God's faithfulness to
His word.Hi Heaven. I did read on the promises and blessing on Israel. But Deut 28 also implies curses and wrath for disobedience to the Word of Christ, the messiah. The promise was the NC was not to be like the OC, which were sacrifices, rituals, feasts etc( which they still practice much like the catholic church does).
Since Israel doesn't believe in Christ or the NT, they don't realize it is through the Holy Spirit and Blood of the Cross that bring them in to promised "land" that Abraham looked forward to.
The last curse shows Israel being taken by "ships" to Egypt. It appears this happened in the first century and what revelation is showing, as chapt 11 mentions "Egypt". Just a view I and others have.
Duet 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
[i]68 "And the LORD will take you back to Egypt in ships, by the way of which I said to you, 'You shall never see it again.' And there you shall be offered for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy [you."]
Who the heck do the jews think the HIM is in gene 49? This is why I can see Judah not included in the NC as Jesus is now symbolically "Judah", the Glory of God.

gene 49:8 "Judah, you [are he] whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand [shall be] on the neck of your enemies; Your father's children shall bow down before you. 9 Judah a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.

[Slayer-2004]

:wink: Very good analogy, Sparko...yes he is determined that we Christians knowingly lie and decieve well intentioned Muslims into following Christ, and that Allah will make us pay for it in the afterlife.

Ive been debating on muslim forums recently and this is one thing I noticed - the striking similarity between isalm and christianity . Im sure I could switch almost half of every christian or muslim apologetic argument around to fit the other by only changing a few basic words .

Im sure there are christians out there who believe that muslims out there knowingly reject god ( actually a lot of christians out there seem to think that everyone secretly believes in Jesus and disbelief is just a form of rebellion ) And try to convert christians to islam . Im sure those christians believe muslims are going to hell as well .

Its a very sad vicious circle to watch when your a fence sitting deist like me . Very sad indeed .

[mikey123]

Hi Jude3b: Thanks for the reply, Hope to see you in Heaven as well.

[spitndirt]

I would like to begin by responding to this insulting claim. I am a very proud Muslim and will adhere to my ethics and respond with reason and history, rather than rhetoric and returning the insult.

First and foremost, if you were to do what you ask Muslims to do and read the Qur'an you would find that the Qur'an does not "add or detract" from the Bible. It is actually your own Christain church who has added and detracted from the Bible, beginning in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, when Constantine agreed with the Athanasians on the concept of the Trinity which is Biblically unsupported.

Later the interpolation was inserted of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This was found to be a fabrication as transaltor Benjamin Wilson describes it in his book "Emphatic Diaglott":

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

This is only one example of insertions and deletions in the Bible. Others are the deletion of "begotten" from John 3:16, and the deletion of the ascension in RSV Bible. The Gospels themselves are anonymous books. The ascribed names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply 2nd Century wishful thinking... but this is another topic altogether.

I could write essays on the other claims you have charged against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam... but time does not allow this at this time, so I will respond briefly but in detail.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was one of the most humble, kind, moral, God fearing man ever to walk the face of this earth. A simple study of his life and one would see this immediately. He used to donate generously to the poor, lived very modestly, and never asked anyone to do anything that he did not first do himself. He was known by his community, by even those who rejected him wholeheartedly as Al-Sadiq Al-Amin: "The Trustworthy and the Noble". I encourage you to read his biography entitled "The Sealed Nectar" which is widely acclaimed as historically accurate. You should educate yourself before making wild claims that you hear from decietful Christian missionaries. The wives he married (polygamy) were mostly politically motivated (i.e. to make ties between communities) and to support widows. Above all, he called for an end to tribalism and nationalism, and called all to the worship of the one true God.

Lastly, most Christians are not aware that Jesus Christ (PBUH) who spoke Aramiac (a sister language to Arabic... which Prophet Muhammad PBUH spoke), called God by the same name as Prophet Muhammad PBUH and Muslims do today. I invite you to go into the Aramaic lexicon dictionaries and type "God" and you will get "Elah, Alah"... which are the exact names Muslims call God today. Allah simply means "The God".

Here is the link to the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon proving this:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=0426&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

And a few points to be made about this:

1- "elahh" is the way the word "hhla" (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.
2- The words "Elahh", "hhla (read from right to left)" and "Allah" all have the "h" letter and pronunciation in them.

3- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

4- The Aramaic word "hhla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elahh" which means "GOD" is pronounced as "El-aw" as show above.

5- The Aramaic word "hla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elah" which means "oak" is pronounced as "Ay-law" also as shown above.

6- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

7- The Hebew word "Elohim" is the plural of "Elowah", which is derived from the Aramaic word "Alaha", or "Elahh"; the same as the Arabic word "Allah" or "Allawh" in pronunciation.

These points were made by a Muslim scholar on the topic.
SilverRain,

That is interesting, your explanation of the origin of the name 'Allah' - I did not know this.

Also, you are absolutely right when you say that the Christian scholars(?) have 'added and subtracted' from the scriptures changing the meanings of important things. I have noticed this for sometime now. It leaves me horrified on one level, but on another it produces in me a greater faith in my Lord Jesus - who warned even before His Apostles that men would find their way into the Church and introduce false teachings and destructive heresies - trinity and many others. I have for sometime now disassociated myself from what is called the Christian Church for these reasons. However, I am still a follower of Jesus. I would say that I know that He was/is God's Son - the Word of God made flesh in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily. The reason I say this is that, '...in my day of trouble I called on the Name of the Lord, He answered me and delivered me from it.' This happened before I joined any Church or read the scriptures. But when I did read I saw that Jesus had said these words: '....whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,' and in the OT David (I think it was) speaking the Word of God said the same, '...call on Me (God) in your day of trouble and I will deliver you and you will glorify Me.' By these things I know that Jesus is the Christ. Also, that His death on the tree was indeed the very 'sacrifice' for my sin, and for the sin of the whole world, since God would not have grounds to help me if my sin was not attoned for - and for the whole world because there is no greater sinner than myself.

I had to write you this since I was surprised that you see so clearly the errors of the modern Church - as do I. But also to say that their are still true believers who just follow without making up things that are false and unnecessary. I am not a great scholar - but I do have a testimony of the power of my Lord and my God who I know answers men when they call on His name.

Peace

[Krusader]

SilverRain,

That is interesting, your explanation of the origin of the name 'Allah' - I did not know this.

Also, you are absolutely right when you say that the Christian scholars(?) have 'added and subtracted' from the scriptures changing the meanings of important things. I have noticed this for sometime now. It leaves me horrified on one level, but on another it produces in me a greater faith in my Lord Jesus - who warned even before His Apostles that men would find their way into the Church and introduce false teachings and destructive heresies - trinity and many others. I have for sometime now disassociated myself from what is called the Christian Church for these reasons. However, I am still a follower of Jesus. I would say that I know that He was/is God's Son - the Word of God made flesh in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily. The reason I say this is that, '...in my day of trouble I called on the Name of the Lord, He answered me and delivered me from it.' This happened before I joined any Church or read the scriptures. But when I did read I saw that Jesus had said these words: '....whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,' and in the OT David (I think it was) speaking the Word of God said the same, '...call on Me (God) in your day of trouble and I will deliver you and you will glorify Me.' By these things I know that Jesus is the Christ. Also, that His death on the tree was indeed the very 'sacrifice' for my sin, and for the sin of the whole world, since God would not have grounds to help me if my sin was not attoned for - and for the whole world because there is no greater sinner than myself.

I had to write you this since I was surprised that you see so clearly the errors of the modern Church - as do I. But also to say that their are still true believers who just follow without making up things that are false and unnecessary. I am not a great scholar - but I do have a testimony of the power of my Lord and my God who I know answers men when they call on His name.

Peace

I'd have to say you lack discernment here. The Emphatic Diaglott quoted by the Muslim is a creation of Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian and one who denied the divinity (Deity) of the Lord Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The so-called "Christians" subtracting from Scripture and "changing" Scripture are heretics and apostates who knowingly twist the plain meaning of the Bible's verses in an attempt to conform the Scripture to their own erroneous doctrines (such as Arianism).

Christadelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses are the only groups recognizing the so-called Emphatic Diaglott as an authoritative translation. The New World Translation of the JWs, which borrows from the Diaglott, has long been recognized by Christians as unworthy of the title "translation." Rather, the Watchtowerites have inserted their own doctrine into the text (as a John 1:1), in order to mislead those to whom they preach their false gospel.

As far as I know, true Christians neither add nor subtract from God's Word (as does the Quran of the Muslims). Your agreement with this Muslim's castigation of Christians in terms of preservation of the Scriptures, is without merit.

[spitndirt]

I'd have to say you lack discernment here. The Emphatic Diaglott quoted by the Muslim is a creation of Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian and one who denied the divinity (Deity) of the Lord Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The so-called "Christians" subtracting from Scripture and "changing" Scripture are heretics and apostates who knowingly twist the plain meaning of the Bible's verses in an attempt to conform the Scripture to their own erroneous doctrines (such as Arianism).

Christadelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses are the only groups recognizing the so-called Emphatic Diaglott as an authoritative translation. The New World Translation of the JWs, which borrows from the Diaglott, has long been recognized by Christians as unworthy of the title "translation." Rather, the Watchtowerites have inserted their own doctrine into the text (as a John 1:1), in order to mislead those to whom they preach their false gospel.

As far as I know, true Christians neither add nor subtract from God's Word (as does the Quran of the Muslims). Your agreement with this Muslim's castigation of Christians in terms of preservation of the Scriptures, is without merit.
Sir,

Not lack of discernment - quite the contrary. It is lack of discernment to deduce from the scriptures things that are not expressly written and then to call the human deduction DOCTRINE! Scripture itself is the doctrine of God -'...all [Scripture] is God breathed and is profitable for [doctrine]...'. In other words, what is not scripture is not doctrine. You tell me where it is written that God is '...three distinct persons existing in eternity past.' Also, point me to a command of God that says '...give Me a name (Trinity), and brand as heretics those who will not receive it.' The Apostles of our Lord never taught such things nor did they demand adherence to such things. Paul said, shortly before his death, '...I have not failed to make known to you the whole council of God.' - and didn't in any way teach such a thing as you teach.

To deny the doctrine of the Trinity is not to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ! His divinity being, '...[the Word made flesh], born of a virgin in the fullness of time; in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily. And of this Word John writes: ...in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' So where is this Word in the beginning? Let's see..... And God said, "Let [us] make man in our image and in our likeness" - there [the Word] is....right there! Now do you suppose God was speaking 'the Word' to [the Word]; or would He be speaking [the Word] to another? Do you speak your words to your words? But you would have God doing a thing that is unnecessary. That is, speaking to Himself. But He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent which means God does not need to speak anything to Himself.

Further, in the beginning God created 'the heavens' and 'the earth' - two places. Now there is room for another that is 'distinct'. Prior to creation 'God is' and cannot be displaced in triplicate - ALL is GOD! Here is the progressive order of things whereby the Word remains God: Light is eternal, but has not for eternity shone in the darkness. Life that proceeds from this Light is eternal, but has not for eternity animated flesh. See? Jesus IS the Christ of God; the Word made flesh who dwelt among men.

But to whom was God speaking then? - well, there was only one other in the beginning...prior to flesh I mean! You know, the one in whom the Light of God shone. The one who did not comprehend it. God spoke [the Word] to him so that just as he (darkness) was upheld by the Light, so too dust would be upheld by God's breath. And when darkness rejected the Light and was naked, he deceived man and man was found naked as well. - hence, God said '....the man has become as [one] of [us] - as opposed to [both] of [us]. Satan fell and man died - but God and His Word remained.

Finally, I noticed you completely ignored my testimony. If you had considered it you would have noticed that my God and my Saviour received me to Himself BEFORE I knew a single DOCTRINE of your churches. Therefore I [know] that HE is sufficient for me apart from your bold declarations. By the way, I know neither christadelphians, JW's, nor this emphatic diaglott you are speaking of. Sounds like more theo-babble to me - I call it all 'bos-bovis excrementum'. He who began a good work in me....the same will bring it to completion in His day!

Peace

[Krusader]

Sir,

Not lack of discernment - quite the contrary. It is lack of discernment to deduce from the scriptures things that are not expressly written and then to call the human deduction DOCTRINE! Scripture itself is the doctrine of God -'...all [Scripture] is God breathed and is profitable for [doctrine]...'. In other words, what is not scripture is not doctrine. You tell me where it is written that God is '...three distinct persons existing in eternity past.' Also, point me to a command of God that says '...give Me a name (Trinity), and brand as heretics those who will not receive it.' The Apostles of our Lord never taught such things nor did they demand adherence to such things. Paul said, shortly before his death, '...I have not failed to make known to you the whole council of God.' - and didn't in any way teach such a thing as you teach.

To deny the doctrine of the Trinity is not to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ! His divinity being, '...[the Word made flesh], born of a virgin in the fullness of time; in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily. And of this Word John writes: ...in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' So where is this Word in the beginning? Let's see..... And God said, "Let [us] make man in our image and in our likeness" - there [the Word] is....right there! Now do you suppose God was speaking 'the Word' to [the Word]; or would He be speaking [the Word] to another? Do you speak your words to your words? But you would have God doing a thing that is unnecessary. That is, speaking to Himself. But He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent which means God does not need to speak anything to Himself.

Further, in the beginning God created 'the heavens' and 'the earth' - two places. Now there is room for another that is 'distinct'. Prior to creation 'God is' and cannot be displaced in triplicate - ALL is GOD! Here is the progressive order of things whereby the Word remains God: Light is eternal, but has not for eternity shone in the darkness. Life that proceeds from this Light is eternal, but has not for eternity animated flesh. See? Jesus IS the Christ of God; the Word made flesh who dwelt among men.

But to whom was God speaking then? - well, there was only one other in the beginning...prior to flesh I mean! You know, the one in whom the Light of God shone. The one who did not comprehend it. God spoke [the Word] to him so that just as he (darkness) was upheld by the Light, so too dust would be upheld by God's breath. And when darkness rejected the Light and was naked, he deceived man and man was found naked as well. - hence, God said '....the man has become as [one] of [us] - as opposed to [both] of [us]. Satan fell and man died - but God and His Word remained.

Finally, I noticed you completely ignored my testimony. If you had considered it you would have noticed that my God and my Saviour received me to Himself BEFORE I knew a single DOCTRINE of your churches. Therefore I [know] that HE is sufficient for me apart from your bold declarations. By the way, I know neither christadelphians, JW's, nor this emphatic diaglott you are speaking of. Sounds like more theo-babble to me - I call it all 'bos-bovis excrementum'. He who began a good work in me....the same will bring it to completion in His day!

Peace

Many people have "testimonies." You should hear the Moonies! The Krishnas! You know, the Bible says to judge doctrine not testimonies. The Emphatic Diaglott was a "translation" by a non-Trinitarian heretic. By the way, I do not brand as "heretics" those who deny the "word" Trinity, but those who deny that God is a tri-personal Being. By their denial, they deny the Living God. For more on Wilson and his Diaglott:



Benjamin Wilson1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. - SYBT (http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Should You Believe), p. 27.

We may first note that Mr. Wilson was not formally trained in Greek. He appears to have been a follower of John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian movement.

The views of a 19th Century Unitarian are interesting from an historical perspective, but not convincing in demonstrating the proper translation of John 1:1c. Wilson did not have the benefit of the advances in the understanding of Koine Greek that emerged over the past 100 years; he did not have Colwell or Harner's studies available to him, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the subject.

Wilson is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars. Interestingly, the actual text of the Diaglott reads:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" This obviously supports the traditional rendering. However,as the Watchtower notes, in the interlinear we find:

"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Now by using the Diaglott as a support for 'a god,' Witnesses argue that the interlinear translation is to be preferred over the text.

However, Witnesses do not follow this same approach with the KIT.

The interlinear translation in the KIT reads:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." (The use of the small "g" is, of course, not based on the Greek, as the older manuscripts did not distinguish between capital and lower case letters).

Witnesses may choose to resolve this apparent inconsistency by arguing that the translation principles practiced by Wilson and the NWTTC are not the same; however, this claim would need to be substantiated - on the surface, it would appear that in general terms, both texts seek to provide a 'literal' translation in the interlinear and a clear, idiomatic translation in the text.

When one considers that Wilson denied that the Word was the pre-existent Son of God, it becomes clear how he could view the "literal" Greek as being "a god," (indicative of the noun being anarthrous (http://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm#Anarthrous)), and "God" being the proper translation - for if the Word is the Foreknowledge, Wisdom, and Power of God (as opposed to the Person of the Son), Wilson - like other Unitarians (such as Andrews Norton (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Norton)) - could view these attributes as pertaining to the Supreme Being Himself.

In any event, using Wilson to support the NWT is problematic in the extreme, given that Wilson translated John 1:1c as "The Logos was God."

[spitndirt]

Many people have "testimonies." You should hear the Moonies! The Krishnas! You know, the Bible says to judge doctrine not testimonies. The Emphatic Diaglott was a "translation" by a non-Trinitarian heretic. By the way, I do not brand as "heretics" those who deny the "word" Trinity, but those who deny that God is a tri-personal Being. By their denial, they deny the Living God. For more on Wilson and his Diaglott:



Benjamin Wilson1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. - SYBT (http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Should You Believe), p. 27.

We may first note that Mr. Wilson was not formally trained in Greek. He appears to have been a follower of John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian movement.

The views of a 19th Century Unitarian are interesting from an historical perspective, but not convincing in demonstrating the proper translation of John 1:1c. Wilson did not have the benefit of the advances in the understanding of Koine Greek that emerged over the past 100 years; he did not have Colwell or Harner's studies available to him, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the subject.

Wilson is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars. Interestingly, the actual text of the Diaglott reads:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" This obviously supports the traditional rendering. However,as the Watchtower notes, in the interlinear we find:

"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Now by using the Diaglott as a support for 'a god,' Witnesses argue that the interlinear translation is to be preferred over the text.

However, Witnesses do not follow this same approach with the KIT.

