Muhammed (pbuh) In The Bible - Fact or Fiction??

by Muslim 24 Replies latest jw experiences

Muslim

Why don't you all stop beating around the bush and do what is expected of you JW's. ; At least have the decentcy of having a objetive read, and then go on to present a counter argument.
So shall I take that MUhammed was foretold in the Bible? ; Or are you going to deny that? ; 
1) - "This ain't no place to peddle your religion. (2) - Even though I accept Muhammed as God's Prophet, this ain't the place to carry on."
1) - ; Thanks ;Allah you ;Jw's have realised that you should not preach in ; any where. ; I mean the most anoying christian sect has to be the Jw's.<IMG class=smilie src=" "> ; ;I ;mean ; ;"Knock, KNock,<IMG class=smilie src=" "> Hello Sir,<IMG class=smilie src=" "> Are you interested in reading our leflets,<IMG class=smilie src=" "> ;here is the ;Copy of ;"Awake", ; I think this will go well with the this ;magzine, ; ;try this "WatchTower" mag also. ; If ;you are interested in a ;Bible ;studey we can arrange it for you. ;<IMG class=smilie src=" ">"
Have you ever seeen a muslim doing this?<IMG class=smilie src=" "> ; Oh you will have the answer, "We do this cause we love the MUslims, ; it is out of love for the mankind that we preach gods words, so that we can bring the Kingdom of god on earth." ; Yeah, I have heard that too. ; NOw when a muslim posts a message on the net you are begging to get the worms in your brain. ; How does it feel! ;<IMG class=smilie src=" "> 
Oh wait a moment!<IMG class=smilie src=" "> Whats this! ; He is a beleiver in Islam, so when are you going to stop ;feeding on the 2 thousand year old blood of Christ, I mean it would have taste rotten now. Yak!<IMG class=smilie src=" "> ; Like Jesus said, ; "take up your cross and fallow me" ; It means take you responsibilty your self, like this verse puts it clearly "Father shall not bear the wrong doing of the son nor the son shall bear the wrong doings of the father. Wickedness of the wicked is on him and the righteousnes on the righteous, But if the wicked shall repent and do what is lawfull and right he shall surely live he shallk not die." ; It is clear that you have to bear your own burden, and repent of your sins and you shall not go to hell, but heaven. ; So stop feeding on the two thousand blood of Christ, start feeding on your own. ; It is the time that you have recited the onfession of the Islamic faith.
"One major thing, is that Muslim women are given no privileges and are treated as possessions. ; I don't care how good a man treats me, I could not live that way. ; It's way too subsurviant and demeaning."
First of all you are very misinformed about the islamic treatment of women. This is a wast subject which needs alot of ;time. ; I think "one to one" ;would be an appropirate start for such a misunderstood subject. ; Here is My email address: <A href="mailto: [email protected]"> [email protected]</A> conact me and we can have chat on Msn Messenger.
"Perhaps the major problem of Muhammedanism (puh!) is that they fail to have a real understanding of Jesus (puh!) and the essence of Christianity (puh!), but in stead stick to a strange, superfluous critisism or streams of words about - as some here stated - this well-hidden majority of true scholars, who have converted because of their understanding of what the other uninformed scholars have somehow failed to see thru the centuries."
Listen Buddie, ; I understand the essene of Christianty better then most Christians do, and if in doubt, try me out. ; ; ; You said "... but instead stick to a strange, superflous criticism or streams of words about .." ; What makes you think that the post was a "superflous criticism" ; you have not given me any evidence which proves so. ; ; I will ; be waiting to analyze if your claim is valid, so do post a response.
CoolBreeze

Dude ... your HTML coding sucks. I didn't know that John Walker Lindh had internet access.
Anton
NeonMadman

It does seem odd to me that you are attempting to use the Bible to support Muhammad as God's true prophet, when many of Muhammad's teachings contradict the most basic teachings of the Bible, e.g., that Jesus was the Son of God. You don't get to use the Bible when it supports your case and ignore it when it doesn't; that's not a reasonable way to argue your point. Most of us here have already been in a religion that does that.
goatlike

muslim, where would you suggest an infidel go to learn more about your ideas? are there any online resources?
Muslim

