Trinity?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Discuss here.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Echad




By


Keith G. Morehead



One of the words Trinitarians use to support the concept of "three in one" in the Old Testament is "echad." Echad (eh-'ghahd) is the Hebrew word translated one, only, and alone in the Old Testament. It occurs 962 times in the Bible (Gesenius, pp. 28, 29) and is translated 903 times (by my count) as the word one, five times as the word alone, and one time as the word only.


The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament has the following information on the word echad:

This word occurs 960 times [there exists a discrepancy on the number of occurrences between authors] as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal number, often used in a distributive sense. It is closely identified with yahad*"to be united" and with ro'sh "first, head," especially in connection with the "first day" of the month (Gen 8:13). It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that Oneness. Sometimes the phrase " as one man" can mean "all at once" (Num 14:15), but when Gideon was told he would defeat Midian " as one man" it probably meant " as easily as a single man" (Jud 6:16) The phrase can also refer to a nation aroused to take united action against gross injustice (Jud 20:8; I Sam 11:7). Zephaniah's mention of people serving God "with one shoulder" (3:9) likely means "shoulder to shoulder," solidly united. Likewise in Ex 24:3 "with one voice" expresses that all Israel was involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh. The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6, 11; 36:13). Adam and Eve are described as "one flesh" (Gen 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity. In Gen 34:16 the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become "one people." Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17). Once again Judah and Ephraim would be one nation with one king (37:22). Abraham was viewed as "the one" from whom all the people descended (Isa 51:2; Mal 2:15), the one father of the nation. Diversity within unity is also seen from the fact that `echad*has a plural form, `ahadim. It is translated "a few days" in Gen 27:44; 29:20, and Dan 11:20. In Gen 11:1 the plural modifies "words": "the whole earth used the same language and the same words." Apparently it refers to the same vocabulary, the same set of words spoken by everyone at the tower of Babel. The first "same" in Gen 11:1 is singular , analogous to "the same laws" of the Passover applying to native-born and foreigner (Ex 12:49; cf. Num 15:16), or to the "one law" of sure death for approaching the Persian king without invitation (Est 4:11). In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel....the LORD is one," the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse concentrates on the fact that there is but one God and that Israel owes it exclusive loyalty to him (Deut 5:9; 6:5)" (Harris, Archer, Waltke, Volume 1, p.30).



A second reference on echad states:

A numeral having the power of an adjective. 1. The same, Genesis 40:5, Job 31:15. 2. First, but only so used in counting the days of the months, Ezra 10:16, 17; in counting years, Daniel 9:1,2, Ezra 1:1. In other places as Genesis 1:5, one does not lose the common idea of a cardinal, and the numbers follow one another as in Latin unus, alter, tertius. 3. some one, "some one of the people;" "no one." 4. it acts the part of an indefinite article, especially in the later Hebrew, 1 Kings 20:13, "a certain prophet;" Daniel 8:3, "a ram," 1 Kings 19:4. So also when one precedes, e.g. "a certain holy one," i.e. angel Daniel 8:13. Sometimes also by a genitive "one of the cisterns," i.e. some cistern, Genesis 37:20; Job 2:10. 5. one only*of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5, Canticles 6:9. 6. When repeated it is one...another, Exodus 17:12; 18:3. It even occurs three times repeated, 1 Samuel 10:3; 13:17, 18. Also distributively of individuals, Number. 13:2, "ye shall send one man to a tribe;" Numbers 34:18. 7. As one man, i.e. together. Ezra 2:64, "the whole congregation together;" Ezra 3:9; 6:20; Ecclesiastes 11:6, "both alike." Also i.q. "together, unitedly," Isaiah 65:25; in the same sense is said Judges 20:8; 1 Samuel 11:7. 8. For one time, once, 2 Kings 6:10; Psalms 62:12. 9. (a) i.q. No. 8, Num. 10:4. (b) Suddenly, Pro. 28:18. (c) i.q. altogether, Jer. 10:8. 10. One after another, one by one, Isa 27:12, and Ecc. 7:27, one after another..." (Gesenius, pp.28-29).



The chief application of this interpretation by Trinitarians is in the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one (echad) LORD. Hebrew: Shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad. They believe that since elohim*is a uniplural noun describing the three members of the Trinity as the one God, and echad*is a uniplural adjective describing several items in one unit or group, that the Shema is a perfect description of the triune God. The Trinitarian interpretaition results in Deuteronomy 6:4 ceasing to be a verse supporting the onliness of God; it becomes a verse portraying the characteristics of their triune God. They interpret it to say: Hear O Israel, our three separate Jehovahs, is one unit of Jehovah.

Trinitarian application:

Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one*(echad)*flesh.

Oneness reply:

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT)*states: "Adam and Eve are described as "one flesh"(Genesis 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity" but when we use 1 Corinthians 6:16 as a cross reference, it appears that it means exactly sexual unity*causing them to be "one flesh." What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

*

Trinitarian application:

Exodus 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one (echad) voice .

Oneness reply:

One what? One person's reply? No! One voice. Does "one voice" being heard mean that of "all the people" there was only one individual speaking? Of course not! It is simply understood to be the voice of many people speaking in unison so that you heard one sound. In this text using the word echad, does "one" really mean "one" in the context that it is meant to be used?

*

Trinitarian application:

Numbers 13:23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one*(echad)*cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff.*

Oneness reply:

Again, you must ask yourself the question: One what? One grape? No. One cluster of grapes. Is one cluster of grapes the same as one grape? Absolutely not! In addition to that, the word here is grapes (plural). If echad was used in reference to the word grapes, the phrase would be nonsensical. In the phrase, "one cluster," does one sufficiently describe what the numeral "one" is supposed to describe? Without a doubt!

*

The majority of texts are similar:

*

Genesis 2:21 And LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one (echad) of his ribs.

How many ribs? Maybe God took a single rack of ribs (As you would receive a rack of barbecue ribs in a restaraunt).

*

Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one (echad)of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

How many mountains did Abraham go to?

*

Exodus 25:19 And make one (echad) cherub on the one (different word) end and the other cherub on the other end.

How many cherubs on one side?

*

Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for sin offering, and one (echad) ram for a burnt offering.

How many rams? Maybe God meant a "whole herd"? He said one; Trinitarians claim that one is supposed to mean a group.

*

Numbers 10:4 And if they blow but with one (echad) trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee.

Were they supposed to blow with an orchestra of trumpets in unison?



Of the 943 times (by my count) echad*is translated "one," it is translated to indicate a single character 901 times. In the remaining instances when it is involved in describing a group effort, it still means one.


In reference to the Shema,*the claim that the linking of the word Elohim*and echad*in the same statement indicate plurality of God is totally unfounded. So much bias has been infused into that statement that the accuracy of it is negligible. It becomes a Trinitarian doctrinal statement instead of a Biblical description of God. Deuteronomy 6:4 is speaking of ONE WHAT? ONE GOD! This is made clear by the scribe's reply to Jesus' statement that the Shema*was the most important commandment in Mark 12:32, "Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he." If elohim*or*echad*are referring to more than one of anything, they are referring to more than one GOD, which would make Trinitarians polytheists, or at least tritheists. Remember, for elohim*to indicate any plurality, it would indicate a plurality of gods; not one God in three but three gods. If the Bible could be quoted as saying one gods, Trinitarians may have a legitimate argument, but that very statement would be contradictory. It would have to declare "one Trinity."


Bibliography



Keith G. Morehead, Fictional Foundations of Trinitarian Thought, Oneness Ministries, 1988.



R. Laird Harris, Gleason L Archer Jr., Bruce K Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.



H. W. F. Gesenius, Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D., Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Baker Book House, copyright 1979).

Salaam

[Yahya Sulaiman]

http://www.freewebs.com/ziggyzag/thetrinity.htm

[Ansar Al-Haq]

vdings? mule? erizito?

Anyone wish to provide a response?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

In a nutshell, the whole problem with the Trinity is that it claims that one Being exists in three persons, and "being" and "person" are synonyms, so it's really just the oxymoron "one person in three persons".

[mule]

Ansar,

Are you even open to education about my religion or are you content where you are at? I'll bet you are just content reading twisted information about what my religion states.

Your ideas about what the trinity state are probably set in stone. When I discuss the trinity concept with nonchristains I notice that they become more bitter against God. Is it worth it? Don't get me wrong I can defend my position, I just wonder if it is worth it. Perhaps you will just get more bitter against Christianity.

Besides that I am still waiting for the prophecies in Islam. If You do not have them I might just start listing some in the bible.

Have a nice day,
mule

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If you're that interested in seeing the prophecies in Islam, I think you can find a lot at beconvinced.com or answering-christianity.com.

And I don't know who on earth you've talked to who gets bitter against God just because of discussing a conception of God that they find false. I've never heard anyone say, "This Trinity is so bogus. I mean, come on, God is such a bully for not being three persons at once!" I know for a fact that we Muslims consider the absolute, undivided, no-plurality-of-any-sort-involved oneness of God to be a wonderful thing for which we love Him all the more.

And yes, it's worth it. Although I hate to admit this to myself, it's worth it to discuss the falsity of the Trinity or the pointlessness of the crucifixion/atonement doctrine for seventeen years if I must, however much I may despair of my lack of success, for a year now, at trying to get you people to listen to reason on the subjects.

So let's discuss.

[mule]

I aready discussed this with you. Why talk about it again? You will just get stressed out and then I will be praying for not only your salvation but your health. :surprised

Why does it even matter to you that the trinity is in the bible?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

It doesn't matter to me in any personal way, just as regards my position on the made up nature of the doctrine, but it should definitely matter to a Bible-believing Christian, n'est-ce pas?

[Guest]

Because it would confirm his belief that its false?

Btw. I pray for your salvation Mule.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

THE TRINITY, MONOTHEISM AND INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
from my site

What is monotheism? dictionary.com defines it this way:

1. The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Nothing hard to understand about that, right? Here is the definition of the word according to the 1997 edition of The Merriam Webster Dictionary:

1. A doctrine or belief that there is only one deity.

Here is the definition of the word according to the fourth edition of Random House Webster's Dictionary:

1. The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Even the same wording this time!

Here is The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, Fourth Edition's definition:

1. doctrine that there is only one God.

There’s nothing difficult, complicated or least of all incomprehensible about any of these definitions. Nor are their keywords hard to understand, despite what negative atheists say. I get tired of their silly claim that the word “God” is vague or meaningless. Here is the relevant definition dictionary.com gives of “God”, the keyword in its definition of “monotheism”:

1a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Once again, there’s nothing hard to grasp about this, although I would question their use of the word “perfect” in addition to the different ways in which God is perfect.

When you look up he word “deity” in the 1997 edition of The Merriam Webster Dictionary (the keyword in its definition or “monotheism”), you get referred to their definition for “God”, which is:

1. The supreme reality; esp: the Being worshiped as the creator and ruler of the universe.

Yet again, it’s easy to understand. Now here is the definition of "God" according to Random House Webster's Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

1. The creator and ruler of the universe.

Here is the definition for "God" in The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, Fourth Edition:

1. (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being.

Now here is the most complete and articulate definition of the Trinity in the creeds, that offered by the Athanasian Creed:

The catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal, as also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

If you have to believe all that without confounding it to be saved, you’re in deep, deep trouble. “Incomprehensible” doesn’t begin to describe it! Nor is the original definition of the Trinity offered by the Nicene Creed much more helpful:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made....We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

“Eternally begotten”? “Light from Light”? “Proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Come on, this is just more jargon. They clearly had no idea what they were talking about, and they weren’t prophets getting direct knowledge of the incomprehensible from God but simply a bunch of church leaders in a committee (and as I’ve established in the above article on the subject [on this site, and others added since this article was written], there is no biblical basis for the Trinity). Quite obviously, the Trinity isn’t real.

Even if it is real, this creed itself states that the Father is the maker or begettor of everything, including the other parts of the Trinity, so He is obviously greater than either--and indeed, in the Bible the “Holy Spirit” (angels, folks--spirits that are holy--the “Spirits of God”, singular “Spirit of God”, in the book of Revelation, and “Spirit of God” is considered a synonym for “Holy Spirit”) is always sent by God, and “the Son” is subject to Him and even prays to Him. And remember that to him, God is our Father too--see Matthew 5:16, Matthew 10:20, Luke 6:36, John 20:17, etc. My article on the Trilemma on this site’s “Christianity” page goes into more detail about this.

But the Trinity is not real: as I have established, it could not have been anything more than a figment of the church fathers’ very strange imaginations. How could anything real be monotheism if it’s so complicated and even incomprehensible? The definition of “monotheism” is not hard to understand, nor is the definition of “God” as most monotheists would have it. Nobody ever has trouble understanding it the way most monotheists would have it. There is nothing hard to grasp about monotheism. So how is the Trinity doctrine monotheistic if it’s incomprehensible?

More importantly, how can you believe in something that’s incomprehensible? Is there any way you can possibly reconcile the three persons of it into one God, in any full, doctrinal way, inside your own head? If not, can you be doing anything but practicing polytheism? As Leo Tolstoy said in What Is Religion, “One may say with one's lips: ‘I believe that God is one, and also three’--but no one can believe it, because the words have no sense.” So far I’ve never seen anybody reconcile the Trinity except with false analogies which betray the fact that you’re secretly, unknowingly believing in three separate things. (More on this in my refutation of Answering Islam’s article on the Trinity.)

I’ve found that whenever I complain about the Trinity and how it’s just nonsense, the Christian will tell me something like, “You just don’t understand it.” Exactly! And neither do they, because two minutes later they’re shifting their ground and defending it based on its incomprehensibility. Either it remains incomprehensible but somehow you can manage to believe it, or I’m misunderstanding it: you can’t have it both ways. And they way I see it, if you can’t understand it either, then there’s no way you can call yourself a monotheist, because monotheism is a simple concept and you can’t believe what is totally incomprehensible to you.

The Trinity doctrine is false and polytheistic.

Let me make the main point clearer here through a syllogism:

1. Monotheism is comprehensible and simple.
2. The Trinity concept is incomprehensible and complex by definition.
3. Therefore, the Trinity concept is not monotheism.

[mule]

It doesn't matter to me in any personal way, just as regards my position on the made up nature of the doctrine, but it should definitely matter to a Bible-believing Christian, n'est-ce pas?

It definitely should matter to a bible believing Christian and that is why the bible says to study. I can prove it backwards and forwards.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Then stop talkin' the talk and start walkin' the walk, as Shaq would say.


Produce your proof, if you speak truly.

[mule]

Then stop talkin' the talk and start walkin' the walk, as Shaq would say.

I already gave you the verses and you could not understand it or believe it.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

You talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk! I don't have any idea what verses you're talking about. There are few verses from the NT I can't understand. I have been well schooled by Christian theology classes in high school, William Barclay's exegesis and C.S. Lewis's theology, you know. Show them to me again, or link me to where you showed them to me before.

[mule]

I'll think about it.

[vdings]

read Pauls letter to the colossians
1:15-20

[vdings]

read the bible...come back to me then.
..
the analogy is "your prophet murdered, and let his men rape thousands of people"
i dont understand...is anything going to make me understand this...nopes...
Though i have read the Koran with an open mind...and found it wanting..
but then maybe i wasnt meant to understand it...God works in mysterious ways...
whether thats a good thing or bad...lets not concern ourselves with it...
God will decide...

same thing here...but im giving you a way out read the bible and then you might understand..because the word infuses truth in the soul.
So read the bible...with an open mind...who knows you might even convert :)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I've read the Bible. Read it and read it and read it when I was a Christian. (Technically, there are a few Old Testament books I could never finish because they were so dull, but I've read almost all of the Bible.) Read it to death. Why is it that the scripture you believe in "infuses one with truth" whereas the one I believe in you "found wanting", and you can't seem to see that we will always see this the other way around? It's just your word vs. mine, and the "Bible and Koran" page of my website details via about a half dozen or more articles just how the Koran is like a polished, perfected revision of the Bible in a number of ways.


He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Now, let's see...for one thing the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this text, so it cannot confirm the Trinity. As for what it says about Jesus (P), it is not in his own words, so I cannot consider it necessarily trustworthy, but all the same it still does not say, "Jesus is God." It says he's "the image of the invisible God". Aren't we humans in general supposed to be in God's image? Is the image of something the same as the thing itself? As far as I know, the answer to this second question is "never". My image can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/film/ziggyzag/photos_of_me.JPG (which you might have to copy and paste into your browser rather than merely click on), in case any of you are curious. But that is pixels on a screen (from low rez photos taken of me a year or so ago--everyone says I look much younger than I am anyway, though). It's not me.

[vdings]

I would have to research it...but im sure there is enough proof in the bible

may be mule can answer this one

[mule]

Here is the definition of the Trinity- Within the nature of the one true God there are 3 persons. (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The three persons are the one God.

So, If the trinity is a true doctrine of the bible I should be able to see that there are 3 persons that are called God but that there is only one God then God is a triune God.

Due to space I tried to pick just a few examples. The Doctrine of God is really throughout the bible. These verses are not the only ones that teach this doctrine.

What does the bible say about God?

Example 1:
A.There is only one God:


1. Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

2. 1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.

3. Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD

4. Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

5. Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Three persons are called God.

The Father is God:

1. Jhn 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.

2. Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

3. 2 peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

B. Jesus Christ is God:

1. Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

2. Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


3. Is.9:6-For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shalt be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

C. The Holy Spirit is God:

1. Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?

Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.


2. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


But remember that there is only one God:

Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

And remember those three are one. The bible says there is only one God. Then it reveals three persons are God. 1x1x1=1

The Father is called God ,Jesus is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God and yet there is only one God.


The trinity is like time past, present, and future but it is still time. Can you tell when the past starts and the present ends? Or like matter: Matter can be liquid, gas and solid but it is still matter. The trinity is something that is described but is still hard to comprehend. The trinity is best described as 1x1x1=1.