The interlinear translation in the KIT reads:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." (The use of the small "g" is, of course, not based on the Greek, as the older manuscripts did not distinguish between capital and lower case letters).

Witnesses may choose to resolve this apparent inconsistency by arguing that the translation principles practiced by Wilson and the NWTTC are not the same; however, this claim would need to be substantiated - on the surface, it would appear that in general terms, both texts seek to provide a 'literal' translation in the interlinear and a clear, idiomatic translation in the text.

When one considers that Wilson denied that the Word was the pre-existent Son of God, it becomes clear how he could view the "literal" Greek as being "a god," (indicative of the noun being anarthrous (http://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm#Anarthrous)), and "God" being the proper translation - for if the Word is the Foreknowledge, Wisdom, and Power of God (as opposed to the Person of the Son), Wilson - like other Unitarians (such as Andrews Norton (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Norton)) - could view these attributes as pertaining to the Supreme Being Himself.

In any event, using Wilson to support the NWT is problematic in the extreme, given that Wilson translated John 1:1c as "The Logos was God."


Hi Crusader,

That's all very interesting and is good to know if I am speaking with a JW. However, unlike those who believe as they do, I do believe [the Word] is with God and [is] God before the foundations of the world. And I believe [the Son] pre-existed the literal creation - but did NOT pre-existed the point of [the beginning]. That is, that which is called [the Son] was before all things, but was NOT before the point of the beginning. Let me explain:

Isaiah writes: How thou hast fallen from heaved O Day Star, [Son] of Dawn. Here is [the Son] you are discounting. In this depiction is comprehended two things: 1) the pride of him who was NOT in and of himself [the Son], and 2) the [Lamb] slain from before the foundations of the world. Now, some have added the Latin [Lucifer] to this passage. That is OK with me since this name does accurately describe what this [Son] consisted of. Lucifer is literally translated [the Light bearer]. That is, he who [bore the Light of God] - the Light of the world.

So when did this [Son] come into being? When God spoke [the Word], '...Let [there] be Light.' Well, '...Let [where] be Light? There...in the darkness! So where was this darkness? It was there, in the earth - as it is written: ...and the earth was void and empty, and [darkness] covered the surface of the deep. You see, it was darkness that appeared as created - not Light. God brought the darkness into being and then by His Word (that was with Him, and was Him) sent forth Light into it. Here is [Lucifer], for darkness then became [the Light bearer].

The [Lamb] slain from before the creation of the world: 'The Light shown in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.' Darkness said, '...[I Am], but he was not. God (Word, Light) [is], and calls those things that are not as though they were. Darkness rejected the Light thinking he was HE, but he was [not]. Satan said.'....has God really said that you shall not eat of all the trees in the garden?' - and the [Lamb] was slain, for the Word of God was siezed and perverted. Yet God would not allow His Word to see corruption, and thus remaines for [us] to this day. And this Word (God, Light, from which also Life proceeds) became flesh - born of a virgin in the fullness of time; called Jesus, the Christ in whom the fullness of God (Word, Light, Life) dwelt bodily. In [the man] Jesus Christ dwelt the fullness of God.

Now, follow God backwards through all of this. Immortal God was before [flesh], and also before [darkness]. Further, He was before [the Heavens and the earth]. But notice: Heavens and earth were made BEFORE God spoke [His Word] - '...Let there be Light.' Consisder now proverbs ch. 8. First God gathers His wisdom with which He will create. By His wisdom He made the heavens and the earth. He then translated His wisdom into [Word] and through and by His Word He made all things. All this is done by [the Power of God]. And what Name is given to all these things of God? Jesus, the Christ of God - the Power, the Wisdom, and the Word of God. All these are [with] God] and [are] very God. See? - 'the Lord our God is ONE Lord'. Though I still see 'as through a glass darkly', I think that God translated Himself into the essence of 'a person' prior to all things. This would make sense out of the Words, '...was with God and was God'.

The sum of all this is: God translated Himself into a 'revelatory' state in the beginning so that he might be known by those 'things that were not'. It is for our sakes that he has done this. God [is] prior to creation and need not a revelation of Himself for His own sake. Only in relation to His creation does He become all these things. WE need this, not Him. Do you understand this?

Conclusion: I don't see 'three distincts' here....do you? Therefore, I do not condemn myself for not accepting the Doctrine of the Trinity - three distinct persons existing in eternity past. Neither do I accept the judgment of those who require such a belief. And neither do I judge those who require such things. God is judge of all and He judges rightly. I will trust Him.

I guess as a follower of Christ I would know my brothers by their answer to this one question: 'Do you love me?' - as I love you; as Christ has loved [us]. There would be my litmus test - not an assent to a library full of theological declarations. It is written: '...all that [avails] is faith expressing itself in love.' Faith and love are also [one].

Well, gotta go....Peace in the Lord, Crusader

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader,

That's all very interesting and is good to know if I am speaking with a JW. However, unlike those who believe as they do, I do believe [the Word] is with God and [is] God before the foundations of the world. And I believe [the Son] pre-existed the literal creation - but did NOT pre-existed the point of [the beginning]. That is, that which is called [the Son] was before all things, but was NOT before the point of the beginning. Let me explain:

Isaiah writes: How thou hast fallen from heaved O Day Star, [Son] of Dawn. Here is [the Son] you are discounting. In this depiction is comprehended two things: 1) the pride of him who was NOT in and of himself [the Son], and 2) the [Lamb] slain from before the foundations of the world. Now, some have added the Latin [Lucifer] to this passage. That is OK with me since this name does accurately describe what this [Son] consisted of. Lucifer is literally translated [the Light bearer]. That is, he who [bore the Light of God] - the Light of the world.

So when did this [Son] come into being? When God spoke [the Word], '...Let [there] be Light.' Well, '...Let [where] be Light? There...in the darkness! So where was this darkness? It was there, in the earth - as it is written: ...and the earth was void and empty, and [darkness] covered the surface of the deep. You see, it was darkness that appeared as created - not Light. God brought the darkness into being and then by His Word (that was with Him, and was Him) sent forth Light into it. Here is [Lucifer], for darkness then became [the Light bearer].

The [Lamb] slain from before the creation of the world: 'The Light shown in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.' Darkness said, '...[I Am], but he was not. God (Word, Light) [is], and calls those things that are not as though they were. Darkness rejected the Light thinking he was HE, but he was [not]. Satan said.'....has God really said that you shall not eat of all the trees in the garden?' - and the [Lamb] was slain, for the Word of God was siezed and perverted. Yet God would not allow His Word to see corruption, and thus remaines for [us] to this day. And this Word (God, Light, from which also Life proceeds) became flesh - born of a virgin in the fullness of time; called Jesus, the Christ in whom the fullness of God (Word, Light, Life) dwelt bodily. In [the man] Jesus Christ dwelt the fullness of God.

Now, follow God backwards through all of this. Immortal God was before [flesh], and also before [darkness]. Further, He was before [the Heavens and the earth]. But notice: Heavens and earth were made BEFORE God spoke [His Word] - '...Let there be Light.' Consisder now proverbs ch. 8. First God gathers His wisdom with which He will create. By His wisdom He made the heavens and the earth. He then translated His wisdom into [Word] and through and by His Word He made all things. All this is done by [the Power of God]. And what Name is given to all these things of God? Jesus, the Christ of God - the Power, the Wisdom, and the Word of God. All these are [with] God] and [are] very God. See? - 'the Lord our God is ONE Lord'. Though I still see 'as through a glass darkly', I think that God translated Himself into the essence of 'a person' prior to all things. This would make sense out of the Words, '...was with God and was God'.

The sum of all this is: God translated Himself into a 'revelatory' state in the beginning so that he might be known by those 'things that were not'. It is for our sakes that he has done this. God [is] prior to creation and need not a revelation of Himself for His own sake. Only in relation to His creation does He become all these things. WE need this, not Him. Do you understand this?

Conclusion: I don't see 'three distincts' here....do you? Therefore, I do not condemn myself for not accepting the Doctrine of the Trinity - three distinct persons existing in eternity past. Neither do I accept the judgment of those who require such a belief. And neither do I judge those who require such things. God is judge of all and He judges rightly. I will trust Him.

I guess as a follower of Christ I would know my brothers by their answer to this one question: 'Do you love me?' - as I love you; as Christ has loved [us]. There would be my litmus test - not an assent to a library full of theological declarations. It is written: '...all that [avails] is faith expressing itself in love.' Faith and love are also [one].

Well, gotta go....Peace in the Lord, Crusader

I could only give this a cursory once over, but it appears on the face of it that you are Sabellian......otherwise known as the Oneness heresy.

[spitndirt]

I could only give this a cursory once over, but it appears on the face of it that you are Sabellian......otherwise known as the Oneness heresy.
Crusader,

Sabellian....oneness? Hmmm....never heard of them. I should check them out though - to see if I actually have a place in this world. It's funny though.....Scripture speaks only of oneness - never of threeness. Have you ever considered that men are divided and that these men are imagining God to be as they are - divided? In fact the whole of Christendom - who are trinitarian - are divided also. Perhaps in dividing God, God has divided you....?