In the name of God,
Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher,
Who created-Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-
He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-taught man that which he knew not.
(From the Holy Quran, Surah 96:1-6, Al-Alaq)
"It does seem odd to me that you are attempting to use the Bible to support Muhammad as God's true prophet, when many of Muhammad's teachings contradict the most basic teachings of the Bible, ..."
I am really really sorry if you feel this way. Please do forgive me cause i was under the mistaken beleife that Chritians use the Quran to forward there arguments about Christianty. I am reffering to the JW's booklet "The Guiddance Of God, Our Way to Paradise." There is plenty of argumetns fro that booklet which are based on the total mutalation of the Quranic verses, all quoted out of there context, to prove that Christianty is the truth and Quran supports the Bible. You do get to use the Quran when it supports your case and ignore it when it doesn't; that's not a reasonable way to argue your point. No muslim will ever say to you that everything in the bible is false, we ay that there is the truth in it, but aslo ther is some things which should not have been there at all.
"... e.g., that Jesus was the Son of God. You don't get to use the Bible when it supports your case and ignore it when it doesn't; that's not a reasonable way to argue your point. Most of us here have already been in a religion that does that."
With regards to term "the Son of God" What doe it mean? Does it mean that God Almighty had a sexual encounter with Mary to beget Jesus, or does it mean that God created Jesus with a miracle?
Christian use the term "the Only Begotten Son of God". What do you mean by the statement? If I say David is "the Only Begotten Son of Ali" how would you understand this? I am sure that you will understand it to mean that Ali have performed a sexual act to get the only begotten son, David. So when the Christian say "the only begotten Son of God" that means God performed a sexual act with Marry to have his only begotten, Jesus. Which is blasphemy against God.
Jehovahs Witnesses in one of their publication "The guidance of God. Our Way to Paradise". Give their account of belief in "Son of God", the author of that booklet trys to persuade the Muslims that the term "Son of God" is to be understood figuratively not literally. I have no problem accepting this, but the Bible passage ("the Only Begotten Son of God") in question does not agree with the figurative meaning, it imposes the literal meaning of the Christian perspective.
So what does this term really mean? To answer these questions we will have to analyze the entire Bible and see if we can arrive at a different understanding of this phrase "Son-of-God". The term Son-Of-God can have various meanings, but the one understood by the Christians is in the Context of this phrase "the only begotten Son-of-God". If I am correct then it was Saint Jerome who is the first person to use the term "Only begotten Son-of-God" in his translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Greek. And since then this term has become a standard expression in every Christians Doctrine. The Greek term for "Begotten" in the ancient Greek is "gennao {ghen-nah-o} as found in Matthew 1:2. In verses under consideration, the word used is not "gennao", instead "monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace}. It is a Greek word which conveys the meaning "Unique" and not "begotten". Thus the correct meaning would be that Jesus the "Unique Son". Meaning that he is the only one of that kind, and every Christian knows that birth of Jesus was a result of a miracle performed by God. There are any Biblical passages in which different people have been reffered has the sons of God. Jesus refferes to the jews has sons of God in response to the criticism made by them: You are man and claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus responds to the saying that "does it not say in the law that you are the sons of God?" This term son of God also is used in the Qumran community to mean a godly person, a righteous person. Let me give you another exact opposite to this, "Bin Ladin the Son of Satan", you would agree that he is not the son of Satan just like jesus is not the son of God, it means that Bin Ladin is a evil person, he has the charateristics of Satan, causing pain, grief, to people, and in the sae way Jesus is Son of God to mean a good person.
Many Christians still will insist that Jesus is the only literal Son of God, yet the bible does not support such beliefs. So here is a short introduction to SONS OF GOD: The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to God. (a) 'Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38 (b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose. ". . When the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4 (c) ". Thus- saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22 (d) ". And Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN," JEREMIAH 31:9 (e) ". Thou (o David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God) BEGOTTEN thee. " PSALMS 2:7 (TONS A ton is 2000 lbs. weight, that is about a thousand kilograms.) ("FIRST BORN:" How can there be two "firstborns"?) ("BEGOTTEN" How can God beget David at the age of forty? "This day'?) (f) "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS OF GOD. ' ROMANS 8:14
Finally the conclusion we arrive is that the term Son-of-God is to be understood figuratively and not literally, has it I understood by many Christians. But because th Bible was edited by the early Christians sects, to support their faith, which is still in full practice. The real meanig of the words are lost and instead hellanistic doctrines have been added in the Bible. JW's have the correct beleif but that this term "only begotten Son of God " is the a difficult phrase which no Witness an explain, and even if he manages to riggle out of this by saying that this phrase was an interpolation into the wrod of God (Bible), he still has to wrestle with, the argument, if this phrase is a interpolation then, God has not preserved the Bible fro erorr, contordicting many known passages of the bible.
Like the Verse which explains the Trinity "father, son, holy Spirit ... these three are one" know has been discarded by Jw's has a fabrication, which was not the word of God. But why would god Allow the bible to be changed if he promised that it wil not be chagnee! YOu Christians wrestle wiht this problem, itnot y problem.
"They say: "God hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is self- sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Say ye about God what ye know not? Say: "Those who invent a lie against God will never prosper." A little enjoyment in this world! - And then, to us will be their return, then shall we make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies."
I leave it to you to decide the truth.
Peace!
Muslim