If you would further like to test the bible about Who God is Go find out:

Who created the world?

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Has man seen God or not?

Who is the saviour of the world?

On a side note the bible also denies that there ever was a counsel of the gods or a triad.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me there is no God.

Is 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

mule

[mule]

Now, let's see...for one thing the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this text, so it cannot confirm the Trinity. As for what it says about Jesus (P), it is not in his own words, so I cannot consider it necessarily trustworthy, but all the same it still does not say, "Jesus is God." It says he's "the image of the invisible God". Aren't we humans in general supposed to be in God's image? Is the image of something the same as the thing itself? As far as I know, the answer to this second question is "never". My image can be found at

Col. 1 claims Jesus Christs deity. This is really quite simple.......

In Isaiah Jehovah says he made all things by himself. Nobody helped him.

Is. 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

In Col. It is recorded that Jesus Christ made all things.

Col. 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jehovah is Jesus.

Simple.

[vdings]

Col. 1 claims Jesus Christs deity. This is really quite simple.......

In Isaiah Jehovah says he made all things by himself. Nobody helped him.

Is. 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

In Col. It is recorded that Jesus Christ made all things.

Col. 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jehovah is Jesus.
Simple.

Q.E.D.
:) Mule...i should come to you for bible study

[mule]

Thankyou Vdings. :)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

mule, if you think that Isaiah was meant to connect to Colossians or vice versa, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is the case since St. Paul didn't make the connection himself in the text in question.

As for your longer post, here is my counter. I know I've been posting too many articles off my site lately, but when the time is right, there's nothing else I can do. But first, let me ask you this: in the King James Version (the one most popular with Christians, and if memory serves, correct me if I'm wrong, the one you prefer), the book of Revelation speaks of God's sevenfold spirit. Where does this fit in with the Trinity doctrine? I don't see it mentioned in any of the creeds.

Now for my article:


THE GOSPELS DO NOT SUPPORT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

Jesus Would Only to Be CALLED the Son of God:

And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

Solomon Was Also [Called] a Son of God:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. (2 Samuel 7:12-15)

I put “when he commits iniquity” in bold to prove that this verse is not a “prophecy” of the Messiah (P), because both Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus (P) never committed iniquity. This passage refers to Solomon (P) and that’s that.

Adam (P) Was Also [Called] a Son of God:

The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

All the People of Israel Were Sons and Daughters of God:

“With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and E’phraim is my first-born.” (Jeremiah 31:9)

The Term “Son of God” Means “Servant of God” in the Old Testament, And Can Refer to the Jews in General:

“And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.’” (Exodus 4:22-23)

Jesus Referred to God as Our Father Too:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses....When you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Matthew 6:14-18)

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11)

“For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” (Matthew 10:20)

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will.” (Matthew 10:29)

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

“Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36)

“For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them.” (Luke 12:30)

“I Speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." (John 8:38)

Jesus (P) Defines What He Means By Being “One” with the Father:

"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

Jesus (P) Explained the Real Reason Why the Pharisees Wanted to Stone Him:

“I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.” (John 8:37)

Jesus (P) Refutes the Scribes’ Claim That Only God Can Forgive Sins

Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” (Mark 2:6-10)

This Interpretation Fits What the Text Says Elsewhere:

And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:12)

Jesus (P) Denied Being God:

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:17-18)

Jesus (P) Prayed to God:

And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. (Mark 1:35)

Jesus (P) Accused God of Forsaking Him:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus (P) Called God HIS GOD:

Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17)

I know it’s hard to give up the beliefs you were brought up with, but there is simply no way out of the fact that the doctrine of the Incarnation, and as a result, the doctrine of the Trinity, are false and made up. Both doctrines go completely against the whole grain of the Gospels. They were concoctions of St. Paul and the third century theologians. There is no Trinity.

Remember that this is a collective case, all of the things mentioned adding up to a greater whole. Christians may posit varying interpretations of the individual verses, but when they're all considered together, the coincidence is too great for these interpretations to be true.

Note also the article I posted earlier ("The Trinity, Monotheism and Incomprehensibility") and the syllogism I made from it.

[mule]

So? Mr.Sulaiman did you have any thoughts on my post about the trinity?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the verses I posted.

mule

[Yahya Sulaiman]

God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being [the] effulgence of his glory and [the] expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made [by himself] the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high, taking a place by so much better than the angels, as he inherits a name more excellent than they. For to which of the angels said he ever, *Thou* art my Son: this day have *I* begotten thee? and again, *I* will be to him for father, and *he* shall be to me for son? and again, when he brings in the firstborn into the habitable world, he says, And let all God's angels worship him. And as to the angels he says, Who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire; but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Note that in this context you get the "sitting down on the right hand of God" bit. It would make no sense for anyone to sit down on their own right hand, literally or metaphorically. As for the final verse, perhaps some brackets by myself will make it clear what the verse actually means, especially when compared to the statements preceding it which you can find above:

"And as to the angels he says, Who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire; but as to the Son [he says], Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Note the parallel structure there between "as to the angels he says" and "as to the Son", indicating the part I put in brackets. The first part of the passage is the "Father's" words to the "Son", the second the "Son's" words to "the Father", which are naturally worshipful as they are spoken from a position on God's right hand.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

We've been over this before, but I'll gladly refresh your memory. This is from an article off my site I've referred you to many times before:


In the end this passage isirrelevant, since it’s just the author’s personal commentary (and appears to consist largely of speculation), and so I used to dismiss it as such, but lately I’ve been thinking that even this apparently clear proclamation of divinity may not be exactly what Christians think it is. Let us consider the Greek word used in John 1:1. It is a well-known fact that this word which is always translated “word” is “logos” in Greek, and that “logos” doesn’t really mean “word” but something more like “principle of logic.” (As far as I can tell, it’s sort of like the Chinese concept of Tao.) This principle of logic was something God used to make the world. Then He put it in human form and had this human dwell among us.

Now what Christians assume here is that this principle of logic was a part of God Himself, and just something God used. In fact, it was divine, meaning that it was of God, of a godly nature, and that is the proper translation of John 1:1. See http://answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm for more on this. I’m willing to believe what Abdallah says on the matter, because “the logos was with God and the logos was divine” is a much more coherent statement than “the logos was with God and the logos was God.” "With" implies otherness. And no, this cannot be meant in a Trinitarian sense--would you ever say you were "with" yourself, even though you consist of a head, abdomen and sub-abdomen?

God put His principle of logic in a man named Jesus (peace be upon him). Anderson himself unknowingly explains why this Word was not an incarnation of a part of God Himself when he cites many verses from the Koran which say that when Allah wants to create something, he just says, “Be!” and it is. Well, nowhere in the Koran is this word, “Be!” said to be a part of Allah Himself. Why? Because the notion is ridiculous. God’s principle of logic and God Himself are two different things, as the distinction in the Greek text of John 1:1 indicates. The rays that come from a bomb are quite distinct from the bomb itself, not a part of it at all. A word from someone’s mouth—not the person himself, quite obviously.

God’s principle of logic was obviously the thing instilled in each prophet. What else would any prophet be but flesh carrying the logos of God in him? To be the mouthpiece of God is what it means to be a prophet—that’s the definition of the word “prophet”. You know God’s will and speak God’s words. God used his principle of logic to make the world, and then put it in his prophets.


For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.

Does this not look like a contemporary statement of Isaiah to all nonChristian eyes here? The burden of proof is on you, mule, to show that this present tense statement which unsurprisingly does not identify itself as a prophecy was meant to be a prophecy.


But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Spirit, and put aside for thyself a part of the price of the estate? While it remained did it not remain to *thee*? and sold, was [it not] in thine own power? Why is it that thou hast purposed this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

If you consider that people frequently talk to God through angels, that "Spirit of God" is considered a biblical synonym for "Holy Spirit" and that "Spirit of God" is used in Revelation to refer to angels, then it is possible if not probable that the "Holy Spirit" discussed here is an angel (a spirit that is holy), and as such lying to God through it...well, I hardly need explain.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

This can easily fit with the angelic interpretation, God creating the world and then an angel being poised over the face of the ocean to carry out God's next command (God tended to do things through the angels).


The trinity is like time '<a href="past%20present%20and%20future" onmouseover="window.status='past, present, and future'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">past, present, and future</a>'; but it is still time. Can you tell when the past starts and the present ends? Or like matter: Matter can be liquid, gas and solid but it is still matter. The trinity is something that is described but is still hard to comprehend. The trinity is best described as 1x1x1=1.

Past, present and future are arbitrary divisions based on a <a href="point%20zero" onmouseover="window.status='point (zero'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">point (zero</a>-dimensional) on the metaphorical (one-dimensional) line of time which refers to any subjective state. Remember that time is not a principle of the universe, as many mistake it for, but just a measurement, like feet or gallons. A liquid matter, a solid matter and a gaseous matter are three, completely different objects. That they're all in the category of matter does not change that they are both realistically and gramatically different entities from each other altogether. The Trinity is not supposed to be three, different beings all falling under the same category. As for 1x1x1=1, it could just as easily be 1x1x1x1x1=1, couldn't it? And yet there's supposed to be something necessary about these three things coexisting with each other as a whole so that there could not be a fourth or fifth. Stating that a number multiplied by itself a certain number of times still equals the number itself does not compare even remotely, as it is really just stating the same principle that a redundancy in math leads you nowhere which can be found in 3-0-0-0=3.


If you would further like to test the bible about Who God is Go find out:

Who created the world?

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Has man seen God or not?

Who is the saviour of the world?

The relevance of any of this to our conversation being...?


On a side note the bible also denies that there ever was a counsel of the gods or a triad.

And...? When did I say it didn't? If you've read my articles on the Trinity (which it seems you may not have), you'd know that my point is that the doctrine results in unintentional polytheism, that there can be such a thing and that it is the only option here.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Now, mule, let's see you try your hand at refuting the things I've brought up through my articles....I took the time and trouble; you should in return.

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


Remember that this is a collective case, all of the things mentioned adding up to a greater whole. Christians may posit varying interpretations of the individual verses, but when they're all considered together, the coincidence is too great for these interpretations to be true.That makes zero sense. If you disprove the individual items, then there is no longer any grounds for a collective case, since all the individual items making up that collective case have been disproven.


Jesus Would Only to Be CALLED the Son of God....the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)....Solomon Was Also [Called] a Son of God....I will be his father, and he shall be my son.The phraseology doesn't even match here. In Luke, "Son of God" is a title given to Jesus, whereas in 2 Samuel, no such title is bestowed Rather, in 2 Samuel God is only indicating that he will have a father-son relationship with Solomon.


Adam (P) Was Also [Called] a Son of GodAgain, the relationship is different. Adam is the Son of God by way of creation. Jesus is the Son of God by way of eternal generation.


All the People of Israel Were Sons and Daughters of God...The Term “Son of God” Means “Servant of God” in the Old Testament, And Can Refer to the Jews in General:Again, these are statement of relationship, not one of eternal generation.


Jesus Referred to God as Our Father TooBy way of adoption, not eternal generation. You've got to get it into your head somehow that Jesus is God's "real" Son, whereas those who believe in God are his "adopted" sons and daughters.


Jesus (P) Defines What He Means By Being “One” with the FatherYou have to understand the mystical nature of the church to really get a grasp on what is being said here. Jesus and the Father are one because they share the same essence, which is the divine nature. Likewise, Christians, by being adopted into the family of God, are made partakers of the divine nature. However, this still has no bearing on Jesus' own essential divinity because he possesses the divinity on account of his eternal generation, not on account of adoption. So there's still a uniqueness to Jesus that we Christians simply don't possess.


Jesus (P) Explained the Real Reason Why the Pharisees Wanted to Stone Him:John 8:42 -- Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.


Jesus (P) Refutes the Scribes’ Claim That Only God Can Forgive SinsHe didn't "refute" their claim. He showed them that he possessed the authority of God in and of himself!


This Interpretation Fits What the Text Says Elsewhere....And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.Jesus' forgiveness of sins was a "general" forgiveness. The paralytic hadn't sinned against Jesus. In the case of the Lord's Prayer, however, Jesus instructs us to forgive those who trespass against us specifically, which is not the same as granting somebody a full pardon from God (which is was Jesus did).


Jesus (P) Denied Being God:...."Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."Do you honestly expect any rational person to believe that what Jesus is saying here is, "I am not good"? Because that's what you'd require us to believe if you insist that Jesus is denying his divinity here. On the other hand, if you accept that Jesus is good (which he says of himself several times), then what Jesus' words must be doing is unlocking the door for you to accept that he must therefore also be God (since only God is good).


Jesus (P) Prayed to GodNaturally. God the Son, being human, prayed as a human being to God the Father. The Trinity are three distinct persons. God the Father is not God the Son, so for God the Son to communicate in prayer with God the Father makes perfect sense.


Jesus (P) Accused God of Forsaking HimWhich is exactly what God the Father did, after laying the sins of the world upon his beloved Son. The Father could no longer have fellowship with his sin-bearing Son at that point.


Jesus (P) Called God HIS GODWhich, again, is only natural considering that (1) God the Son is not God the Father and (2) since God the Father is the God of all human beings, God the Son, being human, would naturally have God the Father for his God.

In case you were wondering, that *poof* sound you just heard was your collective case's vanishing. :)

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


Note that in this context you get the "sitting down on the right hand of God" bit. It would make no sense for anyone to sit down on their own right hand....Oh, come ON, Yahya! I know you are better versed in the doctrine of the Trinity than you are letting on, so stop playing ignorant! God the Father is not God the Son. They are one in essence, but they are two distinct persons. It is not nonsensical in the least for one person to sit down at the right hand of another person.


Note the parallel structure there between "as to the angels he says" and "as to the Son", indicating the part I put in brackets. The first part of the passage is the "Father's" words to the "Son", the second the "Son's" words to "the Father", which are naturally worshipful as they are spoken from a position on God's right hand.Utter, utter nonsense. The whole passage is about what the Father says about angels in contrast to what the Father says about the Son. There is no reason to assume that the passage has suddenly broken pattern so that now the Son is speaking in the last line. You're torturing the text!


...“the logos was with God and the logos was divine” is a much more coherent statement than “the logos was with God and the logos was God.”Well, unfortunately for you, that's not what the Greek text says. The Greek text says, "And the logos was theos," which means, "And the Word was God."


"With" implies otherness. And no, this cannot be meant in a Trinitarian sense--would you ever say you were "with" yourself, even though you consist of a head, abdomen and sub-abdomen?Okay, maybe you really are that ignorant.

Yahya, take a basic course in Trinity 101, will you? You can find it here:

A Brief Definition of the Trinity (http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html)


Does this not look like a contemporary statement of Isaiah to all nonChristian eyes here? The burden of proof is on you, mule, to show that this present tense statement which unsurprisingly does not identify itself as a prophecy was meant to be a prophecy.Of course the statement was contemporary because it had a contemporary fulfillment. But it also had a prophetic fulfillment that wouldn't come about until the Messiah came. Them's the tricky things about prophetic verses: (a) they don't always announce themselves, and (b) they aren't necessarily limited to only one meaning.


...it is possible if not probable that the "Holy Spirit" discussed here is an angel (a spirit that is holy)....No, it's not, because later in that same chapter an angel is referenced, and it's referenced as an angel, not the Holy Spirit.


This can easily fit with the angelic interpretation, God creating the world and then an angel being poised over the face of the ocean to carry out God's next command (God tended to do things through the angels).Again, no, because the word "ruwach" is never used to describe an angel anywhere in the OT.


...my point is that the doctrine results in unintentional polytheism....That's a fair enough assertion. A person might make the mistake of thinking that the Trinity means "three Gods" instead of "one God revealed in three divine persons". However, that would be a mistake on that person's part, not an accurate reflection of what the doctrine actually says.

--Joe

[Daniel]

An interesting discussion this, although my bible knowledge (esp. New Testament) is too poor to really join in.

However I feel qualified to respond to the argument by comprehensibility. We cannot reject an idea simply because it is hard to understand. The world contains too many things that we do not understand.


Let me make the main point clearer here through a syllogism:

1. Monotheism is comprehensible and simple.
2. The Trinity concept is incomprehensible and complex by definition.
3. Therefore, the Trinity concept is not monotheism.

The flaw in your syllogism is that the issue was never whether monotheism and the Trinity are the same concept (which is what you prove), but whether the Trinity concept is a form of monotheism (which it is, albeit a complex one).

Simple concepts can have very complex instantiations. For example, "the universe" is a pretty simple concept...

That said, it does seem that the Trinitarians have to do some creative interpreting to make eveything fit. That doesn't mean they're wrong, though it has to cast some doubts. All things being equal, straightforward theories are preferable to convoluted ones - provided they fit the evidence.

Can I ask a question of the Christains? (Mule? Joe?)
Does Christianity require that God was always a Trinity? This would mean that Jesus always existed as a separate aspect of God - which would seem to contradict the story of Jesus (which gives him a very definite birth and coming-of-age). In which case, was God a Duality (God and the Holy Spirit) until then?

Peace to all.
- Dan

[JoeChristian]

Daniel,


Does Christianity require that God was always a Trinity? This would mean that Jesus always existed as a separate aspect of God - which would seem to contradict the story of Jesus (which gives him a very definite birth and coming-of-age). In which case, was God a Duality (God and the Holy Spirit) until then?For a better basic explanation of the Trinity than I can provide, refer back to the link in my previous post, but the short answer is, "Yes, God has always existed as a Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, God the Son didn't become human as well as divine until he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary." In other words, prior to his incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son existed as a divine person of the Trinity, whereas after the incarnation, he is now the divine-human person of the Trinity, having assumed human nature and united it with the divine nature in his singular person.