Peace in the Lord

[Sparko]

Crusader,

Sabellian....oneness? Hmmm....never heard of them. I should check them out though - to see if I actually have a place in this world. It's funny though.....Scripture speaks only of oneness - never of threeness. Have you ever considered that men are divided and that these men are imagining God to be as they are - divided? In fact the whole of Christendom - who are trinitarian - are divided also. Perhaps in dividing God, God has divided you....?

Peace in the Lord

Spitndirt,

you mention that you believe that the Word (Jesus) is God, right?

Is Jesus the Father?

When Jesus was on earth, where was the Father?

Is the Holy Spirit God and a Person (not just an impersonal "force")?

Where was the Holy Spirit when Jesus was on earth?

How you answer these will show if you are sabellianist/modalist or not.

[spitndirt]

Spitndirt,

you mention that you believe that the Word (Jesus) is God, right?

Is Jesus the Father?

When Jesus was on earth, where was the Father?

Is the Holy Spirit God and a Person (not just an impersonal "force")?

Where was the Holy Spirit when Jesus was on earth?

How you answer these will show if you are sabellianist/modalist or not.
Hey Sparko, - Merry [Christ]mas to you

I believe what the scriptures say - that the Word was with God and was God, in the beginning. And that this Word became flesh, born of a virgin in the fullness of time. This is the man Jesus, in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily - the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The man Jesus Christ is not the Father - but the Father is that fullness of God who dwelt in Him bodily. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [is] Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is, in my estimation 'seeing as through a glass darkly', the Spirit of God. Jesus said, '...I am in my Father and My Father is in Me; I and the father are one.'....and '....that they may be one even as we are one: I in them and thou in Me, that they may be perfect in one....'. - I see nothing but oneness here. God the Father (who is Spirit) in the man Jesus Christ, and in [us] men who believe in Him.

It is also written: '....baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' In the book of Acts men were being Baptized in the name of Jesus. So, Jesus can be called the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As also Isaiah prophesied saying, '....and He shall be called wonderful, counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father...'

Now, I do not necessarily disagree entirely with a sort of trinitarian concept here, within creation. That is, these three - a revelation of the [one] God (as if Light were passing through a prism). I just do not see written anywhere that these are [three 'distinct' persons, existing in eternity past]. These concepts are never even implied. Neither is there any command to us to 'deduce' from scripture and call these deductions [doctrine] - and further, to require assent to these deduced doctrines under threat of condemnation. '...All [scripture] is God breathed and is profitable for [doctrine]....!' - or, what is not scripture, is not doctrine.

As I stated in an earlier post: I would know my brothers by their answer to this one question - " Do you love me?" ....as I love you; as Christ loved [us]. Here would be my litmus test, as opposed to assenting to a library full of theological declarations (never commanded). Of course their actions would have to match their answer to this question.

So, am I what Crusader says? - a oneness heretic?

Peace in the Lord Sparko

[heaven]

Jesus was begotten of the Father before creation

[Sparko]

Hey Sparko, - Merry [Christ]mas to you

I believe what the scriptures say - that the Word was with God and was God, in the beginning. And that this Word became flesh, born of a virgin in the fullness of time. This is the man Jesus, in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily - the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The man Jesus Christ is not the Father - but the Father is that fullness of God who dwelt in Him bodily. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [is] Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is, in my estimation 'seeing as through a glass darkly', the Spirit of God. Jesus said, '...I am in my Father and My Father is in Me; I and the father are one.'....and '....that they may be one even as we are one: I in them and thou in Me, that they may be perfect in one....'. - I see nothing but oneness here. God the Father (who is Spirit) in the man Jesus Christ, and in [us] men who believe in Him.

It is also written: '....baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' In the book of Acts men were being Baptized in the name of Jesus. So, Jesus can be called the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As also Isaiah prophesied saying, '....and He shall be called wonderful, counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father...'

Now, I do not necessarily disagree entirely with a sort of trinitarian concept here, within creation. That is, these three - a revelation of the [one] God (as if Light were passing through a prism). I just do not see written anywhere that these are [three 'distinct' persons, existing in eternity past]. These concepts are never even implied. Neither is there any command to us to 'deduce' from scripture and call these deductions [doctrine] - and further, to require assent to these deduced doctrines under threat of condemnation. '...All [scripture] is God breathed and is profitable for [doctrine]....!' - or, what is not scripture, is not doctrine.

As I stated in an earlier post: I would know my brothers by their answer to this one question - " Do you love me?" ....as I love you; as Christ loved [us]. Here would be my litmus test, as opposed to assenting to a library full of theological declarations (never commanded). Of course their actions would have to match their answer to this question.

So, am I what Crusader says? - a oneness heretic?

Peace in the Lord Sparko

Not sure if you are a 'heretic' or not :teeth:, you seemed to skirt the answers by quoting various things instead of just coming right out and stating what you believe.

Let's try again:

Is Jesus God? yes or no? you seem to say yes but I am not sure with all the fluff around your answer.

Is Jesus the Father? You said no, but then again, you start quoting things like baptising in the name of Jesus is equivalent to the baptising in the name of the Father, etc. So a clearer answer is needed.

Where was the Father when Jesus was on earth? Was the Father in heaven while Jesus was on earth? Or did the Father 'become' Jesus (that would be modalism - God changed 'roles' or 'modes')

If you are saying that Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and they are NOT the same person (Jesus was on Earth and the Father was in Heaven at the same time) then you are either..

1. Polytheistic - You have two Gods at least who are separate from each other but each is divine.

or

2. Trinitarian - Three Persons who are ONE God. Or at least Binitarian if you don't accept the Holy Spirit as a personality of his own.

Oneness would say that the Father became the Son (changed Roles) and then when he went back to heaven he is now the Holy Spirit or something similar.

[Krusader]

Hey Sparko, - Merry [Christ]mas to you

I believe what the scriptures say - that the Word was with God and was God, in the beginning. And that this Word became flesh, born of a virgin in the fullness of time. This is the man Jesus, in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily - the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The man Jesus Christ is not the Father - but the Father is that fullness of God who dwelt in Him bodily. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [is] Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is, in my estimation 'seeing as through a glass darkly', the Spirit of God. Jesus said, '...I am in my Father and My Father is in Me; I and the father are one.'....and '....that they may be one even as we are one: I in them and thou in Me, that they may be perfect in one....'. - I see nothing but oneness here. God the Father (who is Spirit) in the man Jesus Christ, and in [us] men who believe in Him.

It is also written: '....baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' In the book of Acts men were being Baptized in the name of Jesus. So, Jesus can be called the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As also Isaiah prophesied saying, '....and He shall be called wonderful, counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father...'

Now, I do not necessarily disagree entirely with a sort of trinitarian concept here, within creation. That is, these three - a revelation of the [one] God (as if Light were passing through a prism). I just do not see written anywhere that these are [three 'distinct' persons, existing in eternity past]. These concepts are never even implied. Neither is there any command to us to 'deduce' from scripture and call these deductions [doctrine] - and further, to require assent to these deduced doctrines under threat of condemnation. '...All [scripture] is God breathed and is profitable for [doctrine]....!' - or, what is not scripture, is not doctrine.

As I stated in an earlier post: I would know my brothers by their answer to this one question - " Do you love me?" ....as I love you; as Christ loved [us]. Here would be my litmus test, as opposed to assenting to a library full of theological declarations (never commanded). Of course their actions would have to match their answer to this question.

So, am I what Crusader says? - a oneness heretic?

Peace in the Lord Sparko

Your belief system sounds Swedenborgian or similar to that of Noetus. In any case, both are heretical.

[spitndirt]

Jesus was begotten of the Father before creation
Heaven - Hi....Merry [Christmas]...

Yes! I agree. But this beggotten Son [became] 'Jesus' at His physical birth. Jesus is the Word made flesh. This 'Word' was with God and was God in the beginning. Now, think about what is being said here - was with God - and was God - in the beginning. Let's define a crucial term - 'was'. What would you say this term is expressing? We define this as simply something that was so 'in the past'. But this is NOT the primary, or full meaning. It means [became] in it's full sense. This is why it can be said, '....the Word [became] flesh....and so we now say Jesus 'was' the Word made flesh, but the Word was NOT always that. This explains the progression of Light - and God is Light - from OUT of the beginning to IN the beginning. Light [is], but has not always shone in [darkness]. Light [is] shining in the darkness, but has not always animated [flesh]. See, Light is the eternal and immortal constant throughout this progression. [Darkness] was (became) a new thing, then [flesh]. But these new things were [not] on their own, but in union with Light eternal they [became] something new - that was (became) [not] before the beginning. In other words, whatsoever has to do with [creation] is something that [became] - save God.

God apart from the beginning and apart from creation:

Ask yourself what God [needs to be] in eternity past. Nothing but God is the only [possible] answer. God need not be [a person] and cannot even be contained within person-hood. But this is what God would have to [become] if He is to make persons and is to make Himself known to the same. So it is [the person of God] that was(became) present IN the beginning, but not OUT OF the beginning - where God need not be anything but God. See, it is [the person of God] that is being spoken of in Proverbs ch. 8 - very God of very God. Notice that this was a state [set up] by God (Prov 8:23). Now it becomes obvious that God was a person, but not so obvious that this person was with God. How can God be with Himself without purpose? - a concept that trinitarians are stuck with when they extend this back into the [God is] realm (eternity past).

