Can you defend the trinity?

[moose7237]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I would like to ask the following to all trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortan(can't die)

Now while Jesus was on earth, from what I know he was fully man and fully God. But this goes beyond all logic if he was fully God because Jesus fails to meet any of the categories I listed above. Let me demonstrate:

God is omniscient correct? Jesus did not know the hour only the father does, thus Jesus is not all knowing.

Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

God is omnipotent correct? Yet Jesus admits that he was GIVEN his power, God is not given his power he is the one who has all the power independently without anyone giving it to him. This verse alone should prove that Jesus' miracles were nothing special, neither is his ability to forgive sins.

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

God is omnipresent correct? I don't have much of a verse for this one, but that would Mean that on earth and in space and in heaven Jesus was there, thus for Judas to go out looking for Jesus in the Garden of Getsamene proves that Jesus is not everywhere and that he is only a man.

God is immortal right?

Jesus did die like every other man correct? His resurrection is nothing special since people before him were resurrected and we on the day of judgement will resurrect. The fact that Jesus didn't have a heartbeat for 3 days proves that he was only a man. Some can argue that his soul was still alive in the heart of the earth, I would say all of our souls would continue to live as well, but his heart rate stopped like any other man's heart rate when they die.

So now the common arguement is that Jesus emptied himself to dwell on earth. I would say okay, on earth he was not God because he failed the 4 basic categories to meet as a requirement for God. So now you're left with Jesus' Godly statements that nobody else but him made such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega" But now one must prove that before Jesus was on earth he did prexist along with the Father and the spirit. But since there is no indication of the son-father-spirit trinity in the OT you really don't have much of a case. The most common verses I have seen to prove the trinity in the OT would be Genesis 1 with the use of the word "elohim" but even that doesn't prove that God is part of a trinity nor does it prove the son-father-spirit trinity. Also in parts of the bible, I have seen God call Angels God, I have seen God say he has made Moses like A god to Pharoah. But for the trinity verses explained please visit:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...rticle&sid=109

I am a Muslim and I would like everybody to deeply think about the trinity. This is what the Quran has to say about the fate of trinitarians:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

[005:073] They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

[005:074] Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[Abelard]

Your knowledge of Christianity is very shallow, Moose. Christians believe in one, indivisible God. He has no partners.

There were Christian sects that believed in more than one God, but they were deemed heretical and excommunicated. Those sects existed in Arabia in the seventh century, and I believe that is the CHristians the Qu'ran speaks of.

The Islam I know worships the same Triune God I do. In hajj and zakat you honor the father through his creation, which is how Christians to what we call Jesus. WHen you hear someone pronounce shahada don't you feel a powerful Godly presence? I don't know what you call that, but we call it the Holy Spirit.

[moose7237]

Your knowledge of Christianity is very shallow, Moose. Christians believe in one, indivisible God. He has no partners.

There were Christian sects that believed in more than one God, but they were deemed heretical and excommunicated. Those sects existed in Arabia in the seventh century, and I believe that is the CHristians the Qu'ran speaks of.

The Islam I know worships the same Triune God I do. In hajj and zakat you honor the father through his creation, which is how Christians to what we call Jesus. WHen you hear someone pronounce shahada don't you feel a powerful Godly presence? I don't know what you call that, but we call it the Holy Spirit.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Well my friend here is where we definitley differ. Islam never claims that Allah is part of a trinity. We in Islam do not know the physical shape of God, so we can't really call him a spirit. The Quran definitley is talking about trinitarians, and in the previous verse it is definitley talking about how Christ is not God. When we recite the Shahada, we all know that God is there, you can't feel his presence, your mind may want to think that it does, but it doesn't. My main concern in this article is to prove that Jesus is not God, and by looking at those 4 basic categories and using bible verses, it seems very true that he was not the divine creator of the world. Well take care friend.

[Bill Hohmann]

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that all you have done is produce an elaborate straw man argument?

You set up the definitions and attributes of God, then insist on applying them to the Son who emptied himself of his divinity, and use this to "disprove" Christianity by knocking down the trinity based upon your own beliefs to begin with.

So let me ask you a question. I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about the Muslim faith, but I have to ask this: What evidence do you have to support your claim that Muhammed is/was God's only or one prophet besides his own claim to that effect? In this, he was his own witness.

And if you claim his followers said he was, this is no more proof than you claiming he was.

Doesn't your religion teach that you need witnesses, and that one who witnesses to himself is being a false witness?

Bill Hohmann

[KarmaGhost]

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that all you have done is produce an elaborate straw man argument?

You set up the definitions and attributes of God, then insist on applying them to the Son who emptied himself of his divinity, and use this to "disprove" Christianity by knocking down the trinity based upon your own beliefs to begin with.

So let me ask you a question. I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about the Muslim faith, but I have to ask this: What evidence do you have to support your claim that Muhammed is/was God's only or one prophet besides his own claim to that effect? In this, he was his own witness.

And if you claim his followers said he was, this is no more proof than you claiming he was.

Doesn't your religion teach that you need witnesses, and that one who witnesses to himself is being a false witness?

Bill Hohmann

According to Islam, Muhammad was not the only prophet. He was the last prophet of Abrahamic succession in the tradition of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and even Jesus.

[Abelard]

The Trinity is One God, Moose. Just like a tricycle is one vehicle. Or a trident is one tool.

[moose7237]

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that all you have done is produce an elaborate straw man argument?

You set up the definitions and attributes of God, then insist on applying them to the Son who emptied himself of his divinity, and use this to "disprove" Christianity by knocking down the trinity based upon your own beliefs to begin with.

So let me ask you a question. I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about the Muslim faith, but I have to ask this: What evidence do you have to support your claim that Muhammed is/was God's only or one prophet besides his own claim to that effect? In this, he was his own witness.

And if you claim his followers said he was, this is no more proof than you claiming he was.

Doesn't your religion teach that you need witnesses, and that one who witnesses to himself is being a false witness?

Bill Hohmann


Hello and Peace be to you Bill,

Bill, let me ask you, when Jesus was with his disciples, what did he do that was so "Godly"? The only thing I can think of is the "I AM" statements, and that is not enough proof that you are God. If you see the 4 basic categories I mentioned you would understand how when Jesus was on earth he was no more than a man. His powers were given to him, he was limited, he wasn't the all knowing, and he wasn't present everywhere all the time, he seems like an ordinary man to me. If he was God and he emptied himself, then when he emptied himself he was no longer God anymore, he was just a man. Also, the whole theology of emptying himself, was made after the time of Jesus, no where in the OT did God mention that he would empty himself, nor did Jesus ever say he emptied himself.

Now on to Islam, Bill, in Islam there are many prophets and not just Muhammad. Jesus is a prophet, so is Moses, David, Solomon, etc. Muhammad was a prophet not by only his claim but by God's claim as well. If you want witnesses testifying to him being the prophet, I suggest you read some Hadiths.

[moose7237]

The Trinity is One God, Moose. Just like a tricycle is one vehicle. Or a trident is one tool.

Hello and Peace be to you Abelard,

In my opinion, the trinity is multiple Gods, but this thread is about how Jesus can be God when he was on earth. Let me explain in my opinion how the trinity is 3 Gods.

Okay, you have 3 persons with God characteristics correct? The Father is God, the Son is God, and the spirit is God. If all 3 have infinite power, since God does, then you have 3 seperate beings with the same power, if you have 3 seperate beings with the same power then you have 3 different Gods. Now lets suppose that the Father does not exist in the trinity, lets just suppose. Now the Son and the Spirit are still God because they are omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. Hence each is still God. Since all are independent of each other, then you have 3 seperate beings each being God. So really you have 3 Gods. I don't think you can use earthly examples such as a tricycle to compare to God because God is the all powerful and is independent of anything. So let me try to analyze your tricycle idea here. You have 3 tires all connected to one base correct? Lets take the base out, so you have 3 seperate tires. Now the tires are useless without the base correct(assuming only those tires are used for that particular tricycle). But you can't use the same analogy for God because he is independent of anything. Clearly the trinity is 3 Gods if you look at it logically.

[Abelard]

Clearly the trinity is 3 Gods if you look at it logically.

There's part of your problem, my friend. In Christianity God created logic, and by demanding a logical resolution you are equating the creator with the created.

It is blasphemous in Islam and Christianity to put limits on God, so why do you insist on doing so? God can certainly do things beyond logic, and beyond inagination as well. Try appreciating and stop trying to analyze.

How can you read Rumi and believe God is limited to human logic? You think you are 'disproving' the divinity of Jesus, but what you are actually doing is making your conception of Allah look limited and feeble.

IF you want me to explain what Jesus means to me , I can do that. But I can't start with your misperception.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you Bill,

Bill, let me ask you, when Jesus was with his disciples, what did he do that was so "Godly"? The only thing I can think of is the "I AM" statements, and that is not enough proof that you are God. If you see the 4 basic categories I mentioned you would understand how when Jesus was on earth he was no more than a man. His powers were given to him, he was limited, he wasn't the all knowing, and he wasn't present everywhere all the time, he seems like an ordinary man to me. If he was God and he emptied himself, then when he emptied himself he was no longer God anymore, he was just a man. Also, the whole theology of emptying himself, was made after the time of Jesus, no where in the OT did God mention that he would empty himself, nor did Jesus ever say he emptied himself.

Now on to Islam, Bill, in Islam there are many prophets and not just Muhammad. Jesus is a prophet, so is Moses, David, Solomon, etc. Muhammad was a prophet not by only his claim but by God's claim as well. If you want witnesses testifying to him being the prophet, I suggest you read some Hadiths.

Can you show us where God said Mohommed was his prophet, other than mohommed claiming God said it? And your Hadiths do not count either, since they are from people who follow Mohommed and are not actual witnesses. They just accept what he told them, like you do.

Bill had a very good point which it seems you are not able to answer.

[moose7237]

Can you show us where God said Mohommed was his prophet, other than mohommed claiming God said it? And your Hadiths do not count either, since they are from people who follow Mohommed and are not actual witnesses. They just accept what he told them, like you do.

Bill had a very good point which it seems you are not able to answer.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Yes I can show you where God said Muhammad was his prophet:

[033:040] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

If you also want to see Muhammad's prophecy, I suggest you read up on his surroundings, his signs, his prophecies, etc. That is more than enough information to show that he was a prophet. One can easily ask the same question about the prophets of the bible. The Quranic verse I provided, was God's word and not Muhammad's.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Yes I can show you where God said Muhammad was his prophet:

[033:040] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

If you also want to see Muhammad's prophecy, I suggest you read up on his surroundings, his signs, his prophecies, etc. That is more than enough information to show that he was a prophet. One can easily ask the same question about the prophets of the bible. The Quranic verse I provided, was God's word and not Muhammad's.

According to Islam, the entirety of the Qur'an is the word of God, not the word of Muhammad. Muhammad was merely a channel through which God's word came. Like the speaker in a PA system. God spoke into the mic, it came out the speaker. Or, given Muhammad's humanity, more like a vantriloquist dummy: God spoke, it came out of Muhammad's mouth.

However, I recognize that you did start this thread for/because of my notation in another thread, so I will be posting a response to the OP when I get the chance. Past few days have been hectic, and it is late right now. I promise you that it shall be done soon.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Yes I can show you where God said Muhammad was his prophet:

[033:040] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

If you also want to see Muhammad's prophecy, I suggest you read up on his surroundings, his signs, his prophecies, etc. That is more than enough information to show that he was a prophet. One can easily ask the same question about the prophets of the bible. The Quranic verse I provided, was God's word and not Muhammad's.


and who wrote that verse? Mohommed. Come on Moose! Mohommed can't be his own witness! How do you know he wasn't a false prophet making the whole verse up? You need an external witness.

The bible was written by many people, not just one. And NONE of it was written by Jesus, so what is said as a witness to him is from other people.

The Koran was written (well dictated) by Mohommed. As far as we can tell HE is the author. What is said in the Koran cannot be a witness to Mohommed.

[moose7237]

and who wrote that verse? Mohommed. Come on Moose! Mohommed can't be his own witness! How do you know he wasn't a false prophet making the whole verse up? You need an external witness.

The bible was written by many people, not just one. And NONE of it was written by Jesus, so what is said as a witness to him is from other people.

The Koran was written (well dictated) by Mohommed. As far as we can tell HE is the author. What is said in the Koran cannot be a witness to Mohommed.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Muhammad did not speak his own words, they were the words of God. Now let me ask, what is the criteria for a prophet? Do you want signs and miracles, along with prophecies? Muhammad brought that. Christianity is a religion based on faith and you go to heaven correct? Now Christianity was existent during the time of Muhammad. But you see Muhammad bringing a religion that preaches laws and faith. Clearly if Muhammad wanted Islam to be a popularity contest he would have made Islam even easier than Christianity. But he didn't.

Ok, now one can say the same thing about the bible can they not? For instance lets look at the crucifixion. The 4 authors are clearly the ones who wrote in detail about the crucifixion, yet they themselves were not witness to it. Remember they all forsook him and fled. So how can one trust their testimonies that Jesus was actually the one on the cross if they never witnessed the even themselves? Also, how do they no what Jesus spoke to Pilate? Lets take another instance, when Paul was on his road to Damascus and he said he saw Jesus, Paul mentions 2 witnesses with him, but did they ever testify? Nope. If you read Acts, you would see Paul's story is contradictive of him seeing Jesus and the fact that the 2 people with him never testified could easily tell us that Paul was not telling the truth. Paul also says that 500 people witnessed the crucifixion, yet not one of those 500 testifies to this. How do we know Paul isn't making it all up? Another instance, Moses Saw God in the burning bush, who witnessed it? Who witnessed Moses seeing God?

Now I would kindly like to ask everyone to remain to the topic in this thread. If we want to talk about Muhammad, either PM me, or open a thread in the Islam forum. Take care all!

[moose7237]

There's part of your problem, my friend. In Christianity God created logic, and by demanding a logical resolution you are equating the creator with the created.

It is blasphemous in Islam and Christianity to put limits on God, so why do you insist on doing so? God can certainly do things beyond logic, and beyond inagination as well. Try appreciating and stop trying to analyze.

How can you read Rumi and believe God is limited to human logic? You think you are 'disproving' the divinity of Jesus, but what you are actually doing is making your conception of Allah look limited and feeble.

IF you want me to explain what Jesus means to me , I can do that. But I can't start with your misperception.

Hello and Peace be to you Abelard,

I am certainly not equating the created with the creator, certainly we are limited beings. I am not putting limits on God, but the doctrine of the trinity just does not make sense. I like to question things, and if some things don't make sense I investigate it, and after research I make my conclusion. Look at my main post, based on the information I have provided, anyone can come to the conclusion that Jesus was not God. Jesus was limited.

I do like to question things beyond logic. If you read my main post, you would also see the fate of trinitarians based on Islam, does that not create fear in any trinitarian? They will be punished for the blasphemy of saying God has partners to him? Many times, God tells us who he is, so yes you can apply human logic if he tells you who he is. God tells us that he is all knowing, everywhere, the all powerful, the creator, the immortal, so yes I can apply human logic based on the information God provides us with. People have to analyze in religion and stop following blind faith. Because if you are wrong, then the consequences are obviously very dangerous. I would like for you Abelard, to explain when on earth how Jesus was God and try to defend the trinitarian beliefs by rebuking my original post, so far no one has attempted to do so, I would post this in the Christianity forum, but only Christians are allowed to post there.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Muhammad did not speak his own words, they were the words of God.

only according to HIM. sheesh moose. If that is the best you have then you better stop now.


Now let me ask, what is the criteria for a prophet? To be 100% correct in his prophesies. To be sent by God and never to be in error. Ever.

But then we were talking about Islam's criteria for a person having to be vouched for by two witnesses and so far you have none. a man cannot be his own witness can he? Even you allow that, all evidence for another witness has been handed to you by the first witness. You only have HIS word that this other witness vouches for him and you can't accept his word unless he has two witnesses. Kinda caught in a loop huh?



Do you want signs and miracles, along with prophecies? Muhammad brought that.

Really? name some prophesies and miracles and please don't use Mohommeds words for it, OK?


Christianity is a religion based on faith and you go to heaven correct? Now Christianity was existent during the time of Muhammad. But you see Muhammad bringing a religion that preaches laws and faith. Clearly if Muhammad wanted Islam to be a popularity contest he would have made Islam even easier than Christianity. But he didn't.

So because it is harder to get to heaven in Islam, that makes it more real? So by that reasoning if I came up with a religion that made it impossible to meet the requirements that would trump Islam, right?



Ok, now one can say the same thing about the bible can they not? For instance lets look at the crucifixion. The 4 authors are clearly the ones who wrote in detail about the crucifixion, yet they themselves were not witness to it.

Actually John was there. Remember Jesus told him to take his mother and care for her? And there is no case for the others not being there. After all, Mark was not an apostle but he might have been at the cross. Matthew might have fled but came back. Luke was the only one you can make a case for not being there, but he was writting down eye witness reports of those who were there.

But then we are not talking about crucifixion anyway. We are talking about witnesses that someone was a prophet of God. All of Jesus apostles said that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. And it was recorded by them and third parties, makeing them all external witnesses to the fact. Their writings are external witnesses to Christ. The Koran was written by Mohommed. It is his OWN testimony.

[moose7237]

only according to HIM. sheesh moose. If that is the best you have then you better stop now.

To be 100% correct in his prophesies. To be sent by God and never to be in error. Ever.

But then we were talking about Islam's criteria for a person having to be vouched for by two witnesses and so far you have none. a man cannot be his own witness can he? Even you allow that, all evidence for another witness has been handed to you by the first witness. You only have HIS word that this other witness vouches for him and you can't accept his word unless he has two witnesses. Kinda caught in a loop huh?




Really? name some prophesies and miracles and please don't use Mohommeds words for it, OK?




So because it is harder to get to heaven in Islam, that makes it more real? So by that reasoning if I came up with a religion that made it impossible to meet the requirements that would trump Islam, right?




Actually John was there. Remember Jesus told him to take his mother and care for her? And there is no case for the others not being there. After all, Mark was not an apostle but he might have been at the cross. Matthew might have fled but came back. Luke was the only one you can make a case for not being there, but he was writting down eye witness reports of those who were there.

But then we are not talking about crucifixion anyway. We are talking about witnesses that someone was a prophet of God. All of Jesus apostles said that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. And it was recorded by them and third parties, makeing them all external witnesses to the fact. Their writings are external witnesses to Christ. The Koran was written by Mohommed. It is his OWN testimony.

Hello and Peace be to you Sparko,

No, they were the words of God. If they were the words of Muhammad, then I am so surprised that Muhammad, an illiterate, knew so much about embryology, the water cycle, exact quotes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, knew so much about oceanology, astronomy, knew the best poetry amongst all arabs, knew prophecies, etc. I would say that is pretty impressive for a man who didn't know how to read and made such statements. Now can I not say the same thing about the bible Sparko? Didn't Moses write the Torah all of himself? So who was Moses to write the Torah with no witnesses? Remember Jesus saying "Before Abraham was I AM" Are there any witnesses that can testify to this?

Muhammad was 100% correct and he never did error. I can show you things in the bible where people Errored. Now as far as 2 witnesses go, there were plenty of situations in the bible where there wasn't 2 witnesses, you skipped over that and didn't care to say anything. Even Jesus didn't have 2 witnesses on his "Godly" statements. You said I can't bring up the Hadiths either, and the Hadiths were recorded by people who WITNESSED the prophet. so what do you want me to bring here? I don't understand?

There are two prophecies I can think of:

One is that Muhammad said that the Muslims would take over Mecca. Mecca was the home of the Muslims, and they did. How do I know that? Because Muslims today are in Mecca worshipping the Ka'ba and not pagans. Another prophecy is Muhammad said that the persians would defeat the romans within a span of 9 years and as history showed they did. Now on to scientific signs:

If you want witnesses, I don't think there is any better witnesses then actual scientists themselves.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

If you came up with a religion that made it impossible to meet heaven, if you back it up with logical facts, and appropriate laws, I would like to see where it goes. But I doubt it would trump Islam. hey but try it out and we'll see what happens.

John was at the crucifixion, please do send me the verses which testifies that he was there. Oh and I would like John's word for it. like him saying "I was there when Jesus was on the cross" using 1st person and not the 3rd person. Where did Matthew Come back? Was that in the bible as well? I would like to see that. So you don't even know if Mark was there or not? He didn't happen to mention in his gospel that he was there? I think he would have mentioned it if he was. Who were these eyewitnesses that Luke got his information from? What were their names? Whose to say that they weren't lying?

Actually this whole thread is not supposed to be about Islam or the crucifixion, its about the trinity. WAIT!!! So If I find Hadiths that say have people recorded saying that Muhammad is a prophet then by your definition, Muhammad is a prophet. But now, I would like to show some deception that I feel you have used against me Sparko:

And your Hadiths do not count either, since they are from people who follow Mohommed and are not actual witnesses. They just accept what he told them, like you do.

Clearly you can't use Jesus and his apostles because they follow Jesus, just like I can't use Muhammad's followers. Now we are left with 3rd parties. So if you bring up a bible verse that testifies of a woman saying that Jesus is the son of God, then I can find a hadith recorded by Muhammad's followers of a stranger calling Muhammad the prophet and that would prove that he is a prophet.

Now Sparko, firstly, why didn't you respond to all of my last post? And secondly, are you going to even try to answer my very original post?

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you Sparko,
[QUOTE]
No, they were the words of God. If they were the words of Muhammad, then I am so surprised that Muhammad, an illiterate, knew so much about embryology, the water cycle, exact quotes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, LOL - he didn't!!

:lmbo: I remember reading what the koran said about "embryology" :lmbo:

My goodness. give up now.

knew so much about oceanology, astronomy, knew the best poetry amongst all arabs, knew prophecies, etc. I would say that is pretty impressive for a man who didn't know how to read and made such statements. Now can I not say the same thing about the bible Sparko? Didn't Moses write the Torah all of himself? So who was Moses to write the Torah with no witnesses? Remember Jesus saying "Before Abraham was I AM" Are there any witnesses that can testify to this?

God spoke out of the sky during Jesus baptism and said "this is my son of whom I am well pleased" - He raised people from the dead, he raised himself from the dead. His witnesses were the people all around him, many of whom wrote down what they witnessed.

Muhammad was 100% correct and he never did error.



how can you prove that? who told you? the koran? Mohammed never sinned? Ever?


There are two prophecies I can think of:

One is that Muhammad said that the Muslims would take over Mecca.

He conquered it! That is not a prophesy. that was him stating his intentions.


If you want witnesses, I don't think there is any better witnesses then actual scientists themselves.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

:lmbo: come on moose!

Hey, were those scientists witnesses to Mohommed? did they talk to him?

The science in the koran is a joke. Leech stage? come on!



If you came up with a religion that made it impossible to meet heaven, if you back it up with logical facts, and appropriate laws, I would like to see where it goes. But I doubt it would trump Islam. hey but try it out and we'll see what happens.

So have you followed all the laws? never broke a one? Ever missed a prayer time? slipped up and didnt say your prayers enough times? There is no way anyone can follow all the laws and regulations of Judaism or Islam. You try to earn your way to heaven but you can't because humans are sinners and we all sin. None are perfect. None can meet the law. The law shows us that. That is why you need the forgiveness of Christ. Even you are welcome to that Moose. stop trying to build a stairway to heaven and accept Jesus.

John was at the crucifixion, please do send me the verses which testifies that he was there. Oh and I would like John's word for it. like him saying "I was there when Jesus was on the cross" using 1st person and not the 3rd person. Where did Matthew Come back? Was that in the bible as well? I would like to see that. So you don't even know if Mark was there or not? He didn't happen to mention in his gospel that he was there? I think he would have mentioned it if he was. Who were these eyewitnesses that Luke got his information from? What were their names? Whose to say that they weren't lying?


:lmbo: gosh you are a joke. Problem is, we don't have such ignorant standards as you Islams do. We take the word of the bible authors that Jesus was who he claimed to be and his miracles speak for themselves. It is you muslims who insist that you have to have two witnesses before you can accept a prophet. Why do you keep trying to force your rules on Christians?




Actually this whole thread is not supposed to be about Islam or the crucifixion, its about the trinity. WAIT!!! So If I find Hadiths that say have people recorded saying that Muhammad is a prophet then by your definition, Muhammad is a prophet. But now, I would like to show some deception that I feel you have used against me Sparko:

OK show me some,

Eye witnesses. And explain how they know. did God tell them? did Mohommed tell them?



Now Sparko, firstly, why didn't you respond to all of my last post? And secondly, are you going to even try to answer my very original post?

Because it was ignorant and showed that you don't have a clue what the trinity even is, so you have no idea on how to even argue against it.

:strawman:

[Harfelugan]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

So now the common arguement is that Jesus emptied himself to dwell on earth. I would say okay, on earth he was not God because he failed the 4 basic categories to meet as a requirement for God. So now you're left with Jesus' Godly statements that nobody else but him made such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega" But now one must prove that before Jesus was on earth he did prexist along with the Father and the spirit. But since there is no indication of the son-father-spirit trinity in the OT you really don't have much of a case. The most common verses I have seen to prove the trinity in the OT would be Genesis 1 with the use of the word "elohim" but even that doesn't prove that God is part of a trinity nor does it prove the son-father-spirit trinity. Also in parts of the bible, I have seen God call Angels God, I have seen God say he has made Moses like A god to Pharoah. But for the trinity verses explained please visit:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...rticle&sid=109
I've shortened your comments down to what I believe is your basic arguement . I hope this is ok with you ? Yes the basic argument of Christians who adhere to the orthodox faith is that Jesus emptied Himself out for the necessity of a genuine incarnation . Genuine being in that He had to meet the criteria of the atoning Messiah , a physical sacrafice that could really die . Yet still maintain being fully God and fully man . You will find that trinitarians will be the first to claim that the Lord our God is one God . NOT THREE . I dont see how you can get a clear insite to trinity doctrines if you are examining it it through the interpretations of the Unitarian website above . When I want to understand Islam , I will not learn properly by going to a unorthodox branch of Islam that is considered heretical by orthodox Islam . The only argument the Unitarians have that stands irrifutable is the claim that you cannot find the terms , Trinity or God the Son anywhere in the Bible . The rest of the arguments just run around in circles over word interpretations ,sentence structure ,and presupposed arguments . Before I can procede any farther I have to know that I am discussing the Trinity doctrines with a Muslem , or if I am discussing theTrinity doctrines whit a Muslim who is using a non-orthodox , heritical , unitarian doctrine that makes Christ a man only , as part of his argument .

[moose7237]

[quote=moose7237;1847519]Hello and Peace be to you Sparko,
LOL - he didn't!!

:lmbo: I remember reading what the koran said about "embryology" :lmbo:

My goodness. give up now.



God spoke out of the sky during Jesus baptism and said "this is my son of whom I am well pleased" - He raised people from the dead, he raised himself from the dead. His witnesses were the people all around him, many of whom wrote down what they witnessed.


how can you prove that? who told you? the koran? Mohammed never sinned? Ever?


There are two prophecies I can think of:


He conquered it! That is not a prophesy. that was him stating his intentions.



:lmbo: come on moose!

Hey, were those scientists witnesses to Mohommed? did they talk to him?

The science in the koran is a joke. Leech stage? come on!


[/URL]


So have you followed all the laws? never broke a one? Ever missed a prayer time? slipped up and didnt say your prayers enough times? There is no way anyone can follow all the laws and regulations of Judaism or Islam. You try to earn your way to heaven but you can't because humans are sinners and we all sin. None are perfect. None can meet the law. The law shows us that. That is why you need the forgiveness of Christ. Even you are welcome to that Moose. stop trying to build a stairway to heaven and accept Jesus.



:lmbo: gosh you are a joke. Problem is, we don't have such ignorant standards as you Islams do. We take the word of the bible authors that Jesus was who he claimed to be and his miracles speak for themselves. It is you muslims who insist that you have to have two witnesses before you can accept a prophet. Why do you keep trying to force your rules on Christians?






OK show me some,

Eye witnesses. And explain how they know. did God tell them? did Mohommed tell them?




Because it was ignorant and showed that you don't have a clue what the trinity even is, so you have no idea on how to even argue against it.

:strawman:


Hello and Peace be to you,

So let me get this straight, professors of embryology who admit that Muhammad had shown scientific signs and miracles are not good enough huh? You look at an anti-muslim site, and you take their word. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite. Keep up the faces though.

So God rose people from the dead whats so special about that? He also parted the red sea. If you want to say that Jesus brought people back from the dead I would say, God gave him the ability to do so, he didn't do it on his own. So what's so special about that?

As far as I know, Muhammad never did sin. Nope. From everything I have heard, there is no mention of him sinning.

Wait! How did Muhammad know that he was going to take over Mecca? How was he so certain that the Muslims would become victorious? Because it was a prophecy. Its like me saying when Israel invaded Lebanon that Lebanon was going to win for sure. How would I have known that? How could I have been so certain?

The scientists didn't need to talk to Muhammad, they confirmed what was written in the Quran, and based on the technological advances I would take a scientists word from today or 20 years ago over a scientist during Muhammad's time who didn't have much technology. So those scientists' testimonies are far more impressive then scientists from Muhammad's time. The science in the Quran is a joke? Riiiiiiiiiiiiite, that's why you have professors writing text books confirming what the Quran says. Its a fact, the scientific signs in the Quran completely dominate the science signs in the bible.

I have broken one law. You think God would create mankind and say that man is perfect? I would say God does not know his creation well enough. God even said in the bible he is merciful to those who follow the law. Jesus referred to the law of moses as the way to heaven. James said that you need both works and faith but Paul contradicted him and said you only need faith. I accept Jesus as only a prophet and nothing more.

So you are just relying on faith that the bible authors are not in error correct? You didn't even attempt to answer my questions there buddy. But keep with the faces I love em. When did Muslims say we need 2 witnesses? If there is any mention about 2 witnesses it is in the bible!

Matthew 18:16
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (A)BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED

You want people testifying about Muhammad being a prophet?

[url]http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/rasool1.asp (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html)

How did people know that Jesus was the son of God, Did God tell them? Did the followers tell them?

Everyone here bear witness! Sparko has not even attempted to try and defend his beliefs, he skipped over to Islam even though I had said this thread has nothing to do with Islam. All he has done is say I am ignorant, I am a joke, and made laughing faces. I call this the James Patrick Holding method. If there is anyone that should be taken as a joke it is the person who has skipped over many of my points and the person who hasn't even attempted to answer my first post. I'm the joke Sparko? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiite.

[Sparko]

[quote=Sparko;1847562]


Hello and Peace be to you,

So let me get this straight, professors of embryology who admit that Muhammad had shown scientific signs and miracles are not good enough huh? You look at an anti-muslim site, and you take their word. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite. Keep up the faces though.

sure. embryos start out as leeches and turn into chewing gum. Yep thats pretty much what the Koran says. Any doctors that claim that is truth are full of it.

So God rose people from the dead whats so special about that? He also parted the red sea. If you want to say that Jesus brought people back from the dead I would say, God gave him the ability to do so, he didn't do it on his own. So what's so special about that?

I don't see Muhommed doing anything like that. I don't see him doing any miracles at all.

As far as I know, Muhammad never did sin. Nope. From everything I have heard, there is no mention of him sinning.
Oh I don't know. Marrying and having sex with a 9 year old girl is not a sin?
It will get you several years in prison nowadays.

In fact Mohammed admitted he was a sinner in the quran and asks Allah to forgive him for his past and future sins

Surah 48:2 says: "That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favor unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path."
"So forgive the sins which I have done in the past or will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshipped but you". (Hadith al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403)



and didnt he say you could only have 4 wives? (4:3) and yet he had more than 4.







Wait! How did Muhammad know that he was going to take over Mecca? How was he so certain that the Muslims would become victorious?



:duh: as a general what was he going to tell his army? Hey we might not make it. We could all be killed. follow me to defeat!

Moron.

Because it was a prophecy. Its like me saying when Israel invaded Lebanon that Lebanon was going to win for sure. How would I have known that? How could I have been so certain?

:duh: you had a 50/50 chance of success at just guessing you twit.


The scientists didn't need to talk to Muhammad, they confirmed what was written in the Quran, and based on the technological advances I would take a scientists word from today or 20 years ago over a scientist during Muhammad's time who didn't have much technology. So those scientists' testimonies are far more impressive then scientists from Muhammad's time. The science in the Quran is a joke? Riiiiiiiiiiiiite, that's why you have professors writing text books confirming what the Quran says. Its a fact, the scientific signs in the Quran completely dominate the science signs in the bible.

Holy smoke you are an idiot. First of all the bible is not a science book and never claims it is. To claim that the Koran is a science book is your downfall. It is a religious book. You are fighting a losing battle.

By the way, Mohammed said that the sun set in a pool of water. How scientific is that?


I have broken one law.

See ya in hell then!

I accept Jesus as only a prophet and nothing more.
Trying to make sure you get to hell, huh?

You can make sure you make it to heaven if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.


So you are just relying on faith that the bible authors are not in error correct? You didn't even attempt to answer my questions there buddy. But keep with the faces I love em. When did Muslims say we need 2 witnesses? If there is any mention about 2 witnesses it is in the bible!

And I told you that there were TONS of witnesses in the bible for Jesus.

As far as the quran is conserned there is only ONE witness, Mohommed. He has no other. He is the sole author of the book. All you have is his own word for everything. The NT was written by several different authors most of whom were eye witnesses to his prophethood and his miracles and his divinity.


You want people testifying about Muhammad being a prophet?

http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/rasool1.asp

A children story site?

:lmbo:



How did people know that Jesus was the son of God, Did God tell them? Did the followers tell them?

Actually YES!

"Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud, `This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!'" Mark 9:7


"(Jesus said), `Father glorify Your name!'
Then a voice came from heaven, `I have glorified it and will glorify it again.'
The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Jesus said, `This voice was for your benefit, not mine...' "
John 12:28-30.



Everyone here bear witness! Sparko has not even attempted to try and defend his beliefs, he skipped over to Islam even though I had said this thread has nothing to do with Islam. All he has done is say I am ignorant, I am a joke, and made laughing faces. I call this the James Patrick Holding method. If there is anyone that should be taken as a joke it is the person who has skipped over many of my points and the person who hasn't even attempted to answer my first post. I'm the joke Sparko? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiite

I tell you what, moose. If you can accurately explain the doctrine of the trinity to me in your own words, I will go back and answer your opening post. But if you can't then you must admit that you don't know enough about the trinity to even criticize it and this thread is over, Deal?

[moose7237]

[quote=moose7237;1847661]

sure. embryos start out as leeches and turn into chewing gum. Yep thats pretty much what the Koran says. Any doctors that claim that is truth are full of it.



I don't see Muhommed doing anything like that. I don't see him doing any miracles at all.

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

In fact Mohammed admitted he was a sinner in the quran and asks Allah to forgive him for his past and future sins

Surah 48:2 says: "That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favor unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path."
"So forgive the sins which I have done in the past or will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshipped but you". (Hadith al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403)



and didnt he say you could only have 4 wives? (4:3) and yet he had more than 4.








:duh: as a general what was he going to tell his army? Hey we might not make it. We could all be killed. follow me to defeat!

Moron.



:duh: you had a 50/50 chance of success at just guessing you twit.




Holy smoke you are an idiot. First of all the bible is not a science book and never claims it is. To claim that the Koran is a science book is your downfall. It is a religious book. You are fighting a losing battle.

By the way, Mohammed said that the sun set in a pool of water. How scientific is that?



See ya in hell then!


Trying to make sure you get to hell, huh?

You can make sure you make it to heaven if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.




And I told you that there were TONS of witnesses in the bible for Jesus.

As far as the quran is conserned there is only ONE witness, Mohommed. He has no other. He is the sole author of the book. All you have is his own word for everything. The NT was written by several different authors most of whom were eye witnesses to his prophethood and his miracles and his divinity.



A children story site?

:lmbo:


[/URL]

Actually YES!

"Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud, `This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!'" Mark 9:7


"(Jesus said), `Father glorify Your name!'
Then a voice came from heaven, `I have glorified it and will glorify it again.'
The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Jesus said, `This voice was for your benefit, not mine...' "
John 12:28-30.