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Remember that this is a collective case, all of the things mentioned adding up to a greater whole. Christians may posit varying interpretations of the individual verses, but when they're all considered together, the coincidence is too great for these interpretations to be true."

That makes zero sense. If you disprove the individual items, then there is no longer any grounds for a collective case, since all the individual items making up that collective case have been disproven.

IF that happens, which it hasn't and, as your post will later help to demonstrate, cannot.


Jesus Would Only to Be CALLED the Son of God....the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)....Solomon Was Also [Called] a Son of God....I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

The phraseology doesn't even match here. In Luke, "Son of God" is a title given to Jesus, whereas in 2 Samuel, no such title is bestowed Rather, in 2 Samuel God is only indicating that he will have a father-son relationship with Solomon.

When God says "he shall be my son" and someone else "will be called holy, the Son of God," then obviously the mere father-son relationship is the meaning of both instances.


Adam (P) Was Also [Called] a Son of God

Again, the relationship is different. Adam is the Son of God by way of creation. Jesus is the Son of God by way of eternal generation.

That is the very thing you're trying to prove, and yet you're using it to argue for itself.


All the People of Israel Were Sons and Daughters of God...The Term “Son of God” Means “Servant of God” in the Old Testament, And Can Refer to the Jews in General

Again, these are statement of relationship, not one of eternal generation.

See above.


Jesus Referred to God as Our Father Too

By way of adoption, not eternal generation. You've got to get it into your head somehow that Jesus is God's "real" Son, whereas those who believe in God are his "adopted" sons and daughters.

Once I see a scrap of hard evidence suggesting it, rather than a notion of adoption which you simply pulled out of your own imagination, then I'll get it into my head.


Jesus (P) Defines What He Means By Being “One” with the Father

You have to understand the mystical nature of the church to really get a grasp on what is being said here. Jesus and the Father are one because they share the same essence, which is the divine nature. Likewise, Christians, by being adopted into the family of God, are made partakers of the divine nature. However, this still has no bearing on Jesus' own essential divinity because he possesses the divinity on account of his eternal generation, not on account of adoption. So there's still a uniqueness to Jesus that we Christians simply don't possess.

Once again, you (or whoever taught you this) seem to be just making this up. Nothing in the text itself even hints at what you're saying.


Jesus (P) Explained the Real Reason Why the Pharisees Wanted to Stone Him

John 8:42 -- Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

Proceeded forth from God. Came from God. Was sent by God. If A is sent by B, then obviously A isn't B. All of these phrases suggests that Jesus (P) and God are not the same being or person in any way whatsoever.


Jesus (P) Refutes the Scribes’ Claim That Only God Can Forgive Sins

He didn't "refute" their claim. He showed them that he possessed the authority of God in and of himself!

He said that "the son of Man" has this authority. This phrase was also the title of Ezekiel (P), used about fifty times in his book. Was Ezekiel (P) God Incarnate too?


This Interpretation Fits What the Text Says Elsewhere....And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Jesus' forgiveness of sins was a "general" forgiveness. The paralytic hadn't sinned against Jesus. In the case of the Lord's Prayer, however, Jesus instructs us to forgive those who trespass against us specifically, which is not the same as granting somebody a full pardon from God (which is was Jesus did).

No, he did not grant them a full pardon from God. Read the text carefully: it says the opposite? "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" "...The son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."


Jesus (P) Denied Being God:...."Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

Do you honestly expect any rational person to believe that what Jesus is saying here is, "I am not good"? Because that's what you'd require us to believe if you insist that Jesus is denying his divinity here. On the other hand, if you accept that Jesus is good (which he says of himself several times), then what Jesus' words must be doing is unlocking the door for you to accept that he must therefore also be God (since only God is good).

It is in the nature of prophets to be extremely modest about their own goodness. For example, Jesus (P) says elsewhere in your Gospels that no man living is better than John the Baptist (P). This would include himself.


Jesus (P) Prayed to God

Naturally. God the Son, being human, prayed as a human being to God the Father. The Trinity are three distinct persons. God the Father is not God the Son, so for God the Son to communicate in prayer with God the Father makes perfect sense.

I am shaking my head right now in sadness at what Christian dogma can do to a mind that is regularly capable of such rationality (as I'm sure yours is). If someone prays to God (especially the way he did--Gethsemane, for instance), that means that they are inferior to God and only mortals. God praying to God? Come on, man! This is just common sense. But then again, I guess I shouldn't blame you. Your dogma blinds you to what would otherwise obviously be so easy to understand and inarguable in your own mind. I've been trying for a year to get Christians to listen to common sense and it just never works.


Jesus (P) Accused God of Forsaking Him

Which is exactly what God the Father did, after laying the sins of the world upon his beloved Son. The Father could no longer have fellowship with his sin-bearing Son at that point.

My point is, how can someone forsake themselves? Was he God Incarnate or not?


Jesus (P) Called God HIS GOD

Which, again, is only natural considering that (1) God the Son is not God the Father and (2) since God the Father is the God of all human beings, God the Son, being human, would naturally have God the Father for his God.

If the monotheistic God is your God, then obviously you are not God! Do I really have to explain this?


In case you were wondering, that *poof* sound you just heard was your collective case's vanishing.

Better debaters than you have tried in vain to wash over common sense statements I've pointed out with the surreal logic of Christianity. All of them have failed so far. Don't underestimate me.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Note that in this context you get the 'sitting down on the right hand of God' bit. It would make no sense for anyone to sit down on their own right hand...."

Oh, come ON, Yahya! I know you are better versed in the doctrine of the Trinity than you are letting on, so stop playing ignorant! God the Father is not God the Son. They are one in essence, but they are two distinct persons. It is not nonsensical in the least for one person to sit down at the right hand of another person.

As I've pointed out many times before, being two persons and being two beings are exactly the same thing. Consult a thesaurus if you don't believe me. If I sit down on Paul Bunyan's hand, am I Paul Bunyan?


Note the parallel structure there between "as to the angels he says" and "as to the Son", indicating the part I put in brackets. The first part of the passage is the "Father's" words to the "Son", the second the "Son's" words to "the Father", which are naturally worshipful as they are spoken from a position on God's right hand.

Utter, utter nonsense. The whole passage is about what the Father says about angels in contrast to what the Father says about the Son. There is no reason to assume that the passage has suddenly broken pattern so that now the Son is speaking in the last line. You're torturing the text!

Funny...I can't even remember which text I am allegedly torturing, we've discussed so many in this thread. And that list of posts below the "post a message" screen in backwards chronology doesn't seem to contain it. What passage, again, are we talking about?


...“the logos was with God and the logos was divine” is a much more coherent statement than “the logos was with God and the logos was God.”

Well, unfortunately for you, that's not what the Greek text says. The Greek text says, "And the logos was theos," which means, "And the Word was God."

The Greek term for God (capital G) was "ho theos". "Theos" meant either "a god" or "divine".


"With" implies otherness. And no, this cannot be meant in a Trinitarian sense--would you ever say you were "with" yourself, even though you consist of a head, abdomen and sub-abdomen?

Okay, maybe you really are that ignorant.

Yahya, take a basic course in Trinity 101, will you? You can find it here:

A Brief Definition of the Trinity

I needn't see any definition of the Trinity. That no one is ever with themselves with a basic rule of grammar, which I image extends to every language (and whatever word for "with" it uses) on earth. To be with yourself means not being yourself. By your logic, using a common analogy Christians use to explain the Trinity where H20 comes in the three forms of water, mist and ice (solid, liquid and gas) but remains H20 in all cases, I could say that ice is "with" mist by nature.


Does this not look like a contemporary statement of Isaiah to all nonChristian eyes here? The burden of proof is on you, mule, to show that this present tense statement which unsurprisingly does not identify itself as a prophecy was meant to be a prophecy.

Of course the statement was contemporary because it had a contemporary fulfillment. But it also had a prophetic fulfillment that wouldn't come about until the Messiah came. Them's the tricky things about prophetic verses: (a) they don't always announce themselves, and (b) they aren't necessarily limited to only one meaning.

Part of the purpose of a prophecy is to announce itself!


...it is possible if not probable that the "Holy Spirit" discussed here is an angel (a spirit that is holy)....

No, it's not, because later in that same chapter an angel is referenced, and it's referenced as an angel, not the Holy Spirit.

What poor logic that is. If I have a five-minute conversation with you about a police officer I knew, and during the first minute I refer to him as a "police officer" and during the fifth minute am calling him "a cop", does that mean I can't be talking about the "police officer" now that I'm talking about the "cop"?


This can easily fit with the angelic interpretation, God creating the world and then an angel being poised over the face of the ocean to carry out God's next command (God tended to do things through the angels).

Again, no, because the word "ruwach" is never used to describe an angel anywhere in the OT.

I don't put any stock in arguments from silence. I've already offered my evidence that the term "Spirit of God", which Christians consider synonymous with "Holy Spirit" (as it obviously is), means (or at least sometimes means) "angel".


...my point is that the doctrine results in unintentional polytheism....

That's a fair enough assertion. A person might make the mistake of thinking that the Trinity means "three Gods" instead of "one God revealed in three divine persons". However, that would be a mistake on that person's part, not an accurate reflection of what the doctrine actually says.

No, my point is that the human mind cannot believe in what it cannot comprehend, and so as a result, Christians end up thinking of the three persons in the Trinity as separate beings, even though they probably won't catch themselves doing it. To my horror I found myself doing this a lot when I was a Christian, and certain things other Christians said indicated to me that they were the same. "One can say with one's lips, 'I believe that God is one and also three,' but one cannot believe it, for the words have no sense."

[Yahya Sulaiman]

We cannot reject an idea simply because it is hard to understand.

I never said that nor implied it. The concept of incomprensibility, in my argument, was only used as part of a contradiction I pointed out.


The flaw in your syllogism is that the issue was never whether monotheism and the Trinity are the same concept (which is what you prove), but whether the Trinity concept is a form of monotheism (which it is, albeit a complex one).

Not at all. Let me plug in a different scenario with the same syllogism to help you understand:

1. All mammals are creatures with fur or hair.
2. A fish does not have fur or hair.
3. Therefore, a fish is not a mammal.


Simple concepts can have very complex instantiations. For example, "the universe" is a pretty simple concept...

Once again, the syllogism disproved something by way of pointing out a contradiction. That was its point.

[K-one]

The church had to fit in with the imperial leaders of Rome, and with the public sentiment of Romans. With the emperor already a living God, to have Jesus as anything less a political impossibility, an already trumped card.
Likewise the bishop of Rome to have any authority to alter control the church would need to be a God, or be forever subordinate to the God Emperor
This is what brings us to trinity, a legalistic attempt to fit all the required conditions.
Only one God, Jesus as God, the Pope as God, to at least match the emperor the living God.

Allah needs no confederates, the trinity dogma belittles Allah, makes Allah into a rule breaker.
I accept that Allah could do anything, but not that Allah would do just anything.
No one knows Allah's mind, his purpose, and Allah knows best.

To use, accept the Bible as evidence is a self defeating activity, it was in the control of the Church. The analogy is to accept Hitler's innocence based on Mein Kampf
My understanding is that Islam is only to accept the bible as it is confirmed by the Holy Qu`ran, and that specifically spells out that trinity isn't.

We know that trinity isn't, the reason for inventing it clear, what more is there to do except rearrange the deck chairs on the trinity-Titanic.




Peace

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Oh, Masha'Allah, this thread I started on trinity has proven very fruitful. I knew it would spark discussion.

Mule asked me if I was open to understanding christianity. The answer is yes. I would like a logical explanation to this dilema.

Some think that I derive my understanding fom Islamic sources. To prove what I say, I will quote ONLY from the BIBLE, here. Nothing else.

Read these verses and you will see that the Bible is the book from god, given to Jesus, messenger of God, preaching the oneness of God, but corrupted by human beings.

One, Alone, None Other Texts


Old Testament Bible Texts referring to:
One Lord, Holy One, Mighty One, Strong One, Lofty One, etc.


Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:


Job 6:10 Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.


Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Ps 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.


Ps 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.


Ps 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.


Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.


Isa 1:24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:


Isa 5:19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!


Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 10:17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;


Isa 10:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.


Isa 12:6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.


Isa 17:7 At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 29:23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.


Isa 30:11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.


Isa 30:12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:


Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.


Isa 30:29 Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of the LORD, to the mighty One of Israel.


Isa 31:1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!


Isa 37:23 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.


Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 41:16 Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them: and thou shalt rejoice in the LORD, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 41:20 That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.


Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.


Isa 43:14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.


Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.


Isa 47:4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.


Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.


Isa 49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.


Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.


Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.


Isa 60:9 Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.


Isa 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Jer 50:29 Call together the archers against Babylon: all ye that bend the bow, camp against it round about; let none thereof escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her: for she hath been proud against the LORD, against the Holy One of Israel.


Jer 51:5 For Israel hath not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of the LORD of hosts; though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel.


Ezek 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


Dan 4:13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;


Dan 4:23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;


Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.


Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.


Hab 3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.


Zech 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?


*


New Testament texts using "One" when referring to GOD


Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:


Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.


Matt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Matt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


Mark 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.


Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:


Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:


Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.


Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.


John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.


John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;


Acts 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.


1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.


1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.


Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.


Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;


Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


Texts using "None other, None else" when referring to GOD


Exod 8:10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.


Deut 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.


Deut 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.


Exod 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.


Deut 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.


2 Sam 7:22 Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.


IKing 8:60 That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


1 Chr 17:20 O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.


Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:


Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.


Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.


Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.


Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me


Jer 10:6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.


Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.



Texts using "Alone" when referring to GOD



Deut 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.


II Ki 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.


Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.


Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.


Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.


Ps 136:4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.


Ps 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.


Isa 2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.


Isa 2:17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.


Isa 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.


Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself


Isa 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Trinitarians have worked themselves into an idealogical conundrum.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity.htm

Their denial of this has irritated so many people that many people have given up faith completely and have gone to atheism. These people have started making websites like this:
http://www.evilbible.com

Btw, vdings, you have mentioned the same lies about Muhammad saws even though it was clearly explained to you before. Murder and rape are prohibited in Islam and were never practiced by Muhammad saws. I notice that even though we answer your questions, you repeat the same lies. You are seriously making me doubt your integrity. I believe you to be A LYING DOG.

Your brother Ansar Al-Haq

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I don't think you have anything to worry about, brother Ansar. Last I knew, vdings had been banned.

[K-one]

Trinitarians have worked themselves into an idealogical conundrum.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity.htm

Their denial of this has irritated so many people that many people have given up faith completely and have gone to atheism
Your brother Ansar Al-Haq

I can testify to that from personal experiance (not the site, but what they say). Mine started with the problems of miracles, and progressed to trinity and hypocracy as the reasons for calling myself agnostic/athiest.

Most census "Christians" wouldn't be able to explain "trinity" to save thier lives.(as was the case when the Catholics ran the world).


Peace

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Indeed--far too many atheists simply make the leap from disbelieving in Christianity to disbelieving in all religion to disbelieving in the existence of God, all in one far-reaching jump to conclusions. For instance, take the famous atheistic scholar and spokesman Richard Carrier. In his own words (which I plucked from the story of his "journey" to atheism at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html):


When I finished the last page [of the Bible], though alone in my room I declared aloud: "Yep, I'm an atheist." It was the question I had sought to answer by reading this book revered by 85% of the American public as the paragon of religious truth.

But then again, flawless processes of reasoning are so seldom to be found in atheistic writings....I'm rambling again. Let's get back on topic with the Trinity. Any responses to my many articles disproving it? Or my rebuttals in this thread?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Nah, we won't get anything. No one will take up this hopeless fight.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

You'd be surprised, Ansar. I've learned from experience that Christians can be extremely stubborn in these matters.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

The amount of active christian members on this forum is already low. We would have to count on guests seeing this go unaswered and decide to get involved. Who knows.

[K-one]

Salaam


Let's get back on topic with the Trinity. Any responses to my many articles disproving it? Or my rebuttals in this thread?


Send a PM to JoeChristian, he says to be Christian you HAVE to accept trinity, let him know there is this thread.

I agree with your thrust, trinity is "counter-intuitive". So no rebuttal here.


Peace

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,

Since I got a late start on this thread, I just now read your article on the Trinity. I think I've already addressed most of the points from it because you included them in other posts of yours, but here's one I haven't addressed yet:


I just can’t believe that if a doctrine were there from the start, no one wrote about it until the fourth century.Well, it's a good thing that people were writing about it from the first century onward, then, isn't it? After all, the gospel of John includes it. The writings of Justin Martyr include it. The writings of Tertullian include it. And the list goes on. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't just appear in the fourth century, as you suggest. It was there right from the beginning.


In a nutshell, the whole problem with the Trinity is that it claims that one Being exists in three persons, and "being" and "person" are synonyms, so it's really just the oxymoron "one person in three persons".This is incorrect. "Being" implies what. "Person" implies who. Trinitarians believe that God is one being revealed in three persons -- that is, one what revelaed in three whos.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,

More stuff from your earlier posts:


Even if it is real, this creed itself states that the Father is the maker or begettor of everything, including the other parts of the Trinity, so He is obviously greater than either....and indeed, in the Bible the “Holy Spirit”...is always sent by God, and “the Son” is subject to Him and even prays to Him.First, the three persons of the Trinity are equal because they each share equally and eternally in the divine essence of the Godhead. However, this equal sharing in the Godhead does not mean that there are not certain distinctions among the persons according to what they do. It is the Father's distinction that he finds his existence in himself, whereas the Son and the Spirit find their existence in the Father. This does not imply an inequality between the being of, for example, the Father and the Son any more than, assuming you have a child, your being your child's father makes you any more a human being than your child. You and your child are both human beings, of equal worth, period.

Second, that the Son and the Spirit submit themselves to the authority of the Father also does not imply an inequality in being amongst them. Human beings are equal in worth before God, but some human beings are subject to others, and this does not in any way affect their worth as human beings. In the same way, the submission of one divine person of the Trinity to another does not imply an inequality in being.