With God:

Here is a scripturally stated fact about God: God cannot be contained....hence, '...if I am here You are here; if I go there, there You are; where ever I find myself, there is God (paraphrasing).' So God is omnipresent. A [person], however, is a finite being. Finite in essence I mean, not necessarily finite in Spirt - and God is Spirit. Persons have form and this form has a border, else it cannot have form and cannot claim person-hood. So this is the begotten One - God personified....[with] God and very God. God is able to personify Himself and to create persons in His [personified] image - but these created persons cannot deify themselves - but God is able to deify them.

Let's see what we have to this point. For clarity let's work in a two dimensional format. Picture a blank piece of typing paper. Now extend the edges eternally in all directions. This represents God before the beginning. Now the beginning - draw a circle on this paper without borders. There...now we have a border. Everything outside the circle is God. Everything within the circle is also God. Now picture God gathering all His attributes and placing them within the circle so that all that He is is now contained. The circle then becomes God personified. Outside the circle [God is], inside the circle is [who God is]. Now God has taken a form that those He will make in His image can [come to know]. - but God has not yet spoken since there is not [another that is not God] to speak to.

Heavens and earth:

Now, within the circle which is God personified draw another circle and color it black. This black circle will represent what is called the earth. Everything outside this earth circle then becomes the heavens. There now is the heavens and the earth. Notice that the heavens are not described in Genisis 1, but only the earth. That is because God personified is there and beyond that [God is]. God and the container of God (with God and very God) is whole to begin with and need not to be made. But the earth was without form, viod, where [darkness] covered the suface of the deep - which is why we colored the 'earth circle' black. But notice, God has not spoken yet. But now He can since He has somwhere to direct His voice - something that is [not God]. This is the earth. You see, God need not speak to Himself.

God speaks:

Now the word was with God - and was God - and now it will be sent forth. And God said, 'Let [there] - in the darkness of the earth - be Light.' Now, God is Light - so God said, '...I'm goin in...'! And God separated the Light (Day) and the darkness (night). Whic means we will have to add to our drawing. Draw a line down the middle of the 'earth circle' so that it is divided in half and leave one half black and the other make whit again. The white half represents [the Light of the world] - soon to become the Light of [every man]. - now Heaven and earth are full of His glory

There, the [unseen] backdrop of all creation is established. The rest of the order of creation is of tangible things - save those things that are with God and very God.

And in the fullness of time [the Word] became flesh born of a virgin and was (became) named Jesus, the Christ at the time of His birth. Why? Because darkness rejected the Light and perverted God's word in the earth and corrupted mankind - Jesus is He that appeared to set things right.

Also, when Light entered the earth it 'shone in the darkness' and darkness became (was) the Light bearer. Latin for 'Light bearer' is Lucifer - called by Isaiah 'Day Star; Son of Dawn'. In my opinion thus far Day Star is referring to 'Light shining in darkness' -when the two were in union; or, ONE. When darkness rebelled the union was broked and darkness became dead, death, grave.....since it was upheld by Light. So 'Day Star' would have fallen. And when 'flesh' rebelled against God's command - His Word of Light - man became dead also. It all follows the same pattern.

Sorry so long winded - more for me since I'm all the time trying to clarify this in my own mind so that I can put it all in more precise words. I still see no 'trinity' - not as is defined by the Church anyway.

Peace in the Lord

[spitndirt]

Not sure if you are a 'heretic' or not :teeth:, you seemed to skirt the answers by quoting various things instead of just coming right out and stating what you believe.

Let's try again:

Is Jesus God? yes or no? you seem to say yes but I am not sure with all the fluff around your answer.

Is Jesus the Father? You said no, but then again, you start quoting things like baptising in the name of Jesus is equivalent to the baptising in the name of the Father, etc. So a clearer answer is needed.

Where was the Father when Jesus was on earth? Was the Father in heaven while Jesus was on earth? Or did the Father 'become' Jesus (that would be modalism - God changed 'roles' or 'modes')

If you are saying that Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and they are NOT the same person (Jesus was on Earth and the Father was in Heaven at the same time) then you are either..

1. Polytheistic - You have two Gods at least who are separate from each other but each is divine.

or

2. Trinitarian - Three Persons who are ONE God. Or at least Binitarian if you don't accept the Holy Spirit as a personality of his own.

Oneness would say that the Father became the Son (changed Roles) and then when he went back to heaven he is now the Holy Spirit or something similar.
Hey Sparko,

Not sure yet huh? - that makes two of us, LOL!

Though, if I am heretical here it is just over this one issue. I still don't consider the Trinity as an essential belief since I am not required in scripture to believe in such a thing. We are saved by grace through FAITH (expressing itself in love), as opposed to an assent to a deduced theology. And we ALL '...see as through a glass darkly.' I simply 'am what I am in the Lord' - that's part of my testimony.

Jesus God? - yes
The Father God? - yes
The Spirit God? -yes

Clear enough?

Where I disagree - to this point anyway - is saying that God is 'three [distincts] existing in eternity past' - since 'disticts' imply divisions [not in union], which in every other biblical sense this implies 'death'. Instead I see something like this: The eternal and immortal Spirit (God) becomes 'personified' and then embodies this personification (Father/Son). In other word's, I see a progression of God into 'the beginning' in order to put on an image so that there was an image - a Who - after whom He could make man - get it? I mean, what are [we] now that we are found in Him? His image restored - save the flesh. Do [we], now Sons, not say with the Apostle, '...we live, yet not we, but Christ lives in [us]. Not even we are 'distinct' in the sense trinitarians make God out to be.

I don't know if there is a right 'label' Crusader can put on me for this but bless his efforts for trying I guess, LOL. - I'm curious to see what he thinks I am next. - just wrap me up in theology paper, secure it with a bow, stick a lable on me and ship me off to outer darkness.....it is Christmas afterall!

Peace in the Lord

[Sparko]

Hey Sparko,

Not sure yet huh? - that makes two of us, LOL!

Though, if I am heretical here it is just over this one issue. I still don't consider the Trinity as an essential belief since I am not required in scripture to believe in such a thing. We are saved by grace through FAITH (expressing itself in love), as opposed to an assent to a deduced theology. And we ALL '...see as through a glass darkly.' I simply 'am what I am in the Lord' - that's part of my testimony.

Jesus God? - yes
The Father God? - yes
The Spirit God? -yes

Clear enough?

Where I disagree - to this point anyway - is saying that God is 'three [distincts] existing in eternity past' - since 'disticts' imply divisions [not in union], which in every other biblical sense this implies 'death'. Instead I see something like this: The eternal and immortal Spirit (God) becomes 'personified' and then embodies this personification (Father/Son). In other word's, I see a progression of God into 'the beginning' in order to put on an image so that there was an image - a Who - after whom He could make man - get it? I mean, what are [we] now that we are found in Him? His image restored - save the flesh. Do [we], now Sons, not say with the Apostle, '...we live, yet not we, but Christ lives in [us]. Not even we are 'distinct' in the sense trinitarians make God out to be.

I don't know if there is a right 'label' Crusader can put on me for this but bless his efforts for trying I guess, LOL. - I'm curious to see what he thinks I am next. - just wrap me up in theology paper, secure it with a bow, stick a lable on me and ship me off to outer darkness.....it is Christmas afterall!

Peace in the Lord

It sound like you think they are 'distinct' persons now but all still God, but not in the past. Do you think God was one unit in the past and then somehow split into two or more and the Word was created? Thats what it seems you are saying.

I don't know if a fully defined doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for salvation or not, but I do believe that you must believe that Jesus is truly God and divine in order to be saved because only God could do what Jesus did to forgive us of our sins and take our punishment. And you need to understand that there is only ONE God, not two or three. Many people who try to deny the trinity always forget that part. They try to say trinitarians believe in three gods when we definitely DO NOT. We believe there is only ONE God revealed in three persons.

On the other hand it is usually the nontrinitarians that actually fall into polytheism. They will say that Jesus was "a" God (the word was "a" god) and the fact that if the Father is God and Jesus is "a" God then that makes TWO Gods.



Merry Christmas!

[Krusader]

Hey Sparko,

Not sure yet huh? - that makes two of us, LOL!

Though, if I am heretical here it is just over this one issue. I still don't consider the Trinity as an essential belief since I am not required in scripture to believe in such a thing. We are saved by grace through FAITH (expressing itself in love), as opposed to an assent to a deduced theology. And we ALL '...see as through a glass darkly.' I simply 'am what I am in the Lord' - that's part of my testimony.

Jesus God? - yes
The Father God? - yes
The Spirit God? -yes

Clear enough?