I tell you what, moose. If you can accurately explain the doctrine of the trinity to me in your own words, I will go back and answer your opening post. But if you can't then you must admit that you don't know enough about the trinity to even criticize it and this thread is over, Deal?

Hello and Much peace to you Sparko,

If you want to see the explanation about leeches and embryos check this site out:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/embryonic_development.htm (http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/rasool1.asp)

If you want to see some more of Muhammad's miracles, he did split the moon as it was reported in the Hadiths of the Sunnah and the Quran mentions that the Moon was split. I don't know of a better miracle then that one.

If you knew much about Aisha's age you would know that the Hadiths are in contradiction about her Age. Some say it was 9, others, using math, turn out that she was 18 years old.

I stand corrected on Muhammad being a sinner. Thank you for showing me that. But didn't Jesus himself become sin? I think Paul said that he did. And didn't Jesus have every sin on his shoulder and that's why he was forsaken? Also, whose to ever say that when Jesus was young he never sinned. The very fact that that no one recorded him as a teen shows that he could have committed sin. In other texts, not the bible, I have heard that Jesus killed a boy.

Muhammad did have more than 4 wives but it wasn't for sexual reasons. He had more than 4 because he married women whose fathers had big tribes, so he tried to bring those tribes to Islam. If one had that same mission, then I would assume its ok to marry more than 4 wives given the fact that you treat them equally, but since Islam is already spread no one can marry more than 4 wives.

Wow Sparko, the James Patrick Holding method is really starting to kick in now! Actually, the verse was revealed to Muhammad when there were plenty of problems and it looked like the Muslims wouldn't be able to go back to Mecca.

[url]http://www.answering-christianity.com/return_to_mecca.htm

Hey what happened to the other prophesy I mentioned? Didn't care to comment on it did you pal?

Did you see the Israel army compared to the Lebanese? Obviously you never cared to notice that the Lebanese don't have fighter planes or tanks. The military of Israel is the 3rd strongest in the world and it didn't beat Lebanon. Ya, its a bit harder to guess who is going to win when the situation is like that.

For a person who makes fun of me and calls me an idiot the decent thing to do is at least quote me right. When did I say that the Quran is a science book? I said the Quran has scientific signs in it. I never said it was a science book. The bible has no scientific signs and the Quran does. Is that the only thing I would base the Quran being better then the bible? Nope. Look at the barbarism in the OT, and the rules. Tell me how does the bible view slaves, women, and apostates? It looks like your God Jesus wasn't so peaceful was he when he ordered babies to be slaughtered.

Yes and you are God to say that I am going to hell. Uh OH! Sparko said I'm going to hell, it must be true!!!

Jesus is no more than a prophet. You can condemn me to hell and I can condemn you to hell, but I won't. I'll let the Quran do my talking. Read my original post on the fate of trinitarians. The bible never says if I don't accept Jesus as my God that I will go to hell. So what is the place of Christian unitarians who believe in the crucifixion but not the trinity? Are they going to hell too?

You can say there were TONS of witnesses, but until I see proof, your word is nothing to me. Muhammad did not write the Quran, he received revelations from God. Ok, what about the Torah, only moses wrote that. What about the Psalms, where were the witnesses to David? Please start defending Sparko.

Yes the bible was written by several different authors, some who contradicted each other. Also you said Muhammad's followers don't count to prove his prophethood, ergo neither do Jesus' followers.

It could be a children story site, if the stories are legit, then you have no case anymore.

As you said, since Muhammad's followers don't count, neither do Jesus'. So you can't say there was a cloud unless there were unbiased witnesses testifying to hearing the voice.

Listen, I don't need to take up your challenge. What I say about the trinity is that I believe its false and that is based on my article problems of the trinity and my opening post on this thread. The very fact that you swerved this thread to Islam when you should have posted this in the Islam forum is more than enough for me to conclude that you can't refute my article, and that you skip a bunch of my points and that you degrade yourself into calling me childish names. I need not to prove anything to you my friend, but I would like it if you take your problems about Muhammad in the Islam forum and not here.

[johnmartin]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I would like to ask the following to all trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortan(can't die)

<snip>
I am a Muslim and I would like everybody to deeply think about the trinity. This is what the Quran has to say about the fate of trinitarians:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

[005:073] They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

[005:074] Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Biblical evidence for the Trinity is abundant as seen on this web site http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html. Some evidences are presented below among many. The Trinity is clearly a biblical docrine.



1) Name of God: "I AM"

*EXODUS 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

*DEUTERONOMY 32:39 See now that I, {even} I, {am} he, and {there is} no god with me . . . {cf. Is 41:4, 43:10-13, 48:12}

+JOHN 8:24 . . . if ye believe not that I am {he}, ye shall die in your sins.

+JOHN 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am {he}, and {that} I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. {cf. 8:58, 13:19}
From - The Holy Trinity, Biblical proofs by Dave Armstrong. There are another 20 pages of proofs presented on the web site .
JM

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I would like to ask the following to all trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortan(can't die)

The Nicene Creed, the oldest orthodox faith statement, reads that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." Therein you read a clear outline of the understanding of Trinitarian Christians: Jesus was and is God, inseparable from Him. Your understanding that He is a second deity is patently false to Christianity. Let us adress your concerns:

The Omniscient God

Jesus' claim of receiving power from/of the Father in no way dissociates Him from the Godhead. Rather, because Jesus was very God of very God...begotten, not made, it means that His power is natuarlly imbued in Him. Consider this in the Gospel of John, chapter 5: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." (John 5:26, ESV) What does this mean? It means that the Son does not require the breath of God the way Man does to survive. In Genesis, God breathed the breath of life into Adam. But Jesus has life in himself. Life and the power along with it is inseparable from Him. It is not given to Him, but granted to Him by the nature of His existence. He is God.
The Omnipotent God

Jesus clearly demonstrated power over disease, death, nature and the spiritual in His time on Earth. Your complaint is that Jesus was "given" this power by God. But you skip this verse immediately after the verse you quoted from the Great Commission. Read: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, ESV, emphasis added). Christ was saying clearly: bring them into this threefold God made manifest. He was part of this Godhead, equal with the Father.

Moreover, consider the verse you quoted (Matthew 28:18). The Greek here is didomi, which does mean give, but not in the sense that you might think. It commonly refers to what is obligatory. When you get a paycheck from work, it's because that money is your money by virtue of your work. It is not given to you by some choice. Likewise, Christ in very nature merits the power herein. It is obligatory that this power be His. He is the Judge. It by virtue of Him and through Him that all things were made. (See John 1.)
The Omnipresent God

Reference John 1:46-53, wherein Jesus explicity shows His omnipresence. He saw Nathaneal under the fig tree when He was not there! Either this is a direct refutation of your omniscience point, or of your omnipresence point...or both. It is not by the nature of human body that Christ was everywhere, but by nature of His divinity that He is everywhere.
The Immortal God

Christ's body died, but the orthodox understanding of Christianity is that Christ was God and Man at once. Therefore, His Divine Nature may live on. Moreover, first epistle of Peter, we read that Christ in spirit did indeed live during His three days in the tomb. He was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah..." (1 Peter 3:19-20a, ESV, emphasis added)

Moreover, I understand that Muslims by virtue of their religion believe in an afterlife, Heaven, if you will. If your body is killed, do you then die? Is God not alive at all because He does not have a body? No, you and your life are separate from your body, and God, because He is not man, because He is spirit, He lives without a body at all times.Finally, if Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of Islam, what say you to the ego eimi statements of John, wherein Jesus asserted His divinity. "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58, ESV). Was He lying? Was He not coeternal with the Father and the Spirit? What say you to His use of the title Son of Man, drawn from the book of Daniel. "..with the clouds of heaven, there came one like a son of man..." (Daniel 7:13, ESV). This figure alone was worthy to open the scroll of the Ancient of Days and proclaim Judgment. Jesus was claiming that He was this second power of divinity in Heaven, the only sinless, perfect being. But there's a catch: man is born into sin (Psalm 51:5). But Jesus said He was not sinful, as He was the Son of Man who could open the scroll...hm. So He was not just a man. He was and is very God of very God.

Do the prophets of God lie? I leave you with this thought from C. S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

You cannot accept Christ as a prophet without accepting Him as God. The two are irrevocably intertwined.

[Abelard]

I think everybody here has gone nuts.

First we have Moose with off the wall assumptions about the Trinity and making no attempt to understand what we Christians really believe, and now Christians insulting Muhammad and showing an incredible ignorance and disrespect towards Islam.

How 'bout we let people speak for their own faiths and stop this faulty characterizing of beliefs we do not understand?

[KarmaGhost]

I think everybody here has gone nuts.

First we have Moose with off the wall assumptions about the Trinity and making no attempt to understand what we Christians really believe, and now ignorance of Islam.

How 'bout we let people speak for their own faiths and stop this faulty characterizing of beliefs we do not understand?

Did you ever take a communications class? Let me clarify this for you.

Person A: Declarative statement.
Person B: Interrogative statement regarding Person A's delcarative statement.
Person A: Clarifying statement.
Person B: Person A's clarifying statement paraphrased for clarity.
Person A: Corrective or affirmative statement.

In other words, it is by the faulity characterization of belief systems and response that we come to a clear understanding of belief systems. The idea that we should just stop interfaith dialogue is nuts. Sparko and Moose may be making off-the-wall statements, but I know I am making every effort to clarify and rectify Moose's mistakes--because he made this thread due to a question he asked me on another thread, wherein I responded that the trinity was not the topic at hand and if he made another post I would be happy to discuss it with him; therefore, I am concerned with his view on the Trinity and Christianity and his own misunderstanding of logic in regards to the philosophy of Islamic religion. I am not an expert on Islam, but I do know that when you look at it philosophically, we understand that a Qur'anic statement cannot be made to affirm its veracity, merely the historicity.

[Abelard]

Person A: Declarative statement. "I'm A Muslim and I say all Christians are polytheists"
Person B: Interrogative statement regarding Person A's delcarative statement. "What are you, an idiot?"
Person A: Clarifying statement. "It says right here in the Qu'ran people who believe God has partners are polytheists. That's Christians, because you believe in three gods!:
Person B: Person A's clarifying statement paraphrased for clarity. "Moron! And the founder of your religion was a child molester"

Mais yeah, we're going to eke out a lot of veracity and historicity this way!:lol:

[Sparko]

[quote=Sparko;1847748]

Hello and Much peace to you Sparko,

If you want to see the explanation about leeches and embryos check this site out:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/embryonic_development.htm (http://www.answering-christianity.com/embryonic_development.htm)

I looked at that site before. It is hilarious.

I will show the readers of this thread how ridiculous your claims are by posting a picture from that very web page..

40667

:lmbo:

See? Chewing gum!

:lmbo:



If you want to see some more of Muhammad's miracles, he did split the moon as it was reported in the Hadiths of the Sunnah and the Quran mentions that the Moon was split. I don't know of a better miracle then that one.

Really? How did the rest of the world miss such a spectacle?

And the actual passage says:
Surat-al-Qamr, liv., 1, 2. "The hour of Judgment approacheth and the moon hath been split in sunder; but if the unbelievers see a sign, they turn aside, saying, this is a powerful charm."

It doesnt say Mohommed did it, and it is in reference to the Judgment day. Are you claiming the judgment day has already happened?


I stand corrected on Muhammad being a sinner. Thank you for showing me that. But didn't Jesus himself become sin? I think Paul said that he did. Again you show your ignorance of Christianity and salvation. Jesus "becoming sin" does not mean he sinned. It means he took upon himself the sin of the world and took the punishment for sin. If you accept him as your savior your sin will be forgiven. He has paid the price so you don't have to. It's that simple. If Jesus had sinned then he could only pay for his own sins.


And didn't Jesus have every sin on his shoulder and that's why he was forsaken? Also, whose to ever say that when Jesus was young he never sinned. The very fact that that no one recorded him as a teen shows that he could have committed sin. In other texts, not the bible, I have heard that Jesus killed a boy.
LoL. The bible says he was without sin. You are referring to some gnostic writtings that were written long after Jesus was alive. Even the Quran says that Jesus was without sin.

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. - Miriam 19

The word used for "faultless" - zakiyya means "perfect and without sin"

Muhammad did have more than 4 wives but it wasn't for sexual reasons. He had more than 4 because he married women whose fathers had big tribes, so he tried to bring those tribes to Islam. If one had that same mission, then I would assume its ok to marry more than 4 wives given the fact that you treat them equally, but since Islam is already spread no one can marry more than 4 wives.

Dude, Mohommed gave the rule about no more than 4 wives and broke it himself. Nuff said.


Did you see the Israel army compared to the Lebanese? Obviously you never cared to notice that the Lebanese don't have fighter planes or tanks. The military of Israel is the 3rd strongest in the world and it didn't beat Lebanon. Ya, its a bit harder to guess who is going to win when the situation is like that.

Did you actually notice that the Lebanese did NOT win? hello?


You can say there were TONS of witnesses, but until I see proof, your word is nothing to me. There are 4 separate witnesses to the life of Jesus in the bible. The Gospels. They are the written witnesses to his life and the events in his life. Written by 4 people who either actually knew him or interviewed people who did. What do you have? The word of Mohommed that the Koran was "written by God" when all evidence shows that he is the author.

Muhammad did not write the Quran, he received revelations from God. Ok, what about the Torah, only moses wrote that. What about the Psalms, where were the witnesses to David? Please start defending Sparko.
Now you are trying to claim that the books themselves need witnesses? So witnesses for the witnesses? :rofl:

Moses was confirmed by the people who were witnesses to his interaction with God. His story was also told by his followers, such as Joshua who witnessed the events. The psalms are SONGS, nitwit. And some were written by David, some by Soloman, and some unknown.




Yes the bible was written by several different authors, some who contradicted each other. Also you said Muhammad's followers don't count to prove his prophethood, ergo neither do Jesus' followers. The bible's authors don't contridict each other. And I never said that Muhammads followers did not prove his prophethood, only that they did not witness God telling them Muhommed was a prophet. They took Muhommeds word for it.

It could be a children story site, if the stories are legit, then you have no case anymore.
:lmbo:

As you said, since Muhammad's followers don't count, neither do Jesus'. So you can't say there was a cloud unless there were unbiased witnesses testifying to hearing the voice.

Jesus followers were witness to God actually TELLING them Jesus was his Son. didnt you read the quotes I gave you earlier? They didn't take Jesus' words for it. God told them.

Matthew 16: 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Listen, I don't need to take up your challenge. What I say about the trinity is that I believe its false and that is based on my article problems of the trinity and my opening post on this thread. The very fact that you swerved this thread to Islam when you should have posted this in the Islam forum is more than enough for me to conclude that you can't refute my article, and that you skip a bunch of my points and that you degrade yourself into calling me childish names. I need not to prove anything to you my friend, but I would like it if you take your problems about Muhammad in the Islam forum and not here.

In other words, you know you can't even accurately describe the doctrine of the trinity, so you are happy to burn a strawman version of it and claim victory.

You just admitted that you don't have a clue of what you are talking about and don't care to learn.

If you don't want to talk about Islam, why do you keep answering me? You are participating in that discussion as much as I am. I am willing to stop as soon as you are.

[Harfelugan]

Person A: Declarative statement. "I'm A Muslim and I say all Christians are polytheists"
Person B: Interrogative statement regarding Person A's delcarative statement. "What are you, an idiot?"
Person A: Clarifying statement. "It says right here in the Qu'ran people who believe God has partners are polytheists. That's Christians, because you believe in three gods!:
Person B: Person A's clarifying statement paraphrased for clarity. "Moron! And the founder of your religion was a child molester"

Mais yeah, we're going to eke out a lot of veracity and historicity this way!:lol:

The voice of reason is the first to be discarded . What say we ask Moose to restate more clearly again what his purpose for this thread was and then try to stick to it . WHAT SAY YOU MOOSE ?I HAVE NO DESIRE TO CONTINUE IN THIS THREAD IF THE SUBJECT IS TAKEN OFF COURSE AND BECOMES AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ISLAM . THAT IS FOR A DIFFERENT THREAD .

[KarmaGhost]

The voice of reason is the first to be discarded . What say we ask Moose to restate more clearly again what his purpose for this thread was and then try to stick to it . WHAT SAY YOU MOOSE ?I HAVE NO DESIRE TO CONTINUE IN THIS THREAD IF THE SUBJECT IS TAKEN OFF COURSE AND BECOMES AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ISLAM . THAT IS FOR A DIFFERENT THREAD .

I'm with you, hence:

The Nicene Creed, the oldest orthodox faith statement, reads that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." Therein you read a clear outline of the understanding of Trinitarian Christians: Jesus was and is God, inseparable from Him. Your understanding that He is a second deity is patently false to Christianity. Let us adress your concerns:

The Omniscient God

Jesus' claim of receiving power from/of the Father in no way dissociates Him from the Godhead. Rather, because Jesus was very God of very God...begotten, not made, it means that His power is natuarlly imbued in Him. Consider this in the Gospel of John, chapter 5: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." (John 5:26, ESV) What does this mean? It means that the Son does not require the breath of God the way Man does to survive. In Genesis, God breathed the breath of life into Adam. But Jesus has life in himself. Life and the power along with it is inseparable from Him. It is not given to Him, but granted to Him by the nature of His existence. He is God.
The Omnipotent God

Jesus clearly demonstrated power over disease, death, nature and the spiritual in His time on Earth. Your complaint is that Jesus was "given" this power by God. But you skip this verse immediately after the verse you quoted from the Great Commission. Read: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, ESV, emphasis added). Christ was saying clearly: bring them into this threefold God made manifest. He was part of this Godhead, equal with the Father.

Moreover, consider the verse you quoted (Matthew 28:18). The Greek here is didomi, which does mean give, but not in the sense that you might think. It commonly refers to what is obligatory. When you get a paycheck from work, it's because that money is your money by virtue of your work. It is not given to you by some choice. Likewise, Christ in very nature merits the power herein. It is obligatory that this power be His. He is the Judge. It by virtue of Him and through Him that all things were made. (See John 1.)
The Omnipresent God

Reference John 1:46-53, wherein Jesus explicity shows His omnipresence. He saw Nathaneal under the fig tree when He was not there! Either this is a direct refutation of your omniscience point, or of your omnipresence point...or both. It is not by the nature of human body that Christ was everywhere, but by nature of His divinity that He is everywhere.
The Immortal God

Christ's body died, but the orthodox understanding of Christianity is that Christ was God and Man at once. Therefore, His Divine Nature may live on. Moreover, first epistle of Peter, we read that Christ in spirit did indeed live during His three days in the tomb. He was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah..." (1 Peter 3:19-20a, ESV, emphasis added)

Moreover, I understand that Muslims by virtue of their religion believe in an afterlife, Heaven, if you will. If your body is killed, do you then die? Is God not alive at all because He does not have a body? No, you and your life are separate from your body, and God, because He is not man, because He is spirit, He lives without a body at all times.Finally, if Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of Islam, what say you to the ego eimi statements of John, wherein Jesus asserted His divinity. "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58, ESV). Was He lying? Was He not coeternal with the Father and the Spirit? What say you to His use of the title Son of Man, drawn from the book of Daniel. "..with the clouds of heaven, there came one like a son of man..." (Daniel 7:13, ESV). This figure alone was worthy to open the scroll of the Ancient of Days and proclaim Judgment. Jesus was claiming that He was this second power of divinity in Heaven, the only sinless, perfect being. But there's a catch: man is born into sin (Psalm 51:5). But Jesus said He was not sinful, as He was the Son of Man who could open the scroll...hm. So He was not just a man. He was and is very God of very God.

Do the prophets of God lie? I leave you with this thought from C. S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

You cannot accept Christ as a prophet without accepting Him as God. The two are irrevocably intertwined.

[Abelard]

I'm with Harfelugan and KarmaGhost. The conversation was interesting until Sparko got everything off track.

I personally respect Islam, Muhummad and the Qu'ran and I hope Moose will reframe the question and get us back on track.

[moose7237]

Hello and Peace be to you KarmaGhost,

I agree with you here, but you must know that it was Sparko who drove me out of the thread, and I will not continue about Islam, that is for another forum and another thread. Now on to my rebuttal:


ok you posted John 5:26, my main concern about that verse is that the Father GRANTED life to the son. Clearly this indicates without the father's permission the son would have no life. If Jesus was indeed God, the verse should have sounded like this:

For as the Father has life in himself, so the Son also to has life in himself.

I think you are very wrong to say that given and granted are different. They mean the same thing. Why doesn't the son grant the Father life? The fact that the Father granted life to the son is a clear indication that the son is inferior to the father.

I do not see the Nicene Creed to be biblical at all personally.

I don't know how you can say that "In the name of the Father, son, and Spirit," makes Jesus equal. Jesus himself admits that the Father is greater than him. God is supposed to be greater than man in every aspect. Also, Jesus admits that he can do nothing of his own only what the Father does. If all 3 really are equal, then you must produce evidence that the father said the son is greater than him, or he does the work of the son, or the son granted him life, etc.

Whose to say that Jesus wasn't near the fig tree? Where does it say that Jesus was somewhere else? If God is a man, then God has to be everywhere, because God is omnipresent correct? Physically, or spiritually, God has to be everywhere. But Jesus since he was limited to a human body was only a man, unless that human body was everywhere all the time which it clearly isn't.

Also, I would like to see a comment on Jesus not knowing the hour and only the father knowing.

[Sparko]

OK, Moose and everyone else, I am sorry for derailing the thread. I am outta here.

PS. try to get Moose to at least post a good understanding of the trinity instead of arguing against a strawman versoin.

[KarmaGhost]

OK, Moose and everyone else, I am sorry for derailing the thread. I am outta here.

PS. try to get Moose to at least post a good understanding of the trinity instead of arguing against a strawman versoin.

Sparko, I would still appreciate your participation in defending and discussing the Trinity. You don't need to leave, just stay on-topic. If you'd like to take moose to task for double-standards and the flaws you (and I, as your fellow Christian) find inherent in Islam, do that on another thread. That's all we're asking.

[Sparko]

I can't really discuss his opening statement because it is too full of strawmen. He clearly does not even understand the Trinity.

If he did, he would realize his objections make no sense.

God is not three Gods, he is ONE God revealed in three persons. For example, he claims that Jesus can't be God because he died. Well that would only be true if God was only Jesus. The Father who is also God did not die when Jesus died on the cross. And Jesus spirit did not even die, only his body died and it was resurrected. So he is so wrong on so many fronts it becomes nearly impossible to explain it to him.

[sylvius]

I can't really discuss his opening statement because it is too full of strawmen. He clearly does not even understand the Trinity.

If he did, he would realize his objections make no sense.

God is not three Gods, he is ONE God revealed in three persons. For example, he claims that Jesus can't be God because he died. Well that would only be true if God was only Jesus. The Father who is also God did not die when Jesus died on the cross. And Jesus spirit did not even die, only his body died and it was resurrected. So he is so wrong on so many fronts it becomes nearly impossible to explain it to him.

does this diagram show it well, the way you mean?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ei-English.png

[Sparko]

does this diagram show it well, the way you mean?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ei-English.png

Not really. God is more than an "ERROR 404: file not found" error.

[KarmaGhost]

Not really. God is more than an "ERROR 404: file not found" error.

:lol: I got the same error, but I think he was trying to link to the Scutum Fidei (Shiled of the Trinity) found here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-basic.png).

[Sparko]

yeah. I am sure he will not be able to understand it. I do see ways that can be misread, such as you could read "God IS Jesus" instead of "Jesus IS God" which would be an error. God is more than JUST Jesus, but Jesus is fully God.

Kinda hard to pin down God with a simple diagram.

[sylvius]

God is more than JUST Jesus, but Jesus is fully God.


why it says,

fe. Matthew 28:19

"father- son - holy ghost"


and not

"God - Jesus - holy ghost"


?

[heisonly1]

I can't really discuss his opening statement because it is too full of strawmen. He clearly does not even understand the Trinity.

If he did, he would realize his objections make no sense.

God is not three Gods, he is ONE God revealed in three persons. For example, he claims that Jesus can't be God because he died. Well that would only be true if God was only Jesus. The Father who is also God did not die when Jesus died on the cross. And Jesus spirit did not even die, only his body died and it was resurrected. So he is so wrong on so many fronts it becomes nearly impossible to explain it to him.

hahahah you know when you have dismantled a Trinitarian argument when they finally come out and accuse us Muslims that we don't understand the Trinity heheheheh

Sparko, I invite you to participate in a discussion between Dan and I that began here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961( page 5 is where we really begin the Trinity debate) and specifically point out where I have misunderstood the Trinity when comparing the Triune theory of God to Biblical monotheism.

:sos: Note: Please read all pages of the above thread before making comment to avoid repetition of arguments.

:stop: Warning - I do get a little nasty with my vocabulary when engaing Dan during our debate.

My apologies in advance

peace2u,

heisonly1

[KarmaGhost]

hahahah you know when you have dismantled a Trinitarian argument when they finally come out and accuse us Muslims that we don't understand the Trinity heheheheh

Sparko, I invite you to participate in a discussion between Dan and I that began here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961( page 5 is where we really begin the Trinity debate) and specifically point out where I have misunderstood the Trinity when comparing the Triune theory of God to Biblical monotheism.

:sos: Note: Please read all pages of the above thread before making comment to avoid repetition of arguments.

:stop: Warning - I do get a little nasty with my vocabulary when engaing Dan during our debate.

My apologies in advance

peace2u,

heisonly1

You haven't dismantled anybody. Don't be so arrogant.

He is saying he does not believe moose understands the Trinity, saying nothing of you or Muslims in general. It is my understanding, though, that on the whole Islam does not understand the concept of the Trinity in the same way Christian orthodoxy does.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you KarmaGhost,

I agree with you here, but you must know that it was Sparko who drove me out of the thread, and I will not continue about Islam, that is for another forum and another thread. Now on to my rebuttal:


ok you posted John 5:26, my main concern about that verse is that the Father GRANTED life to the son. Clearly this indicates without the father's permission the son would have no life. If Jesus was indeed God, the verse should have sounded like this:

For as the Father has life in himself, so the Son also to has life in himself.

I think you are very wrong to say that given and granted are different. They mean the same thing. Why doesn't the son grant the Father life? The fact that the Father granted life to the son is a clear indication that the son is inferior to the father.

I do not see the Nicene Creed to be biblical at all personally.

I don't know how you can say that "In the name of the Father, son, and Spirit," makes Jesus equal. Jesus himself admits that the Father is greater than him. God is supposed to be greater than man in every aspect. Also, Jesus admits that he can do nothing of his own only what the Father does. If all 3 really are equal, then you must produce evidence that the father said the son is greater than him, or he does the work of the son, or the son granted him life, etc.

Whose to say that Jesus wasn't near the fig tree? Where does it say that Jesus was somewhere else? If God is a man, then God has to be everywhere, because God is omnipresent correct? Physically, or spiritually, God has to be everywhere. But Jesus since he was limited to a human body was only a man, unless that human body was everywhere all the time which it clearly isn't.

Also, I would like to see a comment on Jesus not knowing the hour and only the father knowing.

Jesus never stated that the Father was greater. He stated that the Father granted him power. And go back and look at the Greek text for John 5:26--once again, didomi, meaning it was a merited fact. Jesus was not handed this freely, it was by virtue of Him.

Regarding the calling of Nathanael, Nathanael was called by Philip, who was called by Jesus. As they came, Jesus called out and Nathanael said "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (John 5:49, ESV). He was amazed that Jesus knew this of him. If Jesus had been standing right there, big difference in the writing and reading of the text.

Regarding the Father knowing and Jesus not knowing. The Father is God. He holds this knowledge. Jesus is God. He does not hold this knowledge. Does God hold this knowledge? Yep. God holds it in the person of the Father. Thus God, the Godhead, remains omniscient..

And of course you don'f find the Nicene Creed Biblical. You disagree with orthodox Christianity, which affirms the veracity of the Nicene Creed vis-a-vis scripture. I'm a Lutheran, so if you think I'm throwing around creeds and councils, two words: sola scriptura.

[heisonly1]

You haven't dismantled anybody. Don't be so arrogant.

He is saying he does not believe moose understands the Trinity, saying nothing of you or Muslims in general. It is my understanding, though, that on the whole Islam does not understand the concept of the Trinity in the same way Christian orthodoxy does.

Greetings KarmaGhost,

Please pick one of my refutations of the Trinity and counter respond to my arguments and explain to me why i have not dismantled Dan's or anyone elses Trinitarian mode of argumentation! :fight:

We'll allow our audience to decided who is arrogant and ignorant

heisonly1

[Sparko]

why it says,

fe. Matthew 28:19

"father- son - holy ghost"


and not

"God - Jesus - holy ghost"


?

Jesus is the Son.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I can't really discuss his opening statement because it is too full of strawmen. He clearly does not even understand the Trinity.

If he did, he would realize his objections make no sense.

God is not three Gods, he is ONE God revealed in three persons. For example, he claims that Jesus can't be God because he died. Well that would only be true if God was only Jesus. The Father who is also God did not die when Jesus died on the cross. And Jesus spirit did not even die, only his body died and it was resurrected. So he is so wrong on so many fronts it becomes nearly impossible to explain it to him.

What? The old "God cannot die" card?

Really though, there is so much misunderstanding generally of the Trinity. Of course, the only way to deal with it is to deal with a straw man.

[Sparko]

hahahah you know when you have dismantled a Trinitarian argument when they finally come out and accuse us Muslims that we don't understand the Trinity heheheheh

Sparko, I invite you to participate in a discussion between Dan and I that began here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961( page 5 is where we really begin the Trinity debate) and specifically point out where I have misunderstood the Trinity when comparing the Triune theory of God to Biblical monotheism.

:sos: Note: Please read all pages of the above thread before making comment to avoid repetition of arguments.

:stop: Warning - I do get a little nasty with my vocabulary when engaing Dan during our debate.

My apologies in advance

peace2u,

heisonly1

I am not going to wade through 13 pages of crud for you. If you wish to post your definition of the trinity here in this thread, then that is fine. I was talking specifically about Moose in this thread as not understanding the trinity. Generally I find that muslims create a strawman version of the trinity and proceed to burn it down, thinking that somehow proves the real trinity doctrine false. Not all muslims do that though, so you could prove me wrong.

[sylvius]

Jesus is the Son.


why then Jesus didn't say:


Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of my father, and of me and of the holy Spirit?

false modesty?

but I tell you that (God) the father and (God) the son are interrelated through the holy spirit.

that diagram " scutum fidie" , "shield of trinity", is just crap.

[KarmaGhost]

Greetings KarmaGhost,

Please pick one of my refutations of the Trinity and counter respond to my arguments and explain to me why i have not dismantled Dan's or anyone elses Trinitarian mode of argumentation! :fight:

We'll allow our audience to decided who is arrogant and ignorant

heisonly1

Our audience? As compared to our fellow participants? Is that a challenge to a Gym Debate?

[Sparko]

why then Jesus didn't say:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of my father, and of me and of the holy Spirit? false modesty?

but I tell you that (God) the father and (God) the son are interrelated through the holy spirit.

that diagram " scutum fidie" , "shield of trinity", is just crap.

Because Jesus liked to talk of himself in the third person. But notice he didn't say the nameS of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Are you actually following Sparko around from thread to thread, slyvius? Sparko thinks that is really sad, and a bit creepy.

[sylvius]

[QUOTE]Because Jesus liked to talk of himself in the third person.

"Amen, amen, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

shouldn't that have read then:

"Amen, amen, the Son says unto you. Before Abraham was, the Son is"?



But notice he didn't say the nameS of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

what's then the name of the Father?
and what the name of the Holy Spirit?

Are you actually following Sparko around from thread to thread, slyvius?
no

Sparko thinks that is really sad, and a bit creepy.

cute

[moose7237]

Jesus never stated that the Father was greater. He stated that the Father granted him power. And go back and look at the Greek text for John 5:26--once again, didomi, meaning it was a merited fact. Jesus was not handed this freely, it was by virtue of Him.

Regarding the calling of Nathanael, Nathanael was called by Philip, who was called by Jesus. As they came, Jesus called out and Nathanael said "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (John 5:49, ESV). He was amazed that Jesus knew this of him. If Jesus had been standing right there, big difference in the writing and reading of the text.

Regarding the Father knowing and Jesus not knowing. The Father is God. He holds this knowledge. Jesus is God. He does not hold this knowledge. Does God hold this knowledge? Yep. God holds it in the person of the Father. Thus God, the Godhead, remains omniscient..

And of course you don'f find the Nicene Creed Biblical. You disagree with orthodox Christianity, which affirms the veracity of the Nicene Creed vis-a-vis scripture. I'm a Lutheran, so if you think I'm throwing around creeds and councils, two words: sola scriptura.


Hello and Peace be to you KarmaGhost,

John 14:28
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.

I don't know how this shows omnipresence at all, there isn't any sufficient information that Jesus is omnipresent based on that verse. Now if you are saying that Jesus' divinity goes beyond his human body, then how did he see Nathaniel? We humans see with our eyes correct? Now if you claim that Jesus wasn't actually there by human body but by divinity, then exactly how did he see Nathaniel? With his eyes? And please give me some evidence if that's ok with you. I can say that Jesus' divinity is not omnipresent, even when Jesus was resurrected, he said he had not yet desended to the father. What does that mean? That means that the Son was not where the father was, which results to saying that Jesus is not omnipresent because he was not in heaven.

Okay, then what you are saying is that Jesus is not omniscient correct? If Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man, and yet he admits that he doesn't know the hour, then that cannot make him FULLY GOD. This shows that God is divisibe, and anything that is infinite is not divisible (I think). I can also make the case that the Father is not omnipresent because Jesus said the Father is in heaven. So I can say, Okay, the father is in heaven, Jesus is in Jerusalem, so the Holy Spirit must be everywhere else. That shows that God is divisible and the trinity has 3 parts, each dependent on the other.

Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the Nicene Creed have to do with Constantine? I would really like to learn about Constantine, please do give me some good websites if you know of any. And please do check out the beliefs of unitarian christians. Now I asked this question. If Jesus is really equal to the Father, where does the Father ever say that Jesus is great, or that Jesus gave him life, or that Jesus is God? Thanks a lot KarmaGhost, and have a good day!

[Sparko]

[quote=Sparko;1851442]

"Amen, amen, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

shouldn't that have read then:

"Amen, amen, the Son says unto you. Before Abraham was, the Son is"?
Except he was making a statement there that he was God "I am"





what's then the name of the Father?
and what the name of the Holy Spirit?
Do you even get it at all? It was not even talking about actual names, but the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "In the name of" is equivalent to "by the authority of" - And it shows that the same authority is shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are ONE.


And yes you are following me around. I think you have a case of Sparko-ocd.

[sylvius]

Except he was making a statement there that he was God "I am"

is that so?



Do you even get it at all? It was not even talking about actual names,

yes you did But notice he didn't say the nameS of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


but the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "In the name of" is equivalent to "by the authority of" - And it shows that the same authority is shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are ONE.
yes, but in what way?
this way?
http://www.biblewheel.com/images/TrinityShield_300.jpg

or in the way of letter "alef", )
two letters "yud", Y , bound together by the "vav", W

the last is what I think

And yes you are following me around. I think you have a case of Sparko-ocd.

yes you're special, special sort of nut-case.

[Sparko]

yes you're special, special sort of nut-case.

Dang if that isn't the pot calling the kettle "black"!