More importantly, how can you believe in something that’s incomprehensible?I don't fully comprehend how an airplane works, but I can get on the plane and trust it'll take me where I want to go.


Is there any way you can possibly reconcile the three persons of it into one God, in any full, doctrinal way, inside your own head?No.


If not, can you be doing anything but practicing polytheism?Is there any way I can reconcile the concept of an eternal God within my time-bound mind? No. So when I think about God, I'm not really thinking about him as eternal in the real sense of eternal because I can't comprehend eternity. Does that mean that I believe in a temporal God, then? No, because I realize that there are limits to what my mind can comprehend, and I can safely say that God is eternal (and Trinity) even though I don't fully understand how that could be.


Let me make the main point clearer here through a syllogism:

1. Monotheism is comprehensible and simple.
2. The Trinity concept is incomprehensible and complex by definition.
3. Therefore, the Trinity concept is not monotheism.Wow. Even your syllogism is wrong. You say, "Monotheism is comprehensible and simple," and that's true because the word "monotheism" includes only this much information: "There is one God." What the word monotheism doesn't include, however, is an explanation of how that one God exists -- that's what doctrines like that of Islamic Unity and the Christian Trinity are for. And there's no sense saying, "Islamic Unity and monotheism are both simple, whereas the Christian Trinity is complex," because at that point you're comparing apples (only one God) and oranges (how that one God exists).


It says he's "the image of the invisible God". Aren't we humans in general supposed to be in God's image?Humans are created in the image of God. Jesus is the image of God. See the difference?


Is the image of something the same as the thing itself? As far as I know, the answer to this second question is "never".That's because the "images" we see of ourselves are reflections in other substances than our own. It might be said (but perhaps not -- I'm being theologically "loose" here) that Jesus is God's reflection of himself in his own substance.

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Well, it's a good thing that people were writing about it from the first century onward, then, isn't it?

I dare you to show me where.


After all, the gospel of John includes it.

Where? I see nothing of it in the Gospel of John.


The writings of Justin Martyr include it.

Where? When?


The writings of Tertullian include it.

Where? When?


And the list goes on.

The list may go on, but there aren't any references to be found here as far as the eye can see.


The doctrine of the Trinity didn't just appear in the fourth century, as you suggest. It was there right from the beginning.


Produce your proof, if you speak truly.


This is incorrect. "Being" implies what. "Person" implies who. Trinitarians believe that God is one being revealed in three persons -- that is, one what revelaed in three whos.

From Random House Webster's Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

being: 3. a living person or thing

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


...a notion of adoption which you simply pulled out of your own imagination....Actually, it's from the letters of Paul.


Nothing in the text itself even hints at what you're saying.I'm not looking at just that text specifically but at what the NT teaches as a whole.


Proceeded forth from God. Came from God. Was sent by God. If A is sent by B, then obviously A isn't B. All of these phrases suggests that Jesus (P) and God are not the same being or person in any way whatsoever.(Sigh)....This is more a deal of not wanting to understand than not understanding, isn't it?

The persons of the Trinity are distinct and can interrelate with one another. However, they share equally in the divine essence and therefore are the same being.


He said that "the son of Man" has this authority.Referring to himself.


No, he did not grant them a full pardon from God.Yes he did! He said, "Your sins are forgiven." That's a pardon!


It is in the nature of prophets to be extremely modest about their own goodness. For example, Jesus (P) says elsewhere in your Gospels that no man living is better than John the Baptist (P). This would include himself.What Jesus said was, "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matt 11:11) That's hardly the same as literally saying, "John's a better man than I am."


If someone prays to God (especially the way he did--Gethsemane, for instance), that means that they are inferior to God and only mortals.No, it only means that they are in submission to God. Just as human persons can be in submission to one another, so can a divine person of the Trinity submit to another of the persons of the Trinity without implying an inequality of being.


My point is, how can someone forsake themselves? Was he God Incarnate or not?He is God the Son Incarnate, not God the Father Incarnate, and it was God the Father who forsook God the Son on the cross.


If the monotheistic God is your God, then obviously you are not God!God the Son, being incarnate as a human, had God the Father for his God. There is nothing contradictory about this. God the Son as a human submitted to God the Father just as God the Son as a divine person of the Trinity had submitted to the Father from all of eternity. Submission does not equal inferiority.


If I sit down on Paul Bunyan's hand, am I Paul Bunyan?No, and even if, as in the case of the Trinity, you and Paul Bunyan shared equally in the same essence, you would still not be Paul Bunyan, so quit using this red herring over and over again. It's three distinct persons sharing one essence, not one identity.


Funny...I can't even remember which text I am allegedly torturing, we've discussed so many in this thread.It's the Hebrews text in which the Father says one thing about the angels and another thing about the Son. When the Father calls the Son "God", you turn it around and say, "No, it's the Son speaking to the Father at this point," which obviously isn't the case.


The Greek term for God (capital G) was "ho theos". "Theos" meant either "a god" or "divine"."Theos" in the context of John 1:1, according to every honest Greek scholar on the face of the planet, means "God", not "a god". And even if by some stretch we allowed it to be "divine", there's only one divine being in the Bible, and that's God, so the meaning is the same.


To be with yourself means not being yourself.Okay, then in your estimation, what does John mean when he says, "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? When I read that, I think to myself, "Whoa...somehow the Word is God, but at the same time the Word is somehow distinct from God. It's as if there are two persons who are both God. That doesn't make sense to me, but that's what it says." Please note that last part: It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what it says. Now the question is, am I going to reject it because it doesn't make sense to me (because obviously I must be smart enough to comprehend whatever there is to know about God), or do I submit myself to what the text says in spite of my limited comprehension? It appears you've chosen the former, whereas I have chosen the latter.


Part of the purpose of a prophecy is to announce itself!But something doesn't have to say, "And this is what will happen...," to be a prophecy. If that's how it always happens in the Quran, fine, but remember, we're not talking about the Quran here. The Bible is riddled with prophecies that aren't stated as such. Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son, for example, is a prophecy of God's sacrificing his own Son on the cross, but it doesn't explicitly say so.


I've already offered my evidence that the term "Spirit of God", which Christians consider synonymous with "Holy Spirit" (as it obviously is), means (or at least sometimes means) "angel".Then show me where in the Bible God ever says he will "pour out" an angel upon his subjects because he says in several places that he will pour out his Spirit upon his subjects. Show me where God sends angels to dwell within human beings. Is that what you think Christians believe, or have ever believed?


...as a result, Christians end up thinking of the three persons in the Trinity as separate beings, even though they probably won't catch themselves doing it. To my horror I found myself doing this a lot when I was a Christian, and certain things other Christians said indicated to me that they were the same.Why are you taking your own mistake, though, and transferring it onto the doctrine? It isn't the doctrine that's wrong. It was you who were thinking about it wrongly.

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

First, the three persons of the Trinity are equal because they each share equally and eternally in the divine essence of the Godhead. However, this equal sharing in the Godhead does not mean that there are not certain distinctions among the persons according to what they do. It is the Father's distinction that he finds his existence in himself, whereas the Son and the Spirit find their existence in the Father.

This is just more words. If something exists, then its existence is always to be found in itself. Otherwise it's something else existing.


This does not imply an inequality between the being of, for example, the Father and the Son any more than, assuming you have a child, your being your child's father makes you any more a human being than your child. You and your child are both human beings, of equal worth, period.

And what separate human beings you are! But if my father sent me on a mission and I report to him about it regularly (in this case, pray to him), I mention that he's greater than me and that without him I can't do anything, then it is only natural to assume that he has some authority over me.


Second, that the Son and the Spirit submit themselves to the authority of the Father also does not imply an inequality in being amongst them. Human beings are equal in worth before God, but some human beings are subject to others, and this does not in any way affect their worth as human beings. In the same way, the submission of one divine person of the Trinity to another does not imply an inequality in being.

I said nothing of worth or inequality in being. I spoke only of this one being which is supposedly split into three persons where one person is the brains, the authority figure and the mover behind the other two. As such, as my article states, even if the Trinity is real, it is logical to worship and serve only the highest part of it, the part that sends the other two and commands them. You yourself said that they "find their existence in him". If that is a valid concept then it is also a sort of dependence. That is just a natural correlary. Can you not see that there is a clear provider and parental figure in this family-of-one? Should his appendages be worshiped along with him, even if they exist?


"I don't fully comprehend how an airplane works, but I can get on the plane and trust it'll take me where I want to go." No. Is there any way I can reconcile the concept of an eternal God within my time-bound mind? No. So when I think about God, I'm not really thinking about him as eternal in the real sense of eternal because I can't comprehend eternity. Does that mean that I believe in a temporal God, then? No, because I realize that there are limits to what my mind can comprehend, and I can safely say that God is eternal (and Trinity) even though I don't fully understand how that could be.

Now everyone compare that non-sequitur to the actual point I made, that the human mind cannot believe in something if it doesn't even know what that something is--in other words, what the definition of it is, what its essential nature is. Listen to this, Joe: there is a square at the center of space which has nine sides. Don't get this confused: the nine sides are part of the form whereas the square itself is the shape. (See his point below and compare it to this.


Wow. Even your syllogism is wrong. You say, "Monotheism is comprehensible and simple," and that's true because the word "monotheism" includes only this much information: "There is one God." What the word monotheism doesn't include, however, is an explanation of how that one God exists -- that's what doctrines like that of Islamic Unity and the Christian Trinity are for.

The basic idea of monotheism, disregarding details like the ones you've brought up, is the same everywhere, as I pointed out through those four or so dictionary references. How something exists is not the basic concept of it; instead the basic concept is simply what it is.


And there's no sense saying, "Islamic Unity and monotheism are both simple, whereas the Christian Trinity is complex," because at that point you're comparing apples (only one God) and oranges (how that one God exists).[/quotes]

The simplicity and complexity, taken all by themselves as you have isolated them, are indeed apples and oranges, but I mentioned them because they are part of a syllogism involving other things that connect to these ideas--specifically, a syllogism pointing out that X cannot be Y because X has a property (simplicity) while Y has the opposite property (complexity).

[quote]Humans are created in the image of God. Jesus is the image of God. See the difference?

I don't believe the first statement, the second statement means little or nothing to me, and the question which follows the statements seems out of place here. I don't know what point you're trying to make.


That's because the "images" we see of ourselves are reflections in other substances than our own. It might be said (but perhaps not -- I'm being theologically "loose" here) that Jesus is God's reflection of himself in his own substance.

If I am a walking mirror and I look at myself in it, that image I see in me is not a part of me but only what the light reflects off me. Nothing is ever reflected in itself, and for the simple reason that it need not be. It's overkill.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Yahya, actually, it's from the letters of Paul. I'm not looking at just that text specifically but at what the NT teaches as a whole.

Any still nary a reference.


(Sigh)....This is more a deal of not wanting to understand than not understanding, isn't it?

Is it comprehensible or not?


The persons of the Trinity are distinct and can interrelate with one another. However, they share equally in the divine essence and therefore are the same being. Referring to himself. Yes he did! He said, "Your sins are forgiven." That's a pardon!

And as I demonstrated, he went on to say that the son of Man can give those pardons! They said, "Only God can forgive sins," and he said that the son of Man has authority on earth to do so as well. Son of Man. If it means that much to you as a title, then Ezekiel (P) was God Incarnate.


What Jesus said was, "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matt 11:11) That's hardly the same as literally saying, "John's a better man than I am." No, it only means that they are in submission to God. Just as human persons can be in submission to one another, so can a divine person of the Trinity submit to another of the persons of the Trinity without implying an inequality of being.

Was Jesus (P) born of a woman or not? If I recall correctly, Luke 1 says that he was.


He is God the Son Incarnate, not God the Father Incarnate, and it was God the Father who forsook God the Son on the cross.

So if they are one Being, then he (He?) was still forsaking himself/Himself. I suppose that an omnipotent being could naturally perform an act of bilocation, but the complaint was of abandonment (of self?), something for which he obviously felt wronged.


God the Son, being incarnate as a human, had God the Father for his God. There is nothing contradictory about this.

If he was incarnate, then he was God. You don't think there's anything contradictory about God having God for His God?


God the Son as a human submitted to God the Father just as God the Son as a divine person of the Trinity had submitted to the Father from all of eternity. Submission does not equal inferiority.

I'll tell you one thing: I have never seen submission to another's will referred to as a sign of equality (well, outside of the Bush family's claims, but that's another story).


No, and even if, as in the case of the Trinity, you and Paul Bunyan shared equally in the same essence, you would still not be Paul Bunyan, so quit using this red herring over and over again. It's three distinct persons sharing one essence, not one identity.

If they are distinct persons then they are by definition distinct beings, as you can see demonstrated in my post above.


It's the Hebrews text in which the Father says one thing about the angels and another thing about the Son. When the Father calls the Son "God", you turn it around and say, "No, it's the Son speaking to the Father at this point," which obviously isn't the case.

That's your claim and your spin. I will leave the facts of the text and what we've said about it to speak for themselves.


"Theos" in the context of John 1:1, according to every honest Greek scholar on the face of the planet, means "God", not "a god". And even if by some stretch we allowed it to be "divine", there's only one divine being in the Bible, and that's God, so the meaning is the same.

"Divine" can mean "godly". Consult a thesaurus if you don't believe me. And find me these Greek scholars.


Okay, then in your estimation, what does John mean when he says, "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? When I read that, I think to myself, "Whoa...somehow the Word is God, but at the same time the Word is somehow distinct from God. It's as if there are two persons who are both God. That doesn't make sense to me, but that's what it says." Please note that last part: It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what it says. Now the question is, am I going to reject it because it doesn't make sense to me (because obviously I must be smart enough to comprehend whatever there is to know about God), or do I submit myself to what the text says in spite of my limited comprehension? It appears you've chosen the former, whereas I have chosen the latter.

In this debate you are arguing for the sense of the Trinity doctrine, are you not? Just about everything you've said indicates it. Either it's something you can explain to me or something you can't understand: pick one.


But something doesn't have to say, "And this is what will happen...," to be a prophecy. If that's how it always happens in the Quran, fine, but remember, we're not talking about the Quran here. The Bible is riddled with prophecies that aren't stated as such. Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son, for example, is a prophecy of God's sacrificing his own Son on the cross, but it doesn't explicitly say so.

That's your interpretation, for which I see no rational basis.


Then show me where in the Bible God ever says he will "pour out" an angel upon his subjects because he says in several places that he will pour out his Spirit upon his subjects. Show me where God sends angels to dwell within human beings. Is that what you think Christians believe, or have ever believed?

Joe, I refer to a little, cup-shaped glass that I have at my home (a cup made of glass, I guess) as a "cup" sometimes and a "glass" sometimes. If I use it to drink out of, I'll say I'm drinking out of it. If I should use it instead to hold my toothbrush, I'll refer to it as doing that. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you see your logical error?


Why are you taking your own mistake, though, and transferring it onto the doctrine? It isn't the doctrine that's wrong. It was you who were thinking about it wrongly.

The whole doctrine it itself a mistake.

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


I dare you to show me where.First, there's the gospel of John, in which it is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That's Trinitarian speech dating back to around 90A.D. Then, we have Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho in which he writes, "Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God...is indivisible and inseparable from the Father...but is indeed something numerically distinct...begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided." That's Trinitarian speech from about the year 150A.D. After him comes Irenaeus, who wrote of Christ "that He was very man, and that He was very God," in the year 185A.D. Then there's Tertullian, who wrote of Christ, "We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God." That's Trinitarian speech from the year 205A.D. Then we have Hippolytus, who wrote, "The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God," in the year 225A.D. Then there's Origen, who wrote, "What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son....Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding," around the year 240A.D.

And, last but not least, this declaration of faith comes from Gregory Thaumaturgus in the year 260A.D:

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth ever."


From Random House Webster's Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

being: 3. a living person or thingFrom Random House Webster's Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

being: 3. a living person or thing

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


But if my father sent me on a mission and I report to him about it regularly (in this case, pray to him), I mention that he's greater than me and that without him I can't do anything, then it is only natural to assume that he has some authority over me.Which still confirms my point: that one person's having authority over another person also implies no inequality of being.


I spoke only of this one being which is supposedly split into three persons where one person is the brains, the authority figure and the mover behind the other two.Not "split". The Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father, having begotten the Son and breathed forth the Spirit, is still fully God, and the Son and Spirit both, sharing fully in the essence of the Father, are each fully God.


As such, as my article states, even if the Trinity is real, it is logical to worship and serve only the highest part of it, the part that sends the other two and commands them. You yourself said that they "find their existence in him". If that is a valid concept then it is also a sort of dependence. That is just a natural correlary. Can you not see that there is a clear provider and parental figure in this family-of-one? Should his appendages be worshiped along with him, even if they exist?All three members of the Trinity are to be glorified together because each member of the Trinity is fully God is his own right. You say, "Worship God alone." Well, the Father is God, so worship him, and the Son is God, so worship him, and the Spirit is God, so worship him. If God deserves our worship, then we must worship all three, for all three are God.


...there is a square at the center of space which has nine sides....This doesn't work because a square by definition has four sides, whereas the divine essence need not be limited to one divine person.


X cannot be Y because X has a property (simplicity) while Y has the opposite property (complexity).This isn't an "either-or" thing here. To say that there is only one God does not mean that this one God cannot or does not reveal himself in three divine persons.


I don't believe the first statement....Really? You don't believe that humans are created in the image of God? I wasn't aware of that. Is that true for all Muslims?