Where I disagree - to this point anyway - is saying that God is 'three [distincts] existing in eternity past' - since 'disticts' imply divisions [not in union], which in every other biblical sense this implies 'death'. Instead I see something like this: The eternal and immortal Spirit (God) becomes 'personified' and then embodies this personification (Father/Son). In other word's, I see a progression of God into 'the beginning' in order to put on an image so that there was an image - a Who - after whom He could make man - get it? I mean, what are [we] now that we are found in Him? His image restored - save the flesh. Do [we], now Sons, not say with the Apostle, '...we live, yet not we, but Christ lives in [us]. Not even we are 'distinct' in the sense trinitarians make God out to be.

I don't know if there is a right 'label' Crusader can put on me for this but bless his efforts for trying I guess, LOL. - I'm curious to see what he thinks I am next. - just wrap me up in theology paper, secure it with a bow, stick a lable on me and ship me off to outer darkness.....it is Christmas afterall!

Peace in the Lord

Your belief seems quite like Swedenborg's theory of the Divine Man. Have you read his books or been involved with similar occult systems?

[spitndirt]

Your belief seems quite like Swedenborg's theory of the Divine Man. Have you read his books or been involved with similar occult systems?
Hey crusader,

No I havn't. In fact, I quit 'religion' altogether. The Church(es) - and cults - have become far too Holy for me. I simply seek God for understanding and wait for Him to form in me 'the Truth'. I don't hold the trinity doctrine to be 'essential' for saving faith - and am condemned by those who do. Why would I hang around at a church with so many 'Holy Ones' that can't help judging the world by their Holiness?

Having said that, neither would I make a doctrine out of my veiw on 'what God consists of'. All that I am writing on this subject I am writing as it's being formed in me. I don't see it all yet but will continue to strive to see it nonetheless - and to put it into words. I also leave room for the possibility that my view is not quite correct. But I will recognize this by the 'leading of the Spirit combined with scriptural proof - as opposed to scriptural deduction. As it is now, I see only that the scriptures declare the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to be ONE. Never 'three', and never three in one, and certainly never three 'distinct' in one. ONE is all that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN - never the rest. Far be it from me to claim that I can see better than the text itself. Nor do I think it wise to claim you can see better than the text iself. This is why I believe that the doctrine of the trinity cannot be truly 'essential' because it is not actually written. Now, these deep things are great to try and grasp and even to discuss honestly - but to declare the undeclarable and judge the world accordingly goes way beyond what is allowable.

The one who assents to a trinity is not the one who knows God; but the one who loves his brothers - he is the one who knows God, and has both the Father and the Son (1,2,and 3John). The way I see it....

Peace in the Lord

[spitndirt]

It sound like you think they are 'distinct' persons now but all still God, but not in the past. Do you think God was one unit in the past and then somehow split into two or more and the Word was created? Thats what it seems you are saying.

I don't know if a fully defined doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for salvation or not, but I do believe that you must believe that Jesus is truly God and divine in order to be saved because only God could do what Jesus did to forgive us of our sins and take our punishment. And you need to understand that there is only ONE God, not two or three. Many people who try to deny the trinity always forget that part. They try to say trinitarians believe in three gods when we definitely DO NOT. We believe there is only ONE God revealed in three persons.

On the other hand it is usually the nontrinitarians that actually fall into polytheism. They will say that Jesus was "a" God (the word was "a" god) and the fact that if the Father is God and Jesus is "a" God then that makes TWO Gods.



Merry Christmas!
Hi Sparko,

Yes, I am saying something to that effect - just haven't found the right words to accurately describe my impression. I still hesitate from using the word 'distinct' even now. Actually this all started with a sort of 'vision' - for lack af a better term. I was awake and meditading on God's word after I had been praying and fasting over another issue that I was inquiring of God about. The room I was in sort of faded into the background and in my minds eye I was immersed in 'borderless' light. Then I saw a black dot that expanded outwards to the edge of...well, me. Then as the words, '...let there be light...' came to my mind the black sphere was filled with light from the light I saw found myself immersed in. And that was the jist of it. It was a strange happening and I ve been trying to connect the scriptural dots ever since. But since the light was 'one' in my vision(?) and this same light entered into the dark sphere, I have the impression that the light within the spere is 'one' with the first light. To me this is a picture of 'with God, and was God'. I don't know how else it can be interpreted. I can't say for sure that 'the Light' was splitting into two - it seems more like the dark sphere was being clothed with the 'one' light.

You say, '...I don't [know] if a fully defined doctrine of the trinity is necessary or not...' Well, God bless you for that - you leave room for me to be a 'believer', and I am. I also would never 'mandate' that my brothers hold to my belief on this subject. The fact is, '...now we know in part; but then we shall fully know, even as we are fully known.' How could I judge my brothers by what I cannot fully comprehend? I cannot and will not take this liberty that God has not given me.

In final analysis God is 'one' and Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living of God - even the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning and the end.. This I know not through studying theology, but because when I called on the Lord in my day of trouble He delivered me -and this He could not have done if Jesus is not who He said He was. This is how I [know] that God is, and that Jesus is the Christ - things I can only [know] by God's Spirit.

This is also why I don't call Jesus 'a' God - as some do. These see Jesus as the Pharasees did, but disagree with their conclusion. The Pharasees claimed Jesus was NOT a man equal to God, while some these days say that He was a man equal to God. Now, in an earthly sense He was - since He was a man. But unlike even pre-fallen Adam who was a 'living soul', Jesus was a 'life-giving Spirit' - according to the scriptures. So in my opinion those who say that Jesus was 'a God' do not yet see Him as He is - as the Apostles claimed they once saw Him, but see Him no longer in that way. When the Spirit came they understood the true majesty of Jesus.

Well, gotta go....Peace in the Lord Sparko.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,

Yes, I am saying something to that effect - just haven't found the right words to accurately describe my impression. I still hesitate from using the word 'distinct' even now. Actually this all started with a sort of 'vision' - for lack af a better term. I was awake and meditading on God's word after I had been praying and fasting over another issue that I was inquiring of God about. The room I was in sort of faded into the background and in my minds eye I was immersed in 'borderless' light. Then I saw a black dot that expanded outwards to the edge of...well, me. Then as the words, '...let there be light...' came to my mind the black sphere was filled with light from the light I saw found myself immersed in. And that was the jist of it. It was a strange happening and I ve been trying to connect the scriptural dots ever since. But since the light was 'one' in my vision(?) and this same light entered into the dark sphere, I have the impression that the light within the spere is 'one' with the first light. To me this is a picture of 'with God, and was God'. I don't know how else it can be interpreted. I can't say for sure that 'the Light' was splitting into two - it seems more like the dark sphere was being clothed with the 'one' light.

You say, '...I don't [know] if a fully defined doctrine of the trinity is necessary or not...' Well, God bless you for that - you leave room for me to be a 'believer', and I am. I also would never 'mandate' that my brothers hold to my belief on this subject. The fact is, '...now we know in part; but then we shall fully know, even as we are fully known.' How could I judge my brothers by what I cannot fully comprehend? I cannot and will not take this liberty that God has not given me.

In final analysis God is 'one' and Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living of God - even the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning and the end.. This I know not through studying theology, but because when I called on the Lord in my day of trouble He delivered me -and this He could not have done if Jesus is not who He said He was. This is how I [know] that God is, and that Jesus is the Christ - things I can only [know] by God's Spirit.

This is also why I don't call Jesus 'a' God - as some do. These see Jesus as the Pharasees did, but disagree with their conclusion. The Pharasees claimed Jesus was NOT a man equal to God, while some these days say that He was a man equal to God. Now, in an earthly sense He was - since He was a man. But unlike even pre-fallen Adam who was a 'living soul', Jesus was a 'life-giving Spirit' - according to the scriptures. So in my opinion those who say that Jesus was 'a God' do not yet see Him as He is - as the Apostles claimed they once saw Him, but see Him no longer in that way. When the Spirit came they understood the true majesty of Jesus.

Well, gotta go....Peace in the Lord Sparko.


from what you say I think you may actually believe in the trinity in a way but misunderstand the doctrine just enough to think you don't.

We do not believe in three Gods, but in ONE God. We believe the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. but that there is only ONE God. We believe that Jesus existed on earth at the same time the Father was still in heaven and that they could talk to each other. That makes them "distinct" persons. And yet again, there is only ONE God, YHWH. How this can be is beyond the information that we are given in the bible. Yet the bible is clear that Jesus (the Word) is God and is not the Father and there is only one God called YHWH. Everthing else is speculation and man's attempt at explaining the Trinity. But the Trinity is shown in the bible clearly by various verses as mentioned earlier.

You should go to the library and find some good books on the Trinity and study up on it. you may find yourself agreeing more than you think.

Merry Christmas.

[Krusader]

Hey crusader,

No I havn't. In fact, I quit 'religion' altogether. The Church(es) - and cults - have become far too Holy for me. I simply seek God for understanding and wait for Him to form in me 'the Truth'. I don't hold the trinity doctrine to be 'essential' for saving faith - and am condemned by those who do. Why would I hang around at a church with so many 'Holy Ones' that can't help judging the world by their Holiness?