:lmbo:

[Harfelugan]

John 14:28
for the Father is greater than I That Jesus says the the Father is greater than Himself is a statement about His position in the Godhead and has nothing to do with His equal essence with God the Father . When a trinitarian says that the Father , Son , Holy Spirit are equal , you could automatically think we are talking about a 3 headed monster possessing 3 different wills . That isn't the case at all . We are professing that God is one God Now if you are saying that Jesus' divinity goes beyond his human body, then how did he see Nathaniel? We humans see with our eyes correct? Now if you claim that Jesus wasn't actually there by human body but by divinity, then exactly how did he see Nathaniel? With his eyes? To a trinitarian this is how The Father , Son , and Holy Spirit work in unison with each other . Jesus was fully man in his incarnate state , yet with complete access to the God head in it's omnipresent , omniscience attributes . As long as what He attempted to access was in the will of the Father for fulfilling the mission of the Messiah . Making Him also fully God at the same time , in subjection to the Father . This is why the Father doesn't give the Son specifics on The date of the End . It is good to take note here that jesus wasn't refused this information , HE DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR IT . And please give me some evidence if that's ok with you. The fact that He both saw and knew specific facts about Nathaniel is all the evidence needed to show that the Son had access to the attributes of the Godhead .I can say that Jesus' divinity is not omnipresent, even when Jesus was resurrected, he said he had not yet desended to the father. What does that mean? That means that the Son was not where the father was, which results to saying that Jesus is not omnipresent because he was not in heaven. It means the the physical body of Christ wasn't in heaven , or on mars either , at the time of His incarnation as fully man .

I can also make the case that the Father is not omnipresent because Jesus said the Father is in heaven. So I can say, Okay, the father is in heaven, Jesus is in Jerusalem, so the Holy Spirit must be everywhere else. That shows that God is divisible and the trinity has 3 parts, each dependent on the other. Jesus said , "I and the Father are one" ', and as he prepared his disciples for his departure ' "I am going to the Father" , then "But the Helper , the Holy Spirit (basically another of the same kind), whom the Father will send in My name" . The God head does have three parts , as these verses seem to be implying . But they aren't divisable , for they are of one essence . One will .

And please do check out the beliefs of unitarian christians. Are you thinking of converting to the Unitarian faith Now I asked this question. If Jesus is really equal to the Father, where does the Father ever say that Jesus is great, or that Jesus gave him life, or that Jesus is God? Again they are equal in essence not in position .NOTE TO KARMA GHOST AND SPARKO : PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CLARIFY OR CORRECT ME IN THE ABOVE POST AS I REALLY STREACHED THIN IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT COMPREHENSIBLE TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN MINDSET .

[KarmaGhost]

That Jesus says the the Father is greater than Himself is a statement about His position in the Godhead and has nothing to do with His equal essence with God the Father . When a trinitarian says that the Father , Son , Holy Spirit are equal , you could automatically think we are talking about a 3 headed monster possessing 3 different wills . That isn't the case at all . We are professing that God is one God To a trinitarian this is how The Father , Son , and Holy Spirit work in unison with each other . Jesus was fully man in his incarnate state , yet with complete access to the God head in it's omnipresent , omniscience attributes . As long as what He attempted to access was in the will of the Father for fulfilling the mission of the Messiah . Making Him also fully God at the same time , in subjection to the Father . This is why the Father doesn't give the Son specifics on The date of the End . It is good to take note here that jesus wasn't refused this information , HE DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR IT . The fact that He both saw and knew specific facts about Nathaniel is all the evidence needed to show that the Son had access to the attributes of the Godhead .It means the the physical body of Christ wasn't in heaven , or on mars either , at the time of His incarnation as fully man .

Jesus said , "I and the Father are one" ', and as he prepared his disciples for his departure ' "I am going to the Father" , then "But the Helper , the Holy Spirit (basically another of the same kind), whom the Father will send in My name" . The God head does have three parts , as these verses seem to be implying . But they aren't divisable , for they are of one essence . One will .

Are you thinking of converting to the Unitarian faith Again they are equal in essence not in position .NOTE TO KARMA GHOST AND SPARKO : PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CLARIFY OR CORRECT ME IN THE ABOVE POST AS I REALLY STREACHED THIN IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT COMPREHENSIBLE TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN MINDSET .

Rock on, Harf. This was a brilliant response.

Moose:

I think your problem comes in the conceptualization of the Godhead as a modalist relationship. That is to say that it is one God related as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this case, you are saying that one god appears in different forms. Based on this, this one God would know the time, and his one form of the son would know the time, because the god is the same god, just putting on a different "mask" if you will. But this is not the Trinity. The Trinity is based on the is of essential predication, not the is of identity. In this case, is means "made up of." Like an ice cube and my glass of water are both "made up of" H2O (water), but they are different things. They are merely made up of the same stuff.

The Godhead (godstuff, if you will) makes up the Son, Father and Holy Spirit, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. By their powers combined, they create The Godhead. (Five pearls to the first person to get the lame pop culture reference.) But the Father does not make up the Son or the Holy Spirit.

[sylvius]

Dang if that isn't the pot calling the kettle "black"!

:lmbo:
hey sparko, check out this

http://www.inner.org/HEBLETER/alef.htm

The union of "higher reality," the upper yud, with the "lower reality," the lower yud, by means of the connecting vav of Torah, is the ultimate secret of the letter alef.
that is what Matthew 28:19 is about

"shield of trinity" is an expression of a Christiniaty that has been cut loose from its Jewish roots; drifting free through open space with no foot on the ground.

Sign of idolatry...

[Sparko]

hey sparko, check out this

http://www.inner.org/HEBLETER/alef.htm


that is what Matthew 28:19 is about

"shield of trinity" is an expression of a Christiniaty that has been cut loose from its Jewish roots; drifting free through open space with no foot on the ground.

Sign of idolatry...

The shield of the trinity is not a representation of God anyway. It is basically a learning tool to remind someone of the various statements in the Trinity doctrine, e.g. Father is God, Holy Spirit is God, Son is God, Father is not Son, Son is not Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit is not Father.

It's just a memory tool, not a drawing of the God. Get that through your head.

The Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei is a traditional Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) visual symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism) which expresses many aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), summarizing the first part of the Athanasian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed) in a compact diagram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

[Shadow Phoenix]

Rock on, Harf. This was a brilliant response.

Moose:

I think your problem comes in the conceptualization of the Godhead as a modalist relationship. That is to say that it is one God related as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this case, you are saying that one god appears in different forms. Based on this, this one God would know the time, and his one form of the son would know the time, because the god is the same god, just putting on a different "mask" if you will. But this is not the Trinity. The Trinity is based on the is of essential predication, not the is of identity. In this case, is means "made up of." Like an ice cube and my glass of water are both "made up of" H2O (water), but they are different things. They are merely made up of the same stuff.

The Godhead (godstuff, if you will) makes up the Son, Father and Holy Spirit, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. By their powers combined, they create The Godhead. (Five pearls to the first person to get the lame pop culture reference.) But the Father does not make up the Son or the Holy Spirit.

It's from Captain Planet. *Groans*

Let's not forget that Mohammad wasn't too clear on the Trinity either and grew up around Monophysitism and Nestorianism.

[sylvius]

The shield of the trinity is not a representation of God anyway. It is basically a learning tool to remind someone of the various statements in the Trinity doctrine, e.g. Father is God, Holy Spirit is God, Son is God, Father is not Son, Son is not Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit is not Father.

It's just a memory tool, not a drawing of the God. Get that through your head.

The Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei is a traditional Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) visual symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism) which expresses many aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), summarizing the first part of the Athanasian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed) in a compact diagram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Trinity_knight_shield.jpg

shield to protect to their idolatry...

or were these gospelpreachers just salesmen of Mercedes Benz?

http://www.mercedes-benz-chrysler-jeep-dodge.cz/obr/mercedes_benz.jpg

[Sparko]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Trinity_knight_shield.jpg

shield to protect to their idolatry...

or were these gospelpreachers just salesmen of Mercedes Benz?

http://www.mercedes-benz-chrysler-jeep-dodge.cz/obr/mercedes_benz.jpg

Gosh, you are such an idiot. :lmbo:

[moose7237]

That Jesus says the the Father is greater than Himself is a statement about His position in the Godhead and has nothing to do with His equal essence with God the Father . When a trinitarian says that the Father , Son , Holy Spirit are equal , you could automatically think we are talking about a 3 headed monster possessing 3 different wills . That isn't the case at all . We are professing that God is one God To a trinitarian this is how The Father , Son , and Holy Spirit work in unison with each other . Jesus was fully man in his incarnate state , yet with complete access to the God head in it's omnipresent , omniscience attributes . As long as what He attempted to access was in the will of the Father for fulfilling the mission of the Messiah . Making Him also fully God at the same time , in subjection to the Father . This is why the Father doesn't give the Son specifics on The date of the End . It is good to take note here that jesus wasn't refused this information , HE DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR IT . The fact that He both saw and knew specific facts about Nathaniel is all the evidence needed to show that the Son had access to the attributes of the Godhead .It means the the physical body of Christ wasn't in heaven , or on mars either , at the time of His incarnation as fully man .

Jesus said , "I and the Father are one" ', and as he prepared his disciples for his departure ' "I am going to the Father" , then "But the Helper , the Holy Spirit (basically another of the same kind), whom the Father will send in My name" . The God head does have three parts , as these verses seem to be implying . But they aren't divisable , for they are of one essence . One will .

Are you thinking of converting to the Unitarian faith Again they are equal in essence not in position .NOTE TO KARMA GHOST AND SPARKO : PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CLARIFY OR CORRECT ME IN THE ABOVE POST AS I REALLY STREACHED THIN IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT COMPREHENSIBLE TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN MINDSET .

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

So you are saying that the Father's position is greater than Jesus'? Then I would say that Jesus isn't God. Why? In my understanding, God has the highest position out of any being or any creation. So what you are saying here is that God the Father has a greater Position than God the son. Okay, then I would say, can you show me one place where the Son is greater than the Father in anything? So, Now I would disagree again, because I think it is in essence that Jesus is not greater then the Father. To show that they are true in essence, I think you have to show how the Father is dependent on the Son, because many instances in the bible the son is dependent on the Father. The best example I can give about how the Father is greater in essence would be this verse:

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

If the Father and son are true in essence, then Jesus would never have said his authority was "given". God isn't "given" any of his power he is independent of anything. Here is another verse:

John 5:26
26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.


WHOA!!! The Father doesn't GIVE the son specifics about the end date? The Father shouldn't have to give the son specifics if the son if fully God. Please define what God is? It easily seems like the Father is God but the son need information "given" to him? He should already have this information. This is even more evidence that Jesus is not God.

Not at all, even though he had specifics about Nathaniel, that doesn't mean that he had access to the Godhead. Remember, Jesus was given authority in heaven and earth, so by the power of the father and his permission he is allowed to know things. Like Jesus' miracles, they were because God gave him the authority to do those things.

But at his time as incarnated as fully man, supposedly he was fully God as well, thus he must be infinite which is what God is. God is physically everywhere, we can't see him but he is. So you must say that Jesus is more than a human body even when he was on earth and dwelled with people. God said in the OT, I don't remember the verse, that he is everywhere all the time. Jesus wasn't everywhere he was limited to a human body. And he can't be more than a human body either because when he was on the cross he said "into thy hands I commend my spirit" so even his spirit was in his body so he couldn't have been more than a body and thus he was limited.

When Jesus said I and the Father are one, it was not literal, it was saying that he and the father are one is keeping their followers in their hands. Not literally one.

No I am not thinking of unitarian beliefs. I am a Muslim and I declare that there is not God but Allah, I associate no partners with him, and I declare that Muhammad was his messenger. If you do want to argue this, please take it to the Islam forum and we can have a nice discussion friend. But I do think that the unitarian beliefs are far more logical than the trinitarian beliefs. Did you see the site I gave. It explains most of the verses used to prove the trinity and explains how they are not used correctly.

[moose7237]

Rock on, Harf. This was a brilliant response.

Moose:

I think your problem comes in the conceptualization of the Godhead as a modalist relationship. That is to say that it is one God related as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this case, you are saying that one god appears in different forms. Based on this, this one God would know the time, and his one form of the son would know the time, because the god is the same god, just putting on a different "mask" if you will. But this is not the Trinity. The Trinity is based on the is of essential predication, not the is of identity. In this case, is means "made up of." Like an ice cube and my glass of water are both "made up of" H2O (water), but they are different things. They are merely made up of the same stuff.

The Godhead (godstuff, if you will) makes up the Son, Father and Holy Spirit, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. By their powers combined, they create The Godhead. (Five pearls to the first person to get the lame pop culture reference.) But the Father does not make up the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Let me quote you correctly here if I can my friend:

"By their powers combined, they create the Godhead"

Clearly this shows that the perception of God relies on 3 persons combining their powers to create the Godhead. By this definition, then none of them are God. Why? Because God is infinite and powerful. So to say that Jesus is Fully God or the Father is fully God, that is false. Then you have to say, Jesus is partly God, so is the Father, and so is the spirit. Clearly they are divisible. Its like me saying This slice 1/4 or a pizza, this slice is 1/4 of a pizza, this slice is 1/4 of a pizza, and this slice is 1/4 of a pizza. But i can't say that each slice is a full Pizza. When you combine all 4 slices you have 1 pizza. That's the same thing you are saying about the trinity. They are divisible by your analogy.

[moose7237]

It's from Captain Planet. *Groans*

Let's not forget that Mohammad wasn't too clear on the Trinity either and grew up around Monophysitism and Nestorianism.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Muhammad rejected both of these thoughts. But to get into a more depth discussion about this, please take it to the Islam forum.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Let me quote you correctly here if I can my friend:

"By their powers combined, they create the Godhead"

Clearly this shows that the perception of God relies on 3 persons combining their powers to create the Godhead. By this definition, then none of them are God. Why? Because God is infinite and powerful. So to say that Jesus is Fully God or the Father is fully God, that is false. Then you have to say, Jesus is partly God, so is the Father, and so is the spirit. Clearly they are divisible. Its like me saying This slice 1/4 or a pizza, this slice is 1/4 of a pizza, this slice is 1/4 of a pizza, and this slice is 1/4 of a pizza. But i can't say that each slice is a full Pizza. When you combine all 4 slices you have 1 pizza. That's the same thing you are saying about the trinity. They are divisible by your analogy.

No, you're taking my quotation out of context. I was using it as a snarky pop-culture analogy regarding the metaphysics of essential predication.

Learn philosophy of language and identify what I mean by is before thinkying you've refuted it.Fully God meaning "is fully made up of this godstuff." This godstuff in its divine nature, being God, is what makes Jesus omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and immortal even in the context of being 100% man.

[heisonly1]

Rock on, Harf. This was a brilliant response.

Moose:

I think your problem comes in the conceptualization of the Godhead as a modalist relationship. That is to say that it is one God related as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this case, you are saying that one god appears in different forms. Based on this, this one God would know the time, and his one form of the son would know the time, because the god is the same god, just putting on a different "mask" if you will. But this is not the Trinity. The Trinity is based on the is of essential predication, not the is of identity. In this case, is means "made up of." Like an ice cube and my glass of water are both "made up of" H2O (water), but they are different things. They are merely made up of the same stuff.

The Godhead (godstuff, if you will) makes up the Son, Father and Holy Spirit, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. By their powers combined, they create The Godhead. (Five pearls to the first person to get the lame pop culture reference.) But the Father does not make up the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Please provide one verse where God is comprised of 'three parts' that form the one being of God according to the Biblical scriptures !!??? According to Trinitarianism, each member of the godhead may share the one essence of divinity and will, however this does not translate as ‘one God’, but rather three personal self conscious deities or gods that possess the one essence or nature of divinity (ontological equality) that operate in unison to ensure the salvation of man. The trinity doctrine, in theory, may claim to worship one God when applying its self defined terms and assumptions, however when measuring the articulation of the Trinity doctrine/ theory against the Biblical scriptures, it is clearly exposed as a form of polytheism - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

[Sparko]

Do you guys see why I was not willing to even discuss the Opening Post because Moose has such a twisted view of the trinity? Hesonly1 has the same problem.
They insist on claiming the Trinity is polytheism showing they do not even understand the concept, so what makes them think they can argue against it?

As long as Moose and Heisonly1 keep arguing against a strawman, they will make no progress. It would be like us arguing that Mulsims believed in multiple Gods because Allah talks about himself as "We" in some passages in the Koran. It would be a complete strawman. They would keep insisting they don't believe that, and we would keep insisting they must because of the wording in the Koran.

As long as they keep fighting against TRI-Theism instead of the Trinity, all we can do is sit back and shake our heads at their ignorance. There is no way to convince them that they are impugning a belief on us that we don't hold. They were taught that we believe in three Gods and nothing we say to deny it will make a dent in their misconception. Invincible ignorance.

[heisonly1]

Do you guys see why I was not willing to even discuss the Opening Post because Moose has such a twisted view of the trinity? Hesonly1 has the same problem.
They insist on claiming the Trinity is polytheism showing they do not even understand the concept, so what makes them think they can argue against it?

As long as Moose and Heisonly1 keep arguing against a strawman, they will make no progress. It would be like us arguing that Mulsims believed in multiple Gods because Allah talks about himself as "We" in some passages in the Koran. It would be a complete strawman. They would keep insisting they don't believe that, and we would keep insisting they must because of the wording in the Koran.

As long as they keep fighting against TRI-Theism instead of the Trinity, all we can do is sit back and shake our heads at their ignorance. There is no way to convince them that they are impugning a belief on us that we don't hold. They were taught that we believe in three Gods and nothing we say to deny it will make a dent in their misconception. Invincible ignorance.

Come on Sparko, enlighten us Muslims about the Trinity and expose our 'strawman' arguments if you have any credibility.

:haha: hahahaha I have challenged :fight: you (see below) and given you an advantage by providing you with my arguments, in advance, regarding my views/definition/articulation on the Trinity. Now counter response to my supposed 'misrepresentations' or 'strawman' arguments if you have any clue about what your rambling about. :fight:

Merely repeating like a parrot we Muslims are ignorant of the Trinity is not a refutation Sparko.

Rather it is a reflection of your insecurity and cowardness to defend a dubious doctrine you cannot substantiate using your own Biblical scriptures.

Don't be lazy Sparko, read my posts in the thread cited below on the Trinity and show us what you know, thats if you are really sincere in sharing your 'truth' with us muslims that are 'ignorant' of the Trinity hehehehheheeh.......

You have my arguments in advance, what are you waiting for????? :fight:

peace


hahahah you know when you have dismantled a Trinitarian argument when they finally come out and accuse us Muslims that we don't understand the Trinity heheheheh

Sparko, I invite you to participate in a discussion between Dan and I that began here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=86961 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961)( page 5 is where we really begin the Trinity debate) and specifically point out where I have misunderstood the Trinity when comparing the Triune theory of God to Biblical monotheism.

:sos: Note: Please read all pages of the above thread before making comment to avoid repetition of arguments.

:stop: Warning - I do get a little nasty with my vocabulary when engaing Dan during our debate.

My apologies in advance

peace2u,

heisonly1

[Shadow Phoenix]

Please provide one verse where God is comprised of 'three parts' that form the one being of God according to the Biblical scriptures !!??? According to Trinitarianism, each member of the godhead may share the one essence of divinity and will, however this does not translate as ‘one God’, but rather three personal self conscious deities or gods that possess the one essence or nature of divinity (ontological equality) that operate in unison to ensure the salvation of man. The trinity doctrine, in theory, may claim to worship one God when applying its self defined terms and assumptions, however when measuring the articulation of the Trinity doctrine/ theory against the Biblical scriptures, it is clearly exposed as a form of polytheism - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

Um. No. This would be polytheism if they all did not exist in eternal relationship. However, they each exist in an eternal relationship, so it is not polytheism.

Also, we do not believe in "parts" of God. Furthermore, we don't need one "verse" that says this. This is a gigantic straw man that doesn't realize that considering the way Jesus spoke and the audience he spoke to and the concepts they would recognize, what he was saying about who he was would be known.

Furthermore, they do act in unison to save man, however, this is not to say their purpose is to save man. The Trinity would have been the Trinity if man had never shown up on the scene. It is an eternal relationship of love.

[moose7237]

Um. No. This would be polytheism if they all did not exist in eternal relationship. However, they each exist in an eternal relationship, so it is not polytheism.

Also, we do not believe in "parts" of God. Furthermore, we don't need one "verse" that says this. This is a gigantic straw man that doesn't realize that considering the way Jesus spoke and the audience he spoke to and the concepts they would recognize, what he was saying about who he was would be known.

Furthermore, they do act in unison to save man, however, this is not to say their purpose is to save man. The Trinity would have been the Trinity if man had never shown up on the scene. It is an eternal relationship of love.

Hello and Peace be to you Friend,

Please explain how its not polytheism if they didn't exist in an eternal relationship. Let me make an similar case and you can explain if I am wrong or right. The Greeks have Zeus as the Main God correct. You have Areas, Aphrodite, Poseidon, etc. Say they all have an eternal relationship, yet they are all different Gods that are being worshiped. I don't know if that is similar or not, but I don't understand how its monotheism if they have an eternal relationship. And Brother Heisonly1 was correct to say that the salvation of man relies on the trinity. Isn't it the belief that God decided to die for us? And if we don't believe that then we are condemned? I think it is from my understanding. I disagree when you say that its an eternal relationship of love. God did order wars and the barbarism in the OT is no where near love. But this is for another thread.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you Friend,

Please explain how its not polytheism if they didn't exist in an eternal relationship.

But they do, and that is essential to Trinitarianism, so that is a moot question.

Let me make an similar case and you can explain if I am wrong or right. The Greeks have Zeus as the Main God correct. You have Areas, Aphrodite, Poseidon, etc. Say they all have an eternal relationship, yet they are all different Gods that are being worshiped. I don't know if that is similar or not, but I don't understand how its monotheism if they have an eternal relationship.

Not at all. Zeus was in fact descended from Cronus and the beginning has Gaea and Uranus together. These gods kept popping up everywhere. Aphrodite came from the ocean for instance. Some of them were brothers and sisters of Zeus. Each of them though existed independently of the others. That is a fine distinction.

And Brother Heisonly1 was correct to say that the salvation of man relies on the trinity. Isn't it the belief that God decided to die for us?

Salvation does rely on the Trinity. That is correct. However, the Trinity is the Trinity even if there was no salvation offered. God is not defined by his actions in time.

And if we don't believe that then we are condemned? I think it is from my understanding.

Correct.

I disagree when you say that its an eternal relationship of love. God did order wars and the barbarism in the OT is no where near love. But this is for another thread.

Yes. It is. For now though, I will still say it is an eternal relationship of love, but let us go with this point some. Tell me this. Did God become loving?

[Harfelugan]

Do you guys see why I was not willing to even discuss the Opening Post because Moose has such a twisted view of the trinity? Hesonly1 has the same problem.
They insist on claiming the Trinity is polytheism showing they do not even understand the concept, so what makes them think they can argue against it?

As long as Moose and Heisonly1 keep arguing against a strawman, they will make no progress. It would be like us arguing that Mulsims believed in multiple Gods because Allah talks about himself as "We" in some passages in the Koran. It would be a complete strawman. They would keep insisting they don't believe that, and we would keep insisting they must because of the wording in the Koran.

As long as they keep fighting against TRI-Theism instead of the Trinity, all we can do is sit back and shake our heads at their ignorance. There is no way to convince them that they are impugning a belief on us that we don't hold. They were taught that we believe in three Gods and nothing we say to deny it will make a dent in their misconception. Invincible ignorance.
I think they understand it very well , and we have no further need to try to define it to them as if we were giving an explanation of it . They are asking us to defend it against Unitarian doctrine . In an attack against it . The result of the argument will be the same . If you cant give me a verse that says this........, or the Bible doesn't use the word trinity in any specific term anywhere..........then the doctrine of the trinity falls flat . Specifics on the nature and being of God cannot be taken from one verse or group of related verses . When they are you have confusion and division . The nature and being of God are best defined when using the entirity of scripture . As scripture defines scripture . This was the argument of the early church just after the time of the apostles . They were fortunate in that they had the scriptures and the verbel teachings of the apostles . From that authority they defined trinity before the Nicean Creed and defined it as The Rule of Faith in an effort to define the apostolic verbel teaching along with their scriptural teaching to keep it pure from those who would distort it and introduce false teachings into the Church . The trinity is well defended within the confines of orthodox Christianity and leaves God as specifically being , "one God" . To defend the trinity against Unitarian theology is a neither side win argument when done as we are asked to respond here . Ultimately you will find that if you throw out trinitarian doctrine the door opens up for Mormonism , Jehovah's Witnesses' , and Cultisms that define and redefine God , yes even Islam . Basically relativism with god remaining God yet the method of our gaining His acceptance changing to fit whatever viewpoint or interpretation we choose .

[heisonly1]

ApologiaPhoenix - Um. No. This would be polytheism if they all did not exist in eternal relationship. However, they each exist in an eternal relationship, so it is not polytheism.

According to Trinitarianism, the fact that each 'person' of the godhead is distinct and possess their own self awareness and personal individuality and converse with one another from eternity that share the same eternal essence or nature of divinity makes no difference ApologiaPhoenix.

When measured against the Biblical scriptures, the trinitarian articulation is a clear proclaimation of polytheism - the eternal subsistence of three eternal deities or gods that operate in unison to ensure the redemption and salvation of man.This is a transparent manifestation of the worship of three eternal gods that form a godhead, not One God. Just ask our Jewish members here, I'm sure they will be able to clarify this fact for you.

Also, we do not believe in "parts" of God. Furthermore, we don't need one "verse" that says this. This is a gigantic straw man that doesn't realize that considering the way Jesus spoke and the audience he spoke to and the concepts they would recognize, what he was saying about who he was would be known.

I stipulated 'parts' in inverted comas as an expression used by karmaghost here - Post: #52 Re: Can you defend the trinity? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1851523&postcount=52) according to his/her articulation.

When requesting trinitarians, like Dan, to produce proof in support of the articulation of the Trinity from the Biblical scriptures, i find you present verses where you interpret them, through Trinitarian mode of thought, to illustrate each member of the trinity shares the same ontological equality - essence of divinity - to substantiate each is 'God' in the sense that each member shares the same eternal attributes of divinity.This common Trinitarian demonstration only further supports that Trinitarians worship three eteranl Gods, not one God.

However, in support of the Trinitarian articulation of God, you need to provide supporting evidence from the biblical scriptures that proclaims 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

Refer here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=86961 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961) for futher detail regarding this critical point of contention.

Furthermore, they do act in unison to save man, however, this is not to say their purpose is to save man. The Trinity would have been the Trinity if man had never shown up on the scene. It is an eternal relationship of love.

According to Trinitarianism, It's an eternal relationship of Love between three deities or gods that share the same essence of divinity that substist from eternity that form one godhead. According to the biblical scriptures this is a form of polytheism, since Biblically, one God denotes a singular personal indivisible being that is one 'person' or individuality, NOT three divine or eternal 'persons' or 'individualities' that form one being

peace2u

[sylvius]

Gosh, you are such an idiot. :lmbo:

Psalms 118

אֶבֶן, מָאֲסוּ הַבּוֹנִים-- הָיְתָה, לְרֹאשׁ פִּנָּה. 22 The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone.

מֵאֵת יְהוָה, הָיְתָה זֹּאת; הִיא נִפְלָאת בְּעֵינֵינוּ. 23 This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.


note; this is central in Mark, cornerstone "rosh pinnah" -- "pinnah" = corner; root "panah" = to turn; root also of "panim" = face"; "penimi" = inner; "pinnah" - to make way, prepare. (in the quotations from Isaiah and Malachi in Mark 1)


you say trinity: one god three faces; which is nonsense.

Trinity is about the two letters "yud" that mirror each other in the "vav"

note that marvellous, wondrous, "niflot'; נִפְלָאת; is from root "pele", פְלָא, reverse of "alef".

"alef" lettervalue 1; wordvalue 111;
"elef" = 1000 .

1000 = 100 +200+300+ 400; which is new oneness.

last letter of alefbet being "tav" = sign of the cross, with value 400.

nice image

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/danrubinstein2.jpg

"mirror"

Hebrew "mareh" which means also vision.

Greek "esoptron"

1Corinthians 13:12
blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati, tote de proswpon proV proswpon: arti ginwskw ek merouV, tote de epignwsomai kaqwV kai epegnwsqhn.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.



and strange (I heard from Richard McGough) "marot elohim"= visions of God (Ezekiel 1:1) has numerical value of 733, like "labbat -esh" (flame of fire) in Exodus 3:2.
An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.

733 special number-

snowflake-number.

733 = 7 x 73 + 6 x 37.

[Weboh2]

In a text known as Pseudo-Anthimus, Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato. (Source: AHB Logan. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

[Sparko]

Come on Sparko, enlighten us Muslims about the Trinity and expose our 'strawman' arguments if you have any credibility.

:haha: hahahaha I have challenged :fight: you (see below) and given you an advantage by providing you with my arguments, in advance, regarding my views/definition/articulation on the Trinity. Now counter response to my supposed 'misrepresentations' or 'strawman' arguments if you have any clue about what your rambling about. :fight:

Merely repeating like a parrot we Muslims are ignorant of the Trinity is not a refutation Sparko.

Rather it is a reflection of your insecurity and cowardness to defend a dubious doctrine you cannot substantiate using your own Biblical scriptures.

Don't be lazy Sparko, read my posts in the thread cited below on the Trinity and show us what you know, thats if you are really sincere in sharing your 'truth' with us muslims that are 'ignorant' of the Trinity hehehehheheeh.......

You have my arguments in advance, what are you waiting for????? :fight:

peace

I know for a fact that you don't understand the trinity. One of your 'arguments' against the trinity is to quote passages that say that God is only one and there are no other gods before or after him, and you think that disproves the trinity. You are so clueless that you don't even know that trinitarians use those verses to support the trinity and denounce Jehovah's witnesses who claim that Jesus is "another" God.

We agree there is only ONE God, heisonly1. So every time you throw those verses in our face we simply laugh and agree with you, GOD IS ONE. There is only ONE God. Not three Gods, not a dozen. ONE.

So until you get that through your thick skull, you have no game. If you don't even understand what we believe then you have no right to criticize it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

According to Trinitarianism, the fact that each 'person' of the godhead is distinct and possess their own self awareness and personal individuality and converse with one another from eternity that share the same eternal essence or nature of divinity makes no difference ApologiaPhoenix.

Actually, it does since I don't accept your definition. You've made the mistake of assuming the persons are individuals when the two are quite distinct.

When measured against the Biblical scriptures, the trinitarian articulation is a clear proclaimation of polytheism - the eternal subsistence of three eternal deities or gods that operate in unison to ensure the redemption and salvation of man.

Saying so doesn't make it so. You have made an assumption that one person = one god. Please tell me why I am obligated to accept that any god that exists must exist in a unipersonal way.

This is a transparent manifestation of the worship of three eternal gods that form a godhead, not One God. Just ask our Jewish members here, I'm sure they will be able to clarify this fact for you.

Actually, I'd rather ask the Jews of the past. Ever read where there were others that were said to have YHWH's name dwelling in them? Ever heard of Metatron? Ever heard of second temple Judaism. What of OT passages where two persons are referred to as YHWH?





When requesting trinitarians, like Dan, to produce proof in support of the articulation of the Trinity from the Biblical scriptures, i find you present verses where you interpret them, through Trinitarian mode of thought, to illustrate each member of the trinity shares the same ontological equality - essence of divinity - to substantiate each is 'God' in the sense that each member shares the same eternal attributes of divinity.This common Trinitarian demonstration only further supports that Trinitarians worship three eteranl Gods, not one God.

In what way would such demonstrate that? Furthermore, if the Trinity can only be drawn out of Scripture reading Trinitarian lenses, then please explain how the idea was derived in the first place!

However, in support of the Trinitarian articulation of God, you need to provide supporting evidence from the biblical scriptures that proclaims 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

I am under no such obligation.




According to Trinitarianism, It's an eternal relationship of Love between three deities or gods that share the same essence of divinity that substist from eternity that form one godhead. According to the biblical scriptures this is a form of polytheism, since Biblically, one God denotes a singular personal indivisible being that is one 'person' or individuality, NOT three divine or eternal 'persons' or 'individualities' that form one being

peace2u

And there is your assumption of unipersonalism as well as the assumption that individuals means the same thing as persons.

[moose7237]

Actually, it does since I don't accept your definition. You've made the mistake of assuming the persons are individuals when the two are quite distinct.



Saying so doesn't make it so. You have made an assumption that one person = one god. Please tell me why I am obligated to accept that any god that exists must exist in a unipersonal way.



Actually, I'd rather ask the Jews of the past. Ever read where there were others that were said to have YHWH's name dwelling in them? Ever heard of Metatron? Ever heard of second temple Judaism. What of OT passages where two persons are referred to as YHWH?







In what way would such demonstrate that? Furthermore, if the Trinity can only be drawn out of Scripture reading Trinitarian lenses, then please explain how the idea was derived in the first place!



I am under no such obligation.






And there is your assumption of unipersonalism as well as the assumption that individuals means the same thing as persons.

Hello and Peace be to you,

I just wanted to ask a few questions for ApologiaPhoenix:

Please show us what is the difference between a 'person' and an 'individual'

Also, why can't you show us biblical evidence of One God being shown as three persons or the trinity? I mean, if it is such an important part of Christian Theology, especially relating to the nature of God, it should be in the bible.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you,

I just wanted to ask a few questions for ApologiaPhoenix:

Please show us what is the difference between a 'person' and an 'individual'

Also, why can't you show us biblical evidence of One God being shown as three persons or the trinity? I mean, if it is such an important part of Christian Theology, especially relating to the nature of God, it should be in the bible.

I realize these are for Phoenix, but regarding your second question:

You are asking for one verse that clearly iterates the three-in-one doctrine. We have offered several pointing to and showing the divinity and affirmation of Jesus, as well as showing that the Holy Spirit is an active agent. Just because something is not stated explicity does not mean it is non-Biblical. There are implicit distinctions to be made in the context of interpretation, and in this case, we must consider what these writings meant to first-century Jews, to whom Jesus and the Apostles were talking and deriving their theology. I ask you again:

If Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of Islam, how can you accept any of His teachings when He blasphemed against Allah and told such horrible "lies" as you seem to think? First-century Jews in Judea understood full well that Jesus was claiming to be God--they tried to stone Him several times for it and eventually the Sanhedrin sent Him to Pontius Pilate calling for death because of this blasphemy. So, either Jesus was and is who He said...or you must reject him completely. If the latter, you let go of Islam's claim to the final Abrahamic prophet, and if the former, you accept the Trinity because the only other option is that there isn't one God...

[heisonly1]

ApologiaPhoenix - Actually, it does since I don't accept your definition. You've made the mistake of assuming the persons are individuals when the two are quite distinct.

In regards to conceptualizing the distinctiveness of each deity of the Triune godhead, the word "person" is a common expression used by Trinitarians to articulate/ denote 'individuality' and 'self awareness' of each member of the Trinity.I have had this discussion with Dan in my debate about your point raised here, where he ignorantly accused me of making up definitions regarding the appropriate mode of expression to define or describe the distinctiveness of each deity or member of the Triune godhead.I illustrated to him that (a) the very definitions I used were articulated by Trinitarians themselves, and (b) it makes no difference what expressions or conceptualizations you conjecture in your mind to conceptualize the distinctiveness of each member of the Trinity, since it is transparent God Almighty is not three distinct and personal 'whatevers' that form one being of God, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES.

Three personal 'whatevers' may form the one being of God according to Trinitarian theory, but not according to the biblical scriptures.This is the critical point of contention.

Here is your opportunity ApologiaPhoenix to define the distinctiveness of each 'person' of the Trinity and I'll show you how it makes not difference what definition you conjecture, when measuring your definitions and articulations against the Biblical scriptures.The fact that God Almighty is clearly presented as a unipersonal being, according to your biblical scriptures, exposes the articulation of the Trinity as three distinct eternal deities that form one godhead.This is polytheism not monotheism, according to the Biblical scriptures and definitions. To avoid getting stung like Dan, I suggest you read my post and counter respond to my refutation to avoid repetition.


Saying so doesn't make it so. You have made an assumption that one person = one god. Please tell me why I am obligated to accept that any god that exists must exist in a unipersonal way.


hahahha well to begin with ApologiaPhoenix, your own biblical scriptures present God Almighty's being as unipersonal.Please illustrate from the Biblical scriptures where the expression 'one God' denotes/signifies/represents/denotes three eternal and personal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being of God.This is the critical point of contention here.