Nothing is ever reflected in itself, and for the simple reason that it need not be. It's overkill.Really? What if I were to tell you (and I do not say this definitively) that the Word of God is God's expression of himself, and the Spirit of God is God's knowledge of himself? Would you then tell me that God neither expresses nor knows himself? And if he were to express himself fully, would that expression not necessarily be God, too? And if he were to know himself fully, would that knowledge of himself not necessarily be God, too? And where would God's self-expression and self-knowledge exist save within himself, formed (i.e., begotten or proceeding) from his own indivisible substance? Thus you would have three persons -- God, God's self-expression (i.e., his Word), and God's self-knowledge (i.e., his Spirit) -- all possessed of the same divine substance (i.e., each being fully God). So, I don't think it's "overkill" that God should express himself and know himself, nor do I find it implausible that God's self-expression and self-knowledge should be persons in their own right, each being God in their own right. (This is mostly conjecture on my part, I admit.)


...he said that the son of Man has authority on earth to do so as well. Son of Man. If it means that much to you as a title, then Ezekiel (P) was God Incarnate.You know darn well that Jesus was only referring to himself when he said "Son of Man".


Was Jesus (P) born of a woman or not? If I recall correctly, Luke 1 says that he was.He was, and his being born into the world a human being did not lessen his divinity one iota. Jesus is fully God and fully human.


So if they are one Being, then he (He?) was still forsaking himself/Himself.If you're not going to admit the difference between "person" and "being" in Trinitarian doctrine, there's really going to be no reasoning with you. You have to either accept that Christians are talking about one what and three whos, or just drop it.


You don't think there's anything contradictory about God having God for His God?I don't see anything contradictory about God the Son having God the Father for his God, no.


I have never seen submission to another's will referred to as a sign of equality.So you're saying that your employer is a superior being? That he is more than human, while you are merely human?


Either it's something you can explain to me or something you can't understand: pick one.Like I said before, I don't fully understand how an airplane works. I can, however, give you a basic idea how it works and ask you to trust me that it will get you where you need to go.

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Joe, I've been on this board long enough to know when a debate is just going to get lengthier and lengthier until you're writing forty-five-minute posts. That's happened to me too many times already (ask anyone who's been here a long time!), and I don't want it to happen to me here.

If you want us to proceed, then I suggest we do so more concisely.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Let's see how briefly I can do this....

1. We've been over and over John 1:1. Unless you have something new to say on the matter, let it go.

2. Not a single one of those "Trinitarian" references you pointed out except for the last one mention the Holy Spirit (including John 1:1), and as such they are not Trinitarian. As for that one from the year 260, that's still (as closely as anyone can figure) 231 years after Jesus (P) is said to have died. That's quite a long time. For example, 231 years have still yet to have elapsed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

3. being: 3. a living person or thing. So the Being called God is not a person but a thing? That would make Him an animal. You are contradicting yourself here, now apparently defining the Being we know as God as a living thing rather than a living person when you've said before that God is, in fact, not just a person but three persons.

4. Once again I have to tell you: I have made no points involving "inequality of being", whatever that means, but only involving inferiority.

5. You then go on to miss my point in a different way, focusing on the one word "split" from my sentence, "I spoke only of this one being which is supposedly split into three persons where one person is the brains, the authority figure and the mover behind the other two," and ignoring the sentence itself and the logic behind it.

6. If three persons can somehow be one being (see above), and I am supposed to worship this Being, and two of these persons are inferior to the third, I would not find it rational to worship the other two. The brain, kidneys and hair are all part of one body, but it's no use interacting with the hair or kidneys, is it?

7. This doesn't work because a square by definition has four sides, whereas the divine essence need not be limited to one divine person. And a being by definition is a synonym for a person. My analogy was meant to demonstrate the irrationality involved with that. One being in three persons = one person in three persons and one does not equal three. Go back and read the nine-sided square analogy again, if you would, with that in mind.

8. I said, referring to my syllogism from that article I posted many posts back, that the syllogism was stating that "X cannot be Y because X has a property (simplicity) while Y has the opposite property (complexity)." You responded, "This isn't an 'either-or' thing here. To say that there is only one God does not mean that this one God cannot or does not reveal himself in three divine persons." That is a non-sequitur. Or if it isn't, I at least don't see what it has to do with what I was saying.

9. The Koran makes it very clear that God has no image. It says things like "none is like unto Him" (Surah 112), and never once tells us that we were made in His image. That would go entirely against the grain of the Koran's general depiction of Him.

10. An expression of yourself and knowledge of yourself are not parts of your self. The words I'm typing here are not part of me. The things I know about myself are facts about me, and not me. Even if you were to consider the stored copies of those facts in my head to be a part of me by way of being a part of my mind, which is a part of me, then it still doesn't compare to what you're talking about. The reason for this is that the conscious part of my psyche is what you communicate with when you talk to me, and as such, if you were to pray to me or worship me, that would be what you are addressing. Furthermore, your expression of yourself does not exist within yourself, or it is not an expression but an introspection.

11. The term "son of Man" could mean the same as "Man". When it refers to Ezekiel (P), it is obviously God's way of calling him "mortal". That's my take on it, anyway. If "the son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins", then Ezekiel (P) had that same authority before. It's a title, and that title was being connected to the concept of forgiving sins. Remember that on several occasions in your Gospels Jesus told people, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (He did not just say this to Peter--use a word search if you don't believe me.) He also told us to ask God to forgive our debts as we have forgiven our debtors. The debt here is sin, so plug in one term for the other and you have, "Forgive us our sins as we have forgiven the sins of those who have sinned against us."

12. "He was, and his being born into the world a human being did not lessen his divinity one iota. Jesus is fully God and fully human." Once again, your response is extremely irrelevant to what I was talking about, as if you were responding to a statement I didn't make. The topic here was about no one born of a woman being greater than John (P).

12. "If you're not going to admit the difference between "person" and "being" in Trinitarian doctrine, there's really going to be no reasoning with you. You have to either accept that Christians are talking about one what and three whos, or just drop it." So now I can't admit that I'm wrong about something about which I've proven you wrong? "One what and three who's" does not work with "being" and "person", because the "what" would have to be, as you've pointed out, a living thing rather than a living person, and so what you're saying amounts to, "One living thing which is also three living persons." Remember that the definition is, "a living person or thing".

13. If they're the same Being, then "God the Son" having "God the Father" for his God still amounts to God having God for His God, a purely nonsensical concept.

14. When I said, "I have never seen submission to another's will referred to as a sign of equality," you said, "So you're saying that your employer is a superior being? That he is more than human, while you are merely human?" This makes me wonder if there's any point in continuing if you are going to be so oblivious to every point I make. If I have to submit to the will of my professor at school, does that make him a god? No, it just means I'm not his equal. It certainly, as I said, would not mean that I am his equal.

15. There is no contradiction in terms involved with how an airplane works. The only reason we don't understand it is that it involves mechanical complexity that we haven't learned about, not that it's something that by nature involves an oxymoron (or from your point of view, a paradox rather than an oxymoron).

Please, Joe, make your posts shorter. Even when trying to be concise here I still had to spend at least fifteen minutes on this post.

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


Not a single one of those "Trinitarian" references you pointed out except for the last one mention the Holy Spirit (including John 1:1), and as such they are not Trinitarian.They are Trinitarian in that they express that part of the doctrine of the Trinity which says, "The Father and the Son are distinct yet consubstantial." Your position, if I've understood it correctly, is that this idea that Jesus is God the Son, who is numerically distinct from God the Father yet consubstantial with God the Father so as to be fully divine just as the Father is fully divine, is a notion that "popped up" in the fourth century. What I've shown from these quotes pick at various intervals from the very beginnings of Christianity onward is that the idea that Jesus is God has been consistently present in Christian thought and is not a Nicene invention.


So the Being called God is not a person but a thing?The difference is between personhood and nature/essence/being. The Godhead, or the divine nature or essence of God, which is also called God, is the thing; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the persons who share co-eternally and co-equally in this nature/essence/being/thing which is called the Godhead or God.


...you've said before that God is, in fact, not just a person but three persons.That's exactly right. God is three persons, but as to the substance which makes up each person, it is the same. These three distinct persons are consubstantial (i.e., sharing the same substance), and the substance in which they co-equally and co-eternally share is the divine nature.


I have made no points involving "inequality of being", whatever that means, but only involving inferiority.But the point you are trying to make is that Jesus is inferior to the Father in terms of authority, and Christians do not deny this. Christians have always held that the Son and the Spirit willingly submit to the authority of the Father, even though, being that they are both God just as the Father is God, there is nothing which would inherently make one superior over the others.


I spoke only of this one being which is [revealed in] three persons where one person is the brains, the authority figure and the mover behind the other two.Okay. True, the Father has planned salvation, whereas the Son has procured salvation and the Spirit applies salvation. Each person of the Trinity has his own roles and functions. That's what makes them distinct persons.


If three persons can somehow be one being (see above), and I am supposed to worship this Being, and two of these persons are inferior to the third, I would not find it rational to worship the other two.This is why I am repeatedly making the distinction between inferiority with regard to authority and inferiority with regard to being. We do not worship God on account of God's supreme authority. We worship God because God alone, as the Supreme Being, is alone worthy of being worshipped. Now, if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are consubstantial with one another -- i.e., they are each God in their own right -- then each shares in the Supreme Being, and therefore each is worthy of our worship. In short, if the Supreme Being exists as a Trinity, then it is the Trinity as a whole which is worthy of worship, not just one person of the Trinity.


One being in three persons = one person in three persons and one does not equal three.(Sigh)...The definition you posted for "being" reads, "A living person or thing," so what we really have here is "One being in three persons = one living thing in three persons."


X cannot be Y because X has a property (simplicity) while Y has the opposite property (complexity).I don't think your logic holds. Monotheism = One God. Trinitarinism = One God in Three Persons. Both ideas are simply stated. At the same time, that doesn't make either idea "simple".


An expression of yourself and knowledge of yourself are not parts of your self.This is true for us, because we live in a created universe and are created beings. Imagine, though, that you are God, and that you have yet to create anything, so the only existence around -- is you! So, you know yourself and express yourself. From what substance is there around for this self-knowledge and self-experession to take form other than your one indivisible essence? (Again, this is in the speculative realm, but I'm just saying it to show that it isn't unreasonable that the divinity should exist in Trinity.)


The term "son of Man" could mean the same as "Man". When it refers to Ezekiel (P), it is obviously God's way of calling him "mortal". That's my take on it, anyway. If "the son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins", then Ezekiel (P) had that same authority before.I agree with your take on God's calling Ezekiel, "Son of Man." What I disagree with is your literal translation of this meaning over to Jesus' calling himself "Son of Man". "Son of Man" is used by Jesus again and again in a unique way whose meaning cannot be broadened to mean "any mortal in general".

Matthew 11:19 -- The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children.

Matthew 12:40 -- For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 16:27 -- For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

And especially:

Matthew 26:63-64 -- But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

I point to the above verse especially because here Jesus makes clear that his being the "Son of God" is equivalent with his being the "Son of Man", and also because his reference to "coming on the clouds of heaven" is a direct reference to one of the Messianic prophecies of Daniel in which the true meaning of "Son of Man" as it applies to Jesus appears:

Daniel 7:13-14 -- I was watching in the night visions, And behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. [Emphasis mine]

In short, by referring to himself as the "Son of Man", Jesus was calling himself the Messiah! And since in the Bible neither Ezekiel nor anyone else save Jesus can rightly claim to be the Messiah, then it is clearly himself and only himself to whom Jesus is referring when he says, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins."


Remember that on several occasions in your Gospels Jesus told people, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Agreed. He told this to his apostles, thereby conferring upon them to ability to grant people entry into the church (i.e., bind them in heaven) or expel them from the church (i.e., loose them in heaven). But this authority is not something they possessed in and of themselves, rather it was imparted to them by Christ. Christ, on the other hand, forgave sins (and healed people) on his own authority, so he is distinguished from them in this way.


The topic here was about no one born of a woman being greater than John (P).You need to look at the parallel verse from Luke:

Luke 7:28 -- For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. [Emphasis mine]

Even if you want to compare Jesus and John merely as prophets (which I am loathe to do, given that Jesus is so much more than a prophet), all Jesus can be said to be saying here is that there is no greater prophet than John -- this does not preclude Jesus' prophetic ministry from being equal with John's.

Moreover, look at the paradoxical statement Jesus makes immediately after his praise of John: "But he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." How do you explain that? If one looks at the kingdom of God as being the New Covenant, then all the prophets after John must necessarily be greater than John by virtue of their being under the New Covenant. So there is no clear-cut statement of the superiority of John to Jesus in Jesus' words here.


...what you're saying amounts to, "One living thing which is also three living persons."That's correct, given that in what we're talking about here, "thing" does not equal "person". In other words, I am not using "person", "being", and "thing" interchangeably such as to make statements like "one person = three persons" or "one being = three beings". I am speaking of one being revealed in three persons, where "person" <> "being".


If they're the same Being, then "God the Son" having "God the Father" for his God still amounts to God having God for His God, a purely nonsensical concept.Hardly. All you're doing by removing "the Son" and "the Father" from the sentence is removing the visible delineation of difference between the Father and the Son. For example, if I were to say, "John took John to John's party," that would sound nonsensical unless you realized that I'm talking about three distinct persons named John.


If I have to submit to the will of my professor at school, does that make him a god? No, it just means I'm not his equal. It certainly, as I said, would not mean that I am his equal.It means you're not his equal in authority. However, his being over you in authority does not alter the fact that you are equal as regards the nature of your existence. In other words, you are still a human, worthy of all the respect and regard that is due to humans, and he is still a human, worthy of all the same, regardless of the difference in authority. And the same applies to the persons within the Godhead. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, so all three are worthy of the respect and regard which is due to the Divine Being, even though there exists a structure of authority within the Godhead.


There is no contradiction in terms involved with how an airplane works.Then let's move over to math, instead. What's the square root of two? It's...well, it's the square root of two. That's about as good an answer as you could ever give me because it's an irrational number. It's decimals never end. So, you can ask me, "What's the exact value of the square root of two?" and the truth is, I can't tell you in terms of decimal value, but I can tell you, "It's the exact value which, when multiplied by itself, produces as a result the number two." So, the square root of two, which everybody believes in, is something that can't ever be pinned down exactly, but whose existence nevertheless can be explained to someone else.


Even when trying to be concise here I still had to spend at least fifteen minutes on this post.Oh, you poor baby. :(

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If you're going to disrespect my wishes to keep this debate concise so that I don't have to spend incredible amounts of time on each post, and even MOCK me about it, there is no point in continuing. Find someone else to twist the words of and respond only to tiny, irrelevant details of their points while overlooking the big picture. I have better things to do. The articles on my "Trinity" page (of which there are about half a dozen or more) speak for themselves, as do the wonderful articles at the Islamic Invitation Center site, which you can find easily on a search engine (although I can't remember if it's "center" or "centre", the British spelling). Good day.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Joe, br. Yahya is correct. It is not neccessary to respond to his SENTENCES instead of his POINTS. Keep your points brief and concise to encourage healthy dialogue.

Peace

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,

Healthy dialogue requires effort, and it's up to each of us to decide how much effort we choose to invest. If neither Yahya nor you want to put in the time, then don't. Nobody, including me, is forcing anybody, including me, to reply to anything. So, if you choose to reply, in long or short posts, that's your business, and if I choose to reply, in long or short posts, that's mine.

--Joe

[Ansar Al-Haq]

However, you posts are just responding to his sentences without providing concrete points in a concise format.

You have still not answered his points and i think it is wise of him to discontinue this discussion as he will just be repeating himself.

Peace

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


However, you posts are just responding to his sentences without providing concrete points in a concise format.What purpose is there in refuting his points once the premises and statements upon which he built his points are shown to be flawed? Do you really need nice, summary statements which say, "So, no, your point doesn't work," to understand what I'm getting at?

--Joe

[James]

a person like myself doesnt get much out of what seems to be "frustrated posts" and comments.

trinitarians will never agree with the Islamic idea of God, nor will the muslim accept the Trinitarians views as being monotheistic. the only certainty between the two is the actual existence of God...whether or not they believe they are the same God or not doesn't matter...because both know that on their day of judgement, all the disputes will be settled.

however, my questions is posed towards the Christian.

if ones believes in a single "who" and a single "what"...as opposed to what is called the Trinity...would you say that person does not believe in God? or perhaps the "right" God? would you say that person is "not saved" ?

[JoeChristian]

James,


if ones believes in a single "who" and a single "what"...as opposed to what is called the Trinity...would you say that person does not believe in God? or perhaps the "right" God? would you say that person is "not saved" ?The only reason that Trinitarians believe that God is Trinity is because that's how God has revealed himself. However, that revelation hasn't reached everybody necessarily -- not everybody has heard the gospel, for example -- and thus only the persons who are informed that God is Trinity are obligated to believe it.

So, for example, if a person is born on a desert island to natives who believe in one God and have never heard the gospel, and that's all that person ever believes about God -- that there is one God and not many gods -- then I don't believe that God would hold that person accountable for not believing in the Trinity because God was never revealed to that person as Trinity.

The problem for Muslims, however, is that in the Quran the doctrine of the Trinity is specifically mentioned by name along with a command to Muslims to deny it. Likewise, it is explicitly stated in the Quran that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God, and Muslims are commanded to deny this, too. So, there's a problem for the Muslim that the person on the desert island doesn't have: the Muslim knows the revelation of God as Trinity as of Jesus as God's Son. There is no "ignorance factor" here. So it is my belief that God will hold Muslims accountable for their rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus because it was something they knew about from their own holy book and didn't accept.

--Joe

[James]

u do not view it as they are worshipping God the way they've learned?...much like you have. you have learned that God has revealed himself in three persons...much like the muslim has learned that one the most important details of Islam is to not raise equals to God and to not ascribe helpers or partners to him. they view God as a singular entity just as you, however they also view the trinity doctrine as a division of God which they have learned against. they are taught to worship in the same manner as the prophets of old and in the same ways Jesus has.