Having said that, neither would I make a doctrine out of my veiw on 'what God consists of'. All that I am writing on this subject I am writing as it's being formed in me. I don't see it all yet but will continue to strive to see it nonetheless - and to put it into words. I also leave room for the possibility that my view is not quite correct. But I will recognize this by the 'leading of the Spirit combined with scriptural proof - as opposed to scriptural deduction. As it is now, I see only that the scriptures declare the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to be ONE. Never 'three', and never three in one, and certainly never three 'distinct' in one. ONE is all that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN - never the rest. Far be it from me to claim that I can see better than the text itself. Nor do I think it wise to claim you can see better than the text iself. This is why I believe that the doctrine of the trinity cannot be truly 'essential' because it is not actually written. Now, these deep things are great to try and grasp and even to discuss honestly - but to declare the undeclarable and judge the world accordingly goes way beyond what is allowable.

The one who assents to a trinity is not the one who knows God; but the one who loves his brothers - he is the one who knows God, and has both the Father and the Son (1,2,and 3John). The way I see it....

Peace in the Lord

I've seen people saved without understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. But, to say it isn't "essential" is confusing. If the Bible proclaims that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, yet that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same Person but separate Persons - then that is something essential to the faith. I agree with Sparko, you need to really apply yourself to the study of this doctrine (seriously), before you go on sites like this and possibly bring confusion to someone's faith. I suggest you read Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands and Verdict," and also get yourself a copy of "Know What You Believe," by Paul Little (available on Amazon), and study this great biblical doctrine.

I don't doubt your salvation, but as you sister in Christ I'm giving you this advice. May the Lord lead you as you grow in Him. Crusader

[twohumble]

I've seen people saved without understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. But, to say it isn't "essential" is confusing. If the Bible proclaims that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, yet that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same Person but separate Persons - then that is something essential to the faith. I agree with Sparko, you need to really apply yourself to the study of this doctrine (seriously), before you go on sites like this and possibly bring confusion to someone's faith. I suggest you read Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands and Verdict," and also get yourself a copy of "Know What You Believe," by Paul Little (available on Amazon), and study this great biblical doctrine.

I don't doubt your salvation, but as you sister in Christ I'm giving you this advice. May the Lord lead you as you grow in Him. Crusader
BB. Warfield gives one of the best and most thoughtful explanations of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. I believe its in a chapter in the book entitled "The Person and Work of Christ"....or something close to that.

[Sparko]

a very good article/sermon on the trinity is also available here at http://home.att.net/~scott.lisa.sutherland/Fingerprints.html

[barnasha]

1) the Qur'an - says: Jesus is the Christ.

When the angels said, 'O Mary, GOD gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;

So the Quran is basically saying, is that Jesus is the Christ and the true way to God.

2) "son of God" means something interesting in its original tongue. The meaning is quite lost since it doesn't translate fully into english. In older times, people were known by who they were the son of. For example, 'son of Adam/Man' (Jesus referred to himself as son of Man, which is in the old jewish scriptures just like 'son of God') means what we now call human being.

Psalm 82 verse 6:
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High (i.e., the LORD / haShem / God Almighty).
(see also John 10:34, where Jesus quotes this verse, which is of old jewish scriptures which were read in his time)

--
we are all the children/creations of God when we are made, because God is our Father - and God Fathers all things. when we start to conceive or rationalize doing 'bad' things (in God's eyes, not peoples') and become mere mere human beings. 'son of Man' actually means, human being. that's actually where my nickname comes from, "bar nasha", means son of man(kind), or human being.

clearly, a father/son relationship can be seen in many ways. it can be spiritual as well as biological. which our Father in heaven, is not biological.. since this father has control over all life (bio-), and is not a living entity. if there is an equal to God within his creation (i.e. within existence somewhere), then those two things cannot be God. logically, God can only be one, and this relationship can be understood with ideas like the trinities (the official trinity belief and the myriad of other older more original versions of the same thing in 'gnostic' scriptures - i have some quotes i can pull out of a book of old texts if you're interested).

and what is this about Jesus, when he had nothing to do with the penning of the canonical scriptures - he couldn't have had much say since they all come fom times decades and centuries after his ministry.

Jesus Christ is the son of God. and we should be trying to 'take up our crosses and follow him' - not in a christian sense or a jewish sense, but in a loving sense, because jesus just taught submission to God (Islam/Christianity/Sin-defeating/peacefulness/love), not religiousness. he had nothing but harsh words for people in high places like religious people who were all about show (i.e. the pharisees of his time)

taking up the cross has a much deeper meaning and everyone should know that Paul was not a simple man speaking random words. we must really understand the level of emotion and spirit in Paul's apocalypse and ministry. His manner of describing the wonderful things about God really leads us to follow in the teaching of Jesus by looking within to find God -- as Paul said, 'newness of spirit' instead of 'oldness of letter'.

I hope that more people take the time to learn the scriptures in depth, because if we blindly follow text, no matter how accurate or loved or authoritative - even if the text was true, we failed to understand the true depth - since we were too busy believing to discover.

[heaven]

Luke 1:26
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David, and the Virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her he said, "Hail, favored one!The Lord is with you". But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found Favor with God. Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of David His father, and He will rule over the House of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God....."
*******************

The birth of Jesus is announced through the angel Gabriel. Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit and not by a man, so that He might be holy and the Son of God. Mary is a virgin. The Holy Spirit is identified here as the Most High God. Hence Jesus is also recognized as the Son of God. According to the angel Gabriel, Mary is chosen to bear Jesus by the Most High God, God the Father. The entire Trinitarian nature of God was involved in the incarnation through the Virgin Mary.
Jesus through the cross and ressurection gives us the power to become the sons of God. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the live, no man comes to the Father, but by me".
The above is quoted Scriptures!

[Snarf]

Luke 1:26
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David, and the Virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her he said, "Hail, favored one!The Lord is with you". But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found Favor with God. Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of David His father, and He will rule over the House of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God....."
*******************

The birth of Jesus is announced through the angel Gabriel. Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit and not by a man, so that He might be holy and the Son of God. Mary is a virgin. The Holy Spirit is identified here as the Most High God. Hence Jesus is also recognized as the Son of God. According to the angel Gabriel, Mary is chosen to bear Jesus by the Most High God, God the Father. The entire Trinitarian nature of God was involved in the incarnation through the Virgin Mary.
Jesus through the cross and ressurection gives us the power to become the sons of God. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the live, no man comes to the Father, but by me".
The above is quoted Scriptures!
So God had sex with Mary?

[Krusader]

So God had sex with Mary?

The Quran also teaches that there was no sexual act involved in the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. And, no. neither Christians or Mulsims believe there was any sexual act involved - why did you even suggest that?

[Snarf]

The Quran also teaches that there was no sexual act involved in the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. And, no. neither Christians or Mulsims believe there was any sexual act involved - why did you even suggest that?

definition
conceive-To become pregnant with (offspring).

well, how does one get pregnant?
If Jesus was fully human, then he had 2 sets of 23 chromosomes. mary contributed 1 set, where did the other come from?

After all, is God capable of anything?

[Snarf]

definition
conceive-To become pregnant with (offspring).

well, how does one get pregnant?
If Jesus was fully human, then he had 2 sets of 23 chromosomes. mary contributed 1 set, where did the other come from?

After all, is God capable of anything?
correction: isn't God capable of anything?

[Krusader]

correction: isn't God capable of anything?

Can God create a rock too large for Him to hold?

God does not violate His word, which prophesied that a virgin would conceive.

[Cynic Sage]

The Quran also teaches that there was no sexual act involved in the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. And, no. neither Christians or Mulsims believe there was any sexual act involved - why did you even suggest that?

Because Snarf is a troll that pins that little gold cross on himself so he can troll not only in "theist-&-athiest" sections of Tweb, but the "theist-only" and "xtian-only" areas as well.





Boy was this thread ever filled with idiots, on our side folks that thought the word Allah refers to a pagan moon god, and on their side a guy who uses Tom Harpur (http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html) as a source of information.:bonk: Oy!

[Sparko]

Well Snarf, if he even is a Christian, is not orthodox/mainstream enough to post in the Christian only forums, but I agree with Johnny, he is just trolling here Crusader.

[Snarf]

Can God create a rock too large for Him to hold?

God does not violate His word, which prophesied that a virgin would conceive.

from http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

"Alma" (the word for virgin) can also mean "young woman," it is not unanimous opinion that it means "virgin."

[Snarf]

Because Snarf is a troll that pins that little gold cross on himself so he can troll not only in "theist-&-athiest" sections of Tweb, but the "theist-only" and "xtian-only" areas as well.
!
Au contraire, I have confessed that Jesus is my Lord many times on TWeb and I follow His commandments-thus I am a Christian. but i do enjoy watching the frustration of those who think that all Christians have to think like them.

[Snarf]

Well Snarf, if he even is a Christian, is not orthodox/mainstream enough to post in the Christian only forums, but I agree with Johnny, he is just trolling here Crusader.

I am orthodox, i just don't have the time. besides, the forums with debate are so much more fun!

Do you still believe that God kills everyone?

[Sparko]

I am orthodox, i just don't have the time. besides, the forums with debate are so much more fun!