Actually, I'd rather ask the Jews of the past. Ever read where there were others that were said to have YHWH's name dwelling in them? Ever heard of Metatron? Ever heard of second temple Judaism. What of OT passages where two persons are referred to as YHWH?

Yes, Yes, Yes and especially Yes. hahahahahah I am very familiar with the feeble Trinitarian modes of interpreting the Biblical scriptures that attempt to find apparent support for the articulation of the Trinity.None of these bogus Trinitarian attempts substantiate that God Almighty is comprised of three personal eternal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being!

heisonly1 - "When requesting trinitarians, like Dan, to produce proof in support of the articulation of the Trinity from the Biblical scriptures, i find you present verses where you interpret them, through Trinitarian mode of thought, to illustrate each member of the trinity shares the same ontological equality - essence of divinity - to substantiate each is 'God' in the sense that each member shares the same eternal attributes of divinity.This common Trinitarian demonstration only further supports that Trinitarians worship three eteranl Gods, not one God."

ApologiaPhoenix - In what way would such demonstrate that? Furthermore, if the Trinity can only be drawn out of Scripture reading Trinitarian lenses, then please explain how the idea was derived in the first place!

The articulation of theTrinity partly originated from the infused of Jewish 'wisdom theology' and Greek Logos philosophies that formed the template to erroneously conceptualize the relationship between each member of the triune godhead that formed the Trinity doctrine.Again refer to my debate with dan for further detailed explanations.

Originally posted by Heisonly1
However, in support of the Trinitarian articulation of God, you need to provide supporting evidence from the biblical scriptures that proclaims 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190) I am under no such obligation.


This is the critical point of content ApologiaPhoenix.

Indeed you are obligated to substantiate from the biblical scriptures that 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190) as articulated in the doctrine of the trinity, since Trinitarianism supposedly represents Biblical monotheism, which I have transparently illustrated is a bogus myth.If you cannot substanitate this crucial Trinitarian articulation from the scriptures then categorically, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct divine personal deities that subsisted from eternity, since God Almighty is unipersonal,not multipersonal, according to the biblical scriptures.

If you cannot substantiate the nature of the being of God as three 'whatevers' that form one being of God - as articulated according to the doctrine of the Trinity, from the scriptures, then you are a polytheist according to the Biblical scriptures.

And there is your assumption of unipersonalism as well as the assumption that individuals means the same thing as persons.

I have offered evidence that illustrates God Almighty IS unipersonal. Counter respond to the evidence and prove otherwise by substantiating the articulation of the Trinity from the scriptures.

However, in support of the Trinitarian articulation of God, you need to provide supporting evidence from the biblical scriptures that proclaims 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)


peace2u

[moose7237]

I realize these are for Phoenix, but regarding your second question:

You are asking for one verse that clearly iterates the three-in-one doctrine. We have offered several pointing to and showing the divinity and affirmation of Jesus, as well as showing that the Holy Spirit is an active agent. Just because something is not stated explicity does not mean it is non-Biblical. There are implicit distinctions to be made in the context of interpretation, and in this case, we must consider what these writings meant to first-century Jews, to whom Jesus and the Apostles were talking and deriving their theology. I ask you again:

If Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of Islam, how can you accept any of His teachings when He blasphemed against Allah and told such horrible "lies" as you seem to think? First-century Jews in Judea understood full well that Jesus was claiming to be God--they tried to stone Him several times for it and eventually the Sanhedrin sent Him to Pontius Pilate calling for death because of this blasphemy. So, either Jesus was and is who He said...or you must reject him completely. If the latter, you let go of Islam's claim to the final Abrahamic prophet, and if the former, you accept the Trinity because the only other option is that there isn't one God...

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

One would assume that if your salvation depended on the trinity, then there better be clear unrefutable evidence about it. Like the flood, there isn't evidence that you need to connect that the flood happened, it says so clearly in the bible. Now for something that depends on your salvation, it better be clear in plenty of verses that One God = Son, Father, Spirit. But there isn't any verse that says that. Or any verses that say that.

KarmaGhost, In Islam, we view the 4 gospels as made up and not actual words of Jesus. There are theories that Constantine changed the bible. I have a documentary from the HIstory Channel called banned from the bible. It shows canons that were banned by constantine. The Apocalypse of Peter, the Gnostic one, was very popular by people and it was rejected. It supports Islam that Jesus was never crucified. In our religion, Jesus will be asked on the day of judgement if he ever claimed to be God. Jesus will say, "I cannot say what you have not allowed me to say, you know all what is in my heart." If you read my original post, you would have seen that I posted 2 Quranic verses one which is the words of Jesus himself saying people who associate partners with God will be forbidden paradise. Surely Jesus would never say that according to trinitarians.

Now I have a theory that the Jews during Jesus' time were either really stupid or they just wanted an excuse to kill him like they did the prophets before him. Surely if anyone knew the definiton of God they would certainly see that Jesus is not God. For he admits the Father gave him authority, he admits that Father is greater than him, he admits the Father gave him work to do, he admits he can't do anything the Father hasn't done, he admits he wants the will of the father. On top of all this, he admits the Father is his God! I mean how much more evidence does one need to see that Jesus isn't God. Read the unitarian interpretations of the trinity verses and counter them and tell them they're wrong. I've e-mailed them before and they responded quite fast. Take Care and may you seek the Truth.

[sylvius]

if you even don't even understand what we believe then you have no right to criticize it.

that's a rather delusive sentence, Sparko.

Look at it.

if we would say amen to your believe-systems then there even would be no need for criticism.

we would all be happy living together in peace as brothers.

but, since we don't do say amen to your weird creeds, we don't have no rights too

you are not only deaf for all counterarguments; but deny our rights to utter them.

that's totally against to what your putative teacher teached:

Mark 10:42-44

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you,

I just wanted to ask a few questions for ApologiaPhoenix:

Please show us what is the difference between a 'person' and an 'individual'

Also, why can't you show us biblical evidence of One God being shown as three persons or the trinity? I mean, if it is such an important part of Christian Theology, especially relating to the nature of God, it should be in the bible.

An individual means that one is capable of having existence apart from the others. This won't be able to be said of the Son in Trinitarian thought who lives because the Father lives. Each eternally exists in relation to the other.

As to your second question, it is. If you understand Jewish thought and context at the time, it's all throughout the Bible.

[Shadow Phoenix]

In regards to conceptualizing the distinctiveness of each deity of the Triune godhead, the word "person" is a common expression used by Trinitarians to articulate/ denote 'individuality' and 'self awareness' of each member of the Trinity.I have had this discussion with Dan in my debate about your point raised here, where he ignorantly accused me of making up definitions regarding the appropriate mode of expression to define or describe the distinctiveness of each deity or member of the Triune godhead.I illustrated to him that (a) the very definitions I used were articulated by Trinitarians themselves, and (b) it makes no difference what expressions or conceptualizations you conjecture in your mind to conceptualize the distinctiveness of each member of the Trinity, since it is transparent God Almighty is not three distinct and personal 'whatevers' that form one being of God, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES.

Three personal 'whatevers' may form the one being of God according to Trinitarian theory, but not according to the biblical scriptures.This is the critical point of contention.

Here is your opportunity ApologiaPhoenix to define the distinctiveness of each 'person' of the Trinity and I'll show you how it makes not difference what definition you conjecture, when measuring your definitions and articulations against the Biblical scriptures.The fact that God Almighty is clearly presented as a unipersonal being, according to your biblical scriptures, exposes the articulation of the Trinity as three distinct eternal deities that form one godhead.This is polytheism not monotheism, according to the Biblical scriptures and definitions. To avoid getting stung like Dan, I suggest you read my post and counter respond to my refutation to avoid repetition.

Clearly presented as a unipersonal being. Ha. Where is this at because I see the opposite. Now you post a lot of definitions here but you give me no reason whatsoever to accept them. What's the difference then in the persons if any? They differ by relationship to each other which automatically means they're not individuals. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father and not vice-versa. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and the Son and not vice-versa.



hahahha well to begin with ApologiaPhoenix, your own biblical scriptures present God Almighty's being as unipersonal.Please illustrate from the Biblical scriptures where the expression 'one God' denotes/signifies/represents/denotes three eternal and personal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being of God.This is the critical point of contention here.

Ah yes. Another one of these, "Unless it's clearly spelled out I'm not doing it, because it's easier to live with my unipersonal assumptions." How about picking up works like those of Bauckham sometime. One God simply means that. "One God."




Yes, Yes, Yes and especially Yes. hahahahahah I am very familiar with the feeble Trinitarian modes of interpreting the Biblical scriptures that attempt to find apparent support for the articulation of the Trinity.None of these bogus Trinitarian attempts substantiate that God Almighty is comprised of three personal eternal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being!

Whatevers. lol. Now that's cute. To say you don't believe them means nothing to me.





The articulation of theTrinity partly originated from the infused of Jewish 'wisdom theology' and Greek Logos philosophies that formed the template to erroneously conceptualize the relationship between each member of the triune godhead that formed the Trinity doctrine.Again refer to my debate with dan for further detailed explanations.

lol. At least you have the Jewish wisdom theology part correct, but you don't name where else it came from. You only say "partly." Please tell where else the idea came from.



This is the critical point of content ApologiaPhoenix.

Indeed you are obligated to substantiate from the biblical scriptures that 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190) as articulated in the doctrine of the trinity, since Trinitarianism supposedly represents Biblical monotheism, which I have transparently illustrated is a bogus myth.If you cannot substanitate this crucial Trinitarian articulation from the scriptures then categorically, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct divine personal deities that subsisted from eternity, since God Almighty is unipersonal,not multipersonal, according to the biblical scriptures.

If you cannot substantiate the nature of the being of God as three 'whatevers' that form one being of God - as articulated according to the doctrine of the Trinity, from the scriptures, then you are a polytheist according to the Biblical scriptures.


I am under no obligation to accept your assumption of unipersonalism. I simply say we start that God is one God. You're the one who automatically says "One God must be unipersonal."


I have offered evidence that illustrates God Almighty IS unipersonal. Counter respond to the evidence and prove otherwise by substantiating the articulation of the Trinity from the scriptures.




peace2u

Since when does "Just saying so" count as evidence?

[Sparko]

Phoenix, use "being" instead of "individual" to diffuse Heisonly1 obvious attempt to confuse the matter.

[moose7237]

An individual means that one is capable of having existence apart from the others. This won't be able to be said of the Son in Trinitarian thought who lives because the Father lives. Each eternally exists in relation to the other.

As to your second question, it is. If you understand Jewish thought and context at the time, it's all throughout the Bible.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Okay, so if the Son, as you said is Fully God is unable to exist if the father doesn't exist, then don't say he is fully God. God is a being that is independent of anything else. If the son has to depend on the Father to exist then he is definitley not God. God is the creator of all things and always existed independent of anything. So to say that the son lives only because the Father lives, then the Son is not God.

I don't think the Jews thought that Jesus was God. I have never seen anywhere in the bible where 3 persons is one God. It is unbiblical.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Okay, so if the Son, as you said is Fully God is unable to exist if the father doesn't exist, then don't say he is fully God. God is a being that is independent of anything else. If the son has to depend on the Father to exist then he is definitley not God. God is the creator of all things and always existed independent of anything. So to say that the son lives only because the Father lives, then the Son is not God.

I don't think the Jews thought that Jesus was God. I have never seen anywhere in the bible where 3 persons is one God. It is unbiblical.

Um. No. That's not the way that it would have been seen in Jewish thought. Jesus exists eternally in relationship to the Father. For instance, my desk is holding up my computer now. That is not a temporal relationship. If I remove the desk, the computer falls immediately. If you remove the sun, the sunlight immediately ceases to go from the sun, but as long as the sun is, the sunlight comes from it.

You know Moose, all of Scripture was well-known to the ECF so it's doubtful you'll find a verse they hadn't considered before.

I also never saw a place in the Bible where it says to gather books and form a New Testament. Having a Bible must be unbiblical.

[anewlife]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I would like to ask the following to all Trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortal(can't die)


Peaceably…

Let me kindly state that the term “Trinitarian” as used loosely by the OP means Orthodox Christian (Historically). Let me also add that God can be defined as beyond time, space, and matter, and our understanding (fully).

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

Now while Jesus was on earth, from what I know he was fully man and fully God. But this goes beyond all logic if he was fully God because Jesus fails to meet any of the categories I listed above.

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

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


Mark 13:32 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Mark+13%3A32)
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

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

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

God is omnipotent correct? Yet Jesus admits that he was GIVEN his power, God is not given his power he is the one who has all the power independently without anyone giving it to him. This verse alone should prove that Jesus' miracles were nothing special, neither is his ability to forgive sins.

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

Miracle can be defined as:

A marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

God is omnipresent correct? I don't have much of a verse for this one, but that would Mean that on earth and in space and in heaven Jesus was there, thus for Judas to go out looking for Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane proves that Jesus is not everywhere and that he is only a man.

I like the terminology… I don’t have much of a verse for this one Note some mis-spellings in the OP may be corrected in my reply.

Let us see what an authoritative source states:

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

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


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

I should hope so.

Jesus did die like every other man correct?

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

His resurrection is nothing special since people before him were resurrected and we on the day of judgment will resurrect.

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

The fact that Jesus didn't have a heartbeat for 3 days proves that he was only a man. Some can argue that his soul was still alive in the heart of the earth, I would say all of our souls would continue to live as well, but his heart rate stopped like any other man's heart rate when they die.

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

So now the common argument is that Jesus emptied himself to dwell on earth. I would say okay, on earth he was not God because he failed the 4 basic categories to meet as a requirement for God.

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

So now you're left with Jesus' Godly statements that nobody else but him made such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega" But now one must prove that before Jesus was on earth he did prexist along with the Father and the spirit.

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

But since there is no indication of the son-father-spirit trinity in the OT you really don't have much of a case.

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

The most common verses I have seen to prove the trinity in the OT would be Genesis 1 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Genesis+1) with the use of the word "elohim" but even that doesn't prove that God is part of a trinity nor does it prove the son-father-spirit trinity.

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

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

Also in parts of the bible, I have seen God call Angels God, I have seen God say he has made Moses like A god to Pharoah. But for the trinity verses explained please visit:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...rticle&sid=109 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...rticle&sid=109)


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

I am a Muslim and I would like everybody to deeply think about the trinity. This is what the Quran has to say about the fate of Trinitarians:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

[005:073] They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

[005:074] Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

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

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

I hold the following…

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

[KarmaGhost]

This is a shameless bump post. I want to see this discussion continued. To the front page with you!

[heisonly1]

Originally posted by heisonly1

In regards to conceptualizing the distinctiveness of each deity of the Triune godhead, the word "person" is a common expression used by Trinitarians to articulate/ denote 'individuality' and 'self awareness' of each member of the Trinity.I have had this discussion with Dan in my debate about your point raised here, where he ignorantly accused me of making up definitions regarding the appropriate mode of expression to define or describe the distinctiveness of each deity or member of the Triune godhead.I illustrated to him that (a) the very definitions I used were articulated by Trinitarians themselves, and (b) it makes no difference what expressions or conceptualizations you conjecture in your mind to conceptualize the distinctiveness of each member of the Trinity, since it is transparent God Almighty is not three distinct and personal 'whatevers' that form one being of God, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES.

Three personal 'whatevers' may form the one being of God according to Trinitarian theory, but not according to the biblical scriptures.This is the critical point of contention.

Here is your opportunity ApologiaPhoenix to define the distinctiveness of each 'person' of the Trinity and I'll show you how it makes not difference what definition you conjecture, when measuring your definitions and articulations against the Biblical scriptures.The fact that God Almighty is clearly presented as a unipersonal being, according to your biblical scriptures, exposes the articulation of the Trinity as three distinct eternal deities that form one godhead.This is polytheism not monotheism, according to the Biblical scriptures and definitions. To avoid getting stung like Dan, I suggest you read my post and counter respond to my refutation to avoid repetition.

AP - "Clearly presented as a unipersonal being. Ha. Where is this at because I see the opposite. Now you post a lot of definitions here but you give me no reason whatsoever to accept them. What's the difference then in the persons if any? They differ by relationship to each other which automatically means they're not individuals. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father and not vice-versa. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and the Son and not vice-versa."

– That’s right AP!! God Almighty IS unipersonal, which I have articulated briefly here Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity and in a little more detail starting from here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5

It’s obvious you cannot and have not counter responded to the biblical evidence I presented, which shows you cannot defend your conjectural doctrine of the being of God, which, until you substantiate/defend otherwise, is really a baseless non biblical speculation!

Where is this at because I see the opposite. Open your eyes and read AP. Don’t be lazy, you can assess my arguments in advance. I substantiated my point of view starting here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5

Now you counter respond to my arguments and display some credibility. Merely you and others here repeating like a parrot I allegedly present strawman arguments, without you verifying/substantiating why, is not a refutation AP!


Now you post a lot of definitions here but you give me no reason whatsoever to accept them. What's the difference then in the persons if any? They differ by relationship to each other which automatically means they're not individuals. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father and not vice-versa. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and the Son and not vice-versa.

Ahhahahahahah Okay AP ! Lets get it on and stop stalling. Enlighten me with you definitions and articulation of the Trinity and please substantiate via the Biblical scriptures that the being of God is comprised of three distinct and personal eternal ‘whatevers’ that form ‘One God’ as a counter response to my mode of argumentation!

I’m waiting…………….

Originally posted by Heisonly1
hahahha well to begin with ApologiaPhoenix, your own biblical scriptures present God Almighty's being as unipersonal.Please illustrate from the Biblical scriptures where the expression 'one God' denotes/signifies/represents/denotes three eternal and personal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being of God.This is the critical point of contention here.

AP - "Ah yes. Another one of these, "Unless it's clearly spelled out I'm not doing it, because it's easier to live with my unipersonal assumptions." How about picking up works like those of Bauckham sometime. One God simply means that. "One God.""

Hahahahahah come on AP make your move then! Refute my ‘unipersonal assumptions’

Heheheheh Whether it be Bauckham, or as Dan endorsed as advocates of the Trinity doctrine, William Lane Craig, Denis Giron, Dr.James White, Sam Shamoun, etc.. none have substantiated the articulation of the Trinity that postulates ‘One God’ is three distinct eternal ‘persons’ or three ‘whatevers’ that form one being, according to the biblical scriptures.

In case I missed it, please show me where in the scriptures?

Heheheh ‘One God’ may be three distinct ‘whatevers’ that share an eternal relationship of love that form one being of God, according to the Trinity
theory/conceptualization/speculation/hypothesis speculation, however as I transparently illustrated to danny boy, the Trinitarian postulation about the being of God is not biblically articulated.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct personal gods that share divine ontological equality that subsist from eternity and experience a relationship of love from eternity!

Originally posted by Heisonly1
Yes, Yes, Yes and especially Yes. hahahahahah I am very familiar with the feeble Trinitarian modes of interpreting the Biblical scriptures that attempt to find apparent support for the articulation of the Trinity.None of these bogus Trinitarian attempts substantiate that God Almighty is comprised of three personal eternal 'persons' or 'whatevers' that form one being!

AP - "Whatevers. lol. Now that's cute. To say you don't believe them means nothing to me."

hahahah I used the expression ‘whatevers’ because many Trinitarians I encounter feebly try to conjecture or innovate many diverse definitions in order to dubiously defend they do not worship three gods.hehehhe Fine.

Then show some credibility and present your definitions and articulations in support of the Trinitarian articulation of the being of God, according to the biblical scriptures.

We can’t read your mind AP! Present your theological challenge and understanding of the articulation of the Trinity, using the scriptures, to allow us the opportunity to accept or dismantle your truth or conjectures.

Originally posted by Heisonly1
The articulation of theTrinity partly originated from the infused of Jewish 'wisdom theology' and Greek Logos philosophies that formed the template to erroneously conceptualize the relationship between each member of the triune godhead that formed the Trinity doctrine.Again refer to my debate with dan for further detailed explanations.

AP - "lol. At least you have the Jewish wisdom theology part correct, but you don't name where else it came from. You only say "partly." Please tell where else the idea came from."

Hahahahaha.. Okay AP heheheheh I don’t know hehehheeh from where else hehehhehe the articulation of the Trinity was begotten. Now you show us where, beginning with the biblical scriptures, where the being of God is a triune being that forms ‘One God’. Answer our challenge above AP and quit stalling!!!!

Originally posted by Heisonly1

This is the critical point of content ApologiaPhoenix.

Indeed you are obligated to substantiate from the biblical scriptures that 'one God' is comprised of three eternal 'persons' that form one being ! - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity as articulated in the doctrine of the trinity, since Trinitarianism supposedly represents Biblical monotheism, which I have transparently illustrated is a bogus myth.If you cannot substanitate this crucial Trinitarian articulation from the scriptures then categorically, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct divine personal deities that subsisted from eternity, since God Almighty is unipersonal,not multipersonal, according to the biblical scriptures.

If you cannot substantiate the nature of the being of God as three 'whatevers' that form one being of God - as articulated according to the doctrine of the Trinity, from the scriptures, then you are a polytheist according to the Biblical scriptures.

AP - "I am under no obligation to accept your assumption of unipersonalism. I simply say we start that God is one God. You're the one who automatically says "One God must be unipersonal.""

Hahahahahah don’t accept them AP ! Refute them using the biblical scriptures heheheheheh!!!

Originally posted by Heisonly1
I have offered evidence that illustrates God Almighty IS unipersonal. Counter respond to the evidence and prove otherwise by substantiating the articulation of the Trinity from the scriptures.

peace2u

AP - "Since when does "Just saying so" count as evidence?"

You obviously have not read any of my references and posts that substantiate God is unipersonal, according to the Biblical scriptures. As I expressed before, you don’t have to accept my assumptions, but for purposes of debate and dialogue you need to clearly counter respond/refute my mode of argumentation and evidence presented and substantiate why or where I have erred, to have any credibility. Without explanation or substantiation on your part, you are merely wasting our time.

Peace2u….

heisonly1

[moose7237]

Um. No. That's not the way that it would have been seen in Jewish thought. Jesus exists eternally in relationship to the Father. For instance, my desk is holding up my computer now. That is not a temporal relationship. If I remove the desk, the computer falls immediately. If you remove the sun, the sunlight immediately ceases to go from the sun, but as long as the sun is, the sunlight comes from it.

You know Moose, all of Scripture was well-known to the ECF so it's doubtful you'll find a verse they hadn't considered before.

I also never saw a place in the Bible where it says to gather books and form a New Testament. Having a Bible must be unbiblical.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I don't know how you can compare a computer or the sun with God. It is clear, that if the Father does not exist the son does not exist. Hence if the Son depends on the Father for life then he is not God. A computer can exist without a desk AP. It would fall but it still exists. God is infinite you can't take anything away from him. This further shows that the concept of God in the trinity is not independent, but each person of the godhead depends on the other. Thus each person is not God at all but as you try to make it when they are combined so to say, then they are God.

[Sparko]

Heisonly1, you might want to cut down on the "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA's" and the "heheheheheh's" every other line of your posts. It makes your posts sound like a maniacal lunatic.

:maniac:

[heisonly1]

Heisonly1, you might want to cut down on the "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA's" and the "heheheheheh's" every other line of your posts. It makes your posts sound like a maniacal lunatic.

:maniac:

Only on one condition Sparko!

You stop injecting BOTOX and stop wearing your husband's dresses

:lmbo:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lmbo:

Is that a deal maniacal lunatic!!! :haha: hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

[Shadow Phoenix]

– That’s right AP!! God Almighty IS unipersonal, which I have articulated briefly here Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity and in a little more detail starting from here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5

Psssh. I went to post 190 expecting to find a brilliant argument from you and instead I found a post by SpiritWoman. Can you even get the post numbers right?

It’s obvious you cannot and have not counter responded to the biblical evidence I presented, which shows you cannot defend your conjectural doctrine of the being of God, which, until you substantiate/defend otherwise, is really a baseless non biblical speculation!

You presented evidence?! Wow! I wasn't aware laughing and saying "Ha ha. I'm right. You're not" counted as an argument these days!

Open your eyes and read AP. Don’t be lazy, you can assess my arguments in advance. I substantiated my point of view starting here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5

Psssh. The only arguments I saw were your referring to the Shema. YAWN! As if I and several other Christians haven't ever read the Shema before and as if the Jews who believed in the deity of Christ weren't familiar with it. You have read Bauckham's treatment of it in God Crucified in relation to 1 Cor. 8. Right? Eh. Probably not.

Now you counter respond to my arguments and display some credibility. Merely you and others here repeating like a parrot I allegedly present strawman arguments, without you verifying/substantiating why, is not a refutation AP!

Meh. It's hard to call an argument a straw man when there really isn't an argument. You see, something must exist before it can possess any quality. Furthermore, I'm not worried about my credibility. I've got enough of it on here.




Ahhahahahahah Okay AP ! Lets get it on and stop stalling. Enlighten me with you definitions and articulation of the Trinity and please substantiate via the Biblical scriptures that the being of God is comprised of three distinct and personal eternal ‘whatevers’ that form ‘One God’ as a counter response to my mode of argumentation!

I’m waiting…………….

The one verse doesn't exist. I don't see how that's a problem since Jesus made his claims of who he was quite clear.



Hahahahahah come on AP make your move then! Refute my ‘unipersonal assumptions’

Heheheheh Whether it be Bauckham, or as Dan endorsed as advocates of the Trinity doctrine, William Lane Craig, Denis Giron, Dr.James White, Sam Shamoun, etc.. none have substantiated the articulation of the Trinity that postulates ‘One God’ is three distinct eternal ‘persons’ or three ‘whatevers’ that form one being, according to the biblical scriptures.

In case I missed it, please show me where in the scriptures?

Sure. It's called the New Testament.

Heheheh ‘One God’ may be three distinct ‘whatevers’ that share an eternal relationship of love that form one being of God, according to the Trinity
theory/conceptualization/speculation/hypothesis speculation, however as I transparently illustrated to danny boy, the Trinitarian postulation about the being of God is not biblically articulated.

You believe you did that eh? Makes me wonder what color the sky is in your world.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct personal gods that share divine ontological equality that subsist from eternity and experience a relationship of love from eternity!

Nope. I don't believe you qualify as an authority on who I worship. I'll stick with those who are qualified in the field.



hahahah I used the expression ‘whatevers’ because many Trinitarians I encounter feebly try to conjecture or innovate many diverse definitions in order to dubiously defend they do not worship three gods.hehehhe Fine.

Then show some credibility and present your definitions and articulations in support of the Trinitarian articulation of the being of God, according to the biblical scriptures.

We can’t read your mind AP! Present your theological challenge and understanding of the articulation of the Trinity, using the scriptures, to allow us the opportunity to accept or dismantle your truth or conjectures.

Already done. I want to see more of a response than "God isn't unipersonal."



Hahahahaha.. Okay AP heheheheh I don’t know hehehheeh from where else hehehhehe the articulation of the Trinity was begotten. Now you show us where, beginning with the biblical scriptures, where the being of God is a triune being that forms ‘One God’. Answer our challenge above AP and quit stalling!!!!

Oh good. Then you were just making it up as you went along. Glad to see you're entering with that kind of attitude.



Hahahahahah don’t accept them AP ! Refute them using the biblical scriptures heheheheheh!!!

Is it the color green? How about hot pink? It certainly doesn't seem to be blue.



You obviously have not read any of my references and posts that substantiate God is unipersonal, according to the Biblical scriptures. As I expressed before, you don’t have to accept my assumptions, but for purposes of debate and dialogue you need to clearly counter respond/refute my mode of argumentation and evidence presented and substantiate why or where I have erred, to have any credibility. Without explanation or substantiation on your part, you are merely wasting our time.

Peace2u….

heisonly1

What's with this our? Did you cease to be unipersonal?

And no. If you want me to see an argument, you repeat it here. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to convince you in this thread. The thread OP assumes that I am wrong. You are here to tell me why I am wrong. You have yet to do so and have merely whined.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I don't know how you can compare a computer or the sun with God.

The first one is an example of the effect being there as long as the cause is. As long as the cause is there, the effect is. The effect ceases if the cause ceases.

As to comparing to the sun, why not? The ECF did just that.

It is clear, that if the Father does not exist the son does not exist. Hence if the Son depends on the Father for life then he is not God.

Really? How come?

A computer can exist without a desk AP. It would fall but it still exists.

Go back and read my post again. My point was not the existence of the computer but the effect being continuous with the cause.

God is infinite you can't take anything away from him. This further shows that the concept of God in the trinity is not independent, but each person of the godhead depends on the other. Thus each person is not God at all but as you try to make it when they are combined so to say, then they are God.

I'd say they're interdependent. I don't see how that goes against the Trinity in anyway or how Jesus having the fulness of deity takes away from God the Father.

[Sparko]

Only on one condition Sparko!

You stop injecting BOTOX and stop wearing your husband's dresses

:lmbo:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lmbo:

Is that a deal maniacal lunatic!!! :haha: hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Oh well, I guess if you really are a maniacal lunatic, then it makes perfect sense that your posts reflect that. Carry on. :thumb:

[heisonly1]

(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1859456#post1859456)Originally posted by heisonly1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1859456#post1859456)
Only on one condition Sparko!

You stop injecting BOTOX and stop wearing your husband's dresses

:lmbo:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lmbo:

Is that a deal maniacal lunatic!!! :haha: hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe


Sparko - "Oh well, I guess if you really are a maniacal lunatic, then it makes perfect sense that your posts reflect that. Carry on. :thumb:
(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1859456#post1859456)
Say hello to your husband :pat: for me sparko and go easy on the BOTOX !
You seem a little emotional....
Carry on I shall................ :rasberry:

[Sparko]

Say hello to your husband :pat: for me sparko and go easy on the BOTOX !
You seem a little emotional....
Carry on I shall................ :rasberry:

hmmm, I guess you have a hard time reading postbits too, eh?

Dang you are a nutcase.

So... when are you actually going to make an argument in this thread instead of giggling like a hyena and arguing via weblink (which is against the rules btw)?

[anewlife]

Moose wrote:

I am certainly not equating the created with the creator, certainly, we are limited beings. I am not putting limits on God, but the doctrine of the trinity just does not make sense. I like to question things, and if some things don't make sense I investigate it, and after research I make my conclusion. Look at my main post, based on the information I have provided, anyone can come to the conclusion that Jesus was not God. Jesus was limited.

The Trinity, in your opinion does not make sense, which we, as Christians emphatically find that Muhammad does not make sense. As Christians, we are told to question all things, so we do accordingly. Ever hear of Semper Reformanda or Fides Quaerens Intellectum?

Your information in the OP was very limited (e.g. looking through blinders approach). Anyone can conclude to not believe in the Trinity or God for that matter, this is why God gave everyone intellect, some choose not to fully use this gift. The only thing I see standing out is your limitations being put upon God and your revisionist view of history.

I do like to question things beyond logic. If you read my main post, you would also see the fate of Trinitarians based on Islam, does that not create fear in any Trinitarian?

No, it does not create fear for me. Did you not know that Jesus also said that he is the way the truth the life and no one can come to the Father except through him? He also stated if you do not believe he is (the) “I AM” you will die in your sins…You still have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Islam should be followed (by any Christian), or that you should be taken seriously.

They will be punished for the blasphemy of saying God has partners to him?

Correct, and the ones that uphold to Tritheism and polytheism may be punished for this.

Many times, God tells us who he is, so yes you can apply human logic if he tells you who he is.

Human logic is limited, meaning some could define logic by their own infallible terminology, and then claim their view of logic as empirical. God determines (his) logic through scripture. We do not have a full understanding of God, those that say they do are deemed as Heretics. As Christians, we never put ourselves above God; it seems to me as if you are trying to put yourself and your logic as being equal to God.

God tells us that he is all knowing, everywhere, the all powerful, the creator, the immortal, so yes I can apply human logic based on the information God provides us with. People have to analyze in religion and stop following blind faith.

Logic comes from Scripture (God). Christians do not follow blind-faith. As Christians, we cling to faith defined as having Notitia (knowledge of God through Scripture), Assensus (we ascent to this knowledge), and Fudicia (and we trust this knowledge). These three things must exist for one to Love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Hence, this is not blind faith. Blind faith would be something that is believed without any knowledge, we have knowledge through scripture. The Bible clearly speaks out against blind faith. (Read Isaiah 45:18–22; 46:5–10) The Apostle Paul also asks anyone at that time to question any of the 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. Why would he ask others to do this if he were not upholding to Notitia, Assensus, and Fudicia? Why would Paul or any of the NT (or OT) writers have any reason to be labeled as incredulous during their life?

To analyze, is not limited in scope to just religion, and I am not religious (as used loosely by our society today) in any way. Anselm brought about the call of reason. As Christians (speaking for myself), I hold to the following principles to define truth in this order (not by blind faith).

1.Scripture
2.Tradition/Reason
3.Special/General Revelation
4.Experience
5.Emotions

Because if you are wrong, then the consequences are obviously very dangerous.

Correct, this is a two-fold precept. Listen, Think, Discern!

…explain when on earth how Jesus was God and try to defend the Trinitarian beliefs by rebuking my original post, so far no one has attempted to do so, I would post this in the Christianity forum, but only Christians are allowed to post there.

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

[heisonly1]

Originally posted by Maniacal1
– That’s right AP!! God Almighty IS unipersonal, which I have articulated briefly here Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity and in a little more detail starting from here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=86961&page=5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5) Mr. BOTOX - Psssh. I went to post 190 expecting to find a brilliant argument from you and instead I found a post by SpiritWoman. Can you even get the post numbers right?


Ummmm pay attention BOTOX brain !!!! I have posted the link - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190) multiple times on this specific thread. Can you even get the link right? Maniac !!!
The Link - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=86961&page=5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5) is another thread, in which Dan on PAGE 5 ( From Post 69 onwards…) attempts to feebly ‘refute’ my supposed misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I requested him to specifically substantiate the Triune nature of the being of God Almighty, according to the scriptures, over and over again, and just like you, he completely ignored my request and diverted away from the critical point of contention.Typical Trinitarian!

Originally posted by Maniacal1
It’s obvious you cannot and have not counter responded to the biblical evidence I presented, which shows you cannot defend your conjectural doctrine of the being of God, which, until you substantiate/defend otherwise, is really a baseless non biblical speculation! Mr. BOTOX - "You presented evidence?! Wow! I wasn't aware laughing and saying "Ha ha. I'm right. You're not" counted as an argument these days!"


Not my fault you can’t click on the right link BOTOX brain!! Here it is again - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Open your eyes and read AP. Don’t be lazy, you can assess my arguments in advance. I substantiated my point of view starting here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=86961&page=5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86961&page=5) Mr.BOTOX - "Psssh. The only arguments I saw were your referring to the Shema. YAWN! As if I and several other Christians haven't ever read the Shema before and as if the Jews who believed in the deity of Christ weren't familiar with it. You have read Bauckham's treatment of it in God Crucified in relation to 1 Cor. 8. Right? Eh. Probably not."

Hahahahah you make me laugh! What a pathetic and typical Trinitarian response to my oft repeated challenge !!! I can see already your attitude and bogus competency to respond is no different to your ‘friend’ Dan. Okay BOTOX brain, so to begin with, refute/counter respond to my arguments regarding the Shema that illustrates God Almighty is unipersonal, by reconciling the Shema with the articulation of the trinity that postulates one God is three ‘persons’ or three ‘whatevers’ that form one being !!!!!!
Have I read this particular book by Bauckham’s? No. However, I’m very familiar with Bauckham’s conjectures regarding his thesis/postulation about the supposed compatibility between the concept of Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period and the articulation of the Trinity. Bauckham’s, ‘God Crucified – Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament’ is typically and often cited by Trinitarians that employ Bauckham’s Christological mode of argumentation to substantiate the ontological equality shared between Jesus and God Almighty as reflected through his erroneous exegesis of the OT (Duet 6:4)/ NT (1 Cor 8) and wisdom theology.
Dan also employs Bauckham’s familiar mode of argumentation to feebly defend a certain aspect of the articulation of Trinity by demonstrating the supposed compatibility with Jesus as sharing the same ontological equality with God Almighty and Jewish monotheism, in which I transparently demonstrate why his arguments are dubious and breech Jewish monotheism.