[4:171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

this is what the Koran tells them in regards to their belief or as you call it "rejection" of the trinity. they are told to not say three, it is better for them to say God is one.

isn't that what is also important to the Christian...believing in a singular God? to not believe in mulitple Gods? the Muslims focus is on the singular whole of God where as the christian acknowledges and focuses on the different 'persons' God has revealed himself as.

do you agree that the concept of the Trinity is a difficult thing for a human to grasp and causes disbelief and in some cases making them drift from God due to their lack of understanding?

[JoeChristian]

James,


u do not view it as they are worshipping God the way they've learned?I think that so long as a person remains in ignorance, that person can't be held accountable for denying what he/she has never known to be true. But I don't think that a person can be brought from ignorance to knowledge about a matter, as the Quran brings Muslims from ignorance to knowledge on the matter of the Trinity, without then being accountable for what he/she accepts and rejects concerning that knowledge.

For example, if I, as a agnostic, had never heard of Islam, I would not think that God would hold me accountable for failing to accept Muhammad as his prophet. However, once I heard about Muhammad, it would then be incumbent upon me to understand who Muhammad is and why Muslims regard him as God's last prophet.

Now, with regard to Islam and Christianity, a Muslim can't say, "I am totally ignorant of Christianity," because the Quran itself mentions Christianity, the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity -- and denies them. So, at this point every Muslim who has been made aware of these doctrines of Christianity through their own holy book -- which is pretty much every Muslim, I'm thinking -- has to decide to reject them, and I believe they will be held accountable for this decision.


isn't that what is also important to the Christian...believing in a singular God? to not believe in mulitple Gods? the Muslims focus is on the singular whole of God where as the christian acknowledges and focuses on the different 'persons' God has revealed himself as.Yes, it is important to Christians that they believe in one God and not multiple gods, but it is just as important to Christians to believe in that one God as he has revealed himself rather than as we might find comfortable to us. You see, God has revealed himself as three in one -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the three is God, so if you deny any one of the three, you are denying God, though you might not think that's what you're doing. So, for a Muslim to say, "I believe in God the Father, but not God the Son or God the Spirit," is for a Muslim to deny God altogether, because God does not exist as only one person but as three. Also, if God has revealed himself as three, and you maintain that God is only one, then you're calling God a liar, and that's not good either.


do you agree that the concept of the Trinity is a difficult thing for a human to grasp and causes disbelief and in some cases making them drift from God due to their lack of understanding?I do believe the Trinity is a difficult thing to grasp, but there are many other things in reality that are difficult for me to grasp that I accept the truth of anyway, so I don't really give much weight to the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity makes it harder to believe in God and Christ.

--Joe

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Assalamu Alaykum,
Joe brought up an interesting point:

rather than as we might find comfortable to us. You see, God has revealed himself as three in one -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the three is God, so if you deny any one of the three, you are denying God, though you might not think that's what you're doing. So, for a Muslim to say, "I believe in God the Father, but not God the Son or God the Spirit," is for a Muslim to deny God altogether, because God does not exist as only one person but as three.

A muslim does not believe that God revealed himself as three. For a christian to say this, they need ample support from the Bible. If this is the main theme of the Bible, why is it barely mentioned? So we should examine what the Bible says about trinity.

Also in Islam, if someone is ignorant of the true path and never heard of it, they are only accountable for the knowledge they had. God won't punish a man who lived alone on an Island all his life. But even such a person would see the signs of God in creation.

Salaam

[James]

I think that so long as a person remains in ignorance, that person can't be held accountable for denying what he/she has never known to be true. But I don't think that a person can be brought from ignorance to knowledge about a matter, as the Quran brings Muslims from ignorance to knowledge on the matter of the Trinity, without then being accountable for what he/she accepts and rejects concerning that knowledge.

interesting Joe. for a person such as myself i am being told by muslims, that what is most important is belief in one God and to submit to him and not put anything or anyone on his level. then on the other side of the coin i'm being told by christians that if i do not acknowledge the three 'persons' he has revealed himself as then i do not really believe in God and that i will face a punishment because of it...am i correct?

i have to decide on whether or not i believe in one God revealed in three persons or simply one God.

Yes, it is important to Christians that they believe in one God and not multiple gods, but it is just as important to Christians to believe in that one God as he has revealed himself

why?

Also, if God has revealed himself as three, and you maintain that God is only one, then you're calling God a liar, and that's not good either.

i dont follow you...u just told me that Christians believe God is one. the Gospels tell us so as does the OT.

I do believe the Trinity is a difficult thing to grasp, but there are many other things in reality that are difficult for me to grasp that I accept the truth of anyway, so I don't really give much weight to the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity makes it harder to believe in God and Christ.

the reason i asked you this question was because if the Trinity is such a difficult thing for people to grasp and in some cases can cause people to walk away from God due to lack of understanding...and the main purpose of Christianity is to call us back to God and bring us to salvation then why is not okay or acceptable in the churches eyes to simply believe in the ONE God...as opposed to the three who's? there is no biblical basis for the idea of "if you do not acknowledge the Trinity then you dont acknowledge God"...atleast to my knowledge.

whether or not YOU give weight to the idea of Trinity leading to not believing in God doesn't matter...because i have seen it happen. i have seen people walk away from God for all sorts of reasons. doesn't make them logical, but its still something that happens. wouldn't you say that the idea of "one God" is much easier to grasp and isn't the idea of "one God" inside the churches teachings and the Bible's?

it is my belief that concepts that are beyond understanding lead to confusion and confusion leads to doubt and doubt leads to disbelief. you do not have to agree...but it does happen.

where can i read about the origin of the Trinity Doctrine?

[Nadeem]

Salaam all,

As far as I know it was an Egyptian deacon called Athanasius who concocted this silly doctrine back in the early fourth century A.D.

There is a book from about 90 A.D.called 'The Shephard of Hermas' which tells it's readers to believe in One Father(God) and Jesus(A) as a messenger of His.
Purely Islamic and true to the teaching of Christ(A).

The Gospel of Barnabas also tells us the same as well as mentioning the final Prophet Muhammad(S).But these books are regarded as apocryphal by the Christians!!

The song of Solomon in the Old Testament mentions 'Muhammadim' in Hebrew,which is Muhammad(S) in Arabic,

BUT IT IS TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH AS; ALTOGETHER LOVELY.
So people cannot see the name of Muhammad(S) in the Bible,but it is there in the original Hebrew!!

Wasalaam.

[JoeChristian]

James,


i have to decide on whether or not i believe in one God revealed in three persons or simply one God.Correct.


why?Because ultimately the question at stake here is, "Do you believe what God says?" And if you don't believe in everything you've heard or read God say about himself, then that answer is, "No." So you either believe God, or you make him a liar. There's no other options.


u just told me that Christians believe God is one. the Gospels tell us so as does the OT.Christians believe that God is one God revealed in three divine persons: God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims, on the other hand, accept God the Father (or Allah, as he is called), but they say that Jesus is just a man and that the Holy Spirit is just an angel. These are two mutually exclusive views. Only one of these views represents the truth about God and explains how God has revealed himself to mankind. You have to pick one or the other to believe.


there is no biblical basis for the idea of "if you do not acknowledge the Trinity then you dont acknowledge God"...atleast to my knowledge.Well, turn the question around for a moment, and ask yourself this, "What happens to Christianity and the Bible if you deny the doctrine of the Trinity?" If you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, then Christianity and the Bible no longer make sense. Verses like, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) become ridiculous because the Father and the Son are no longer one God. The Church can no longer be properly called the Body of Christ because the Holy Spirit, who indwells Christians, is no longer the Spirit of Christ. Deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and you shatter the coherence of God's revelation of himself in the New Testament. And at that point, given that the New Testament is no longer a coherent revelation of God, why believe in the New Testament at all? In short, if you're going to insist upon strict monotheism deny the doctrine of the Trinity, then you make as well become a Muslim because at that point it makes no sense to believe in anything the New Testament has to say, given how it loses all coherence if God is not three-in-one as the doctrine of the Trinity declares.

Let me put it yet another way. In the New Testament, God reveals himself as a certain way. All the doctrine of the Trinity does is define and clarify what that revelation actually says. If you believe in the revelation of God as contained in the New Testament, then you already believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, even though you might not understand it as such or use the same terminology to explain how you understand God. So saying, "You must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved," is really going no futher than saying, "You must believe in the revelation of God as contained in the New Testament to be saved," and you would expect Christians to believe what the NT has to say about God anyway, right? So belief in the Trinity really isn't anything additional. It's just an affirmation of what the NT has always said about the nature of God.


where can i read about the origin of the Trinity Doctrine?My favorite book on the topic is The Forgotten Trinity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556617259/qid=1102111995/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-1719173-0498524?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by James White.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Nadeem,

The doctrine wasn't explicitly defined until the 4th century, but you can find the elements of the doctrine not only in the Bible itself but also in the writings of the fathers of the church from apostolic times all the way to the council. In other words, he doctrine of the Trinity has been consistently present from Christianity's very inception.


The Gospel of Barnabas also tells us the same as well as mentioning the final Prophet Muhammad(S).The Gospel of Barnabas we have today is a 12th century forgery which has no relation to a Gospel of Barnabas rumored to exist in the 1st or 2nd century.


The song of Solomon in the Old Testament mentions 'Muhammadim' in Hebrew,which is Muhammad(S) in Arabic.Judging from the actual Hebrew script, the word is "machmadaq", not "Muhammadim". Check out this link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1102112728-3980.html).

--Joe

[Ansar Al-Haq]

joe, i think it would be useful for you to quote specific verses from the Bible where you feel that God makes it clear that he is 3. Such a central doctrine should have a basis in the Bible especially if God knew it would be an issue of major dispute.

I could do ti the other way and show the verses of the Bible which actually support the Islamic belief of one God. From before:

Read these verses and you will see that the Bible is the book from god, given to Jesus, messenger of God, preaching the oneness of God, but corrupted by human beings.

One, Alone, None Other Texts


Old Testament Bible Texts referring to:
One Lord, Holy One, Mighty One, Strong One, Lofty One, etc.


Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:


Job 6:10 Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.


Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Ps 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.


Ps 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.


Ps 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.


Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.


Isa 1:24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:


Isa 5:19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!


Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 10:17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;


Isa 10:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.


Isa 12:6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.


Isa 17:7 At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 29:23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.


Isa 30:11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.


Isa 30:12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:


Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.


Isa 30:29 Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of the LORD, to the mighty One of Israel.


Isa 31:1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!


Isa 37:23 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.


Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 41:16 Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them: and thou shalt rejoice in the LORD, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 41:20 That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.


Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.


Isa 43:14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.


Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.


Isa 47:4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.


Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.


Isa 49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.


Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.


Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.


Isa 60:9 Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.


Isa 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.


Isa 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Jer 50:29 Call together the archers against Babylon: all ye that bend the bow, camp against it round about; let none thereof escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her: for she hath been proud against the LORD, against the Holy One of Israel.


Jer 51:5 For Israel hath not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of the LORD of hosts; though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel.


Ezek 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


Dan 4:13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;


Dan 4:23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;


Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.


Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.


Hab 3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.


Zech 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?


*


New Testament texts using "One" when referring to GOD


Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:


Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.


Matt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Matt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


Mark 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.


Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:


Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:


Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.


Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.


John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.


John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;


Acts 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.


1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.


1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.


Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.


Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;


Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


Texts using "None other, None else" when referring to GOD


Exod 8:10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.


Deut 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.


Deut 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.


Exod 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.


Deut 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.


2 Sam 7:22 Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.


IKing 8:60 That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


1 Chr 17:20 O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.


Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:


Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.


Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.


Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.


Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me


Jer 10:6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.


Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.



Texts using "Alone" when referring to GOD



Deut 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.


II Ki 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.


Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.


Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.


Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.


Ps 136:4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.


Ps 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.


Isa 2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.


Isa 2:17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.


Isa 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.


Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself


Isa 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

If trinity is so important than there should be more verses emphasizing 3 then the amount above emphasizing one. Correct?

In the Qur'an we have hundreds of verses that say that God is one. So we have a basis for our belief.

Peace.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If I were you, Ansar, I would just give up. Generally, getting a Christian to listen to reason about the Trinity is about as easy as defying gravity, and Joe has already made it clear how stubborn he is about maintaining this doctrine which would not even destroy his Christianity were to to stop believing in it. The way he kept singling out irrelevant details in my arguments, like my usage of a certain word, at the behest of paying any attention whatsoever to the actual points I was making, is a good example of this. I've seen Christians do it before in this settings: it's one of the more common defense mechanisms they'll use to avoid letting themselves understand the many lines of very elementary logic which destroy the Trinity doctrine. I may not even write any more articles on the Trinity, it's so obviously no use trying. In fact, if my experience in the matter has taught me the truth, it might actually be easier to get the average Trinitarian to give up their entire religion than the Trinity doctrine specifically.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Assalamu Alaykum,
br. Yahya, you are correct in what you say and you obviously have much more experience in these matters than I. Nevertheless, there are various other members and guest who are reading this, some agnostics and hesitating between a final choice. Also, I recently discussed with Joe on the position of Christianity and Islam on violence, and after some persistence, Joe realized that his original thesis (Islam is more violent than Christianity) was invalid. He realized that the concept of self-defense is logical and in no way means violence.
So perhaps he will realize at least that trinity is a foggy concept for which there is a very weak basis (if not none at all).


In fact, if my experience in the matter has taught me the truth, it might actually be easier to get the average Trinitarian to give up their entire religion than the Trinity doctrine specifically.

Strangely true. :rolleyes:

Peace

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


i think it would be useful for you to quote specific verses from the Bible where you feel that God makes it clear that he is 3.I really don't want to get into a verse-by-verse defense of the Trinity here. That would just be exhausting.


I could do ti the other way and show the verses of the Bible which actually support the Islamic belief of one God.None of these verses would constitute a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity because the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one God revealed in three divine persons.


If trinity is so important than there should be more verses emphasizing 3 then the amount above emphasizing one....In the Qur'an we have hundreds of verses that say that God is one.What you aren't taking into account here is that much of the OT and pretty much all of the Quran is writing with the intent of establishing monotheistic belief in the hearts of their respective audiences. The Israelites were set free from a polytheistic culture, after all, so it would take considerable time before Jewish thought became purely monotheistic. So, before that happened, it would actually have been counterproductive for God to have explicitly revealed his tripersonal nature to the Jews, for they could have easily fallen into the error of worshipping three gods rather than one God in three divine persons. So, God instead decided to drop "hints" along the way and waited until the time was right to reveal his tripersonal nature so that there would be no mistake among the Jews to whom he revealed his tripersonal nature that he was nevertheless one God.

To me, then, the Quran is still "stuck" in OT thought, having been introduced into a culture which, unlike the culture of Judaism, had never progressed to the point that monotheism was the rule rather than the exception, and this is also why, in my opinion, the Quran rejects the doctrine of the Trinity -- because it views the Tripersonal Unity of God as a variant of polytheism instead of a complex expression of monotheism.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


Joe realized that his original thesis (Islam is more violent than Christianity) was invalid. He realized that the concept of self-defense is logical and in no way means violence.I think you'll have to work on me some more before I get to that point, actually. Personally speaking, I'm still a pacifist to a large degree. But let's leave that to the other thread.

--Joe

[James]

why dont we say that God also revealed himself thru messengers and prophets? did they not speak his words and perform his miracles?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Peace,

Br. James, could you elaborate on your question? I am not sure who the question is intended for or what it is asking.

Is it for me? Or Joe? Or other?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

To me, then, the Quran is still "stuck" in OT thought, having been introduced into a culture which, unlike the culture of Judaism

There was a heavy Judaic population in Madinah, and many verses of the Qur'an specifically mantion the Jews, so that is not a point.

What is the purpose of trinity? What would happen if Jesus wanted to do something and God didn't? Do you believe God to be completely independent? This is still to me, polytheistic and illogical.

Which weak god would have to split into pieces and send their son to die for the sins of their own creation? Were they not capable of punishing the wrong doers or granting forgiveness to their creation? And not just killed but crucified! Why did Jesus call out to God for saftey from the calamity? VERY UN-GOD-LIKE.

Personally, the trinity concept seems baseless and illogical to me. The christians like to avoid verse proof because they no that there is no evidence for such a doctrine. Why would God punish humanity for something that he failed to explain? The first chapter of the Bible should have been an explanation of trinity. Oh, I forgot that people wrote the Bible in God's name. This appears to me to be a mere conjecture.

There is only one president of a nation, only one principle of a school, only one foreman, etc.

There is only One Lord who created this universe.

Were there more, the universe would have erupted in endless chaos.

Peace

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Joe,

I'd like your opinion on this article please,


Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New Testament.* How could he be our Creator?


The sections of this article are:


1-* Jesus said he had no Divine Will.
2-* Jesus' repetitive Prayers contradicted his very own teachings.
3-* Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy.
4-* Jesus prostrated to GOD Almighty only once during his most desperate times! This is hypocrisy by the way.
5-* GOD Almighty Created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them.
6-* The GOD of the O.T. Punishes to death those who cursed HIS HOLY NAME. How could Jesus escape to Egypt from King Herod.
7-* In original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD".* See proofs.
8-* What about the authority in Heaven and Earth that was given to Jesus?
9-* None of Jesus' Miracles were unique in the Bible.
10-* Conclusion.



*


1-* Jesus said he had no Divine Will:


Let us look at the following from the Bible:


Matthew 16:36-44


36.* Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37.* He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38.* Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39.* Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
40.* Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
41.* "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
42.* He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
43.* When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44.* So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.



There are a number of alarming verses in the Bible that pass through the polytheist trinitarian christians without being noticed or pondered upon.* Matthew 16:39 above raises a very serious red flag about Jesus being our so-called "Creator" and the whole lie of the polytheist trinity paganism religion. * Jesus in the verse openly admitted that he basically had no Divine Will -- that he is nothing without GOD Almighty -- that he is just a creation from GOD Almighty.