"muslim, where would you suggest an infidel go to learn more about your ideas? are there any online resources?"
That would be: http://groups.msn.com/IslamChristianty thats my community.
www.islamic-awareness.org
www.beconvinced.com
www.sultan.org
All are a must visit.
NeonMadman

i was under the mistaken beleife that Chritians use the Quran to forward there arguments about Christianty. I am reffering to the JW's booklet "The Guiddance Of God, Our Way to Paradise." There is plenty of argumetns fro that booklet which are based on the total mutalation of the Quranic verses, all quoted out of there context, to prove that Christianty is the truth and Quran supports the Bible

I don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians in the truest sense; they are a deviant cult of Christianity that does not represent what the majority of Christians believe or practice. Surely you would not argue that the fanatics who attacked the World Trade Center are representative of all Muslims? Neither are JW's representative of all Christians.
If you are not already aware of it, you should know that the majority of posters on this forum are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but have left that group because of its unscriptural and dishonest practices. The Guidance of God booklet that you cite is a booklet that the JW's have developed for the specific purpose of converting Muslims to their religion. The Quran is cited in it for the purpose of making the message more attractive to Muslims. Even the JW's do not use the Quran in their regular teaching, and it is not cited in any of their literature, except that which is directly aimed at Muslims or is discussing Islam.
And as far as their taking the Quran out of context, well, don't feel too bad about that. They do the same thing with the Bible. That's how they arrive at most of their twisted doctrines.
Christian use the term "the Only Begotten Son of God". What do you mean by the statement? If I say David is "the Only Begotten Son of Ali" how would you understand this? I am sure that you will understand it to mean that Ali have performed a sexual act to get the only begotten son, David. So when the Christian say "the only begotten Son of God" that means God performed a sexual act with Marry to have his only begotten, Jesus. Which is blasphemy against God.
I agree; that would be a blasphemous statement, if that was what was meant by the term "only begotten." The term used in Greek that is translated as "only begotten" is monogenes, and most translators are in agreement that it essentially means "one of a kind" in its reference to Christ in the Bible. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, 1985 ed. p. 447, says: "We can only rightly understand the term 'the only begotten' when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. 'The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood.'" So, as you recognize in your own later comments, Christians do not understand the term "only begotten" in the way you here suggest.
Many Christians still will insist that Jesus is the only literal Son of God, yet the bible does not support such beliefs
I don't know that I agree with your premise, depending on how you mean "literal Son". I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the sense of God having relations with a woman to produce him, and I don't know any Christians who do. As I pointed out above (and as your own comments on the term monogenes confirm), Jesus is the only begotten (= unique) Son of God, different from all others who are called sons of God, as many are in the Bible. But Jesus is the Son in an eternal sense. Jesus, Christians believe, was the incarnation of God's eternal Son, who had existed from eternity. All others who are called sons of God in the Bible are sons by adoption. (Romans 8:14-16) Adam, of course, was a son of God in yet another sense, by way of having been directly created by God.
Finally the conclusion we arrive is that the term Son-of-God is to be understood figuratively and not literally, has it I understood by many Christians.
I think that I have indicated that the term is understood "figuratively". Really, you have set up a "straw man" in claiming that Christians believe that God had relations with a woman to produce Jesus. To claim that to be what Christians believe, and then to knock down the argument using the same reasonings offered by orthodox Christian scholarship really proves nothing. It is as if I claimed that Islam teaches that we are to worship Satan, then proved that it is wrong to worship Satan, and in so proving, claimed to have debunked Islam as a true religion. I cannot disprove Islam by debunking a teaching that Muslims do not hold. You can't disprove Christianity in that way either.
But because th Bible was edited by the early Christians sects, to support their faith, which is still in full practice. The real meanig of the words are lost and instead hellanistic doctrines have been added in the Bible.
I would deny those accusations. Nothing in the material you offer gives evidence that they are true, and they would need to be proven to have any weight. And, frankly, I would question evidence from Muslim sources, which would obviously have a vested interest in disproving the Bible. So you would need to provide reasonable corroboration of those statements from an independent source. Personally, I don't think you can.
JW's have the correct beleif but that this term "only begotten Son of God " is the a difficult phrase which no Witness an explain, and even if he manages to riggle out of this by saying that this phrase was an interpolation into the wrod of God (Bible), he still has to wrestle with, the argument, if this phrase is a interpolation then, God has not preserved the Bible fro erorr, contordicting many known passages of the bible.