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Now you counter respond to my arguments and display some credibility. Merely you and others here repeating like a parrot I allegedly present strawman arguments, without you verifying/substantiating why, is not a refutation AP! Mr. BOTOX - "Meh. It's hard to call an argument a straw man when there really isn't an argument. You see, something must exist before it can possess any quality. Furthermore, I'm not worried about my credibility. I've got enough of it on here.


Well, you can either start by demonstrating your ‘credibility’ by refuting my arguments here - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190), that is, if you know how to use your mouse to click on the right link! or you can pick anyone of my responses/challengers to Dan in our debate and attempt to counter respond if you can.What ever tickles your fancy !!!

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Ahhahahahahah Okay AP ! Lets get it on and stop stalling. Enlighten me with you definitions and articulation of the Trinity and please substantiate via the Biblical scriptures that the being of God is comprised of three distinct and personal eternal ‘whatevers’ that form ‘One God’ as a counter response to my mode of argumentation!

I’m waiting……………. Mr.BOTOX - "The one verse doesn't exist. I don't see how that's a problem since Jesus made his claims of who he was quite clear."


Hahahahahahah You don’t see this as a problem !!!!!!! hahahahahah geeessssh this is gonna be easier than I thought.
It’s a problem for you BOTOX brain because the mythical/conjectural articulation of the Trinity purports to represent Jewish monotheism that erroneously claims/defines/speculates ‘God’ is three ‘persons’ that form one being.
If you cannot substantiate the Trinitarian articulation of the triune being of God through the Biblical scriptures, then you advance with a theory that is baseless, which consequently, classifies you as a misguided polytheist that does not worship one God, but rather worships three personal and distinct Gods :bow::bow::bow:, which share the same ontological equality or essence/attributes of divinity that form a godhead that subsist from eternity.
This is polytheism not Jewish monotheism, which I elaborate in more detail in my refutations against Dan on this very point.
No matter what misconstrued Trinitarian interpretations of the Biblical scriptures you present to substantiate Jesus is ‘God’, ( see Christian refutations of the Trinitarian interpretation of the Biblical scriptures here - http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109) ) in the sense that he shares the same essence of divinity as ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Spirit’ you can never reconcile from the Biblical scriptures, that you worship one God, since you admittedly cannot biblical substantiate God is three ‘persons’ THAT FORM ONE BEING !!!!
hhehehehehI sense you are setting yourself up for a great fall, just like Dan experienced. Heheh I won’t say how. I’ll allow you to ‘resolve’ this problem by you presenting all the verses, just like Dan did, that present the ‘claim’s of Jesus and I’ll illustrate, very simply, why your bogus effort will not make a shred of difference. Save yourself further embarrassment by at least reading my counter response to Dan on this critical point, before you reply.


Originally posted by Maniacal1
Hahahahahah come on AP make your move then! Refute my ‘unipersonal assumptions’

Heheheheh Whether it be Bauckham, or as Dan endorsed as advocates of the Trinity doctrine, William Lane Craig, Denis Giron, Dr.James White, Sam Shamoun, etc.. none have substantiated the articulation of the Trinity that postulates ‘One God’ is three distinct eternal ‘persons’ or three ‘whatevers’ that form one being, according to the biblical scriptures.

In case I missed it, please show me where in the scriptures? Mr.BOTOX - "Sure. It's called the New Testament."


You are one confused Trinitarian !!! above you just said there are no such verses, hehehhe and now hahahahahhaha you say, “Sure. It's called the New Testament” What a typical bogus Trinitarian response. Make up your mind Mr.BOTOX and be more specific! Where in the New testament is, “the articulation of the Trinity that postulates ‘One God’ is three distinct eternal ‘persons’ or three ‘whatevers’ that form one being” .....

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Heheheh ‘One God’ may be three distinct ‘whatevers’ that share an eternal relationship of love that form one being of God, according to the Trinity
theory/conceptualization/speculation/hypothesis speculation, however as I transparently illustrated to danny boy, the Trinitarian postulation about the being of God is not biblically articulated. Mr.BOTOX - You believe you did that eh? Makes me wonder what color the sky is in your world.



I’m still waiting for you to explain/refute by arguments I briefly presented here - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190) !!!!!!

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Until you demonstrate otherwise, according to the biblical scriptures, you are a polytheist that worships three distinct personal gods that share divine ontological equality that subsist from eternity and experience a relationship of love from eternity! Mr.BOTOX - "Nope. I don't believe you qualify as an authority on who I worship. I'll stick with those who are qualified in the field."


Even those, you believe, are ‘qualified in the field’ will not be able to guide you out of the maze of error and confusion you are wondering in. May God Almighty guide your heart to Islam. Ameeen.

Originally posted by Manaical1
hahahah I used the expression ‘whatevers’ because many Trinitarians I encounter feebly try to conjecture or innovate many diverse definitions in order to dubiously defend they do not worship three gods.hehehhe Fine.

Then show some credibility and present your definitions and articulations in support of the Trinitarian articulation of the being of God, according to the biblical scriptures.

We can’t read your mind AP! Present your theological challenge and understanding of the articulation of the Trinity, using the scriptures, to allow us the opportunity to accept or dismantle your truth or conjectures. Mr.BOTOX - "Already done. I want to see more of a response than "God isn't unipersonal."

Still waiting for your response Mr BOTOX brain – “..show some credibility and present your definitions and articulations in support of the Trinitarian articulation of the being of God, according to the biblical scriptures.”

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Hahahahaha.. Okay AP heheheheh I don’t know hehehheeh from where else hehehhehe the articulation of the Trinity was begotten. Now you show us where, beginning with the biblical scriptures, where the being of God is a triune being that forms ‘One God’. Answer our challenge above AP and quit stalling!!!! Mr.BOTOX - "Oh good. Then you were just making it up as you went along. Glad to see you're entering with that kind of attitude.


Still waiting Maniac !!! stop stalling and “show us where, beginning with the biblical scriptures, where the being of God is a triune being that forms ‘One God’”

Originally posted by Maniacal1
Hahahahahah don’t accept them AP ! Refute them using the biblical scriptures heheheheheh!!! Mr.BOTOX - "Is it the color green? How about hot pink? It certainly doesn't seem to be blue.

Come on Mr. BOTOX !! you can wear your dresses later……

- Mr.BOTOX "What's with this our? Did you cease to be unipersonal?

Well, we have an audience that may want to contribute to our discussion and respond to your specific posts. No, still unipersonal.


And no. If you want me to see an argument, you repeat it here. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to convince you in this thread. The thread OP assumes that I am wrong. You are here to tell me why I am wrong. You have yet to do so and have merely whined.

What a lazy childish sook you are Mr.BOTOX !!! it would be a waste of space and time to reduplicate or cut and paste my responses here again. Seeing, as stated above, that you could not find the right link to refute, you can start by ‘refuting’ this - Post: #190 Re: Problems of the trinity (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1692471&postcount=190)

:bow::bow::bow:



This post was edited for the following reasons:
1. Argument by web link is not allowed. If you have a point, copy and paste it.
2. Flaming like this solely for the purpose of flaming is considered disruptive behavior

These two violations are against campus decorum. You will receive warning points for each infraction.

[anewlife]

Something smells in here... Wow its hard to read past all the profiling in the last post. Care to get back on track?

[moose7237]

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


Salam

[Shadow Phoenix]

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


Salam

Excuse me Moose. You were the one complaining in the SB a few weeks ago about people throwing insults around, yet you seem to applaud and cheer Heisonly1 who has NO arguments but ONLY insults. I find it hard to take your claims that you're against using insults seriously.

Furthermore, I have no reason to defend the Trinity as no argument has been made against it yet. Instead, I have only seen conjecture which is hideously false.

If you want to discuss it, I'm open. Remember though that you are the one supposed to bring an argument against me as you are asking in this thread if the Trinity can be defended.

[moose7237]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

[Sparko]

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

I have not been insulting or flaming.

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

There is nothing to refute.

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

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

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

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

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

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

[anewlife]

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


Salam

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

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

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

We have already addressed your strawman argument (OP).
:blush:

[Weboh2]

The greatest malodor is the flagrant misinterpretation of the Trinity by the OP. There have been challenges early on against the view of Trinitarianism (and of course the alternative views) and were resolved long ago. I view this discussion as a good thing because it keeps things in balance. However, the main issue is their (Unitarians) lack of historicity and not addressing any writings that were either during the first-fourth centuries or what has been available within the last 300 years. They also fail to address the epistemology behind the nature of Christ. Let it be known that the Unitarians also have problems with their view of (limited proof-texts) Scripture and of Christ.
In the writing of the early church fathers, we have Polycarp who pervaricates to learn about the attributes of the true God by pretending to have known the apostles, the Valentinian Ignatius, the somewhat Ebionite deist Clement of Rome, Hegessipus who confuses John the Baptist and Jesus' prophecy with James the Just, Justin Martyr who believes some strange stoic crap about the world going into flames, Irenaeus who is binitarian because of Polycarp's idiocy, Hippolytus who doesn't know Valentinus' doctrines are original and from drug use, Hermas who is none other than Valentinus' student Marcus, and etc. I don't think their is much merit in using the early church fathers as proof of the trinity doctrine.

[heisonly1]

Excuse me Moose. You were the one complaining in the SB a few weeks ago about people throwing insults around, yet you seem to applaud and cheer Heisonly1 who has NO arguments but ONLY insults. I find it hard to take your claims that you're against using insults seriously.

Furthermore, I have no reason to defend the Trinity as no argument has been made against it yet. Instead, I have only seen conjecture which is hideously false.

If you want to discuss it, I'm open. Remember though that you are the one supposed to bring an argument against me as you are asking in this thread if the Trinity can be defended.

Assalamaleykum brother Moose,

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

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

AP - "Psssh. I went to post 190 expecting to find a brilliant argument from you and instead I found a post by SpiritWoman. Can you even get the post numbers right?'

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


AP - "Furthermore, I have no reason to defend the Trinity as no argument has been made against it yet. Instead, I have only seen conjecture which is hideously false."


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

Sparko, I requested you to respond to the same challenges set forth in post 91 in another thread and, of course, just like AP, you dodged the challenge and proved to be a waste of time.

Sparko, your repetitive mode of argumentation in feebly trying to defend the Trinity have been dismantled before on other threads by moose and I in our debates, particularly with Dan.

Come on Sparko respond to post #91 and show some credibility

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

peace2u,

heisonly1

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

[Shadow Phoenix]

Assalamaleykum brother Moose,

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

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

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



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

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





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

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




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

peace2u,

heisonly1

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

[anewlife]

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

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

[heisonly1]

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


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

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

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

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

:thumbd:

[Lili]

Oh I don't know. Marrying and having sex with a 9 year old girl is not a sin?
It will get you several years in prison nowadays.In the Islam section, some of the Muslims have actually been arguing that it was fine for Muhammad to have sex with that 9 year old, if she had started puberty. They're not even aware that(1)it's very unlikely that she had started puberty because the onset of puberty was later at that time since people were not as healthy as they are now and (2)even if she had started puberty, she was still emotionally immature and couldn't consent because she was only 9!

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

[moose7237]

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

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


Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

[moose7237]

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





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







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






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

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

[moose7237]

[

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



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

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



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

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



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

Miracle can be defined as:

A marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of God



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

Let us see what an authoritative source states:

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

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


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


I should hope so.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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

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

I hold the following…

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

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremiah 1:5

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

Jeremiah was with God before he was in the womb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[anewlife]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:sigh:

[Lili]

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

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

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

[moose7237]

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

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

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

Hello and Peace be to you Lili,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sparko]

So moose, was God an idiot before he created his Wisdom?

Do you understand what "appointed from Eternity" means?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

Like I said Moose, I'm waiting. I have no fear of a challenge.

[Shadow Phoenix]

So moose, was God an idiot before he created his Wisdom?

Do you understand what "appointed from Eternity" means?

Moose. Let me expound on this one a little bit further as Sparko has pointed out a problem in that an unwise God became wise then. God then becomes a temporal being who changes in his essential nature.

1 Cor.1:24 calls Christ the power of God and wisdom of God. The argument could work with both, but wisdom is the topic. Let's look at a syllogism.

Jesus is God's wisdom.
God's wisdom is eternal.
Jesus is eternal.

The first premise is hard to deny since the text comes right out and says it. However, there are serious ramifications for denying God not always having wisdom. That would mean there was something outside of God that he acquired in his essential nature. God could literally be a work in progress as he grew wiser (Or actually grew wise) from one point in time to another in his essential nature.

If you do accept the second premise, you are forced to accept the conclusion as well.

[sylvius]

Moose. Let me expound on this one a little bit further as Sparko has pointed out a problem in that an unwise God became wise then. God then becomes a temporal being who changes in his essential nature.

1 Cor.1:24 calls Christ the power of God and wisdom of God. The argument could work with both, but wisdom is the topic. Let's look at a syllogism.

Jesus is God's wisdom.
God's wisdom is eternal.
Jesus is eternal.

The first premise is hard to deny since the text comes right out and says it. However, there are serious ramifications for denying God not always having wisdom. That would mean there was something outside of God that he acquired in his essential nature. God could literally be a work in progress as he grew wiser (Or actually grew wise) from one point in time to another in his essential nature.

If you do accept the second premise, you are forced to accept the conclusion as well.

you ripped it out of the context

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."

Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

have you been called, by whom?

[sylvius]

So moose, was God an idiot before he created his Wisdom?

Do you understand what "appointed from Eternity" means?

Proverbs 8

יְהוָה--קָנָנִי, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ: קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. 22 The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.

מֵעוֹלָם, נִסַּכְתִּי מֵרֹאשׁ-- מִקַּדְמֵי-אָרֶץ. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

בְּאֵין-תְּהֹמוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי; בְּאֵין מַעְיָנוֹת, נִכְבַּדֵּי-מָיִם. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

בְּטֶרֶם הָרִים הָטְבָּעוּ; לִפְנֵי גְבָעוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;

"appointed from Eternity" , Hebrew מֵעוֹלָם, נִסַּכְתִּי "mei-olam nissachti" --

what's that "olam"? root "alam" = to hide. From same root "almah" = young woman; transdlated into Greek with "parthenos".

So Sparko, explain!
what does "appointed from Eternity" mean?

Note verse 25, בְּטֶרֶם "b'terem", and remember what Rashi said on Genesis 2:5,

Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים

הִקְדִּים, "hikdim" from "kadam" like "kedem" קֶדֶם in verse 22.

[anewlife]

Part #1

Can Moose articulate the Trinity?

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

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

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

Hello Again my fine weathered friend,

I may need to split my reply in several sections, as it may take some time to answer each point. I am also in the middle of writing IBO’s and articles for publication elsewhere. Some points may not be commented on unless you personally hold to that view. The forum has limitations on # of characters, so keep this in mind before hand. It would be courteous if you would stay on track with the OP topic, and not bring in other arguments from other past arguments outside this one.

You are arguing our interpretation of Scripture. Since you are using the Universalistic arguments to build your case I will also assume that you support their views even though it may go against your own beliefs. I will have to also assume that the scriptures you quote from the Unitarian website are spoken from authority (by using portions of OT and NT scripture) and you accept them as inspired from God as well.

Remember God uses theophany such as revealing himself by a burning bush (among other inanimate objects), so it would not necessarily be out of character for God to choose to reveal himself in flesh as NT suggests. Yes, limited in human bodily form (before his resurrection) and limited (to use his deity fully but not saying he was limited in his deity in nature, just limited in the exercise of that deity while on earth) by his mission on earth in this bodily form. Well you say that he cannot be omnipresent, but I did offer scriptures that suggested he was before time, space, and matter before the incarnation. And to suggest his omnipresence that is with us to the end of the age. Jesus also knew the heart of men and their thoughts, which no other Biblical prophet made such claims. So far all you have is denial, in which I can lead a horse/Moose to water but I cannot make him drink.

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

Jesus was without sin; no one else can or could claim this. How is this possible for a mere man if all are subject to sin? So here is the rub, if the Father can give this power to a mere human then God’s power seems to be divided right? If the Father can give any of his divinity to a mere man (not fully God) then I would also suggest the Father is divided. The substantial principle is the forgiveness of sins of all (ransom for all), not prophecy, healings, predictions, or the like. According to Scripture; God is the only one that can forgive sins before Christ arrived to earth. So the Unitarians have a big issue here for now there is a discrepancy with Scripture according to their theological interpretations. God is sharing his authority to forgive sins with a mere human.

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

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

Let me state this for all your scripture quotes in this section…We need to be careful when doing etymology and using mere Greek lexicons to solely base our conclusions. I am not suggesting the lexicons or uses of them are incorrect or unwarranted, however we must also acknowledge that the lexicon is not the final authority for the author’s original intent, it can help, but at times, it can leave things unreciprocated. We are looking for the authorial intent (most importance) that is conveyed through the message. Many words can have different meanings and some individuals may elevate etymology over the intended meaning by the author. We see this even in the Christian camp.

This is where parallel verses on the same (author or similar) subject can come into play. We also need to acknowledge that the Greek is not the same as our English is today. (e.g. some words in English may not fully articulate the original language). Let’s look closer at John 1:1 (not dodge it) before trying to create any etymological fallacies; we must put the authorial intent above our own preunderstantings or presuppositions. We need to quit grasping at straws and nail down a common understanding of the author in his context. It is quite easy to suggest different meanings for certain terms, but in the end we need to make a definitive statement to form our theology systematically.

Some issues may warrant different interpretations, but clearly, John chapter 1 does not warrant such indecisiveness. Historically the body of Christ (believers) has been in unity although not necessarily by tradition rather by Scripture and reason. Many confuse the Creedal statements as being only determined by the Church Fathers or Bishops which is also untrue. The belief in Christ in who he states he is whether directly or indirectly determines the Christian belief. Why should we put our faith in just a mere man for salvation? Clearly, historically we see him more different than those outside of Christianity. Why would we articulate from Scripture such a difficult doctrine about Jesus? We would have no reason to do so to advance any agendas.

John 1:1 [all my quotes are from the NET]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

The emphasis here is the Word was fully God and with God. Simply (simplicity of God) God cannot be created nor can the Word in this sentence to remain consistent with the Theistic epistemology. If the “Word” is fully God then it has to exist before time, space, mater according to our definition of a supreme being outside our realm. The word cannot be fully God if it were created according to Theistic epistemology. Creation as we know it; demands time, space, and matter to exist in our world. The Word cannot be self-created because it would have to predate itself for this to occur. (See John 1:2) If we were to say the Word was a god then we could suggest a connotation of polytheism. However, Christians do not make such claims.

John 1:3
All things were created by him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created.

Adam Clarke states:
That is, by this Logos. (cf Gen1:1; John 1:10), God is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are One. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become God; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings.

Notice that the view is that there is only one God as supported. There is no espousal of polytheism. To state that the Word is created would lean towards a polytheistic bent.

John 1:14
Now the Word became flesh (cf Romans 1:3; Romans 9:5) and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

A clear statement indeed the Word became flesh. Notice how John uses the term “Word” throughout this chapter. Does he change the definition of the Word? Does John indicate any reason to believe differently from his use of the Word in John 1:1?

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Again this is from the NET Bible which uses the earliest MSS for this verse. This is where the JW and some Unitarians may fall short on consistency. They suggest using the early MSS to form their theology, but fail to recognize this early passage, nor would they accept it.

Note that John writes:
“The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father”

This is also a clear definitive statement made by John. I will have to assume that you only researched and accept the Unitarian view at this point.

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is?

Yes, the term Logos can have multiple meanings and I have addressed this accordingly by looking at the chapter in question (earlier by covering an etymological fallacy) we need to sue Logos as John intended in context, we should never put ourselves above the author or his intent.

For the Trinity discussion, we are more concerned with the authorial intent in his use of Logos in John chapter 1, not so much the other uses of Logos in other writings of the Bible. John specifically states the (eternal and fully God) Word became flesh and dwelt with us (yet another theophany revealed). So the web link Moose quotes; suggests that John (chapter 1) is not talking about Jesus? I see no answers from the website information on who this “him” is. Are they leaving this up in the air or is it because if they answer their own question because it could undermine their own theology? I see the same thing with JW’s in answering who Jesus is.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.

Whom did they not recognize? Whom did they not accept? Whom do you not accept or recognize?

Joh 1:11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.

Cleary many received the Father, whom does this leave? Remember Jesus was not received by many in his own land (and outside for that matter).

Joh 1:12 But to all who have received him — those who believe in his name — he has given the right to become God's children
Joh 1:13 — children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God.
Joh 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
Joh 1:15 John testified about him and shouted out, "This one was the one about whom I said, 'He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.' "

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

Correction, they assume that the Trinitarians may misuse the term “logos” but they did not answer accordingly to John’s intent of the word in Chapter 1. Nor did they directly state that it is incorrect in the way we interpret John chapter 1 emphatically. The Unitarian site seems to redefine the term “Word” to fit or support their theology, nothing more, still no clear or direct statement from them. Clearly they do not care about the authors conveyed meaning in doing so. The only thing I have seen is a presupposition (esigesis) that is being used to interpret scripture.

They have not shown the Trinitarian view as wrong, but have only suggested a different interpretation or usage of the word “Logos” throughout the Bible as to imply the term “Word” could have meant several different definitions when it is clearly unwarranted. They have not proven their interpretation as the authorial intent in John Chapter 1; they have only suggested the term could be used other ways throughout the Bible. This is a fallacy common to many that uphold to an anachronistic view on Scripture and etymology. I will stick with the majority of Greek scholars until the consensus changes on John’s use of the word.

For every scholar you can list, I can also provide the majority of scholarship (also worldly renowned) to respond accordingly to the ones questioning the historical intent and interpretation of such verses. One can also make the Church Fathers support just about any type of belief, but we need to stick to the Orthodox beliefs of Christianity for they are the beliefs you consistently attack.

I am not suggesting scholars are infallible BTW. What you fail to realize that the Unitarian view is in the minority of scholarship (possibly for a good reason too), nor is it supported historically in the Creeds. It would be nice to see any creedal statements made by the Unitarians as an authoritative source in your OP. Again, the bottom line is that viewing Jesus as only a mere man posits huge problems within the non-Trinitarian view. I can elaborate if need be when time allows.

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

Basically they merely suggest John could be wrong in using the term Logos. I cannot make such an assumption for I am not inspired as John was. John Chapter 1 is quite clear and there is no reason to dance or play loose with the data other than having a presupposition that will not allow God for any theophany in the flesh (rock, tree, or flaming bush perhaps).

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

Actually, I disagree; the acceptance of the Trinity does not rely on salvation it fully describes all of scripture without having the Scripture contradict itself, and I have made this clear in my views in an earlier post. I am sure some have argued this point, but the bottom line is that we do not have to clearly understand it or accept it willingly (blindly), but it is suggested by scripture to at least accept Jesus as deity in the NT. No where in the Bible does it state that non-Trinitarians will not make it to Heaven.

The OT civilization put their trust in the coming Messiah not so much the Trinity or the concept, and to say that any OT dweller will not be in Heaven is rather absurd. No where in the Bible does it emphatically state (by Jesus either) Trinitarians will not go to Heaven. The Qur’an may disagree; any further mention of the Qur’an will simply be ignored.

Well I'm glad that genesis 1 is not used to prove the trinity.

Well I did not suggest that… I merely indicated that some would not use Gen 1 as an end-all stand alone proof text. I can see why you misinterpret the Bible because you merely gloss over my statements.

My thesis is very clear at the opening post.

To you it is clear, but it still has flaws in its conception as we have shown. I would not consider it as a working thesis. Granted some arguments will exhibit a trace of fallacy, however you are deliberately misrepresenting the Trinitarian view and it would be better if you would at least comment on the Chalcedonian Creed. We have Scripture to back this summary statement. It is not my job to articulate the Trinity or defend it, as it is your duty as a seeker of truth to fully and accurately represent the view before you construct your argument against it. This is true-to-form debate, what you have here is a mere discussion with intent to proselytize as shown in the OP. To date you have not done this. Trinitarians are not on trial here, except by you and if I were the Jury on this case (based upon your OP) then I would have to rule against you (all prejudice aside).

I don't use many Trinitarian verses in my argument, the site is a bonus to explain the verses used to prove the trinity.

Your point is that you only use sources outside of Orthodox to explain the view of the Trinity?

You don't consider Jesus to be a God? Really? so Jesus isn't God?

Duh how can I be a Trinitarian if I do not consider Jesus to be God? These are your claims not mine.

Muhammad is speaking out of hate?

Well it was suggested that Muhammad was tolerant of other religions, but my point was that he truly was not. Jesus made inclusive statements. I think Muhammad spoke out of ignorance on the matter of the Trinity is all I am suggesting.

I hear that when I reject Christ I would be damned to hell, that's not hate speaking on Paul's authority correct?

According to Christ and Paul, yes

Is that hate speaking? Not necessarily but it could be considered as intolerance by our society today, but then again Paul was speaking on authority. We as Christians cannot damn anyone to Hell; we do not have that authority. Yet you suggest me, as a Trinitarian, as damned to hell. So is this like the dual excommunication in 1054AD?

Riiiiiiiiiite. Now verse 5:73 in other translations is "associating partners with God" exactly what the trinity is a 3 person partnership to form one God.

Please explain the translation you are suggesting. Define partner? Some could state that they are partners with God in his omnipresence and in Heaven…?

Again there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the Trinity as false. It has also been suggested that Muhammad believed the Trinitarian (partnership) view held in Arabia at that time; consisted of God, His partner Mary and her son 'Isa. However this is not true of the view of the Trinitarians historically in the Nicene and Caledonian Creeds.

[heisonly1]

Anewlife and all you other Trinitarians,

Firstly, You erroneously advance with the dubious assumption that the Christological interpretation within John's Gospel preserves a historical record of the true identity of Jesus as he perceived himself.This is false!!! Let me explain why.


If only you understood the implications of the spurious origin of your erroneous Christological interpretation of Jesus that was articulated in the NT, especially in the Gospel of John, you would recognise the truth about the true identity of Jesus Christ.

New Testament author’s significantly applied the Personified Wisdom literature/narratives as a contextual and exegetical framework (midrash) to interpret the person of Jesus as the perfect ‘image’ or emissary that represented or exemplified the will of God’s creative thought or word as typified in the Old Testament. The Wisdom conceptualizations/template were interpreted and applied to a historical Jesus as a means to conceptualize his relationship to God Almighty. These influencial factors also shaped Philo’s mode of thought, is undeniably reflected in the Christology of the Gospel of John 1:1-14 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=John+1%3A1-14) and the letters of Paul. source - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-126313961.html

The fact that the fundamemtal objective of applying the Jewish wisdom modes of thought was to conceptualize how Jesus exemplified, represented, typified, illustrated, demonstrated, personifed the will or thought of God embodied in God’s Word (Logos) explains one reason why ‘Logos’ and not ‘wisdom’ is employed as the appropriate literary term/device, since the primary focus is God Almighty’s Word, that embodies the expression of His Wisdom, his will and power, and the outgoing of the divine energy, life, love and light manifested toward his creation.



PRIOR TO JESUS EXISTENCE, The infusion of ancient Jewish thought and Hellenic Logos ideas - Alexandrian philosophy - formulated very speculative and powerful influencial ways of interpreting God’s relationship to his creation, which transparently shaped the very perception and articulation of the Logos theology of Philo. The same set of influences that shaped Philo’s conception of the personified Logos as a ‘begotten son of God’ can also be evidently seen in the articulation of the Logos Christology and Sonship derived from the Gospel of John.

Whether the similarities in concept and expression seen in the NT, especially, Gospel of John was the directly result or influence by the conjectural theology of Philo - is debatable, but not easily dismissed, However, what is transparently clear is that both authors utilized/adapted the same speculative theological modes of thought and articulation that originated prior to Jesus birth and prevailed during their respective times, which reflects the significant similitude in their thought patterns and mode of expressions.

Philo’s relationship to Christianity has over the centuries posed a problem for Christian apologists. On the one hand, he shows not the slightest knowledge of Jesus or the Christian movement, even though he would have survived during the life of Jesus by more than a decade. And yet his ideas, which predated Jesus’ career, have an undeniable affinity with Christian doctrine about the Logos - Word of God.

Philo represents a speculative conjecture or expression of the current philosophy of his day, a syncretism between the erroneous Jewish and Greek philosophy that speculated/conjectured about the nature of God attribute’s – His Word and Wisdom.


Whether any of the ideas in the early Christian catalogue were directly derived from Philo is debatable, however what is undeniable is that both Philo and Christianity’s expression of thought can be reduced to the concept of the ‘Son’, the spiritual personified intermediary between God and the world that originated from speculative Greek/Jewish philosophies centuries prior to Jesus existence.

So important was Philo to the early church fathers that they preserved his writings. source -


The application of Philo’s writing is transparently evident in the writings of the early Church fathers from the 2nd century on wards that eventually set the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity that was finalized in Nicea.



Philo, [who was first and foremost a Jew, and maintained that Judaism lay at the center of his beliefs], personified God’s attribute – His Word, by interpreting the Greek Old Testament scriptures through the application of Jewish/Greek philosophy. Such an outlook had been developing in Jewish apologetics even before Philo.

One of the principal ways of interpreting scripture to make it reflect Greek philosophy was through the use of allegory, personification and symbolism.

WHAT IS PERSONIFICATION ?

Personification, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as

“A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form.”

Personification of God’s attributes – His Word and Wisdom - represents a POETIC literary tool that is NOT intended to be taken literally. Literal interpretations would convey an altogether different, erroneous, and absurd meaning, but that is exactly what is commonly done with the ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom’ of God by polytheistic Trinitarians.

The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented AS IF a person - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.

THIS CRITICAL FACT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND.


Through the speculative mode of personification, Philo, a Jew was able to stay within the boundaries of Jewish monotheism. From a Jewish perspective, to present/interpret God’s word or wisdom as an actual person that Co-subsisted with God Almighty from eternity would breech the true singular oneness of God monotheism, just as some of the misguided christianized Jews did that erroneously believed God's Word actually pre-existed as a person that later incarnated in human flesh. Hence why they were identified by other Jews as polytheists that breech the true oneness of God through the worship of Jesus.


Philo’s was significantly influenced by the personification of Wisdom that shaped his conceptualization about the Logos of God. Through the mode of allegory expression and personification, Philo presents the Logos of God AS IF figuratively, it were a ‘Son’ a distinct ‘person’ that subsisted with God Almighty.



For Philo, God’s Word (Logos) whom he personified and identified figuratively as a ‘Son of God’ was not, in reality or actuality, an actual 'person' that possessed it’s own center of consciousness or self-awareness. source - http://www.socinian.org/philo.html (http://www.socinian.org/philo.html)

Philo personified the Word as a ‘Son of God’, whom he conceptualized as the spiritual intermediary between God and the world. These modes of thought were mere allegorical or personified anthroponic expressions that speculated how God interacted with his creation through his revelations.


The significant difference is that Trinitarian Christology mutated away from the allegorical and symbolic personified expressions of God’s attributes by literalizing the interpretations of these concepts and personifications of the Logos of God as an actual pre-existing distinct person that dwelled in the human flesh of the man Jesus.


As a result, God's attribute - His Word - transformed from personification to 'person' that totally breeched Jewish monotheism.

The attributes of God – including his His Word – was never conceptualized by the Children of Israel, the Prophets of God or in the OT to imply they were actual distinct ‘persons’ that co –existed with God Almighty from eternity that comprise the oneness of his being.God’s attribute – His Word - carried certain cultural connotations beyond New Testament times, but there is no context outside of developing Christian doctrines in which God’s attribute – His Word or Wisdom - was regarded as an actual self conscious 'person' that subsisted with God Almighty, Hence, the absence of any references in the Old Testament where God’s Attributes were conceptualized as actual self conscious 'persons' that possessed their own self-awareness or individuality before they supposedly descended from heaven to incarnate in human flesh. The Trinitarian articulation of the nature of God’s Word as a person incarnated in human flesh is purely a perverted innovation.


Some of the critical differences amongst Christians regarding the conflicting Christological interpretations of Jesus in the NT, especially in the Gospel of John relates to the nature or degree of association of the Logos of God – His Word exemplified in Jesus.



Trinitarianism - postulates that 'the Word' of God is a self conscious pre-existent personal individuality, a ‘person’ that subsisted with God Almighty from eternity as his eternal Son that later decended from heaven to dwell in the womb of Mary to be born of human flesh as the man Jesus.



Biblical Unitarianism - Or was the Word of God a divine revelation of God Almighty that was revealed, represented and exemplified through the sublime Character of the prophet and man Jesus that perfectly conveyed the will of God to his people.

In other words, Jesus, the man was symbolically,metaphorically, figuratively ‘the word of God’ in the sense that he embodied the Will and divine ordanaces of God that was perfectly expressed/personified through his word and deeds as a man and mighty prophet of God.

Therefore, according Biblical Unitarianism, Jesus never pre-existed as a divine ‘son of God’ in any form as postulated by Trinitarians, rather Jesus was only a human ‘son of God’ in a symbolic.metaphorical,figurative sense in that he was a righteous servant of God.

According to most Biblical Unitarianism, to say that Jesus is ‘son of God’ or ‘Word of God’ is only to point out the relationship as a recipient of divine grace and the responsibility of obedience. All such expressions are only figurative and are not intended to give us information about the nature of God, His essence, being or attributes. The expression Son of God referring to Jesus, is not specifically related to the nature of his virgin birth. Jesus identified as a Son of God is an expression that describes his commitment to perfectly carry out the will of God.



Irrespective to which of the diverse/contradictory/Christological interpretations of Jesus Christians believe in, the fundamental factor that connects all these diverse Christologies is that they are all are significantly influenced and derived from the same erroneous Jewish/Greek speculative philosophies and conjectures that were used as templates/conceptualizations to erroneously interpret/express the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God Almighty.

These perverted conceptualizations derived from the NT reflect more what the alledged/professed follower believed about Jesus, not what Jesus perceived about his own self perception.


From an Islamic perspective, If you remove these innovations, speculative philosophical conceptualizations that were erroneously applied to interpret the identity of Jesus, you will indeed recognize the true historical Jesus as Mighty Prophet and messenger of God Almighty as proclaimed in the Quran:



"O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! do not exaggerate in your religion: Nor say of God except the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word (#2 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1638354&postcount=2) ), which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one : Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."

"Christ does not distain to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself."

"But to those who believe (have faith) AND do deeds of righteousness, He will give their rewards,- and more, out of His bounty: BUT THOSE WHO ARE DISDAINFUL AND ARROGANT, HE WILL PUNISH WITH A GRIEVIOUS PENALTY; NOR WILL THEY FIND, BESIDES GOD ANY TO PROTECT OR HELP THEM."

"O mankind! verily there hath come to you a manifest proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest. "

"Then those who believe in God, and hold fast to Him,- soon will He admit them to mercy and grace from Himself, and guide them to Himself by a straight way." (Quran - Sura 4:171-5)

to be continued...............

heisonly1

[barnasha]

But then we were talking about Islam's criteria for a person having to be vouched for by two witnesses and so far you have none. a man cannot be his own witness can he? Even you allow that, all evidence for another witness has been handed to you by the first witness. You only have HIS word that this other witness vouches for him and you can't accept his word unless he has two witnesses. Kinda caught in a loop huh?

two witnesses for what?




So because it is harder to get to heaven in Islam, that makes it more real? So by that reasoning if I came up with a religion that made it impossible to meet the requirements that would trump Islam, right?


it would be impossible to get into heaven without submitting (asalama) to God's will (i.e. being in a state of islam), why would paradise be granted to sinners?


Actually John was there. Remember Jesus told him to take his mother and care for her? And there is no case for the others not being there. After all, Mark was not an apostle but he might have been at the cross. Matthew might have fled but came back. Luke was the only one you can make a case for not being there, but he was writting down eye witness reports of those who were there.

But then we are not talking about crucifixion anyway. We are talking about witnesses that someone was a prophet of God. All of Jesus apostles said that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. And it was recorded by them and third parties, makeing them all external witnesses to the fact. Their writings are external witnesses to Christ. The Koran was written by Mohommed. It is his OWN testimony.