This is by the way was not the first time Jesus openly admits this.* There are several verses and situations where Jesus refuted the polytheist trinity pagan lie:


1-* Mark 10:18 Jesus said “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”


2-* John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"


3-* John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"


4-* Matthew 24:36 Jesus said "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."


5-* Even in the Old Testament, the foretold Prophet, Jesus, was said to have the Spirit of Fearing GOD Almighty in him:


Isaiah 11:1-3 "1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)--
3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or
decide by what he hears with his ears;"


6-* Also, the "God" (hotheos) title that was given to Jesus was also given to many others before him and after him in the Bible.* Ironically, even satan was called "hotheos" (God) in the New Testament.* The only Unique Attribute for GOD Almighty that wasn't given to anyone else beside GOD Almighty is "Yahweh", which means "The Eternal".* Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/godtitle.htm to see the full proofs.


*


*


2-* Jesus' repetitive Prayers contradicted his very own teachings:


Let us look at Matthew 16:36-44 again, and Matthew 6:5-8:


Matthew 16:36-44


36.* Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37.* He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38.* Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39.* Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
40.* Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
41.* "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
42.* He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
43.* When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44.* So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, SAYING THE SAME THING.


"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be HEARD FOR THEIR MUCH SPEAKING. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.* (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 6:5-8)"



How many times did Jesus pray over the same thing in such a small period of time? * 3 times.* Let us look at the following verse:


"One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God.* (From the NIV Bible, Luke 6:12)"


When Jesus prayed all night long in Luke 6:12, did he not repeat his prayers?* His main focus was on GOD Almighty saving him from the crucifixion.* Jesus' prayers all night long, which obviously were far more than just 3 times, were repetition after repetition after repetition!


*


*


3-* Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy:


Let's again go back to Matthew 16:39:


Matthew 16:36-44


36.* Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37.* He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38.* Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39.* Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, MAY THIS CUP be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
40.* Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
41.* "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
42.* He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
43.* When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44.* So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, SAYING THE SAME THING.



Notice in Matthew 16:39 Jesus begged GOD Almighty to take his soul (kill Jesus in other words) so that he wouldn't have to go through the suffering of the crucifixion.* Does GOD Almighty really beg?* Let alone, does HE ever beg for mercy?


*


*


4-* Jesus prostrated to GOD Almighty only once during his most desperate times!* This is hypocrisy by the way:


Let's again go back to Matthew 16:39:


Matthew 16:36-44


36.* Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37.* He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38.* Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39.* Going a little farther, he FELL WITH HIS FACE TO THE GROUND AND PRAYED, "My Father, if it is possible, MAY THIS CUP be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
40.* Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
41.* "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
42.* He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
43.* When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44.* So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, SAYING THE SAME THING.



We Muslims prostrated with our faces down to the ground to GOD Almighty at least a total of 17 times in the 5-daily sets of Prayers.* We do it while we're not desperate to seek GOD Almighty's Mercy.* Jesus on the other hand so hypocritically compromised again his "prayer rules" and he eventually found the BEST WAY to worship GOD Almighty!* He found it during his most desperate times.* No Prayer is better than putting your face down to the ground before THE LORD ALMIGHTY, your Creator, and make your wishes and Prayers to Him while your face is humbled down to the ground before HIM.


The fact that Jesus compromised even his rules of Praying and prostrated to GOD Almighty like we Muslims do ONLY PROVES that the Islamic way of Praying is indisputably THE BEST WAY, even according to Jesus himself (not that I as a Muslim require his approval)!!*


It also proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that Jesus is NOT my Creator, because my Creator is THE ALMIGHTY GOD who doesn't beg and cry and pray to anyone.


*


*


5-* GOD Almighty Created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them:


Let's again go back to Matthew 16:36-44:


Matthew 16:36-44


36.* Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37.* He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38.* Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
39.* Going a little farther, he FELL WITH HIS FACE TO THE GROUND AND PRAYED, "My Father, if it is possible, MAY THIS CUP be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
40.* Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
41.* "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
42.* He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
43.* When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44.* So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, SAYING THE SAME THING.



The very fact that Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy because he feared the pain and death of the crucifixion proves that Jesus FEARED PAIN AND DEATH!* Yet, the Creator of this Universe, GOD Almighty, did also Create pain and death.* It doesn't make any sense that GOD would fear the pain and death that He Created.* This again proves that Jesus is not the Creator of the Universe.


Don't forget also that according to the Old Testament, Jesus was supposed to have the Spirit of Fear (Fearing GOD Almighty) in him:


Isaiah 11:1-3
"1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)--
3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or
decide by what he hears with his ears;"


I don't know about your god, but my GOD Almighty doesn't fear anything!


*


*


6-* The GOD of the O.T. Punishes to death those who cursed HIS HOLY NAME. How could Jesus escape to Egypt from King Herod:


If Jesus is our Creator as the polytheist trinitarian pagans believe, then how could he run away from King Herod to Egypt, while GOD Almighty in the Old Testament Punishes to death those who even curse his Holy Name?


How could GOD be so Mighty and Arrogant in the Old Testament, and yet be a total ***** who runs away from a creation of His in the New Testament?


Let us look at what the Bible says:


Leviticus 24
15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible;
16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.


Matthew 2
13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child (Jesus) and his mother (Mary) and ESCAPE to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,
.........
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt
20 and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."



There are few points to notice here:


1-* Jesus can not be the Arrogant and Sovereign GOD Almighty who Punishes to death those who Curse His Holy Name, because he escaped to Egypt from the fear of getting killed.* Even if GOD was a "baby", that still should not take away even an atom from His Will, Might, Glory, Sovereignty and Holiness.* Jesus' escape certainly erases all of that and makes GOD a weak, absolutely helpless and coward -- that is assuming that the polytheist trinity pagan LIE is true, which it isn't.


2-* For those Roman Catholic pagans who worship Mary, Mary too can not be a GODDESS because she too escaped to Egypt.* She can't be the wife of GOD Almighty.* And GOD Almighty does not have wives anyway:


"To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. (The Noble Quran, 6:101)"


Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.* (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"


"They say: 'God hath begotten a son' :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.* (The Noble Quran, 2:116)"


*


*


7-* In original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD".* See proofs:


Please visit:


"Son of God" literally means "Servant of God" in Hebrew.* Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity and today's wrong and twisted translations of "Son of God".


The Bible directly claims that ANY "Son of GOD" is a "God"! (Refutation to Jesus' being God meaning that he is GOD Almighty).


The definition of "Son of God" in Islam.


Son of GOD: Some Muslims' Misconception.


"Son of Man" does not mean "GOD" or "Son of GOD"


*


*


8-* What about the authority in Heaven and Earth that was given to Jesus?


Let us look at what the Bible says:


Matthew 28
17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Luke 4
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.
7 So if you worship me, it will all be yours."


Luke 10
18 He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.
20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."



Few points to notice:


1- In Matthew 28:17, it is important to know that the polytheist trinitarian pagan liars of the English translation purposely put "worshiped him" to make Jesus appear to be the GOD of the Universe.* The correct translation is "kneeled to him".** The reason I say this is because people in the Bible are kneeled to and even prostrated to:


1 Samuel 24
7 With these words David rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, "My lord the king!" When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
9 He said to Saul, "Why do you listen when men say, 'David is bent on harming you'?


Notice how David called Saul "my lord". * While this is elaborated on much greatly in this article, but I just find it quite ridiculous that trinitarian Christians use "Jesus is lord" as a desperate proof for their lies about Jesus being our so-called "Creator".


Also, when David prostrated his face down to the ground to Saul, was he worshiping Saul as if Saul was GOD Almighty?


Please visit:* www.answering-christianity.com/worship_jesus.htm for more details and refutations.


2- In Luke 4:5-6, even satan had been given "power" and "authority".


3- In Luke 10:18-20, we again see that satan had been given a great authority, and Jesus gave the authority that was given to him to his disciples so they can over come the evil of satan.


4-* Since Jesus was GIVEN the "authority" and "power", then this obviously means that GOD Almighty Gave it to him.* It also means that Jesus DID NOT OWN this authority and power.* He had to wait for it to be GIVEN to him from GOD Almighty.


5-* The speech in Matthew 28:17-19 is a figurative one.* I've written a detailed article showing many examples of obvious figurative and metaphoric speech in the Bible.


*


*


9-* None of Jesus' Miracles were unique in the Bible:


Many trinitarians falsely claim that since Jesus performed awsome miracles then he must be the Creator of the Universe.* What they apparently don't know is that none of Jesus' miracles were unique!* Prophets in the Old Testament before Jesus did raise the dead, cure the blind, heal leprosy, etc...


No Prophet could perform any type of Miracle without the Permission and Will of Allah Almighty:


"It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with God's permission, what God wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.* (The Noble Quran, 42:51)"



Please visit:* Jesus' Miracles were not unique in the Bible.


By the way, "Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.


*


*


10-* Conclusion:


After reading all of this, do you still have the slightest doubt that Jesus is only a creation of GOD Almighty and a great Prophet?* Do you still believe in the biggest lie satan ever invented, which is the polytheist trinity paganism?


Embrace Islam, the True and Divine Religion of GOD Almighty, and you will be saved! * Islam is very simple and requires no mediators between you and your Creator. * If you believe in the Absolute One and Living GOD Almighty and associate no partners (gods, idols, human, etc...) with Him, then you have become a Muslim.* You do not need to believe in satan's invented LIES about believing in a mediator (Jesus or anyone else) to be between you and your Creator.* You have been given the irrevocable Divine Right to have a straight and direct relationship with GOD Almighty:


"When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way. * (The Noble Quran, 2:186)"


"It was We Who Created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him:* for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.* (The Noble Quran, 50:16)"


"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.* (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"


"Then Praise be to Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth- Lord and Cherisher of all the worlds!* To Him be Glory throughout the heavens and the earth: and He is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom!.* (The Noble Quran, 45:36-37)"*


"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! * Come to common terms as between us and you:* That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.'* If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).'* (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"


As you've also seen above, the Biblical "Son of God" is only an invented LIE about GOD Almighty having children, Divine Children.* In the original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "Servant of GOD".* GOD Almighty Has no sons and no partners.* Everything beside Him is a creation.

[Nadeem]

Nadeem,

The doctrine wasn't explicitly defined until the 4th century, but you can find the elements of the doctrine not only in the Bible itself but also in the writings of the fathers of the church from apostolic times all the way to the council. In other words, he doctrine of the Trinity has been consistently present from Christianity's very inception.

The Gospel of Barnabas we have today is a 12th century forgery which has no relation to a Gospel of Barnabas rumored to exist in the 1st or 2nd century.

Judging from the actual Hebrew script, the word is "machmadaq", not "Muhammadim". Check out this link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1102112728-3980.html).

--Joe

Peace Joe,

I am sure all sects have their interpretations of those Bible verses which you quote as proof of the trinity!
The Jehovah's witnesses and many other sects agree with us Muslims that the Bible doesn't even slightly hint at the trinity in any shape or form. :)

Anyway we are all welcome to our opinions and interpretations. :cool:

At the same time as Athanasius was preaching his doctrine,his great contemporary Arius(of the Unitarians) was reminding people that Jesus(A) and the Bible had always affirmed the Divine Unity(oneness of God). :)

So why was the Original Gospel of Barnabas discarded as apocryphal,if after all Paul affirmed that "Barnabas was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost"??? :confused:

I honestly think that website is playing semantic games with the Hebrew alphabet! :( But people are entitled to their own opinions about it.

Peace and goodwill.

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


What is the purpose of trinity?The purpose of the doctrine of the Trinity is to explain how even though God reveals himself in three divine persons, God is still one God.


What would happen if Jesus wanted to do something and God didn't?Because Jesus is fully God and fully man, Jesus actually has two wills -- the divine will, which is the will of God, common to all three persons of the Trinity; and his human will, which is always in perfect submission to the divine will. So, in the case of either of Jesus' two wills, his will always matches the will of the Father in perfect submission.


This is still to me, polytheistic and illogical.It's not supposed to be "logical" in the sense that one could ever "reason out" the Trinity from the oneness of God. Rather, it's a matter of reconciling one divine revelation with another. The first Christians knew from the Old Testament that their God was one God. That was established fact. However, they had also received from Christ himself and from the apostles that God revealed himself not in one person only but in three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What the doctrine of the Trinity does is clarify how this can be by making a distinction between the singular, undivided essence of God and the three divine persons who co-eternally and co-equally share that divine essence.


Which weak god would have to split into pieces and send their son to die for the sins of their own creation? Were they not capable of punishing the wrong doers or granting forgiveness to their creation?We're starting to cross threads here. Here's my response to these objections from the other thread:

"First, let's be clear about the Trinity. God didn't divide himself into parts. Rather, God has always existed as three persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, not a 'part' of God.

"Second, it's not a matter about God's not being 'strong enough' to forgive. It's a matter of justice and holiness. For God to be just and holy, he cannot treat sin the same way he treats righteous conduct, and he cannot overlook even the slightest sin. So, every sin we commit must be punished. What God has done in the sacrifice of Christ, then, is provide a way for the sins he forgives to be punished, thus maintaining his justice and holiness."

--Joe

[Ansar Al-Haq]

You are right, we need to focus on one topic.

So, I will ask where is the source for this doctrine of trinity? Prove that God is three. Because if you believe someone should accept trinity and become christian, they need ample proof that this belief is from God. Where is that proof?

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


Jesus said he had no Divine Will.I think my previous post addressed the issue of Christ's divine will and his human will.


Jesus' repetitive Prayers contradicted his very own teachings.The repetitive prayers against which Jesus taught were ritual invocations -- either patterns of words that were supposed to invoke the favor of God as though they were magic spells or prepared prayers that sounded pious to men but were hollow before God. To repeat the prayer of one's own heart to God is not the kind of behavior against which Jesus taught.


Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy.What human being about to undergo the kind of suffering Jesus was about to go through wouldn't beg for mercy?


Jesus prostrated to GOD Almighty only once during his most desperate times!This is a pretty petty argument. Muslims prostrate themselves because they are commanded to, whether they feel like it or not -- that's ritual prayer, and it can be hypocritical prayer if the attitude of the heart doesn't match. Jesus prostrated himself because his heart was so heavy with grief that he had to prostrate himself -- that's sincere prayer right there.


GOD Almighty Created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them.What human being wouldn't fear pain and death? Heck, you could threaten me with a paper cut, and I'd know fear, even though I know darn well a paper cut wouldn't cripple me. The simple truth is that humans don't like pain, and they like dying even less!


The GOD of the O.T. Punishes to death those who cursed HIS HOLY NAME. How could Jesus escape to Egypt from King Herod.God sent his Son into the world to save people, not condemn them. I think it's entirely consistent with Jesus' mission on earth that God chose non-violent ways to protect his Son from the harm intended him by evildoers until the appointed time.


In original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD". See proofs.You left out the proofs. However, what's relevant here is that the apostles referred to Jesus as the "Son of God" in a unique way that is not consistent with the bare meaning of servanthood.


What about the authority in Heaven and Earth that was given to Jesus?The authority Jesus received after his resurrection was the reward of his total and absolute sinlessness, not a facet of his divinity. After all, being born under the law, there were some things that even Jesus did not have the authority to do in his humanity that he would have naturally possessed in his divinity (such as take human life, for example). However, now that Jesus has died and been resurrected, God has rewarded him for his obedience with all authority in heaven and earth, so that in his humanity he now has all the authority he already possessed in his divinity.


None of Jesus' Miracles were unique in the Bible.Most of his miracles were antitypes of miracles already recorded in the Bible, true, but his miracles were far more dramatic and fantastic than anything the prophets of old had ever accomplished by the power of God. For example, Elisha (in whose miracles can be found most of the types of Christ's miracles) fed 100 people with a meager about of food, but Christ fed 5000. And Elisha made iron float on water, whereas Christ walked on water. And the prophets of old healed the blind, deaf, and dumb, but never a person who was blind, deaf, and dumb all at once. So the miracles that Christ performed, while not exactly being "unique" or "new" in terms of their content, were certainly more excellent miracles in quality and character compared to the miracles of the prophets of old.


Conclusion....Do you still believe in the biggest lie satan ever invented, which is the polytheist trinity paganism? Embrace Islam, the True and Divine Religion of GOD Almighty, and you will be saved! Islam is very simple and requires no mediators between you and your Creator. If you believe in the Absolute One and Living GOD Almighty and associate no partners (gods, idols, human, etc...) with Him, then you have become a Muslim. You do not need to believe in satan's invented LIES about believing in a mediator (Jesus or anyone else) to be between you and your Creator. You have been given the irrevocable Divine Right to have a straight and direct relationship with GOD Almighty.I find this conclusion ironic given that, to a Christian, the idea that one have a direct relationship with God without going through the mediation of Jesus Christ is probably the biggest lie Satan ever invented.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Nadeem,


The Jehovah's witnesses and many other sects agree with us Muslims that the Bible doesn't even slightly hint at the trinity in any shape or form.I'm aware of that. In fact, I first learned about the Trinity from a Jehovah's Witness, so it used to be that when I read the Bible I would apply the concepts of Jesus and the Holy Spirit I'd learned from the JWs to my understanding of scripture. But what I found at that time is that certain things in scripture didn't make sense to me when I'd read it. Later, though, I learned the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and when I started to read the scriptures again in light of this new doctrine, everything that wouldn't fall into place before finally fell into place, and for this reason I jettisoned what I'd learned from the JWs and accepted Trinitarianism.