Do you still believe that God kills everyone?

lets see... you think that Mary was not a virgin, That the bible is mostly just made up stuff, that God had sex with Mary and you deny the trinity and that Jesus is God..and, I believe, the resurrection too.

Nope, you are not orthodox. nice try though.

[Krusader]

from http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

"Alma" (the word for virgin) can also mean "young woman," it is not unanimous opinion that it means "virgin."

Yes, of course the word means "young woman." But why would the prophet point to an ordinary conception as a sign? The conception had to be extra-ordinary. C

[Snarf]

lets see... you think that Mary was not a virgin, That the bible is mostly just made up stuff, that God had sex with Mary and you deny the trinity and that Jesus is God..and, I believe, the resurrection too.

Nope, you are not orthodox. nice try though.
But I don't deny the Trinity, and it's possible that the word "alma" really means a young woman and not a virgin (please see the website that I linked). Neither do I deny the Resurrection. However, i do believe that there are mistakes and contradictions in the Bible.

[Snarf]

Yes, of course the word means "young woman." But why would the prophet point to an ordinary conception as a sign? The conception had to be extra-ordinary. C

Why I don't know-was Gideon a special person, and what were the signs sent to him? A wet fleece?

What i wonder about is this: why is it so acceptable to believers that God has killed people, or ordered people to kill people like disobedient children, yet the idea of God having sex with someone is abhorrent? Is killing someone a better thing to do than to have sex?

[Krusader]

Why I don't know-was Gideon a special person, and what were the signs sent to him? A wet fleece?

What i wonder about is this: why is it so acceptable to believers that God has killed people, or ordered people to kill people like disobedient children, yet the idea of God having sex with someone is abhorrent? Is killing someone a better thing to do than to have sex?

So, then you are in basic agreement with the Mormon doctrine of the Miraculous Conception (as they call it) = Elohim having sexual relations with Mary?

[Sparko]

But I don't deny the Trinity, and it's possible that the word "alma" really means a young woman and not a virgin (please see the website that I linked). Neither do I deny the Resurrection. However, i do believe that there are mistakes and contradictions in the Bible.


Ok sorry about accusing you of denying the trinity, Snarf. I seemed to recall you questioning it before but I could be confusing you with someone else. But Snarf you like to try to play both sides of the fence but its obvius from your 'questions' that you either are a troll and not a christian at all, or a very ignorant Christian. You never defended Christianity, or any doctrine of Christianity that I have ever seen. If you have, please give me a link. All you ever do is 'question' Christian doctrine and vacilate when anyone turns around and questions what your beliefs on the matter are. That is pure trolling.

like when you question if jesus ever existed: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1285467&postcount=3

Whether their was any evidence for Jesus' resurrection at all: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1334543&postcount=48

You call Jesus Namby-Pamby: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1342258&postcount=38


When you keep playing devil's advocate all the time, there comes a point when people begin to wonder if you are 'playing' at all.


I am thinking of getting this post and the previous post of yours, starting with the virgin statement moved from this thread to the locker room since it really has nothing to do with Islam. Would you like to continue it there?

[djdavo]

well, i have to say i enjoyed the first 3 pages of this thread, anyway.

THANK YOU SAGE and others for showing how very weak the muslim arguments are. i did know some of this (and at least know enough to search for the historical backing for what you were saying),but this actually strengthened my faith seeing the lala land that muslim apologists live in.

i mean, how can you deny all of history and 99.9% of all historians? how can you deny the universal laws of logic?? the absudidy would be funny if it wasn't so serious. a couple of my favorite quotes:
===================
You must have forgotten. It was the Muslims who were the pioneers in the sciences, math, and astronomy. While Christian Europe was in its Dark Age, we had lights in Cordoba.

-really? then what happened??? you sure aren't now! you should still be "the pioneers" if this is your argument for your faith being true.


None of these verses explicitly state the concept of trinity,

-it doesnt EXPLICITLY outlaw pedophilia either.....your point it?


The Qur'an was revealed from Arch Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These were the direct words of God. These words are precisely what make up the Qur'an today.

-i'd love to hear the explaination for OTHER TRANSLATIONS being found of the quran...
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Versions/index.html
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/seven.htm
**this ALONE shoots down the entire faith, as the faith is based on the Quran being the EXACT word for word,letter for letter Word of God, that has not been changed at ALL. there is no room for mistranslation or variation of ANY KIND. yet there is variation in translations....


-also, does this mean if i change a single word and print a new quran that allah will strike me down & burn all the books? how about english translations of the quran? is that allowed by allah?


The Qur'an is the first person Word of God, the Bible is the narration and story-telling of anonymous men, even if they be the disciples themselves.

-so you say. i say the moon is made of green cheese. that doesn't make it so


Even the earliest manuscripts of the NT date back to 2 centuries after Christ... plenty of time for corruption of even the accounts of the true disciples. (Assuming they wrote the Gospels).

-produce a SINGLE manuscript of the REAL writings of jesus. on second thought, produce a bunch of them...


I personally have a number of friends/aquaintances that converted from Christianity to Islam, including an ex-Preacher turned Sheikh. You don't hear about many scholarly Muslims converting to Christianity.

-yeah,because they're all put to death or in hiding....



anyway, thanks again for doing such an adept job, guys!

[heaven]

well, i have to say i enjoyed the first 3 pages of this thread, anyway.

THANK YOU SAGE and others for showing how very weak the muslim arguments are. i did know some of this (and at least know enough to search for the historical backing for what you were saying),but this actually strengthened my faith seeing the lala land that muslim apologists live in.

i mean, how can you deny all of history and 99.9% of all historians? how can you deny the universal laws of logic?? the absudidy would be funny if it wasn't so serious. a couple of my favorite quotes:
===================
You must have forgotten. It was the Muslims who were the pioneers in the sciences, math, and astronomy. While Christian Europe was in its Dark Age, we had lights in Cordoba.

-really? then what happened??? you sure aren't now! you should still be "the pioneers" if this is your argument for your faith being true.


None of these verses explicitly state the concept of trinity,

-it doesnt EXPLICITLY outlaw pedophilia either.....your point it?


The Qur'an was revealed from Arch Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These were the direct words of God. These words are precisely what make up the Qur'an today.

-i'd love to hear the explaination for OTHER TRANSLATIONS being found of the quran...
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Versions/index.html
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/seven.htm
**this ALONE shoots down the entire faith, as the faith is based on the Quran being the EXACT word for word,letter for letter Word of God, that has not been changed at ALL. there is no room for mistranslation or variation of ANY KIND. yet there is variation in translations....


-also, does this mean if i change a single word and print a new quran that allah will strike me down & burn all the books? how about english translations of the quran? is that allowed by allah?


The Qur'an is the first person Word of God, the Bible is the narration and story-telling of anonymous men, even if they be the disciples themselves.

-so you say. i say the moon is made of green cheese. that doesn't make it so


Even the earliest manuscripts of the NT date back to 2 centuries after Christ... plenty of time for corruption of even the accounts of the true disciples. (Assuming they wrote the Gospels).

-produce a SINGLE manuscript of the REAL writings of jesus. on second thought, produce a bunch of them...


I personally have a number of friends/aquaintances that converted from Christianity to Islam, including an ex-Preacher turned Sheikh. You don't hear about many scholarly Muslims converting to Christianity.

-yeah,because they're all put to death or in hiding....



anyway, thanks again for doing such an adept job, guys!


=====================================================

Christianity was and is a sect of Judaism, the original followers of the jewish Messiah were jews. About 100 years later, people began calling the followers of The Way, christians...As christianity pushed into pagan europe, the followers of Jesus became predominantly non jewish. For those jews not following the Messiah, rabbinic judaism unfolded with it's reliance on the Talmud. After 2000 years, rabbinic judaism does not recognize non jewish christianity for what it really is a a non jewish, jewish sect..................Most jews are unaware how jewish Jesus was and is, who lived His life as an observant orthodox jew.......Jesus came to renew judaism and to bring non jews to the saving knowledge of YHVH.
Spiritual matters are unintelligible to the natural man..............Moslems try to understand the Scriptures and some of it's heretical writings and put a spin on it.

[barnasha]

=====================================================

Christianity was and is a sect of Judaism, the original followers of the jewish Messiah were jews. About 100 years later, people began calling the followers of The Way, christians...As christianity pushed into pagan europe, the followers of Jesus became predominantly non jewish. For those jews not following the Messiah, rabbinic judaism unfolded with it's reliance on the Talmud. After 2000 years, rabbinic judaism does not recognize non jewish christianity for what it really is a a non jewish, jewish sect..................Most jews are unaware how jewish Jesus was and is, who lived His life as an observant orthodox jew.......Jesus came to renew judaism and to bring non jews to the saving knowledge of YHVH.
Spiritual matters are unintelligible to the natural man..............Moslems try to understand the Scriptures and some of it's heretical writings and put a spin on it.


you shouldn't paint 1.5 billion people with the same brush. that's like saying 'chinese people talk too loud' or 'christians smell bad' or 'africans are stupid'.
these statements do not make any sense and mostly sound as if the person saying them has severe mental or psychological issues

meaningless generalizations really detract from what you are trying to say.

are you trying to say something about how muslims misinterpret scriptures?