Jesus was challenged the same way you challenge the authenticity of Muhammad.

(Jesus was not popular then, like he is now, so you would have nothing to gain in terms of how society looked at you if you accepted him at that time. That's why the pharisees gave him a hard time. Is that why you give Muhammad a hard time? Do you not accept him because your culture does not consider it 'en vogue'? Or have you simply rejected him without even listening, thinking the propaganda you hear is enough for you to stay away?)


So the Pharisees said to him, "You testify on your own behalf, so your testimony cannot be verified."
Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I do testify on my own behalf, my testimony can be verified, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
You judge by appearances, but I do not judge anyone.
And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me.

[KarmaGhost]

Biblical Unitarianism - Or was the Word of God a divine revelation of God Almighty that was revealed, represented and exemplified through the sublime Character of the prophet and man Jesus that perfectly conveyed the will of God to his people.

In other words, Jesus, the man was symbolically,metaphorically, figuratively ‘the word of God’ in the sense that he embodied the Will and divine ordanaces of God that was perfectly expressed/personified through his word and deeds as a man and mighty prophet of God.

The problem with Unitarianism is that it denies Divine Simplicity. If God is truely One, that means anything that proceeds from Him and His conveyed by Him is Him. If Jesus "embodie[s] the Will and divine ordanances [sic] of God", then He is those things given a body. Hence the very word "embody."

[KarmaGhost]

two witnesses for what?





it would be impossible to get into heaven without submitting (asalama) to God's will (i.e. being in a state of islam), why would paradise be granted to sinners?



Jesus was challenged the same way you challenge the authenticity of Muhammad.

(Jesus was not popular then, like he is now, so you would have nothing to gain in terms of how society looked at you if you accepted him at that time. That's why the pharisees gave him a hard time. Is that why you give Muhammad a hard time? Do you not accept him because your culture does not consider it 'en vogue'? Or have you simply rejected him without even listening, thinking the propaganda you hear is enough for you to stay away?)


So the Pharisees said to him, "You testify on your own behalf, so your testimony cannot be verified."

Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I do testify on my own behalf, my testimony can be verified, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

You judge by appearances, but I do not judge anyone.

And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me.

Actually, I (and Sparko) reject Muhammad because he co-opts regional religious imagery to form his own religion, then utters things against the unchanging dictates of God's Word. Like most Abrahamic cults, the truth of Islam depends on the intentional soiling of God's revelation by generations before Muhammad to hide the truth. In other words, Muhammad essentially says that the first 600 years worth of Christians fabricated the Truth and followed it to their deaths and that thousands of years worth of Jews had altered the teachings given to them by God to conform to their views. But Muhammad...he did nothing of that. He didn't borrow and adapt stories of powerful religious groups in his region. Not at all. He got it all as the very truth.

Puh-lease.

If Christ was and is a Prophet, then Islam best reject him for being a liar for claiming to be the Son of Man, the second divine power of Heaven from Daniel 7. But Islam never will. The strength of Islam depends on the ideological confusion generated by claiming Judeo-Christian heritage to an Abrahamic religion.

But this discussion is about the Trinity, not Muhammad and why Christians reject Islam.

[heisonly1]

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

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

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


Jewish thought had its own hypothetical/postulated intermediary figure going back centuries, certainly as old as Plato. For the Jews, in comparison to the Hellenic thought, God never became quite so inaccessible, but among the scribes of the period following the Exile, God was presented, THROUGH HUMAN CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION, as making himself known and working in the world through a part of himself they called LADY “Wisdom”.



From a Jewish perspective however, Personified Wisdom was presented as coming to earth, although there was never any Jewish thought of wisdom being ACTUALLY perceived as a real self conscious 'person', neither the being of God as being physically or literally incarnated in creation or actually in human flesh. This critical fact you must understand.


Here is what the Old Testament Book of Proverbs has to say about personified wisdom identified as ‘lady wisdom’ (wisdom linguistically is a feminine noun. Grammatically it would be incorrect to use feminine nouns as masculine, hence why wisdom is poetically personified as a ‘she’, not a ‘he’)


“By the gate, Wisdom calls aloud: ‘Men, it is to you I call . . . I am Wisdom, I bestow shrewdness, and show the way to knowledge and prudence . . . The Lord possessed me from the beginning of his works . . . when he set the heavens in their place I was there . . . I was at the Lord’s side each day . . . Happy is the man who keeps to my ways.” (From 8:1-36)


Two important aspects of Wisdom are featured here. First, personified Wisdom is “pre-existent,” that is, wisdom, WHICH IN REALITY IS MERELY AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD that has been symbolized as a metaphorical 'person', was with God in heaven subsisting before the creation of the world. And wisdom is associated with God in that work. In reality, what this really means without the poetic mode of personification is God possesses divine wisdom from eternity and used his wisdom to create the heavens and earth.

An earlier verse, 3:19, makes it clear that Wisdom serves as an instrument in the process of creation:


“In wisdom the Lord founded the earth and by understanding he set the heavens in their place.”


The book of Baruch 3:37 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=63&passage=Baruch+3%3A37) (written centuries before Jesus birth) gives us a line which, even though Wisdom was originally intended as a reference to the ‘word of God’ –The Torah - may have had a profound influence on the future:


“Thereupon wisdom appeared on earth and dwelled among men.”


Was this one of the footsteps on the path to bringing a different “aspect” of God—the Son—down to earth? Has the author of John adapted personified Jewish wisdom or Logos motifs (the infusion of both thoughts as did Philo) as an exegetical framework to present the incarnation of the Logos?: “So the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.” (1:14) ?????


On the other hand, the writer of one of the documents, which went into the composite 1 Enoch, end product of some first century Jewish apocalyptic sect, took a more pessimistic view of personified Wisdom’s residence on earth (42:1-2):


“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.”


Did Greek philosophy influence the early evolution of the Jewish Wisdom figure? It’s difficult to tell. But by the time we get to the Wisdom of Solomon composed PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS influenced by Hellenic thought PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS we can see a clear and exotic blending of Wisdom motifs used to represent the Logos of God. Wisdom is now the divine power active in the world, the spirit that pervades and governs all things. She is the Logos, but without the name. She is God’s “throne-partner,” a step away from the similitude of Christ sitting at the right hand of God as recorded in the New Testament. She, too, is pre-existent, an agent of creation. And consider this passage from 7:22-30:


“. . . she rises from the power of God, a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty . . . She is the brightness that streams from everlasting light, the flawless mirror of the active power of God and the image of his goodness . . . She spans the world in power from end to end, and orders all things benignly.”


Such thinking is clearly reflected in those opening verses of the Epistle to the Hebrew in the New Testament, defining the nature of the Son as “the effulgence of God’s splendor,” the image of God and the sustainer of the universe.

According to Trinitarian translation/interpretation, Colossians 1:15-20 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Colossians+1%3A15-20) is also stamped with the same kind of wisdom imagery as well: the Son as the pre-existent image of God, a force, which created the universe and now holds it together.


DO YOU SEE HOW THESE ERRONEOUS INFLUENCES CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS FORMULATING THE DUBIOUS TRINITARIAN CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF JESUS YOU ADHERE TO ANEWLIFE!!!!


READ ON AND PAY ATTENTION!!!!!


The Wisdom of Solomon or ‘the book of wisdom’ that was heavy infused with Greek Hellenic thought, prior to the birth of Jesus, also shows us that the time was ripe for the Logos and Wisdom to make a journey into the world. After the Exile, among both Jews and Greeks, the need for a transcendent God to interact in the affairs of his people was poetically expressed through their desire for God to send his representative, his revealer or mediator was being acutely felt. So much of the world was devastated. Wars, strife and evil spirits seemed to be winning. Humanity desperately looked for aid, direction and outright salvation. The need is reflected in poetic modes of expression like these, although this writer’s comments is one of optimism (Wisdom of Solomon, 9:10):


“Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from thy glorious throne bid her come down, so that she may labor at my side and I may learn what pleases thee.”



Were the Jews actually supplicating to God’s attribute that was actually a distinct self conscious ‘person’ identified as lady wisdom to come from the clouds? Where they supplicating to an actual personal deity besides God Almighty to descend from heaven to help them? Absolutely not!!!!



REMEMBER THE CRITICAL POINT ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF PERSONIFICATION:



The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented as if a person - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only or actually an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.



Personification is a merely a perverted human conjecture that speculates or imagines through poetic modes of expression and human imagery how God Almighty might interact with his creation.



In some Jewish circles, personified Wisdom was seen as doing just that. She was thought of as sending “envoys,” entrusting them with teachings which revealed God, his wishes and his workings. In reality, (without personification) what this really means is that God was sending his revelations through angels or scriptures to mankind to guide them in the ways of their Lord.



It is important to examine Jewish post-canonical writings that outline the two theological developments that are derived from the personified Wisdom literature:


(1)The personification of Wisdom that is represented figuratively/metaphorically allegorically as IF a ‘person’ subsisting as a heavenly figure dwelling in heaven with God Almighty; and

(2) explicit identification of wisdom with the "Word," Torah, or Proverbs as special revelation.


Both of these developments find most explicit expression in literature written after the close of the Old Testament canon, but prior to the birth of Jesus, in certain apocryphal books.


In spite of their literary, apocryphal context, those developments retain great importance, both for illuminating the bridge to and background for the New Testament Christological interpretation of Jesus.


The authors of the New Testament are speaking of Jesus in exactly the same language or personified imagery as we find in the broader philosophical world, both Greek and Jewish.


Their idea of the spiritual Son has absorbed both the features and roles of the Logos - source http://www.socinian.org/philo.html (http://www.socinian.org/philo.html)/ and personified Wisdom - source - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-126313961.html that originated centuries prior to the birth of Jesus.


In reading the New Testament and imagining the New Testament writers as being inspired to a view of ‘God’s Son’, these authors are merely drawing on the prominent ideas of speculative ancient Judaism and the deeper ancient heritage infused with Hellenic though, which lay behind their distorted perception and interpretation of Jesus.


As I've mentioned before, irrespective to which of the diverse/contradictory/Christological interpretations of Jesus Christians believe in, the fundamental factor that connects all these diverse Christologies is that they all are significantly influenced and derived from the same personified Jewish/Greek speculative philosophies and conjectures that were used as templates/conceptualizations to erroneously interpret/express the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God Almighty.

to be continued...............

[barnasha]

Actually, I (and Sparko) reject Muhammad because he co-opts regional religious imagery to form his own religion, then utters things against the unchanging dictates of God's Word. Like most Abrahamic cults, the truth of Islam depends on the intentional soiling of God's revelation by generations before Muhammad to hide the truth. In other words, Muhammad essentially says that the first 600 years worth of Christians fabricated the Truth and followed it to their deaths and that thousands of years worth of Jews had altered the teachings given to them by God to conform to their views.


this entire argument is completely fallacious since adam is the first prophet of Islam, and the prophet Muhammad said the correct religion (actually, deen translates to way of life, not religion) was the one not established by him


If Christ was and is a Prophet, then Islam best reject him for being a liar for claiming to be the Son of Man, the second divine power of Heaven from Daniel 7. But Islam never will. The strength of Islam depends on the ideological confusion generated by claiming Judeo-Christian heritage to an Abrahamic religion.


Christ is a greek word which was translated from the hebrew meaning MESSIAH, especially referring to the prophetic Messiah.

Jesus never 'claimed to be the son of man', HE IS ONE, like you and I are

son of man means human being, "barnasha" in aramaic.

"Islam never will" what? Islam is the state of having obeyed God, not a creature or an actor or an institution or a worldly religion, these are facts derived from the most authentic sources and not anyone's opinion nor historical revisionism.

The state of being in submission to divine will is qualitative, thus it has no inherent strength. The divine will to which one submits oneself is what has strength.

[moose7237]

Part #1

Can Moose articulate the Trinity?



Hello Again my fine weathered friend,

I may need to split my reply in several sections, as it may take some time to answer each point. I am also in the middle of writing IBO’s and articles for publication elsewhere. Some points may not be commented on unless you personally hold to that view. The forum has limitations on # of characters, so keep this in mind before hand. It would be courteous if you would stay on track with the OP topic, and not bring in other arguments from other past arguments outside this one.

You are arguing our interpretation of Scripture. Since you are using the Universalistic arguments to build your case I will also assume that you support their views even though it may go against your own beliefs. I will have to also assume that the scriptures you quote from the Unitarian website are spoken from authority (by using portions of OT and NT scripture) and you accept them as inspired from God as well.

Remember God uses theophany such as revealing himself by a burning bush (among other inanimate objects), so it would not necessarily be out of character for God to choose to reveal himself in flesh as NT suggests. Yes, limited in human bodily form (before his resurrection) and limited (to use his deity fully but not saying he was limited in his deity in nature, just limited in the exercise of that deity while on earth) by his mission on earth in this bodily form. Well you say that he cannot be omnipresent, but I did offer scriptures that suggested he was before time, space, and matter before the incarnation. And to suggest his omnipresence that is with us to the end of the age. Jesus also knew the heart of men and their thoughts, which no other Biblical prophet made such claims. So far all you have is denial, in which I can lead a horse/Moose to water but I cannot make him drink.



Jesus was without sin; no one else can or could claim this. How is this possible for a mere man if all are subject to sin? So here is the rub, if the Father can give this power to a mere human then God’s power seems to be divided right? If the Father can give any of his divinity to a mere man (not fully God) then I would also suggest the Father is divided. The substantial principle is the forgiveness of sins of all (ransom for all), not prophecy, healings, predictions, or the like. According to Scripture; God is the only one that can forgive sins before Christ arrived to earth. So the Unitarians have a big issue here for now there is a discrepancy with Scripture according to their theological interpretations. God is sharing his authority to forgive sins with a mere human.



Let me state this for all your scripture quotes in this section…We need to be careful when doing etymology and using mere Greek lexicons to solely base our conclusions. I am not suggesting the lexicons or uses of them are incorrect or unwarranted, however we must also acknowledge that the lexicon is not the final authority for the author’s original intent, it can help, but at times, it can leave things unreciprocated. We are looking for the authorial intent (most importance) that is conveyed through the message. Many words can have different meanings and some individuals may elevate etymology over the intended meaning by the author. We see this even in the Christian camp.

This is where parallel verses on the same (author or similar) subject can come into play. We also need to acknowledge that the Greek is not the same as our English is today. (e.g. some words in English may not fully articulate the original language). Let’s look closer at John 1:1 (not dodge it) before trying to create any etymological fallacies; we must put the authorial intent above our own preunderstantings or presuppositions. We need to quit grasping at straws and nail down a common understanding of the author in his context. It is quite easy to suggest different meanings for certain terms, but in the end we need to make a definitive statement to form our theology systematically.

Some issues may warrant different interpretations, but clearly, John chapter 1 does not warrant such indecisiveness. Historically the body of Christ (believers) has been in unity although not necessarily by tradition rather by Scripture and reason. Many confuse the Creedal statements as being only determined by the Church Fathers or Bishops which is also untrue. The belief in Christ in who he states he is whether directly or indirectly determines the Christian belief. Why should we put our faith in just a mere man for salvation? Clearly, historically we see him more different than those outside of Christianity. Why would we articulate from Scripture such a difficult doctrine about Jesus? We would have no reason to do so to advance any agendas.

John 1:1 [all my quotes are from the NET]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

The emphasis here is the Word was fully God and with God. Simply (simplicity of God) God cannot be created nor can the Word in this sentence to remain consistent with the Theistic epistemology. If the “Word” is fully God then it has to exist before time, space, mater according to our definition of a supreme being outside our realm. The word cannot be fully God if it were created according to Theistic epistemology. Creation as we know it; demands time, space, and matter to exist in our world. The Word cannot be self-created because it would have to predate itself for this to occur. (See John 1:2) If we were to say the Word was a god then we could suggest a connotation of polytheism. However, Christians do not make such claims.

John 1:3
All things were created by him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created.

Adam Clarke states:
That is, by this Logos. (cf Gen1:1; John 1:10), God is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are One. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become God; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings.

Notice that the view is that there is only one God as supported. There is no espousal of polytheism. To state that the Word is created would lean towards a polytheistic bent.

John 1:14
Now the Word became flesh (cf Romans 1:3; Romans 9:5) and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

A clear statement indeed the Word became flesh. Notice how John uses the term “Word” throughout this chapter. Does he change the definition of the Word? Does John indicate any reason to believe differently from his use of the Word in John 1:1?

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Again this is from the NET Bible which uses the earliest MSS for this verse. This is where the JW and some Unitarians may fall short on consistency. They suggest using the early MSS to form their theology, but fail to recognize this early passage, nor would they accept it.

Note that John writes:
“The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father”

This is also a clear definitive statement made by John. I will have to assume that you only researched and accept the Unitarian view at this point.



Yes, the term Logos can have multiple meanings and I have addressed this accordingly by looking at the chapter in question (earlier by covering an etymological fallacy) we need to sue Logos as John intended in context, we should never put ourselves above the author or his intent.

For the Trinity discussion, we are more concerned with the authorial intent in his use of Logos in John chapter 1, not so much the other uses of Logos in other writings of the Bible. John specifically states the (eternal and fully God) Word became flesh and dwelt with us (yet another theophany revealed). So the web link Moose quotes; suggests that John (chapter 1) is not talking about Jesus? I see no answers from the website information on who this “him” is. Are they leaving this up in the air or is it because if they answer their own question because it could undermine their own theology? I see the same thing with JW’s in answering who Jesus is.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.

Whom did they not recognize? Whom did they not accept? Whom do you not accept or recognize?

Joh 1:11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.

Cleary many received the Father, whom does this leave? Remember Jesus was not received by many in his own land (and outside for that matter).

Joh 1:12 But to all who have received him — those who believe in his name — he has given the right to become God's children
Joh 1:13 — children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God.
Joh 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
Joh 1:15 John testified about him and shouted out, "This one was the one about whom I said, 'He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.' "



Correction, they assume that the Trinitarians may misuse the term “logos” but they did not answer accordingly to John’s intent of the word in Chapter 1. Nor did they directly state that it is incorrect in the way we interpret John chapter 1 emphatically. The Unitarian site seems to redefine the term “Word” to fit or support their theology, nothing more, still no clear or direct statement from them. Clearly they do not care about the authors conveyed meaning in doing so. The only thing I have seen is a presupposition (esigesis) that is being used to interpret scripture.

They have not shown the Trinitarian view as wrong, but have only suggested a different interpretation or usage of the word “Logos” throughout the Bible as to imply the term “Word” could have meant several different definitions when it is clearly unwarranted. They have not proven their interpretation as the authorial intent in John Chapter 1; they have only suggested the term could be used other ways throughout the Bible. This is a fallacy common to many that uphold to an anachronistic view on Scripture and etymology. I will stick with the majority of Greek scholars until the consensus changes on John’s use of the word.

For every scholar you can list, I can also provide the majority of scholarship (also worldly renowned) to respond accordingly to the ones questioning the historical intent and interpretation of such verses. One can also make the Church Fathers support just about any type of belief, but we need to stick to the Orthodox beliefs of Christianity for they are the beliefs you consistently attack.

I am not suggesting scholars are infallible BTW. What you fail to realize that the Unitarian view is in the minority of scholarship (possibly for a good reason too), nor is it supported historically in the Creeds. It would be nice to see any creedal statements made by the Unitarians as an authoritative source in your OP. Again, the bottom line is that viewing Jesus as only a mere man posits huge problems within the non-Trinitarian view. I can elaborate if need be when time allows.



Basically they merely suggest John could be wrong in using the term Logos. I cannot make such an assumption for I am not inspired as John was. John Chapter 1 is quite clear and there is no reason to dance or play loose with the data other than having a presupposition that will not allow God for any theophany in the flesh (rock, tree, or flaming bush perhaps).



Actually, I disagree; the acceptance of the Trinity does not rely on salvation it fully describes all of scripture without having the Scripture contradict itself, and I have made this clear in my views in an earlier post. I am sure some have argued this point, but the bottom line is that we do not have to clearly understand it or accept it willingly (blindly), but it is suggested by scripture to at least accept Jesus as deity in the NT. No where in the Bible does it state that non-Trinitarians will not make it to Heaven.

The OT civilization put their trust in the coming Messiah not so much the Trinity or the concept, and to say that any OT dweller will not be in Heaven is rather absurd. No where in the Bible does it emphatically state (by Jesus either) Trinitarians will not go to Heaven. The Qur’an may disagree; any further mention of the Qur’an will simply be ignored.



Well I did not suggest that… I merely indicated that some would not use Gen 1 as an end-all stand alone proof text. I can see why you misinterpret the Bible because you merely gloss over my statements.



To you it is clear, but it still has flaws in its conception as we have shown. I would not consider it as a working thesis. Granted some arguments will exhibit a trace of fallacy, however you are deliberately misrepresenting the Trinitarian view and it would be better if you would at least comment on the Chalcedonian Creed. We have Scripture to back this summary statement. It is not my job to articulate the Trinity or defend it, as it is your duty as a seeker of truth to fully and accurately represent the view before you construct your argument against it. This is true-to-form debate, what you have here is a mere discussion with intent to proselytize as shown in the OP. To date you have not done this. Trinitarians are not on trial here, except by you and if I were the Jury on this case (based upon your OP) then I would have to rule against you (all prejudice aside).



Your point is that you only use sources outside of Orthodox to explain the view of the Trinity?



Duh how can I be a Trinitarian if I do not consider Jesus to be God? These are your claims not mine.



Well it was suggested that Muhammad was tolerant of other religions, but my point was that he truly was not. Jesus made inclusive statements. I think Muhammad spoke out of ignorance on the matter of the Trinity is all I am suggesting.



According to Christ and Paul, yes

Is that hate speaking? Not necessarily but it could be considered as intolerance by our society today, but then again Paul was speaking on authority. We as Christians cannot damn anyone to Hell; we do not have that authority. Yet you suggest me, as a Trinitarian, as damned to hell. So is this like the dual excommunication in 1054AD?



Please explain the translation you are suggesting. Define partner? Some could state that they are partners with God in his omnipresence and in Heaven…?

Again there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the Trinity as false. It has also been suggested that Muhammad believed the Trinitarian (partnership) view held in Arabia at that time; consisted of God, His partner Mary and her son 'Isa. However this is not true of the view of the Trinitarians historically in the Nicene and Caledonian Creeds.

Hello and Peace be to you Anewlife,

I'm doing ok, the weather ain't so bad here, hope the weather is nice for you man.

personally, I don't accept any of the bible to be inspired. If a book has fallacies in it, which I believe the bible does, then I can't filter what's truly inspired and what isn't. I can say for certainty that the NT is not inspired by God, but this is my opinion, small and I mean VERY SMALL parts of the OT may have some facts that are inspired by God.

I reject the idea that God revealed himself in a bush, since he is physically everywhere, he can't be in one place and not another. Also, God said that no one has ever seen him(I think). I don't see anything special about anything Jesus did since he was given the authority to do so. He can fly like superman, but as long as he admits that his power is GIVEN to him, you can't say that he is God, because a higher power provided him with his miracles.

Not really, in the Quran, Muhammad had the ability to forgive some sins. God called Muhammad the mercy to all the worlds and the mercy to mankind. Also, I can forgive sin if someone sinned against me. In the bible it says the same thing, if someone sins against you, God won't forgive them until you will. I can make the argument that God is sharing his knowledge with all of mankind. before the existence of the universe only God had knowledge, when he created the brain and the body he gave us some of his knowledge, he gave us instincts, senses. He gave us the ability to see. So I don't see this anything special.

There is a problem, with John 1:18. In a verse in the bible, I can't remember which one, and I don't have the time to search for it, it is actually quoted in this thread. Jesus said that the Father gave him life, now how can God be given life? Since Jesus makes this claim, then at one point Jesus did not exist at all, thus part of the trinity didn't exist at one point. Now the unitarians quote the KJV of the bible about John 1:18 and it states:

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


from biblicalunitarian.com

The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read “ho monogenes theos” = “the unique, or only begotten God,” while the KJV is representative of theologians who believe that the original text was “ho monogenes huios” = “the only begotten Son.” The Greek texts vary, but there are good reasons for believing that the original reading is represented in versions such as the KJV. Although it is true that the earliest Greek manuscripts contain the reading “theos,” every one of those texts is of the Alexandrian text type. Virtually every other reading of the other textual traditions, including the Western, Byzantine, Caesarean and secondary Alexandrian texts, read huios, “Son.” The two famous textual scholars, Westcott and Hort, known for their defense of the Alexandrian text type, consider John 1:18 to be one of the few places in the New Testament where it is not correct.

A large number of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, quoted the verse with “Son,” and not “God.” This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the concept of “one God in three persons.” If Tertullian had had a text that read “God” in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read “Son.”

It is difficult to conceive of what “only begotten God” would have meant in the Jewish culture. There is no use of the phrase anywhere else in the Bible. In contrast, the phrase “only begotten Son” is used three other times by John (3:16 and 18; 1 John 4:9 - KJV). To a Jew, any reference to a “unique God” would have usually referred to the Father. Although the Jews of John’s day would have had a problem with “only begotten God,” Christians of the second century and beyond, with their increasingly paradoxical understanding of Christology and the nature of God, would have been much more easily able to accept such a doctrine.

The reason that the text was changed from “Son” to “God” was to provide “extra evidence” for the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read “God” originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment or worse could be the lot of the “loser.” Changing a text or two to in order to “help” in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that it is probable that “the only begotten son” is the original reading of John 1:18. For a much more detailed accounting of why the word “Son” should be favored over the word “God,” see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 78-82).

3. Even if the original text reads “God” and not “Son,” that still does not prove the Trinity. The word “God” has a wider application in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than it does in English. It can be used of men who have divine authority (See John 10:33 and Heb. 1:8). There is no “Trinitarian Formula” in this verse that forces a Trinitarian interpretation.


This is all I have time for now. Take care.

[anewlife]

DO YOU SEE HOW THESE ERRONEOUS INFLUENCES CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS FORMULATING THE DUBIOUS TRINITARIAN CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF JESUS YOU ADHERE TO ANEWLIFE!!!!

Thanks for your concern.

I haven't had any free time to read anymore posts on this subject since my last post. Its always nice to know that others are looking out for my best interests. If anything needs addressed I will eventually reply.

Thanks

[Sparko]

this entire argument is completely fallacious since adam is the first prophet of Islam, and the prophet Muhammad said the correct religion (actually, deen translates to way of life, not religion) was the one not established by him



Christ is a greek word which was translated from the hebrew meaning MESSIAH, especially referring to the prophetic Messiah.

Jesus never 'claimed to be the son of man', HE IS ONE, like you and I are

son of man means human being, "barnasha" in aramaic.

"Islam never will" what? Islam is the state of having obeyed God, not a creature or an actor or an institution or a worldly religion, these are facts derived from the most authentic sources and not anyone's opinion nor historical revisionism.

The state of being in submission to divine will is qualitative, thus it has no inherent strength. The divine will to which one submits oneself is what has strength.


Jesus never referred to himself as "a" son of man, but "THE" Son of Man. He was making a reference to being the one referred to in

Daniel 7

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Compare that to Jesus words in Matthew 24

Matthew 24:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

So "Son of Man" was used as a messianic title by Jesus.

[sylvius]

Jesus never referred to himself as "a" son of man, but "THE" Son of Man. He was making a reference to being the one referred to in

Daniel 7

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Compare that to Jesus words in Matthew 24

Matthew 24:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

So "Son of Man" was used as a messianic title by Jesus.

and who do you think "man" is? (of whom "son of man" is the (a) son?)

[Sparko]

and who do you think "man" is? (of whom "son of man" is the (a) son?)

dang but you make no sense..

"someone like a son of man" in Daniel is saying that someone who looked like a man (human being) approached the Ancient of Days (God) and was given all power, authority and the kingdom. Obviously he was the Messiah.

Jesus is that person. He made the claim to be the Messiah. That is what he means by "the Son of Man" when he used it of himself. He was not just calling himself a "man" he was calling himself "the Messiah"

[mastralvarado]

If you are so sure son of man is the same as Son of Man or that messiah is Messiah, please show us the exact lettering (capitalization)used in the original codex in order for us to believe that you are truthful.

The reason:
The Anointed One or 'Messiah' is not the same as the anointed one or 'messiah'.

Better yet, get your 'dog puke' posts relevant with the topic.

[sylvius]

dang but you make no sense..

"someone like a son of man" in Daniel is saying that someone who looked like a man (human being) approached the Ancient of Days (God) and was given all power, authority and the kingdom. Obviously he was the Messiah.

Jesus is that person. He made the claim to be the Messiah. That is what he means by "the Son of Man" when he used it of himself. He was not just calling himself a "man" he was calling himself "the Messiah"

Daniel 7:13 is written in Aramaic

חָזֵה הֲוֵית, בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא, וַאֲרוּ עִם-עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָא; וְעַד-עַתִּיק יוֹמַיָּא מְטָה, וּקְדָמוֹהִי הַקְרְבוּהִי.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
"Bar Enash" = son of man

Daniel 8:17 id written in Hebrew:
וַיָּבֹא, אֵצֶל עָמְדִי, וּבְבֹאוֹ נִבְעַתִּי, וָאֶפְּלָה עַל-פָּנָי; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי הָבֵן בֶּן-אָדָם, כִּי לְעֶת-קֵץ הֶחָזוֹן.
So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was terrified, and fell upon my face; but he said unto me: 'Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.'
"Ben Adam" = son of man.

who is who?

[Sparko]

If you are so sure son of man is the same as Son of Man or that messiah is Messiah, please show us the exact lettering (capitalization)used in the original codex in order for us to believe that you are truthful.

The reason:
The Anointed One or 'Messiah' is not the same as the anointed one or 'messiah'.

Better yet, get your 'dog puke' posts relevant with the topic.

are you serious? There was no "capitalization" in Greek. Nor even punctuation.

The context and wording show that Jesus was using it as a title for himself and the Matthew 24 quote shows he was making a direct reference to Daniel 7.

[Sparko]

Daniel 7:13 is written in Aramaic


"Bar Enash" = son of man

Daniel 8:17 id written in Hebrew:

"Ben Adam" = son of man.

who is who?

I have an idea, sylvius: why don't you start making sense.

Do you think that Jesus was the Messiah? If so, what the heck are you complaining about?

[sylvius]

I have an idea, sylvius: why don't you start making sense.

Do you think that Jesus was the Messiah? If so, what the heck are you complaining about?

Jesus was the Messiah?

[Sparko]

Jesus was the Messiah?

dude, even the Muslims agree that Jesus is the Messiah.

[moose7237]

According to Christ and Paul, yes

Is that hate speaking? Not necessarily but it could be considered as intolerance by our society today, but then again Paul was speaking on authority. We as Christians cannot damn anyone to Hell; we do not have that authority. Yet you suggest me, as a Trinitarian, as damned to hell. So is this like the dual excommunication in 1054AD?



Please explain the translation you are suggesting. Define partner? Some could state that they are partners with God in his omnipresence and in Heaven…?

Again there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the Trinity as false. It has also been suggested that Muhammad believed the Trinitarian (partnership) view held in Arabia at that time; consisted of God, His partner Mary and her son 'Isa. However this is not true of the view of the Trinitarians historically in the Nicene and Caledonian Creeds.

Hello and Peace be to you Anewlife,

Take your time in posting your responses friend. We are all busy, and our lives don't necessarily revolve around Tweb.

Now you said that you don't consider Jesus to be a God. So is this true or not?

I don't think at all that Muhammad spoke out of ignorance on the trinity. It was actually God's verses in the Quran about the trinity, and a lot of evidence points against it.

I have been damned to hell by christians before. I don't know who said you don't have the authority, but I have personally been damned to hell by christians.

A partner ascribed to God is one that is like a co-creator, or one that is elevated or equal to him. In the Quran it specifically states there is none like Allah. So when you say someone is equal to him then that is associating a partner to him which is polytheism. Muhammad never believed or followed the Trinity. And as far as I know, Catholics have a prayer of worship entitled to Mary. You've heard the phrase "Mary mother of God" (AstaghfirAllah). do you wonder that people don't think a woman who gave birth to God isn't divine herself? This is what was meant by that verse.

[sylvius]

dude, even the Muslims agree that Jesus is the Messiah.

you are looking for the living among the dead.

[mastralvarado]

How is it that if someone doesn't agree with you in all views that person is 'dead'?

Take for example the Messiah's parable of the Prodigal Son. Do you think that a story such as this does not have a moral? You have to be dead spiritually and come back to G-d in order to prove you're of H-s own.

Similarly, take a dove and let it fly away; if it comes back to you it was yours and if if doesn't come back it was never yours from the beginning.

So the word 'dead' has serious implications.

Regards,

Mastralvarado

[Sparko]

slyvius is a fruitcake who's posts rarely make any sense at all. I usually just ignore him.

[sylvius]

How is it that if someone doesn't agree with you in all views that person is 'dead'?

Take for example the Messiah's parable of the Prodigal Son. Do you think that a story such as this does not have a moral? You have to be dead spiritually and come back to G-d in order to prove you're of H-s own.

Similarly, take a dove and let it fly away; if it comes back to you it was yours and if if doesn't come back it was never yours from the beginning.

So the word 'dead' has serious implications.

Regards,

Mastralvarado

and what about life?

Hebrew "chayim" is a dualis-form.

like saying: beyond death there is (also) life.

John 1: 4-5,
"in it (the word ) there was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone into the darkness, and teh darkness did not comprehend it."

[sylvius]

slyvius is a fruitcake who's posts rarely make any sense at all. I usually just ignore him.

you are the one who said:

"Jesus was the Messiah"

like the centurion under the cross, Mark 15:39,

When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, "Truly this man was a son of God!"

he was and is no more...

according many Christian scholar this centurion was the first Christian

[Sparko]

:lolo:

[sylvius]

:lolo:


....and Sparko the last

[barnasha]

Compare that to Jesus words in Matthew 24

Matthew 24:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

So "Son of Man" was used as a messianic title by Jesus.

I'm curious now, so I will ask this:

How would you support your conclusion (without using your own opinions or preconceived notions), that Jesus was referring to himself when he said 'the Son of Man'?

I don't see that in the text....

[Salty]

Jesus never referred to himself as "a" son of man, but "THE" Son of Man. He was making a reference to being the one referred to in

Matthew 24:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

So "Son of Man" was used as a messianic title by Jesus.

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Psalm 146:3, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."

[sylvius]

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Psalm 146:3, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."


I think the name "the son of man" alludes to Noach,

Noach who found mercy in the eyes of Hashem, Genesis 6:8

Genesis 5 lists the 10 generations of Adam; only i.c.w. the tenth generation it is written:

"and he fathered a son", "vayoled ben", Genesis 5:28
Rashi:
Heb. בֵּן, from whom the world was built (נִבְנָה). - [from Tanchuma Bereishith 11]

So i say Jesus by mentioning the son of man was referring to Noach,

first Mark 2:9-11
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"-- he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go to your house."

Mercy, Hebrew "chen", written "chet-nun", the reverse of the name Noach, written "nun-chet".

gematria 58, like of "ozen" , written "alef-zayin-nun", ear.

"Whoever has ears to hear let him hear."

Greek "charis"

cf. John 1:17,
because while the law was given through Moses, mercy and truth came through Jesus Christ.
the son of man being the one to find mercy.

the law was given on the sixth day of Sivan, i.e., Pentecost.

i.e, "the sixth day", "yom hashishi" in Genesis 1:31.

[Sparko]

I'm curious now, so I will ask this:

How would you support your conclusion (without using your own opinions or preconceived notions), that Jesus was referring to himself when he said 'the Son of Man'?

I don't see that in the text....

Maybe you should actually read the whole section in context. Jesus is telling them how he will return and what they should look for. Not to mention Jesus uses that title of himself many times in other places.

Matthew 24:3 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

[Salty]

I think the name "the son of man" alludes to Noach,
Noach who found mercy in the eyes of Hashem, Genesis 6:8
Genesis 5 lists the 10 generations of Adam; only i.c.w. the tenth generation it is written:

"and he fathered a son", "vayoled ben", Genesis 5:28
Rashi:

So i say Jesus by mentioning the son of man was referring to Noach,

I don't see any relation to Noah and J's use of Son of Man, and your verses don't seem to do anything to support your assertion.

first Mark 2:9-11

Mercy, Hebrew "chen", written "chet-nun", the reverse of the name Noach, written "nun-chet".