So why was the Original Gospel of Barnabas discarded as apocryphal,if after all Paul affirmed that "Barnabas was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost"???It may have been that the original Gospel of Barnabas wasn't Barnabas' gospel at all but rather a forgery written in his name.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


So, I will ask where is the source for this doctrine of trinity? Prove that God is three.Well, before you can prove that God is three, it's first best to prove that God is at least two. That's easily done with John 1:1 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So here you have two persons, God and the Word, who are both divine. That's two persons right there.

As for the Holy Spirit, go to Matthew 12:31-32 -- "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Apparently, you can blaspheme God and be forgiven. You can even blaspheme the Word and be forgiven. But you can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven. This reading would tend to put the Holy Spirit on at least the same level as God, and since there is no level higher than God, then we know the Holy Spirit is equal with God, just like the Word. So we have a third person who is divine, too.

Add that all up, and you've got the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three persons; one God.

--Joe

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Assalamu Alaykum,
Thanks Joe, for the explanations.

I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this.

Yes, there were links embedded in the text of the article, which I left out. Would you like me to post them, or is it irrelevant?

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,

Please don't bother with the links. I'm bushed. :o

--Joe

[James]

i apologize for being unclear...please allow me to try again.

it has been said that God chose to reveal himself in three forms...Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

why can it not also be said that God revealed himself thru his messengers or prophets? they spoke his words, they worked his miracles and it can be said that his Spirit was with them...can it not? true they were not God, but he used them to reveal what and who he was and what his purpose was?...did he not?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

I can accept this from an Islamic perspective. It is perfectly logical and is the belief of muslims.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Ansar,

Well, before you can prove that God is three, it's first best to prove that God is at least two. That's easily done with John 1:1 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So here you have two persons, God and the Word, who are both divine. That's two persons right there.

As for the Holy Spirit, go to Matthew 12:31-32 -- "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Apparently, you can blaspheme God and be forgiven. You can even blaspheme the Word and be forgiven. But you can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven. This reading would tend to put the Holy Spirit on at least the same level as God, and since there is no level higher than God, then we know the Holy Spirit is equal with God, just like the Word. So we have a third person who is divine, too.

Add that all up, and you've got the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three persons; one God.

--Joe
Thanks Joe! Would you say that this is the major basis for the doctrine. Is this where christians got it from?

[JoeChristian]

James,


it has been said that God chose to reveal himself in three forms...Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. why can it not also be said that God revealed himself thru his messengers or prophets?...true they were not God....You've pretty much answered your own question there. Yes, one can say that God has revealed himself through the prophets, but the prophets don't constitute God himself, whereas the three persons of the Trinity are in fact God. So, when Christians say, "God has revealed himself in three divine persons," this is different from saying, "God has revealed himself through his prophets." In the first case we are citing the nature of God. In the second case we are citing one of the modes of communication which God uses.

--Joe

[JoeChristian]

Ansar,


Would you say that this is the major basis for the doctrine. Is this where christians got it from?Well, no, I'd simply say that was the most compact "verse proof" I could put together on short notice. If you want a real "verse proof" of the Trinity, I would have to refer you to books like James White's The Forgotten Trinity or other such references, or you could look at the works of the early Church Fathers.

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

The Gospel of Barnabas has many marks of being written in medieval times, such as the medieval legal system used in the condemnation to crucifixion and the usage of the word "knights". It also has a poor knowledge of Islam behind it, contradicting Islamic doctrine on such important matters as the criteria for salvation, and featuring a Nativity which completely contradicts the Koran. (For instance, Mary is said in this "Gospel" to have given birth without any pain, whereas in the Koran she's in such pain that she wishes she were never born.) It is a forgery, regardless of how true parts of its made-up story, like the substitution of Judas Iscariot on the cross, may be.

[Nadeem]

The Gospel of Barnabas has many marks of being written in medieval times, such as the medieval legal system used in the condemnation to crucifixion and the usage of the word "knights". It also has a poor knowledge of Islam behind it, contradicting Islamic doctrine on such important matters as the criteria for salvation, and featuring a Nativity which completely contradicts the Koran. (For instance, Mary is said in this "Gospel" to have given birth without any pain, whereas in the Koran she's in such pain that she wishes she were never born.) It is a forgery, regardless of how true parts of its made-up story, like the substitution of Judas Iscariot on the cross, may be.


Salaam Yahya,

I wasn't talking about the medieval forgery version! :(

I was talking about the Gospel that was actually written by Barnabas way back in the first century A.D.
Even Joe affirmed that there was one. :)
I just wanted to know why it was rejected as apocrypha,but I think it is not an easy question to answer.
Better ask the people in Nicea who decided to dismiss it back in 325 A.D. ;)

Joe,

I still await your comments about 'The Shephard of Hermas' which clearly states the Unity of God and the prophethood of Jesus(A). :)

Wasalaam.

[JoeChristian]

Nadeem,


I was talking about the Gospel that was actually written by Barnabas way back in the first century A.D. Even Joe affirmed that there was one.What I said was, "There may have been a 'Gospel of Barnabas' in the first century, but even that could have been a forgery and been rejected on that count."


Better ask the people in Nicea who decided to dismiss it back in 325 A.D.Do you happen to have a source for this?


I still await your comments about 'The Shephard of Hermas' which clearly states the Unity of God and the prophethood of Jesus(A).Thanks for reminding me about this. I'm still reading the Quran right now, but I'll try to get to this afterwards.

--Joe

[Nadeem]

Peace Joe,

I am sorry for my assumption. :o
I do not have a source but only thought that it was rejected at Nicea. :)

Regards.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I've never read The Shepherd of Hermas, but I know what you're talking about. If memory serves, it was one of the books in the original Bible which was dropped for some mysterious reason. Perhaps I will read it sometime soon. Right now I'm reading La Morte D'Arthur, the earliest written collection of legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, all put in chronological order so as to be in the form of a novel. (The classic film Excalibur was based on this book.)

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


...it was one of the books in the original Bible which was dropped for some mysterious reason.While The Shepherd of Hermas was very popular in the Eastern churches, and while its popularity gained it near-scriptural status there, it was written too late (around 160AD) to be considered canonical, and it was never regarded so highly in the churches of the West.

--Joe

[Nadeem]

Peace to all,

I honestly thought that it was written in the first century A.D.
That's what I heard and read about it anyway.
I think it needs to be properly researched though. :)

Peace and Regards.

[JoeChristian]

Nadeem,

I've got it bookmarked, so I'll read it soon as I get a chance. Thanks.

--Joe

[Ratatosk]

Peace all,

I can naturally not be certain, but I believe the text refered to as the Barnabas writing is the Epistle of Barnabas, dated to roundabout 100 AD (online text here (http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/barnab.htm), for those who're interested), a strange treatise mostly about how the early christian church should deal with the judaic traditions. Perhaps this might clear things up.

Regards,

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting topic... though it always is when Muslims and Christians debate theology :)

interestingly, i have absolutely no issue with the Christian concept of Trinity.. it actually makes sense to me :)

of course, i also understand the Sanatan Dharma concept of Monotheism as well, though most Muslims would reject it out of hand.

what can you say? people are possessed of differing capacities. to believe otherwise seems foolish.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I'll say this as often as I have to, if only out of a forlorn hope that if I point out common sense to someone enough times, eventually it might--juuuuuust might--sink in. The only foolish belief in these matters is the belief in the Trinity, because the doctrine is of one being in three persons, and "being" and "person", as I have proven in this thread, mean the same thing, so what the doctrine really means is the nonsensical statement "one being in three beings" or the equally nonsensical statement "one person in three persons". The distinction made with semantics here, as such, is just a false one, an illusion or deception. Christians usually defend the Trinity with analogies, but it's all in vain, because while there are any number of things in the world which are one unit which comes in three parts, there are not and by the definition of the words in question cannot be a being which comes in three beings or a person which comes in three persons (see above if you need your memory refreshed as to why this is irrefutably what the Trinity doctrine secretly claims).

To be who you are means not to be multiple people, and different entities are never one entity at the same time, because otherwise it would just be a matter of semantic confusion, or to be more specific, self-contradictory descriptive terms. Of course, God's omnipotence could allow Him to break the Law of Identity and make the impossible possible and as such become three entities in one, but the Trinity doctrine is supposed to be describing what God always was from the beginning, not something He's used his endless power to transform Himself into when He was originally something else. So no matter how you figure it, you're stuck. The Trinity doctrine just doesn't work and that's that. But of course, try to explain it to Christians and they will fail to understand the basic logic which refutes their doctrine (and not allow themselves to understand, for obvious reasons), or else do what JoeChristian did and zero in on irrelevant details like my use of a particular word while totally ignoring the actual point being made, or they'll throw textbook examples of logical fallacies at you, or on and on it goes...why do I even try? Why bother? What could I ever accomplish trying to reason with Christians about this doctrine that pretty much no one outside of Trinitarian Christianity has any trouble understanding the fatal flaws of? I guess I should just give up, here and now. I've tried, oh how I've tried, and go through the thread and just look at the results!

Sorry for the angry, personal tone, but every now and then you just have to rant. My frustrated rant is over now.

[JoeChristian]

Yahya,


Of course, God's omnipotence could allow Him to break the Law of Identity and make the impossible possible and as such become three entities in one, but the Trinity doctrine is supposed to be describing what God always was from the beginning, not something He's used his endless power to transform Himself into when He was originally something else.Interesting. So you're saying that it's entirely possible for God to be three persons in one being -- that's progress, at least -- but it's not possible for God to have always been this way.

The problem that you're going to have to face here, Yahya, is that in eternity there is no such thing as "always", "before", "after", etc. Those are expressions relating to time, and time is something that God created, so however God has existed "before" (or more properly at) the beginning of time must be the only way that God has ever existed. Thus, if God exists now ("now" meaning "for the duration of this time-space continuum's existence") as three persons, then he must have existed as three persons back when there was no time, and therefore he must have eternally existed as three persons in one being, just as the doctrine of the Trinity says.

But, hey, at least you've gotten to the point where you admit that God can exist as three persons in one being, and like I said, that's progress. ;)

--Joe

[Yahya Sulaiman]

You think I'm making progress? Do you really think I'm closer to believing that the Trinity doctrine could ever make sense? I get farther away with each new illogic offered by every Christian around here. If your replies do anything to me, they make me surer and surer of my position, as does the invariably irrational responses of Christians everywhere on the issue, even among their bests evangelists and apologists. How could such a thing not make me surer? What I "admitted" (and would have said at any time had the subject come up, so "admission" is a false way to portray it) is this:

Even though the Trinity doctrine breaks the Law of Identity (and don't get me wrong, this isn't the only problem with it--for example, there is the entire page of listed problems on my website), an omnipotent being could break such a basic mathematical principle. This is, of course, provided that we go by the real definition of "omnipotent" and not the sissy redefenition apologists like to use, "able to do anything that's logically possible, with "logically possible" to them meaning "convenient for whatever case they're making about God at the moment". However, this would be God using His omnipotence to override a law of the universe so as to make Himself something which breaks that law, which means that God is changing Himself, and as such was not a Trinity from the beginning, like the Trinity doctrine states. And so to your next statement, I must say...


You're saying that it's entirely possible for God to be three persons in one being -- that's progress, at least -- but it's not possible for God to have always been this way.

No, I am saying what I just stated above, which is really just a repeat of what I said in my last post. For God everything is possible, so God could make Himself three beings in one being, defying His own laws, but this would be making Himself something rather than simply being that thing by nature.


The problem that you're going to have to face here, Yahya, is that in eternity there is no such thing as "always", "before", "after", etc.

"Eternity" means "time without end" (or could, in an older sense of the word which is used less today, mean "time without end or beginning", referring thus to the totality of time), and as such "eternally" (another form of the word "eternity") is actually synonymous with "always". "Before" and "after" still happen within eternity--the difference is that with eternity, there's always something after.


Those are expressions relating to time, and time is something that God created

Time is a measurement, like length. It is nothing more than that. You measure distance with yards; you measure time with clocks. Measurements are functions of the human mind. God created the things we apply our minds to in the form of measuring, the measurement called "time" being the mind's way of measuring change. Change is an aspect of God's creation, and of course God created our minds as well. But time, like all measurements, is the invention of conscious minds (or rather, their instinctual way of looking at things). People usually mistakenly think of time as being some nebulous thing like a law of the universe, an infallible thing going on outside of you. But it is only a measurement. You think that God created time? Let me tell you this: if time was created, then the act of creating it preceded its existence, so what you end up with is an occurence happening before there was time, and time beginning as an effect. Naturally this is all nonsense. Furthermore, time cannot have a beginning of its own; this is more nonsense. Time cannot have begun because beginnings don't exist without time.


so however God has existed "before" (or more properly at) the beginning of time must be the only way that God has ever existed.

If God is omnipotent (in the real, original sense of the word, the sense you'll find in any dictionary of the English language) then there are no must's for Him. If He wants to change His nature, He can (which is part of the basis for my argument).


Thus, if God exists now ("now" meaning "for the duration of this time-space continuum's existence") as three persons, then he must have existed as three persons back when there was no time,

"Back when there was no time" is a nonsensical phrase. Do you see now how ludicrous is what you're saying?


and therefore he must have eternally existed as three persons in one being, just as the doctrine of the Trinity says.

That "if" which began your sentence is a big, big "if", and the argument I made itself rested on an "even if". And as I shown, your rebuttal (especially its very strange temporal irrationality) does not in any way disprove my argument.

[Eric H]

Peace one and all, and here is a different approach.

Scripture is there to inspire us to do something.

In Christianity start of first with the greatest then everything makes more sense.

Mathew 22:37 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' ALL the Law and the Prophets HANG on these two commandments."

Can the words of the second commandment describe the Trinity and how Christ is one with the Father?

Christ loves the father as he loves HIMSELF.
The Father loves Christ as he loves HIMSELF.

Here is a short passage that uses the same language to describe one flesh, as you read it search in your heart for the profound mystery.

Ephesians 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery- but I am talking about Christ and the Church. However each one of you also must love his wife as he loves HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband.

In marriage it seems the ideal relationship would have the husband and wife, two separate people with separate needs become as one through the words of the second greatest commandment.

Another description of the church is one body with many parts, but how will you recognise this Church?

Love one another as I have loved you, by this all men will know that you are my disciples.

To be as one requires us to love others as we love ourselves, tough commandment, but to my way of thinking it all hangs on the Trinity and the nature of God.

This is only my interpretation, so feel free to challenge it in any way you like.

Peace

Eric

[hawk]

"Eternity" means "time without end" (or could, in an older sense of the word which is used less today, mean "time without end or beginning", referring thus to the totality of time), and as such "eternally" (another form of the word "eternity") is actually synonymous with "always". "Before" and "after" still happen within eternity--the difference is that with eternity, there's always something after.

Time is a measurement, like length. It is nothing more than that. You measure distance with yards; you measure time with clocks. Measurements are functions of the human mind. God created the things we apply our minds to in the form of measuring, the measurement called "time" being the mind's way of measuring change. Change is an aspect of God's creation, and of course God created our minds as well. But time, like all measurements, is the invention of conscious minds (or rather, their instinctual way of looking at things). People usually mistakenly think of time as being some nebulous thing like a law of the universe, an infallible thing going on outside of you. But it is only a measurement. You think that God created time? Let me tell you this: if time was created, then the act of creating it preceded its existence, so what you end up with is an occurence happening before there was time, and time beginning as an effect. Naturally this is all nonsense. Furthermore, time cannot have a beginning of its own; this is more nonsense. Time cannot have begun because beginnings don't exist without time.


"Back when there was no time" is a nonsensical phrase. Do you see now how ludicrous is what you're saying?


Forgive me for interjecting yahya,
But perhaps what Joe meant was that God, as Christians understand Him.
Has always been 3 persons, a co-arising if you must understand it.
Which means that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit have existed 'outside of time'.
Im not sure if I make sense to you.
And please forgive me if I have missed the point. :bigcool:

[Eric H]

peace all,



Christ loves the father as he loves HIMSELF.
The Father loves Christ as he loves HIMSELF.


Can the Spirit referred to in the Trinity possibly be the second commandment, to love our neighbours as we love ourselves? Can it possibly be when Christ meets the needs of the Father in a selfless way, and then the Spirit is at its greatest? Can it possibly be when we do a selfless act to meet the needs of another that the Spirit is working at its greatest within us?
What did Christ mean when he said all the law and the prophets HANG on the greatest commandments?
What else is in the Bible apart from the law and the prophets of God?
Does all the Bible hang on the greatest commandments?

peace

Eric

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I think you have indeed missed the point, hawk. What I'm saying, once again, is that the Trinitarian state is something an omnipotent God could make Himself into, but that would be something He made Himself into and not something He is by nature. "Omnipotent" means He can do anything. Do anything. Do. Omnipotence refers to an infinite range of possible actions, not an essential nature that is arbitrarily this or that.

[Lamp Of Light]

May Gods Peace and Truth be with us all !

I think the critical point to unravelling a proper understanding of things is determinant upon a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit as was intended in the Old Testament. If I am not mistaken, the Holy Spirit is the shikinah or "glory" of God, to jewish understandin it is a part of Him. In this way my understanding is Jesus is the word of God, also a part of Him. So each is distinct, yet each is God, or maybe better said manifestations of God to our limited understanding. In other words, we see Jesus, we recognize Gods Spirit.... if we see the Holy Spirit, we recognize Gods Spirit.... and if we see God the Father (who we know is Spirit) we would see Gods Spirit. So to our limited understaning we see God, and yet knowing at the same time, that nobody could EVER come to know ALL of God even though He is simply ONE. That would be impossible for us to achieve, but we CAN know His spirit, and that is what He wants us to come to know, and come to love, and this is revealed to us in full by Jesus Christ.


May the glory of God fill your heart !

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I think I've said everything I have to say in this thread. I've posted article after article on this board refuting the Trinity doctrine, and there are more where that came from on my website. I'm not going to start going in circles.