Reversing the letters is hardly a valid exegetical method. Such a parlor trick doesn't help show a relation between chen and Noah any more than reversing your nickname tells us that your significant other is named Sue and you have lice (su iv lys = Sue, I've lice) or that you have a lisp and your favorite garment is a muscle shirt (suivlys = sweeveless = sleeveless). :lol:

Greek "charis"

cf. John 1:17,

the son of man being the one to find mercy.

the law was given on the sixth day of Sivan, i.e., Pentecost.

i.e, "the sixth day", "yom hashishi" in Genesis 1:31.

Okay, no offense intended, but that makes absolutely no sense. What does the sixth day have to do with Noah?

[sylvius]

I don't see any relation to Noah and J's use of Son of Man, and your verses don't seem to do anything to support your assertion.

Matthew 11:28
deute proV me panteV oi kopiwnteV kai pefortismenoi, kagw anapausw umaV.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

cf. Genesis 5: 29
And he named him Noach, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ground, which the Lord has cursed."

"give rest", "yanach", is the very root of the name Noach.

it even goes further:
Noach's name is said to be fulfilled wehn teh ark came to rest on the top of the mountains of Ararat, Genesis 8:4
it is special becuase of precisely at this point the Name of God became manifest; since the ark was with 11 cubits submerged in the waters You learn [from here] that it was submerged eleven cubits in the waters [which were] above the mountain peaks. ( http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8172&showrashi=true ),
the mountains in this story being 15 cubits high, the name of god becam manifest in the 15 (y-h) + 11 (v-h) cubits of the waters above the earth.





Reversing the letters is hardly a valid exegetical method. Such a parlor trick doesn't help show a relation between chen and Noah any more than reversing your nickname tells us that your significant other is named Sue and you have lice (su iv lys = Sue, I've lice) or that you have a lisp and your favorite garment is a muscle shirt (suivlys = sweeveless = sleeveless). :lol:

the point is tha5t Noach found "chen", favor, grace, mercy, in the eyes of the lord.
Greek "charis".



Okay, no offense intended, but that makes absolutely no sense. What does the sixth day have to do with Noah?

everything.

in fact "tevah", ark, means "word", word as written with letters.

there was a window in the top of the ark; Hebrew "tsohar". the lettter "hey" in "tsohar" is the same as the letter "hey' in "hashishi".

"tsohar" is from "tsahar" = press oil (from olives).

like happened in Getsemane, Hebrew "gat shemen" = oil press.

"mashach" = to anoint (with "shemen")

"Mashiach" = the anointed one, the Christ.

[KarmaGhost]

Here's my problem with your Kabbalist interpretation of Messianic theology:

-the "chi" in ark, Greek arkein, is the same as the "chi" in Christ, Greek kritos
-the "h" in Noah, English "Noah", is the same as the H in "Christ", Engilsh christ

Alphabetics. Bite me. I can link any word with any thing at any time.

[moose7237]

Like I said Moose, I'm waiting. I have no fear of a challenge.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I don't know if you have no fear of a challenge. Brother heisonly1 made his case very clear and has challenged you already, if you want to take the challenge then you would start refuting his case. But you have made no attempt, and Sparko thinks the same way. So if you want to take the challenge, heisonly1 has provided the arguement and you have not even attempted to disprove him.

[moose7237]

Moose. Let me expound on this one a little bit further as Sparko has pointed out a problem in that an unwise God became wise then. God then becomes a temporal being who changes in his essential nature.

1 Cor.1:24 calls Christ the power of God and wisdom of God. The argument could work with both, but wisdom is the topic. Let's look at a syllogism.

Jesus is God's wisdom.
God's wisdom is eternal.
Jesus is eternal.

The first premise is hard to deny since the text comes right out and says it. However, there are serious ramifications for denying God not always having wisdom. That would mean there was something outside of God that he acquired in his essential nature. God could literally be a work in progress as he grew wiser (Or actually grew wise) from one point in time to another in his essential nature.

If you do accept the second premise, you are forced to accept the conclusion as well.


Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Personally I don't take the words of Paul to be much of anything. So he can claim anything he wants, unless Jesus or God says it, I don't by it. What proof does Paul have that Jesus is the wisdom of God? He never met Jesus. I think Paul is the one who said that Jesus has 2 natures, yet Jesus nor God in the OT ever testify to this. I want to see proof from the source.

[Sparko]

What is there to disprove? He and you keep arguing against things that Christians don't even believe. It's known as a straw man argument.

It is like if I went around arguing that Islam was false because you believe that Mohammed was an angel and not a man, and then told you that you had to disprove it or Islam was false. You would laugh and tell me that you don't even believe such a thing in the first place.

Once you actually understand what Christians believe, then you can argue against us and we will respond. Until then I just laugh and tell you that you don't even have a clue about what we believe.

[heisonly1]

What is there to disprove? He and you keep arguing against things that Christians don't even believe. It's known as a straw man argument.

It is like if I went around arguing that Islam was false because you believe that Mohammed was an angel and not a man, and then told you that you had to disprove it or Islam was false. You would laugh and tell me that you don't even believe such a thing in the first place.

Once you actually understand what Christians believe, then you can argue against us and we will respond. Until then I just laugh and tell you that you don't even have a clue about what we believe.

Excuses excuses excuses Sparko !!! :nails:

heheheheh Okay Sparko, I admit I misrepresented the trinity and know nothing about the Trinity and :shrug: do not understand what Christians believe about the Trinity :shrug: and I am wrong and I presented nothing but straw man arguments.

Now please go ahead and enlighten us Muslims who are ignorant of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Show us what you know and understand about the Trinity to avoid us going around in circles Sparko!

:attn: Explain and substantiate WHY my arguments are straw man arguments. Help us comprehend your thoughts and doctrine. We want you to explain and substantiates for us why we are wrong given we obviously have misrepresented your conceptualization of God Almighty! :sos:


Please articulate and substantiate for us the doctrine of the Trinity through the Biblical scriptures.


We look forward to your transparent, biblically substantiated and concise explanation of the Trinity.........................


:joy:

[Sparko]

Excuses excuses excuses Sparko !!! :nails:

heheheheh Okay Sparko, I admit I misrepresented the trinity and know nothing about the Trinity and :shrug: do not understand what Christians believe about the Trinity :shrug: and I am wrong and I presented nothing but straw man arguments.

Now please go ahead and enlighten us Muslims who are ignorant of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Show us what you know and understand about the Trinity to avoid us going around in circles Sparko!

:attn: Explain and substantiate WHY my arguments are straw man arguments. Help us comprehend your thoughts and doctrine. We want you to explain and substantiates for us why we are wrong given we obviously have misrepresented your conceptualization of God Almighty! :sos:


Please articulate and substantiate for us the doctrine of the Trinity through the Biblical scriptures.


We look forward to your transparent, biblically substantiated and concise explanation of the Trinity.........................


:joy:

My job isn't to educate you. I am here just to laugh at your feeble attempts at disproving the trinity when you don't even understand the doctrine.

PS, if you do some searches on this site I think you might be able to find an article on the trinity I wrote a couple of years ago that goes through proving the trinity step by step. Have fun.

PPS - Do you like my new signature quote (below)?

[heisonly1]

Excuses excuses excuses Sparko !!! :nails:

heheheheh Okay Sparko, I admit I misrepresented the trinity and know nothing about the Trinity and :shrug: do not understand what Christians believe about the Trinity :shrug: and I am wrong and I presented nothing but straw man arguments.

Now please go ahead and enlighten us Muslims who are ignorant of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Show us what you know and understand about the Trinity to avoid us going around in circles Sparko!

:attn: Explain and substantiate WHY my arguments are straw man arguments. Help us comprehend your thoughts and doctrine. We want you to explain and substantiates for us why we are wrong given we obviously have misrepresented your conceptualization of God Almighty! :sos:


Please articulate and substantiate for us the doctrine of the Trinity through the Biblical scriptures.


We look forward to your transparent, biblically substantiated and concise explanation of the Trinity.........................


:joy:

My job isn't to educate you. I am here just to laugh at your feeble attempts at disproving the trinity when you don't even understand the doctrine.

PS, if you do some searches on this site I think you might be able to find an article on the trinity I wrote a couple of years ago that goes through proving the trinity step by step. Have fun.

PPS - Do you like my new signature quote (below)?

:lmbo: hahahahahah Asalamalekum brother Moose can you believe this guy!!!!!!!

Another pathetic and Typical Trinitarian excuse to avoid the challenge of being exposed as a polytheist that worshipps three gods :bow::bow::bow: :rofl: hahahah

Come on Sparko !!! provide the link where you Biblically prove "the trinity step by step" :lmbo:

:fencing: Then we can begin this debate and have some serious fun !!! :ale:

pss I love you signature Sparko, at least you got some sense of humor :b_cowboy:

[Sparko]

You just admitted that you don't understand the trinity and were burning straw. What else is there to say? You just admitted defeat in this thread.

as they say in hollywood:

THE END

[sylvius]

You just admitted that you don't understand the trinity and were burning straw. What else is there to say? You just admitted defeat in this thread.

as they say in hollywood:

THE END


When you hear of wars and reports of wars do not be alarmed; such things must happen, but it will not yet be the end.

[heisonly1]

:haha: You just admitted that you don't understand the trinity and were burning straw. What else is there to say? You just admitted defeat in this thread.

as they say in hollywood:

THE END :lmbo:

:bravo:

[Sparko]

:haha: :lmbo:

:bravo:


:lolo:

How do you figure linking to posts you made to other people shows I am a polytheist who refuses to answer your stupid arguments, when in fact you have not made any arguments other than to post links to your other posts and toss out insults and stupid smileys?

Is that your argument against the trinity?

When you actually make an arguement against the trinity and show that you actually understand what you are arguing against, I will answer you. Until then, you are only making a laughing stock out of yourself with your signature links.

Maybe you will understand me if I tell you in your own language...

--------
Hahahahah!! :juggle: U are a pagan who worships a Moon God

heheheh You can't even describe the TRINITY much less DEFEAT IT :lmbo:

:rofl::yipee::ale::cheers::serenade::cool::fight::whack::argh::poke::whip::b_cowboy::b_splits::rudabaga::shrug::lolo::badger:

[moose7237]

:lmbo: hahahahahah Asalamalekum brother Moose can you believe this guy!!!!!!!

Another pathetic and Typical Trinitarian excuse to avoid the challenge of being exposed as a polytheist that worshipps three gods :bow::bow::bow: :rofl: hahahah

Come on Sparko !!! provide the link where you Biblically prove "the trinity step by step" :lmbo:

:fencing: Then we can begin this debate and have some serious fun !!! :ale:

pss I love you signature Sparko, at least you got some sense of humor :b_cowboy:


Wasalam Brother heisonly1,

I know what you mean brother, sparko should at least make an attempt to defend the trinity, yet he has not. All he can do is say each argument we present is "straw man" Yet, he can't back up his own words. I agree Sparko, give us the link on your proofs of the trinity and let the debate begin. Now into your lie about Allah being a moon God, you should really try reading the Quran before saying such things.

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day and the sun and moon. Prostrate not to the Sun and the Moon but Prostrate to Allah Who created them if it is Him ye wish to serve." (41:37)

Funny, why would the Moon God(May Allah forgive me for such a statement, he knows my intentions) order people not to bow down to him?

Allah created Sun and moon, and He made them subject to you:
"It is Allah Who hath created the heavens and the earth and sendeth down rain from the skies......... He has made subject to you, the night and the day; the sun and the moon; and the stars in subjection by His command." (14:32-33)

Funny, Allah tells us that not to worship the sun and the moon and also tells us that he CREATED the sun and the moon. Sparko, we don't worship the created, but the creator. He commands the sun and the moon. That was a sick lie you tried to associate with Islam. The difference between us Sparko, is that we defend our beliefs and not just toss them aside and call them straw man. When someone tries to attack our faith no matter how ludicrous the argument, Muslims will try by Allah's help to defend their beliefs. I suggest you try and start to defend yours. If you are not here to debate, then you shouldn't be here at all. You are a moderator on this site correct? Don't you follow the slogan: "we debate Theology...Serioulsy" We have not seen any debating by you or AP. Show us up and prove us wrong Sparko.

[heisonly1]

:lolo:

How do you figure linking to posts you made to other people shows I am a polytheist who refuses to answer your stupid arguments, when in fact you have not made any arguments other than to post links to your other posts and toss out insults and stupid smileys?

Is that your argument against the trinity?

When you actually make an arguement against the trinity and show that you actually understand what you are arguing against, I will answer you. Until then, you are only making a laughing stock out of yourself with your signature links.

Maybe you will understand me if I tell you in your own language...

--------
Hahahahah!! :juggle: U are a pagan who worships a Moon God

heheheh You can't even describe the TRINITY much less DEFEAT IT :lmbo:

:rofl::yipee::ale::cheers::serenade::cool::fight::whack::argh::poke::whip::b_cowboy::b_splits::rudabaga::shrug::lolo::badger:

:haha: hahahahah Sparko you really need critical medical help !!!

I have already admitted that :haha: hahahahahahahahha I don't understand the trinity

So now go ahead and quit procrastinating and tell us your Christian understanding of the Trinity !!! :bow::bow::bow:

The more you delay responding to our challenge :fencing: the further you make yourself look foolish ! :flaming:

If we have misrepresented the Trinity then explain to us WHY !!??

It's a very simple request Sparko !

:stop: EXPLAIN TO US YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARTICULATION OF THE TRINITY VIA THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES!!!!

Come on Sparko, I'm sure the 'holy' :cheshire: spirit will be able to help you !!!


:rofl::yipee::ale::cheers::serenade::cool::fight::whack::argh::poke::whip::b_cowboy::b_splits::rudabaga::shrug::lolo::badger:

[Sparko]

Wasalam Brother heisonly1,

I know what you mean brother, sparko should at least make an attempt to defend the trinity, yet he has not. All he can do is say each argument we present is "straw man" Yet, he can't back up his own words. I agree Sparko, give us the link on your proofs of the trinity and let the debate begin. Now into your lie about Allah being a moon God, you should really try reading the Quran before saying such things.

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day and the sun and moon. Prostrate not to the Sun and the Moon but Prostrate to Allah Who created them if it is Him ye wish to serve." (41:37)

Funny, why would the Moon God(May Allah forgive me for such a statement, he knows my intentions) order people not to bow down to him?

Allah created Sun and moon, and He made them subject to you:
"It is Allah Who hath created the heavens and the earth and sendeth down rain from the skies......... He has made subject to you, the night and the day; the sun and the moon; and the stars in subjection by His command." (14:32-33)

Funny, Allah tells us that not to worship the sun and the moon and also tells us that he CREATED the sun and the moon. Sparko, we don't worship the created, but the creator. He commands the sun and the moon. That was a sick lie you tried to associate with Islam. The difference between us Sparko, is that we defend our beliefs and not just toss them aside and call them straw man. When someone tries to attack our faith no matter how ludicrous the argument, Muslims will try by Allah's help to defend their beliefs. I suggest you try and start to defend yours. If you are not here to debate, then you shouldn't be here at all. You are a moderator on this site correct? Don't you follow the slogan: "we debate Theology...Serioulsy" We have not seen any debating by you or AP. Show us up and prove us wrong Sparko.

ah I see you finally understand about strawman arguments eh? Lot's of people toss out the Allah is the Moon God at you muslims, and you keep denying it and telling them that they are arguing somethign you don't even believe.

Well, when you argue that the trinity is three Gods, we keep telling you the same thing. That is why I keep telling you that as long as you argue against three Gods then you are not arguing against what I believe. I don't believe God is three Gods either. We agree.

As soon as you understand that, and start arguing against the REAL Trinity, I will be happy to defend it. I have no reason to disagree with your arguments that God cannot be three Gods. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. But that has nothing to do with the trinity.

Understand?

Probably not.

[Sparko]

:haha: hahahahah Sparko you really need critical medical help !!!

I have already admitted that :haha: hahahahahahahahha I don't understand the trinity

So now go ahead and quit procrastinating and tell us your Christian understanding of the Trinity !!! :bow::bow::bow:

The more you delay responding to our challenge :fencing: the further you make yourself look foolish ! :flaming:

If we have misrepresented the Trinity then explain to us WHY !!??

It's a very simple request Sparko !

:stop: EXPLAIN TO US YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARTICULATION OF THE TRINITY VIA THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES!!!!

Come on Sparko, I'm sure the 'holy' :cheshire: spirit will be able to help you !!!


:rofl::yipee::ale::cheers::serenade::cool::fight::whack::argh::poke::whip::b_cowboy::b_splits::rudabaga::shrug::lolo::badger:

IF you don't understand the trinity then how can you argue against it? You keep admitting you don't even know what you are talking about.

I have no reason to even bother trying to explain anything to you Heisonly1. You are a rude jerk who does not want to discuss anything in a civil manner. Why would I even WANT to start trying to teach you the doctrine of the Trinity. You don't want to understand what I believe, you just want to post your stupid smileys and disrupt threads.

If you WERE a civil person who could discuss things in a civil and friendly manner, maybe I would have such a discussion with you, but you have never given any such indication in any of your posts. You are simply interested in mocking and insulting others and if you don't stop you will soon find yourself banned by your own actions.

[moose7237]

ah I see you finally understand about strawman arguments eh? Lot's of people toss out the Allah is the Moon God at you muslims, and you keep denying it and telling them that they are arguing somethign you don't even believe.

Well, when you argue that the trinity is three Gods, we keep telling you the same thing. That is why I keep telling you that as long as you argue against three Gods then you are not arguing against what I believe. I don't believe God is three Gods either. We agree.

As soon as you understand that, and start arguing against the REAL Trinity, I will be happy to defend it. I have no reason to disagree with your arguments that God cannot be three Gods. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. But that has nothing to do with the trinity.

Understand?

Probably not.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

my original OP has nothing to do with 3 Gods, it is about the characteristics of God and how Jesus fails each category. And no, you have not even attempted to touch on this. Also, heisonly1 is admitting that he doesn't know the trinity, why don't you educate him? Sparko, it is obvious, you are avoiding debate, everything we present to you is not worth debating, so why are you even here? Why bother, we all know you're not going to debate anything, why keep wasting time with meaningless posts? heisonly1 has issued the challenge, my OP still stands. But no one has even attempted to debate brother heisonly1. Give it a shot.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

my original OP has nothing to do with 3 Gods, it is about the characteristics of God and how Jesus fails each category. And no, you have not even attempted to touch on this. Also, heisonly1 is admitting that he doesn't know the trinity, why don't you educate him? Sparko, it is obvious, you are avoiding debate, everything we present to you is not worth debating, so why are you even here? Why bother, we all know you're not going to debate anything, why keep wasting time with meaningless posts? heisonly1 has issued the challenge, my OP still stands. But no one has even attempted to debate brother heisonly1. Give it a shot.

Moose, "brother" heisonly1 has not put forth any argument against the trinity in this thread. All he had done is giggle, insult and post links to his post in another thread. You started this thread making false assumptions about what Christians actually believe about the trinity. I answered those a long time ago and told you that you were making a "strawman" argument (the same way arguing that you believe in a moon god is a strawman argument)

I have no desire to even bother telling you about what the trinity truly is at this point because you do not have a real desire to learn or understand my faith. You just want to see if you can find a hole in my theology. Same with heisonly1 - he has shown no real desire to learn, only to mock.

If you truly want to learn about the trinity, then please go do some research on it from Christian sources and then come back and start a thread arguing against what we truly believe and I will be more than happy to defend my faith.

I can tell you that we DO believe that there is only ONE God. We do not believe there are three Gods. Nor do we believe in one God that plays roles and is one minute the Father and the next minute the Son, and then the Holy Spirit.

If you really want to learn about the trinity, here are a few references to get you started. Study them then come back - state your understanding of what Christians believe and your argument for why it is wrong and I will be happy to defend the trinity. But if you keep arguing against stuff we dont even believe (like in three gods) then I have nothing to debate with you other than to tell you that you are wrong about what I believe.

For your study:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03g.html
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Trinity/index.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

my original OP has nothing to do with 3 Gods, it is about the characteristics of God and how Jesus fails each category. And no, you have not even attempted to touch on this. Also, heisonly1 is admitting that he doesn't know the trinity, why don't you educate him? Sparko, it is obvious, you are avoiding debate, everything we present to you is not worth debating, so why are you even here? Why bother, we all know you're not going to debate anything, why keep wasting time with meaningless posts? heisonly1 has issued the challenge, my OP still stands. But no one has even attempted to debate brother heisonly1. Give it a shot.

Sparko, Phoenix and I have been trying, albeit unsuccessfully, since very early on to answer your questions and educate you on the Trinity, especially in regards to the divinity of Christ and why your arguments regarding omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and immortality do not begin to address the orthodox understanding of Trinitiarianism and Jesus' role in the Trinity. Yet you do not hear.

We have made biblical citations, to which you have responded (particularly to the Gospels) by claiming that they do not hold divine authority, that they are not genuine, that only the personages within them (e. g. Isaiah, Jesus Himself) have authority, and that only the Qur'an and the words of Muhammad are accurate, for they have not been tampered with in the least, they are purely of God, not of man.

This is a dogmatic assertion, just as ours is regarding the revelation of Scripture, founded on faith, not facts. This is why I have remained silent in recent posts. Check my signature, and perhaps you will understand. We disagree on the first principle of source text: you say Qur'an, I say Bible. Unless I can show you that the Bible is divinely revealed Truth and that the Qur'an is not, you will not accept any Biblical arguments in the first place, thus making any defense of the Trinity a moot point.

Suffice to say that prior to Muhammad, there was a long-standing traditional belief in Abrahamic cultures (Jewish and Christian) of a (note the singular article) multi-personal deity. In the third century and early fourth century, right around the time that the understanding of Christian Trinitarianism was being hammered out in the early lateran councils, rabbinic Judaism declared any similar concept (shekinah, multi-personal use of Elohim, Metatron, little YHVH) to be heresy in order to stem the flow of Christian appeals to Jewish tradition. It is Christianity, not Judaism or Islam, that maintains the most classic understanding of the God of Abraham. Historical documents prove as much.

I will say no more from here. God is One. God is Three. Three are not God, but God is Three. This is an important distinction.

[Sparko]

Moose,

KarmaGhost is right. You ask us to defend the trinity, but when we do you claim our bible has no authority.

You completely confuse the human nature of Jesus with his divine nature and toss out the limitations of his human nature as limitations on his divine nature. Jesus was both fully human and fully God. You can't complain about his human nature and impose that upon God's nature. All that shows is that you don't understand the incarnation or the trinity. God is ONE essence, one being. Revealed in 3 distinct persons, one of which also has a human nature taken on at the incarnation (Jesus) - but the divine nature or essence of Jesus is the SAME divine essence as the Father and Holy Spirit. They are ONE God.

Jesus' body can't be in more than one place at a time, but Jesus' divine nature can be since it is the same nature as the Father and Holy Spirit. That is how Jesus can say:

Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

even though he still has a human body right now in heaven.

That is why when Jesus' body died on the cross his divine nature did NOT die. God did not die.

That is why he can know all things, as even his disciples knew:

John 16: 29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

Regarding the date of the second coming and Jesus not knowing: that is not because he was ignorant or not God, but because he voluntarily did not want to know. One of the persons of the trinity can limit their own knowledge but since they are once essence and the Father is also God, God still knows all information.

The bible also says that one day God will not remember our sins any more.

Hebrews 8:12
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Does that mean God is not omniscient either?

I hope that answers your questions, yet again.

The reason we don't feel the need to defend the trinity in this thread is because you have not even attacked it in any way. All you have done is shown that you don't understand what it even is.

[sylvius]

Jesus' body can't be in more than one place at a time

what then about:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."




(...)even though he still has a human body right now in heaven.

do you know then where that place called heaven is?

That is why when Jesus' body died on the cross his divine nature did NOT die
God did not die.

so one person of the Trinity did die?

to revive later on again?

how is that?

can you explain?

[Sparko]

what then about:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."





do you know then where that place called heaven is?



so one person of the Trinity did die?

to revive later on again?

how is that?

can you explain?



Matthew 27:50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=50&version=31&context=verse)
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

John 19:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

[sylvius]

Matthew 27:50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=50&version=31&context=verse)
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

John 19:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

what you want to say or to proof with this?

Greek "pneuma" is also breath, or wind,

"pnew" = to blow (wind)

"ekpnew" = to breathe out, blow out, die.
(in
fwnhsaV fwnh megalh o ihsouV eipen, pater, eiV ceiraV sou paratiqemai to pneuma mou: touto de eipwn exepneusen.
calling out a great voice Jesus said, father, in your hands I entrust my spirit (breath); this saying he blew out.

[KarmaGhost]

what you want to say or to proof with this?

Greek "pneuma" is also breath, or wind,

"pnew" = to blow (wind)

"ekpnew" = to breathe out, blow out, die.
(in
φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη ο ιησους ειπεν, πατερ, εις χειρας σου παρατιθεμαι το πνευμα μου: τουτο δε ειπων εξεπνευσεν.
calling out a great voice Jesus said, father, in your hands I entrust my spirit (breath); this saying he blew out.

Very true, and quite astute sylvius! I love the connection between Spirit and wind in both Old and New Testaments. Hebrew rooach can also be translated as wind.

So here is the question: are they always speaking of the wind or also the spirit? I think it is clear that sometimes spirit and wind are interchangeable, and sometimes they are not.

But regarding what Sparko was saying:

The surrender of spirit or breath was indicative of Jesus' human death. If he surrendered his Spirit, it is the eternal nature that is taken out of the human body, which is condemned to Hell for the forgiveness of sins in accordance with Scripture, only to be, shall we say, reinstated on the third day. If it is his breath, it is significant in that the surrender of breath kills you, as by means of suffocation. Humans need air to breathe! (Again the wonderful connection between wind and spirit: how dead we are without the will and preservation of God's Spirit as well.)

Sparko's point stands regardless of what translation of pneuma you'd like to use.

[moose7237]

Moose,

KarmaGhost is right. You ask us to defend the trinity, but when we do you claim our bible has no authority.

You completely confuse the human nature of Jesus with his divine nature and toss out the limitations of his human nature as limitations on his divine nature. Jesus was both fully human and fully God. You can't complain about his human nature and impose that upon God's nature. All that shows is that you don't understand the incarnation or the trinity. God is ONE essence, one being. Revealed in 3 distinct persons, one of which also has a human nature taken on at the incarnation (Jesus) - but the divine nature or essence of Jesus is the SAME divine essence as the Father and Holy Spirit. They are ONE God.

Jesus' body can't be in more than one place at a time, but Jesus' divine nature can be since it is the same nature as the Father and Holy Spirit. That is how Jesus can say:

Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

even though he still has a human body right now in heaven.

That is why when Jesus' body died on the cross his divine nature did NOT die. God did not die.

That is why he can know all things, as even his disciples knew:

John 16: 29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

Regarding the date of the second coming and Jesus not knowing: that is not because he was ignorant or not God, but because he voluntarily did not want to know. One of the persons of the trinity can limit their own knowledge but since they are once essence and the Father is also God, God still knows all information.

The bible also says that one day God will not remember our sins any more.

Hebrews 8:12
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Does that mean God is not omniscient either?

I hope that answers your questions, yet again.

The reason we don't feel the need to defend the trinity in this thread is because you have not even attacked it in any way. All you have done is shown that you don't understand what it even is.


Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Thank you for your reply Sparko.

Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

even though he still has a human body right now in heaven.

That is why when Jesus' body died on the cross his divine nature did NOT die. God did not die.

Now I would like you to prove show that Jesus is with those who do not come in his name. Now what is God's nature? Is God physical in the bible? Well lets see the answer to the second question, and hopefully it will answer the first question as well:

John 4:
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Ok, here what we see is that Jesus testifies that God is spirit correct? Jesus says this spirit is the Father, so he is testifying that the Father, who is a spirit and not a person should be worshiped.Here, indirectly, Jesus is showing that he is not God nor should he be worshiped because God is spirit and he is not. So the trinitarian argument is that God is fully man and Fully God(spirit). Yet the real question is, WAS JESUS' SPIRIT INFINITE OR FINITE?


John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

So in order for Jesus to die his spirit must have left his body, meaning that the spirit of a human, including Jesus, is in the body until one dies. So if his spirit is in the body, then it is limited to the body, but God is spirit, and God is infinte. Clearly this must mean that Jesus cannot be fully God and fully man, because being fully God you would need an infinite spirit to be omnipresent and to be fully man you need your spirit limited inside your body until you die and your spirit leaves you. So this must mean, even now, when Jesus is in heaven in his human body, his spirit is still trapped in that body and he still cannot be God, because God's nature is omnipresence, and since Jesus said that God is spirit, it must mean that God is not limited to a human body ever, because if he is then he cannot be omnipresent. More verses on Jesus not being omnipresent:

John 16:28
28"(AS)I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and (AT)going to the Father."

That is why he can know all things, as even his disciples knew:

John 16: 29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

Regarding the date of the second coming and Jesus not knowing: that is not because he was ignorant or not God, but because he voluntarily did not want to know. One of the persons of the trinity can limit their own knowledge but since they are once essence and the Father is also God, God still knows all information.

Are the disciples perfect or do they error? Clearly you have a contradiction if you think they are correct in saying that Jesus knows all things, when he clearly stated, "the son knows not" regarding the hour.

WHERE does Jesus ever say he voluntarily gave up some of his deity? Give me scriptural proof from Jesus where he states that he voluntarily gave up his deity, or some proof that he DID NOT WANT TO KNOW the time of the hour. If one of the persons of the trinity limits their knowledge, then they are not God, because what is omniscience? KNOWING ALL THINGS ALWAYS. So if they gave it up, they are not omniscient anymore.

Now you said that God does not remember sin. This is another error ascribed to God. If I had a chance to speak with God and asked him "God I did this sin" And God says "I don't remember it" Then he is not all knowing. If he were to state "I remember and I FORGIVE you" then he is the all knowing but he forgave my sin. God does not forget. if he does then he is not omniscient.

Now how do I think that this is polytheism? If God is spirit as Jesus said he is, then to be "fully God" you must be fully spirit. Yet if God is one spirit, and that spirit is infinite, yet each person has his own distinct spirit, then God is really 3 distinct spirits(plural) which is wrong because Jesus said God is spirt(singular). Hence, logically speaking, this sounds like polytheism, unless you can show me how I am wrong.

[moose7237]

Sparko, Phoenix and I have been trying, albeit unsuccessfully, since very early on to answer your questions and educate you on the Trinity, especially in regards to the divinity of Christ and why your arguments regarding omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and immortality do not begin to address the orthodox understanding of Trinitiarianism and Jesus' role in the Trinity. Yet you do not hear.

We have made biblical citations, to which you have responded (particularly to the Gospels) by claiming that they do not hold divine authority, that they are not genuine, that only the personages within them (e. g. Isaiah, Jesus Himself) have authority, and that only the Qur'an and the words of Muhammad are accurate, for they have not been tampered with in the least, they are purely of God, not of man.

This is a dogmatic assertion, just as ours is regarding the revelation of Scripture, founded on faith, not facts. This is why I have remained silent in recent posts. Check my signature, and perhaps you will understand. We disagree on the first principle of source text: you say Qur'an, I say Bible. Unless I can show you that the Bible is divinely revealed Truth and that the Qur'an is not, you will not accept any Biblical arguments in the first place, thus making any defense of the Trinity a moot point.

Suffice to say that prior to Muhammad, there was a long-standing traditional belief in Abrahamic cultures (Jewish and Christian) of a (note the singular article) multi-personal deity. In the third century and early fourth century, right around the time that the understanding of Christian Trinitarianism was being hammered out in the early lateran councils, rabbinic Judaism declared any similar concept (shekinah, multi-personal use of Elohim, Metatron, little YHVH) to be heresy in order to stem the flow of Christian appeals to Jewish tradition. It is Christianity, not Judaism or Islam, that maintains the most classic understanding of the God of Abraham. Historical documents prove as much.

I will say no more from here. God is One. God is Three. Three are not God, but God is Three. This is an important distinction.


Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Actually, I am surprised, because this is the first time I heard a rebuttal from Sparko about the topic. But you bring biblical scripture trying to prove Jesus' divinity, and I use biblical scripture as well to show he is not divine. My whole OP was not to show how God is 3, well in my last post to Sparko I did. But my main OP was refuting this assertion that "Jesus was 100% and 100% Man". That was the purpose of this thread. Now no one, has even tried to challenge my muslim brother heisonly1. I wish he would not insult anyone, but in his defense, he has been insulted as well. I don't like to insult, but I was told either take it or leave. So I choose to ignore it now, so if anyone insults me so be it, if heisonly1 insults anyone so be it. Dan Zebiri has insulted heisonly1, and I did not tell Dan to stop, if you are trying to say I am biased. so please try and take on heisonly1's challenge. AP has been dodging it and so has Sparko.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Thank you for your reply Sparko.



Now I would like you to prove show that Jesus is with those who do not come in his name. Now what is God's nature? Is God physical in the bible? Well lets see the answer to the second question, and hopefully it will answer the first question as well:

John 4:
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Ok, here what we see is that Jesus testifies that God is spirit correct? Jesus says this spirit is the Father, so he is testifying that the Father, who is a spirit and not a person should be worshiped.Here, indirectly, Jesus is showing that he is not God nor should he be worshiped because God is spirit and he is not. So the trinitarian argument is that God is fully man and Fully God(spirit). Yet the real question is, WAS JESUS' SPIRIT INFINITE OR FINITE?


John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

So in order for Jesus to die his spirit must have left his body, meaning that the spirit of a human, including Jesus, is in the body until one dies. So if his spirit is in the body, then it is limited to the body, but God is spirit, and God is infinte. Clearly this must mean that Jesus cannot be fully God and fully man, because being fully God you would need an infinite spirit to be omnipresent and to be fully man you need your spirit limited inside your body until you die and your spirit leaves you. So this must mean, even now, when Jesus is in heaven in his human body, his spirit is still trapped in that body and he still cannot be God, because God's nature is omnipresence, and since Jesus said that God is spirit, it must mean that God is not limited to a human body ever, because if he is then he cannot be omnipresent. More verses on Jesus not being omnipresent:

John 16:28
28"(AS)I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and (AT)going to the Father."



Are the disciples perfect or do they error? Clearly you have a contradiction if you think they are correct in saying that Jesus knows all things, when he clearly stated, "the son knows not" regarding the hour.

WHERE does Jesus ever say he voluntarily gave up some of his deity? Give me scriptural proof from Jesus where he states that he voluntarily gave up his deity, or some proof that he DID NOT WANT TO KNOW the time of the hour. If one of the persons of the trinity limits their knowledge, then they are not God, because what is omniscience? KNOWING ALL THINGS ALWAYS. So if they gave it up, they are not omniscient anymore.

Now you said that God does not remember sin. This is another error ascribed to God. If I had a chance to speak with God and asked him "God I did this sin" And God says "I don't remember it" Then he is not all knowing. If he were to state "I remember and I FORGIVE you" then he is the all knowing but he forgave my sin. God does not forget. if he does then he is not omniscient.

Now how do I think that this is polytheism? If God is spirit as Jesus said he is, then to be "fully God" you must be fully spirit. Yet if God is one spirit, and that spirit is infinite, yet each person has his own distinct spirit, then God is really 3 distinct spirits(plural) which is wrong because Jesus said God is spirt(singular). Hence, logically speaking, this sounds like polytheism, unless you can show me how I am wrong.

Oooh, oooh, prooftexting! How fun!

...:ahem:

God is Spirit yes, but how do we worship God in spirit and truth? Spirit and truth are not locations wherein we can worship God. Jesus speaking of the nature of your worship, e. g. its practice and what it means to your faith and relationship with God. Worship is not merely singing songs, or praying, or sacrificing animals or doing good deeds. It is doing them motivated by God, for God, with God rather than by your own conceptualization of obligation (or, in some cases, vainglory, that you might be able to please God).

Jesus surrendered his human nature to God. The Spirit of God is infinite, the spirit of man, as you so well know, being one, is limited. Sparko already told you to stop broad-brushing Jesus' divine nature as his human nature, so I am telling you again. Jesus was man. Jesus is God. Two natures, one person.

Imagine the structure of the United States federal government. There are three branches (executive, legislative and judicial), each imbued with the power of the government. The government is inseparable from them, and without one of them the government would fall because it would not be a whole government. God the Trinity is much like this: the law-giving entity (God the Father), the enforcing entity (God the Spirit, which convicts us of all unrighteousness and pushes towards the right path, as the Law is written on our hearts, cf. Romans) and the judging entity (God the Son, who will judge the living and the dead as the Son of Man who is worthy to open the scroll). But separate from each other, there is no God, just as separate from each other, the three branches of the US government form no government and are powerless in and of themselves. The judicial would have no laws to judge without the legislative and no people to judge without the executive, the executive has no laws to enforce without the legislative and no judgment to pass punishment without the judicial and the legislative has no enforcement of laws without executive and no interpretation and judgment of said laws without the judicial. Only together can they form one government.

Jesus "leaving the world" was speaking of his body. In His ascension, Christ bodily left the world, but we know spiritually He remains from his own words to the effect. Regarding your response to Sparko's scripture citation on "when two or three come together in my name..." I say very simply: of course Jesus was talking about himself. Hence the pronouns my and I. "When two or three come together in the Father's name" would have been a completely different sentence. Jesus is there with two or three. He said so. Either He's lying (intentionally deceiving), He's just plain wrong (in which case he's no prophet) or He's telling the truth, in which case He is omnipresent, and since only God is omnipresent, He is God.

Moreover, I do not hold to the theological construcution that Jesus surrendered some of His deity. That would indicate that God was not eternal, omnipotent or any other category you listed, as God could be limited. Jesus was not limited, He was merely the Son, and the Son serves a particular role in the Godhead. The Son may not know the hour, but the Father does, and because they are one God, God knows, even if the Son does not.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Thank you for your reply Sparko.



Now I would like you to prove show that Jesus is with those who do not come in his name.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Now what is God's nature? Is God physical in the bible? Well lets see the answer to the second question, and hopefully it will answer the first question as well:

John 4:
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Ok, here what we see is that Jesus testifies that God is spirit correct? Jesus says this spirit is the Father, so he is testifying that the Father, who is a spirit and not a person should be worshiped.Here, indirectly, Jesus is showing that he is not God nor should he be worshiped because God is spirit and he is not. So the trinitarian argument is that God is fully man and Fully God(spirit). Yet the real question is, WAS JESUS' SPIRIT INFINITE OR FINITE?

Again, you show you don't understand the nature of the incarnation. You argue a straw man again. Jesus has two natures. His DIVINE Nature as the son of God, which is the same identical ESSENCE as the Father - and a human nature. His human nature is not omnipresent, and is not infinite and we don't ever claim that it is. His Divine nature as God IS infinite and eternal.

John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

So in order for Jesus to die his spirit must have left his body, meaning that the spirit of a human, including Jesus, is in the body until one dies. So if his spirit is in the body, then it is limited to the body, but God is spirit, and God is infinte.


Do you know the concept of the shema? Where God can be said to be locally in one place (such as on the mountain speaking with Moses, or in the cloud leading the israelites, or walking in the garden with Adam) and yet God is still omnipresent too. The same with Jesus divine nature. It is localized in his body but still omnipresent. You keep forgetting that the trinity does not teach that Jesus is a separate being from the Father. He is the SAME being, but a distinct person. So as long as the Father is omnipresent, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They are the SAME GOD. Do you get that?

Your arguments make no sense in regards to the trinity.


The bible also says that Jesus is the creator, and that he himself holds all things together. That means he is infinite, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


clearly this must mean that Jesus cannot be fully God and fully man, because being fully God you would need an infinite spirit to be omnipresent and to be fully man you need your spirit limited inside your body until you die and your spirit leaves you. So this must mean, even now, when Jesus is in heaven in his human body, his spirit is still trapped in that body and he still cannot be God, because God's nature is omnipresence, and since Jesus said that God is spirit, it must mean that God is not limited to a human body ever, because if he is then he cannot be omnipresent. More verses on Jesus not being omnipresent:

Again, Jesus is not trapped anywhere. He is the SAME God as the Father. He is a distinct person within the trinity but the same essence and nature as the Father. Your argument makes no sense. That is why I have not bothered to even try to discuss this with you previously.



Are the disciples perfect or do they error? Clearly you have a contradiction if you think they are correct in saying that Jesus knows all things, when he clearly stated, "the son knows not" regarding the hour.

I already explained that. Jesus can choose not to know something. Especially while he is in a human body on earth and not even in his glorified body.

WHERE does Jesus ever say he voluntarily gave up some of his deity? Give me scriptural proof from Jesus where he states that he voluntarily gave up his deity, or some proof that he DID NOT WANT TO KNOW the time of the hour. If one of the persons of the trinity limits their knowledge, then they are not God, because what is omniscience? KNOWING ALL THINGS ALWAYS. So if they gave it up, they are not omniscient anymore.

God never gave up his omniscience. Again God is all three persons of the trinity. They share one nature. As long as even one person in the trinity knows a fact, then God knows that fact. He is ONE GOD in three persons.

(ASB) Phil 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.



He submitted his diety in order to be obedient to the Father and live as a human being. He still had his "powers" of God and the attributes of God, he just did not USE them. I might be able to lift 50 pounds with one finger, but I don't HAVE to do that. I can voluntarily NOT lift 50 pounds with one finger but still have the power to do so.




Now you said that God does not remember sin. This is another error ascribed to God. If I had a chance to speak with God and asked him "God I did this sin" And God says "I don't remember it" Then he is not all knowing. If he were to state "I remember and I FORGIVE you" then he is the all knowing but he forgave my sin. God does not forget. if he does then he is not omniscient.

Again, he can choose NOT to use his knowledge. Not to bring it forth and accuse you with it (if you were his, which you are not) - Having a power and using it are two different things.

And you keep forgetting, Jesus IS GOD. and the Father is GOD. But they are distinct persons. ONE BEING with three personalities. When one person does one thing, it does not mean the other is doing the exact same thing. If the Father knows one thing it might be that the Son doesn't know that because he chooses NOT to know it. But since both are ONE God, you can state that GOD knows the fact.

As long as you keep trying to make out Jesus as a different BEING than the Father you will continue to make the same error and not understand the trinity at all and your objections will continue to be straw man objections.

[moose7237]

Oooh, oooh, prooftexting! How fun!

...:ahem:

God is Spirit yes, but how do we worship God in spirit and truth? Spirit and truth are not locations wherein we can worship God. Jesus speaking of the nature of your worship, e. g. its practice and what it means to your faith and relationship with God. Worship is not merely singing songs, or praying, or sacrificing animals or doing good deeds. It is doing them motivated by God, for God, with God rather than by your own conceptualization of obligation (or, in some cases, vainglory, that you might be able to please God).

Hello and Peace be to you friend,
This first part of my rebuttal has no intention of how to worship but who to worship and what God is. Clearly Jesus states that God is spirit correct? If God is spirit then Jesus cannot be God because he was limited to a human body, in which his spirit was trapped in this body. Tell me how can Jesus be God if he has a finite spirit when he clearly stated that God is spirit? Again, this goes back to my original OP, that Jesus cannot be fully man and Fully God, and this alone, proves just that. Now the other part of this rebuttal was to show this:
Worhsip God the spirit, this spirit is the Father, ergo worship the Father who is God. Indirectly, Jesus is claiming that the Father is God and no where does he say he(Jesus) should be worshiped, nor does he claim that he is this spirit which is God.

Jesus surrendered his human nature to God. The Spirit of God is infinite, the spirit of man, as you so well know, being one, is limited. Sparko already told you to stop broad-brushing Jesus' divine nature as his human nature, so I am telling you again. Jesus was man. Jesus is God. Two natures, one person.

If you noticed my last post to Sparko, I also proved that Jesus could NEVER HAVE BEEN NOR EVER WILL BE GOD. When Jesus was on earth, he was a man and couldn't have been God because of the "God is spirit" argument. So now, if Jesus is in the human body again, his spirit is in the body again ergo he is still limited to a human form. Now I think the verse where Jesus says "when to or three gather in my name I am with them" is false. Because in order for him to be with them, he would have to physically, in his human body, be with them. Or his spirit is only with them, making his human body worthless. The only way to say that Jesus is with them is to say that he is with them by his spirit, yet his spirit is in his body even to this day in heaven, so clearly he can't be omnipresent unless he is physically present with his body. Since the human body can't function without the spirit, and Jesus is in the human body right now, then his spirit is in his body. This of course is my interpretation.

Imagine the structure of the United States federal government. There are three branches (executive, legislative and judicial), each imbued with the power of the government. The government is inseparable from them, and without one of them the government would fall because it would not be a whole government. God the Trinity is much like this: the law-giving entity (God the Father), the enforcing entity (God the Spirit, which convicts us of all unrighteousness and pushes towards the right path, as the Law is written on our hearts, cf. Romans) and the judging entity (God the Son, who will judge the living and the dead as the Son of Man who is worthy to open the scroll). But separate from each other, there is no God, just as separate from each other, the three branches of the US government form no government and are powerless in and of themselves. The judicial would have no laws to judge without the legislative and no people to judge without the executive, the executive has no laws to enforce without the legislative and no judgment to pass punishment without the judicial and the legislative has no enforcement of laws without executive and no interpretation and judgment of said laws without the judicial. Only together can they form one government.

Now you are definitely putting limits and restraints to God. Saying that God cannot exist without the existence of another person of the trinity shows clearly that God is not all powerful. Isn't the trinitarian belief something like this:

The Father is 100% God
The Son is 100% God
The Holy Spirit is 100% God

So if one ceases to exist the other 2 should exist regardless because they are infinite and independent of anything. If one ceases to exist, then each person who is 100% God doesn't have life? This is truly degrading to God. (I am sorry to insult your argument). By your argument, God is limited.

Jesus "leaving the world" was speaking of his body. In His ascension, Christ bodily left the world, but we know spiritually He remains from his own words to the effect. Regarding your response to Sparko's scripture citation on "when two or three come together in my name..." I say very simply: of course Jesus was talking about himself. Hence the pronouns my and I. "When two or three come together in the Father's name" would have been a completely different sentence. Jesus is there with two or three. He said so. Either He's lying (intentionally deceiving), He's just plain wrong (in which case he's no prophet) or He's telling the truth, in which case He is omnipresent, and since only God is omnipresent, He is God.

No, Jesus stated in John 16, I believe, that he is leaving this world, he never said "only my body is leaving but my spirit is still here" Indication of both his spirit and body leaving come in that same chapter of John. If Jesus' spirit was still here then there what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit being here? Jesus said I am leaving and I am sending you the holy spirit. So one can easily infer that both his body and spirit are leaving. And even more proof of this is when Jesus said "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit" Jesus time and time again said the Father is in heaven, so clearly his spirit went to heaven and eventually his body did too.

Moreover, I do not hold to the theological construcution that Jesus surrendered some of His deity. That would indicate that God was not eternal, omnipotent or any other category you listed, as God could be limited. Jesus was not limited, He was merely the Son, and the Son serves a particular role in the Godhead. The Son may not know the hour, but the Father does, and because they are one God, God knows, even if the Son does not.

Umm...then you and Sparko have something to discuss don't you? Jesus showed himself to be very limited. He did not have authority he was GIVEN authority. Ummm...Yes Jesus was limited. Tell me, How can Jesus have a limited nature(man) and unlimited nature(God) at the same time?

[Sparko]

Moreover, I do not hold to the theological construcution that Jesus surrendered some of His deity. That would indicate that God was not eternal, omnipotent or any other category you listed, as God could be limited. Jesus was not limited, He was merely the Son, and the Son serves a particular role in the Godhead. The Son may not know the hour, but the Father does, and because they are one God, God knows, even if the Son does not.

Umm...then you and Sparko have something to discuss don't you? Jesus showed himself to be very limited. He did not have authority he was GIVEN authority. Ummm...Yes Jesus was limited. Tell me, How can Jesus have a limited nature(man) and unlimited nature(God) at the same time?

No we are saying the same thing. I never meant to say that Jesus gave UP his divinity. I said he did not USE some of his "powers" while he was on earth.

Jesus nature as God was always omnipresent, and omniscient, and so on. his human body was NOT.

Until you can understand that Jesus had two natures, one fully God and one fully human, and that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are ONE God, one essense, one being, then you will never have a chance to convince us that we are wrong. You are arguing stuff that we don't even believe and that the trinity does not even teach.

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,
This first part of my rebuttal has no intention of how to worship but who to worship and what God is. Clearly Jesus states that God is spirit correct? If God is spirit then Jesus cannot be God because he was limited to a human body, in which his spirit was trapped in this body. Tell me how can Jesus be God if he has a finite spirit when he clearly stated that God is spirit? Again, this goes back to my original OP, that Jesus cannot be fully man and Fully God, and this alone, proves just that. Now the other part of this rebuttal was to show this:
Worhsip God the spirit, this spirit is the Father, ergo worship the Father who is God. Indirectly, Jesus is claiming that the Father is God and no where does he say he(Jesus) should be worshiped, nor does he claim that he is this spirit which is God.



If you noticed my last post to Sparko, I also proved that Jesus could NEVER HAVE BEEN NOR EVER WILL BE GOD. When Jesus was on earth, he was a man and couldn't have been God because of the "God is spirit" argument. So now, if Jesus is in the human body again, his spirit is in the body again ergo he is still limited to a human form. Now I think the verse where Jesus says "when to or three gather in my name I am with them" is false. Because in order for him to be with them, he would have to physically, in his human body, be with them. Or his spirit is only with them, making his human body worthless. The only way to say that Jesus is with them is to say that he is with them by his spirit, yet his spirit is in his body even to this day in heaven, so clearly he can't be omnipresent unless he is physically present with his body. Since the human body can't function without the spirit, and Jesus is in the human body right now, then his spirit is in his body. This of course is my interpretation.



Now you are definitely putting limits and restraints to God. Saying that God cannot exist without the existence of another person of the trinity shows clearly that God is not all powerful. Isn't the trinitarian belief something like this:

The Father is 100% God
The Son is 100% God
The Holy Spirit is 100% God

So if one ceases to exist the other 2 should exist regardless because they are infinite and independent of anything. If one ceases to exist, then each person who is 100% God doesn't have life? This is truly degrading to God. (I am sorry to insult your argument). By your argument, God is limited.



No, Jesus stated in John 16, I believe, that he is leaving this world, he never said "only my body is leaving but my spirit is still here" Indication of both his spirit and body leaving come in that same chapter of John. If Jesus' spirit was still here then there what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit being here? Jesus said I am leaving and I am sending you the holy spirit. So one can easily infer that both his body and spirit are leaving. And even more proof of this is when Jesus said "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit" Jesus time and time again said the Father is in heaven, so clearly his spirit went to heaven and eventually his body did too.



Umm...then you and Sparko have something to discuss don't you? Jesus showed himself to be very limited. He did not have authority he was GIVEN authority. Ummm...Yes Jesus was limited. Tell me, How can Jesus have a limited nature(man) and unlimited nature(God) at the same time?

Read Sparko's post about the localized presence of God at the same time as His omnipresence, the Hebrew shema concept.

And I am putting no limit on God in regards to my explanation of the Trinity. The Spirit, Father and Son are coeternal. So not one of them could cease to exist. They aren't separate entities (substantially), but distinct persons (identically).

I don't think Sparko and I have anything to discuss. The "emptying" of Christ is an explanatory model, not a Scriptural interpretation. So far, he has shown that we agree and synergize most points.

If we accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, as Sparko and I do, and you have asked repeatedly for a verse, so I give you this, from the Epistle to Titus, written by the hand of St. Paul the Apostle:

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." (Titus 2:11-14, ESV)

our great God and Savior...

One glory, one God, one Savior.

But you do not accept the authority of Scripture, so, I guess it's still kind of pointless.

[moose7237]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,
you brought up a verse that stated Jesus is with those who call upon his name. You used this verse to prove he is omnipresent. I said, ok, prove that he is also with those who do not call upon his name. If he is only with the people that call upon his name and not with the people who don't then that does not prove he is omnipresent.

Again, you show you don't understand the nature of the incarnation. You argue a straw man again. Jesus has two natures. His DIVINE Nature as the son of God, which is the same identical ESSENCE as the Father - and a human nature. His human nature is not omnipresent, and is not infinite and we don't ever claim that it is. His Divine nature as God IS infinite and eternal.

Ummm....No, Jesus admits that the Father is greater then all. He never stated that The Father is greater then all EXCEPT essence. If the Father is greater then all, then the Father's essence is greater then All including Jesus'. God's nature is being omnipresent in the form of a spirit. So tell me, how can Jesus be omnipresent if his spirit is trapped in his body?

Do you know the concept of the shema? Where God can be said to be locally in one place (such as on the mountain speaking with Moses, or in the cloud leading the israelites, or walking in the garden with Adam) and yet God is still omnipresent too. The same with Jesus divine nature. It is localized in his body but still omnipresent. You keep forgetting that the trinity does not teach that Jesus is a separate being from the Father. He is the SAME being, but a distinct person. So as long as the Father is omnipresent, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They are the SAME GOD. Do you get that?

How is God omnipresent? his spirt encompasses all the universe and heaven. So if God showed himself to Moses, then only part of his spirit was in that bush and the rest was encompassing the rest of the world. I personally don't agree that Moses ever saw God or anyone ever saw God in my theological faith, because if he ever did take the form of anything, he is limiting himself to that form and God is unlimited physically. That's why Jesus can't be God because he is limited to the human body, God is no body, he is spirit according to Jesus and spirit is unlimited. What is Jesus' divine nature? I hear the same exact speech using the same exact words from trinitarians. The main words are nature, and essence. Define each of these please. Please show us where Jesus said he is the same being as the father. He cannot be the same being, because Jesus declares that this "being" is a spirit and not a person. He also ADMITS that this "being" is greater then all including himself. Thus he cannot have the same nature or essence of a being that is greater then him.

Your arguments make no sense in regards to the trinity.


The bible also says that Jesus is the creator, and that he himself holds all things together. That means he is infinite, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Ok, if Jesus is the image of THE INVISIBLE GOD, then he must be invisible himself, which he is not, and even today he is in a physical human body. Also, this verse shows again that Jesus cannot be God since he was "the firstborn" This indicates that Jesus has a beginning. God does not pertain to time, he has no beginning nor an end. And this verse is wrong yet again by saying that God had "all his fullness dwell in him" If that is true then Jesus would be equal to the Father but he admits that the Father is greater then him. Jesus never stated that the father's essence and the father's nature are the same. Also, this is the words of Paul, how would he have known anything about Jesus besides heresay?


Again, Jesus is not trapped anywhere. He is the SAME God as the Father. He is a distinct person within the trinity but the same essence and nature as the Father. Your argument makes no sense. That is why I have not bothered to even try to discuss this with you previously.

If Jesus is the same God as the Father he would have admitted that he is the spirit that should be worshiped in John 4:24, yet he didn't. My arguments make complete sense. The trinitarian belief is that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, tell me how a limited spirit can be an unlimited spirit at the same time? I am talking about PHYSICAL form, which is a part of the "nature" of God. Jesus states that God is a spirit, so his spirit takes up all the universe and all the heaven. How can Jesus have this same ability if his PHYSICAL spirit is LIMITED TO HIS BODY? Then the only argument that you have is that Jesus has 2 spirits, one man and the other God, the problem with that is Jesus said that this spirit is the FATHER and never stated the is also part of the spirit. To further prove this, Jesus says that the Father(who is a spirit) is greater then him, so he can't be a part of this spirit, if he could he would have said he was equal to the father.





I already explained that. Jesus can choose not to know something. Especially while he is in a human body on earth and not even in his glorified body.


God never gave up his omniscience. Again God is all three persons of the trinity. They share one nature. As long as even one person in the trinity knows a fact, then God knows that fact. He is ONE GOD in three persons.

(ASB) Phil 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If God chooses not to know something, then he is not all knowing. I also told you show me where JESUS not Paul, but Jesus who is perfect, say that he DECIDED or DID give up some of his deity. Can you show me that? Again, if they depend on each other, then they are not infinite, but limited. Its like saying they share power, which means each one is not fully God but when you combine them they are fully God, that is saying that each one cannot survive without the other, meaning each one is only "partly" God which makes them divisible.





He submitted his diety in order to be obedient to the Father and live as a human being. He still had his "powers" of God and the attributes of God, he just did not USE them. I might be able to lift 50 pounds with one finger, but I don't HAVE to do that. I can voluntarily NOT lift 50 pounds with one finger but still have the power to do so.[quote]

Then you should admit you have the power to lift 50 pounds but you choose not to. Jesus never admitted this. Also, Jesus never "had" his power, he was "given" his power, meaning that before he was given his power he had no power. This again shows how Jesus is inferior to the Father.






[quote]Again, he can choose NOT to use his knowledge. Not to bring it forth and accuse you with it (if you were his, which you are not) - Having a power and using it are two different things.

And you keep forgetting, Jesus IS GOD. and the Father is GOD. But they are distinct persons. ONE BEING with three personalities. When one person does one thing, it does not mean the other is doing the exact same thing. If the Father knows one thing it might be that the Son doesn't know that because he chooses NOT to know it. But since both are ONE God, you can state that GOD knows the fact.

As long as you keep trying to make out Jesus as a different BEING than the Father you will continue to make the same error and not understand the trinity at all and your objections will continue to be straw man objections.

The fact is, Jesus never admits to having the power and not using it, he admits to not having the power, the "not choosing to use it" was an idea that came after his death. Show me one instance where the Father depended for anything from the son or spirit, this would indicate that they all do depend on each other. The son admits he can do nothing of his own. The son admits the spirit is "commanded" to say what he hears. Show us where the Father is dependent on any of the other 2 persons.

[Sparko]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,
you brought up a verse that stated Jesus is with those who call upon his name. You used this verse to prove he is omnipresent. I said, ok, prove that he is also with those who do not call upon his name. If he is only with the people that call upon his name and not with the people who don't then that does not prove he is omnipresent.

LOL!

I gave you the verse in my last post that showed he held all things together. That means the entire universe. Kinda hard to do that unless you are God and omnipresent.



Ummm....No, Jesus admits that the Father is greater then all. He never stated that The Father is greater then all EXCEPT essence. If the Father is greater then all, then the Father's essence is greater then All including Jesus'. God's nature is being omnipresent in the form of a spirit. So tell me, how can Jesus be omnipresent if his spirit is trapped in his body?

Again, you have no clue on what the trinity teaches or what the bible says. My boss at work is "greater" than me, but he is not more human than I am is he? He is functionally my superior not my physical superior. Jesus humbled himself and submits to the Father. The trinity allows for different functions of the persons of the trinity. The Father is the "leader" of the trinity in function only. He is not somehow more God than Jesus is.

Jesus is not trapped in his body. His divine nature is everywhere. That is how he can hold all things together.



How is God omnipresent? his spirt encompasses all the universe and heaven. So if God showed himself to Moses, then only part of his spirit was in that bush and the rest was encompassing the rest of the world.

So "part" of infinity was with Moses? LOL, tell me moose. how much was there? 1/10th, 1/5th? How much IS 1/5th of infinity?




I personally don't agree that Moses ever saw God or anyone ever saw God in my theological faith, because if he ever did take the form of anything, he is limiting himself to that form and God is unlimited physically.


Then you are denying what the bible clearly teaches. As long as we cannot agree on a common source of authority (the bible for instance) we will never be able to discuss anything. You seem to use the bible when you think it suits your purposes and then deny what it says whenever we use it to show you that you are wrong. You can't have it both ways.


When God was walking with Adam in the garden of eden, how did he accomplish that? When he wrestled with Jacob how did he accomplish that? When he visited Abraham before he destroyed Sodom how did he accomplish that?




That's why Jesus can't be God because he is limited to the human body, God is no body, he is spirit according to Jesus and spirit is unlimited. What is Jesus' divine nature? I hear the same exact speech using the same exact words from trinitarians. The main words are nature, and essence. Define each of these please.

A nature is what makes a being what it is. My nature or essence is humanity. I am a human being. Gods essence is, well, "god" - he is God, the only being that exists eternally and has no creator, he always was. He is infinite and there is only one of him. The Father is uncreated and always existed. Jesus is uncreated and always existed. Jesus and the Father are one being. One God. Jesus' divine nature has always been and always will be. He created the universe! He is the Logos, the Word.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.



This clearly says that Jesus is not created and in fact created everything that has been made, and that he IS God. and he became flesh and walked among us.



That's pretty durn clear, moose. Now if you just reject that, then we have nothing to discuss because you are showing that you only use the bible when it suits you and not when it doesn't and that is a very dishonest debate tactic.




Please show us where Jesus said he is the same being as the father.
I just did above. John 1

Ok, if Jesus is the image of THE INVISIBLE GOD, then he must be invisible himself, which he is not, and even today he is in a physical human body.

That is the lamest argument I have ever seen. Jesus existed BEFORE he even had a body, Moose. He was "invisible" then and his divine nature, being spirit is still "invisible"


Also, this verse shows again that Jesus cannot be God since he was "the firstborn" This indicates that Jesus has a beginning.
How can he be created if John 1:3 said that nothing that has been made has been made without him? The word firstborn here "monogenes" is talking about preeminence in matters of inheritence. He is the "firstborn" son, the preeminent owner of creation. The chapter here even goes on to say that he created EVERYTHING on earth and in heaven. How could he do so if he was created too? He would be something he didnt create.


God does not pertain to time, he has no beginning nor an end. And this verse is wrong yet again by saying that God had "all his fullness dwell in him" If that is true then Jesus would be equal to the Father but he admits that the Father is greater then him. Jesus never stated that the father's essence and the father's nature are the same. Also, this is the words of Paul, how would he have known anything about Jesus besides heresay?

Again you claim our bible is wrong when it doesnt suit you. if it is wrong here then why do you believe it is right when it says that the Father is greater than Jesus????

Again, it is clear that it is indeed saying that Jesus IS God and all the fullness of God dwelled in him. That means he is fully God, fully divine. And he is equal with the Father in essence and nature. He submits his authority to the the Father out of humitily it is functional not essential.






If Jesus is the same God as the Father he would have admitted that he is the spirit that should be worshiped in John 4:24, yet he didn't. My arguments make complete sense.

Your arguments make NO sense. You are so far off base you are not even in the same ball park. You cherry pick verses to "believe" and toss out anything you dont like.



The trinitarian belief is that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, tell me how a limited spirit can be an unlimited spirit at the same time?

Who said he is limited in his spirit? I said his human nature was limited.


I am talking about PHYSICAL form, which is a part of the "nature" of God. Jesus states that God is a spirit, so his spirit takes up all the universe and all the heaven. How can Jesus have this same ability if his PHYSICAL spirit is LIMITED TO HIS BODY?

What the heck is a Physical Spirit??? That is an oxymoron. :argh:

Moose this is why I never bothered to even address your opening post before and just told you that until you showed you understood the trinity you were not worth debating with.

Against my better judgment I decided to go ahead and answer you. I now know I was right the first time. Trying to debate the trinity with you is like a scientist trying to discuss the theory of relativity with an average layman. There just isn't enough understanding there by the lay man to even give intelligent objections to the scientist about Einsteins theory.

Go and educate yourself and then come back. So far you keep making the same mistakes of thinking that Jesus was a separate being from God and confusing the human nature and divine nature.

[heisonly1]

Sparko - Moose, "brother" heisonly1 has not put forth any argument against the trinity in this thread. All he had done is giggle, insult and post links to his post in another thread. You started this thread making false assumptions about what Christians actually believe about the trinity. I answered those a long time ago and told you that you were making a "strawman" argument (the same way arguing that you believe in a moon god is a strawman argument)

Wrong MR. Procrastinator!! Wrong Wrong Wrong !!!!!

You just choose to ignore the biblical evidence and arguments I produced that clearly exposes your inability to defend the trinity as reflected in your hesitation to counter respond to my supposed 'strawman arguments' and 'false assumptions' You have continously repeated like a demon possessed parrot that we have misrepresented the Christrian undertstanding of the trinity WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING OR EXPLANING OR COUNTER RESPONDING WHY !!!!!!

We HAVE transparently presented my argument against the Trinity that was substantiated via the Biblical scriptures that confirm God Almighty is ONE singular personal indivisivle being that is comprised of one singular indivisible 'person'

Look Sparko here - Post: #81 Re: Can you defend the trinity? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1854881&postcount=81)is my post that exposes the Trinity as a bogus polytheistic fraud that was substantiated through my biblical evidence, you claim we never presented !!! ??I referred you to MY post, not someone elses arguments or posts !!!

Now, If you disagree with our arguments and believe we have misreprented the Biblical scriptures then SUBSTANTIATE OR EXPLAIN OR COUNTER RESPOND/REFUTE WHY WE HAVE PRESENTED 'STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS' AND 'FALSE ASSUMPTIONS'

I have no desire to even bother telling you about what the trinity truly is at this point because you do not have a real desire to learn or understand my faith. You just want to see if you can find a hole in my theology. Same with heisonly1 - he has shown no real desire to learn, only to mock.

Again! typical excuses excuses excuses !!!!!

I can say the same things about you Sparko !! you have no real desire to learn about Islam as reflected by your feeble and mocking attitude displayed throughout this Forum against Islam !!


If you feel there are 'holes' in our reasoning and mode of argumentation against the trinity, then substantiate WHY !!!

Merely you parroting that we have misrepresented you with explaning WHY means nothing !!!!!

If you truly want to learn about the trinity, then please go do some research on it from Christian sources and then come back and start a thread arguing against what we truly believe and I will be more than happy to defend my faith.

We already have Sparko and when we presented our case against the trinity both here and elsewhere in this forum, your generic counter response and attitude has always been the same.

"You muslims misrepresent the trinity and don't understand the Christian understandinhg of the trinity Blah blah blah !!!!!"

We response with, "Okay so we don't the trinity, then can you explain or substantiate WHY and HOW we have misrepresented the trinity!!??

We are still waiting Sparko for your counter rsponse substantiating WHY !!!!!!!!!!

I can tell you that we DO believe that there is only ONE God.

hahahahahah Yeah yeah we know you claim that Sparko, however, according to the Biblical scriptures, is the 'oneness of being' of God Almighty one personal singular indivisible being that is comprised of one singular 'person' or is God Almighty comprised of three 'persons' that form one being or perhaps some other Trinitarian articulation ???

In refutation of our understanding of the Trinity, we say God Almighty is one personal singular indivisible being that is comprised of one singular 'person' which we substantited using the biblical scriptures as referenced above. Now you claim that our understanding of the Trinity is false! Fine ! So now you counter resopnd by explaning to us the 'true' articulation of the Trinity substantiated/using the Biblical scriptures and refute why our arguments are strawman arguments!!

We do not believe there are three Gods.

Well Sparko! present your understanding of the Trinity using the biblical scriptures here, and let us determine through debate whether you believe in one God or three Gods!!

Nor do we believe in one God that plays roles and is one minute the Father and the next minute the Son, and then the Holy Spirit.

Bogus Strawman claim!! I never articulated the trinity as you erroneously expressed here that resembles Modalism Sparko!! care to show us where I expressed that the trinity is "one God that plays roles and is one minute the Father and the next minute the Son, and then the Holy Spirit" ????????? !!!!!!


If you really want to learn about the trinity, here are a few references to get you started. Study them then come back - state your understanding of what Christians believe and your argument for why it is wrong and I will be happy to defend the trinity. But if you keep arguing against stuff we dont even believe (like in three gods) then I have nothing to debate with you other than to tell you that you are wrong about what I believe.

For your study:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03g.html
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Trinity/index.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm



Sparko sparko sparko!!!! I have read Glen Miller's articles on the Trinity on many occassions along with JP holdings articles on the same topic.It is comon for JP to refer to Glen for further clarification regarding his theological stance on the trinity.I am full aware of their mode of argumentation in regards to trying to defend the trinity. If you botherd to read my post i cited above, you will find I responded/refuted one of Glen Miller's articles regarding the Trinitarian articulation and interpretation of the Oneness (ECHAD) of God that aims to suggest God Almighty is a multipersonal being - the one being of God is comprised of three 'persons' - which is transparently false for substantiated reasons I clearly presented in my post both here and elsewhere.

hahahahahh Dan, on a few occassions during our debate, when clutching for straws, foolishly referred me to articles from 'answering' Islam that attempt to give support for the trinity which I directly responded to and dismantled very quickly. I have read every single article from that bogus site, especially the section that aims to 'prove' that God is a triune being.Yet these 'answering' Islam articles miserably fail to derive the articulation of the trinity, from the Biblical scriptures, to support the theory that God Almighty is “ three conscious agents within the ONE BEING of God” - "answering islam" We have refuted this myth by BIBLICALLY substantiating God Almighty is one personal singular indivisible being that is comprised of one singular 'person' .

Again if you believe we have misrepresented the Biblical scriptures and the Doctrine of the Trinity, then go ahead and articulate the doctrine of the Trinity for us, since we don't understand, and substantiate your postulation via the biblical scriptures!!

There is no point referring me to EXTERNAL websites without at least stipulating your understanding and articulation of the Trinity.

Anyone can post links Sparko as a counter response via EXTERNAL web link

Watch !!

Refuting the Trinity:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/yahweh_yahshua.html (http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/yahweh_yahshua.html)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/Monotheism (http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/Monotheism)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/One_Yahweh.html (http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/One_Yahweh.html)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/Who_Is_The_Creator%3F.html (http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/Who_Is_The_Creator%3F.html)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/4holyspi1.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/4holyspi1.htm)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/apatrist1.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/apatrist1.htm)
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/theblessedtrinity.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/theblessedtrinity.htm)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/ (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/)
http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/trinity.htm (http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/trinity.htm)
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/difficulties.htm (http://jehovah.to/exe/general/difficulties.htm)
http://jehovah.to/exe/discussion/kidd_quaternity.htm (http://jehovah.to/exe/discussion/kidd_quaternity.htm)
http://www.torahofmessiah.com/trinity_art.html (http://www.torahofmessiah.com/trinity_art.html)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/index.html (http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/index.html)
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/trinity.html (http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/trinity.html)
http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/articles.htm (http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/articles.htm)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/twogods.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/twogods.htm)
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/trinity.htm (http://jehovah.to/exe/general/trinity.htm)

But what good did posting external weblinks do !! Nothing.

Let's keep it simple. We have made our case against the Trinity, without EXTERNAL web links.

You claimed you produced an article here on this Forum that "proved the Trinity step by step" Please provide us with the INTERNAL forum link to your articulation of the Trinity and we can get started on this debate!!!

[heisonly1]

Sparko

Again, you have no clue on what the trinity teaches or what the bible says. My boss at work is "greater" than me, but he is not more human than I am is he? He is functionally my superior not my physical superior. Jesus humbled himself and submits to the Father. The trinity allows for different functions of the persons of the trinity. The Father is the "leader" of the trinity in function only. He is not somehow more God than Jesus is.

No Sparko you have not clue!

here is a quick reply.

According to Trinitarianism, Yes, the Son and Father share the same ontological equality - eternal essence of divinity - and yes the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father that illustrates they are two distinct eternal 'persons' that possess their own self awareness

However you need to demonstrate, from the Biblical scriptures, that 'one God' is comprised of three 'persons' FORM ONE BEING !!!!

Please provide one verse where God is comprised of 'three parts' that form the one being of God according to the Biblical scriptures !!??? According to Trinitarianism, each member of the godhead may share the one essence of divinity and will, however this does not translate as ‘one God’, but rather three personal self conscious deities or gods that possess the one essence or nature of divinity (ontological equality) that operate in unison to ensure the salvation of man. The trinity doctrine, in theory, may claim to worship one God when applying its self defined terms and assumptions, however when measuring the articulation of the Trinity doctrine/ theo