Like the Verse which explains the Trinity "father, son, holy Spirit ... these three are one" know has been discarded by Jw's has a fabrication, which was not the word of God. But why would god Allow the bible to be changed if he promised that it wil not be chagnee! YOu Christians wrestle wiht this problem, itnot y problem.
As I pointed out above, JW's do not have the correct belief on this issue. They are a deviant sect, and their teachings are not representative of any accepted form of Christianity. There are no writings of early Christians, even in post-apostolic times that agree with the doctrines taught by JW's today. So the fact that their position on many matters is easily disproved should not be taken as an indication that Biblical Christianity is deficient.
As far as mistranslations, interpolations, etc. within the text of Bible translations, I don't see where God promised that such things would not occur. He never said that no scribe would accidentally (or even deliberately) alter the text in copying the scripture. The JW's have a "translation" of the Bible in which they have altered the text of key scriptures to fit their doctrines. The Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists have their own twisted versions, too. In this computer age, it would be a simple matter for me to import the Bible text into my word processor, and change it to make it say anything I want it to. God never promised that these things wouldn't happen. But that does not make the Bible as a whole any less reliable if it's translated with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
It's true that the King James Version of the Bible has the inserted words about the "Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit," in 1 John 5:7. It's also true that there is plenty of textual evidence that has led scholars - even Trinitarian scholars - to conclude that these words do not belong in the Bible. God has seen to it that thousands of manuscript copies have survived, so that scholars can compare and contrast between all the copies and arrive at a highly accurate understanding of what the original writers had written. The text of the Bible continues to be refined by various translators, and we can arrive at a better understanding of it now than at any previous time in history. For those who will handle the Word of God honestly, it is entirely possible to know the truths it contains. And, I might point out that the central message of the Bible - the truth that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day - shines through in every version, even the perverted New World Translation of the JW's. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) God's message to mankind is quite intact in today's Bible versions.
Muslim

Here is a debate between me and a Christian, earlier on the subject of Trinity. It as all the response to your messages, Some may be irrelevent but 99 % is relate to what you have wrote. Read it carefully, it pretty much covers all the aspets ogf your respone.
" 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."
(Surah 4:171)

" The following are taken from two messages I posted on different forums in the past with some minor corrections. It should give enough material to discuss our understanding of what Trinity is, and why it is a believe in One God, and not three gods. "
I will explain to you why you should believe in three gods, god the Father, god the Son, god the Holy Spirit.
"(1
) All Christians believe that Jesus was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. they also believe that although Jesus has two natures (divine and human),(2) He is one Divine Person. Since this one Person was born of Mary, (3) she fully is the Mother of the one Divine Person: in short, the Mother of God."
1)
All Muslims believe that Jesus was born of Mary, we believe in his miraculous birth with the modern day Anglican Churches don't. Any one who claims Islam has religion, if he does not believe in Jesus, he is not Muslim. And you will not need a scholar to tell you that.
2) Do you know what the word person means, and the nature of a "person"? A person is limited by its nature; even the Prophets were limited. God approved every action before it happened. You claim that Jesus was "Divine" and "Human". But if he was "Divine" them he was not "Human". The logic says, person can not be "Unlimited" and then "Limited". He can only be one, either limited or Unlimited but not at the same time. When Jesus was on earth, he was in human form, o he was limited, he says "Call no man
on earth, your Father, the Father is in heaven." When Jesus said this phrase, he was in the form of man, so he can not be the Father.
3) I thought Christian concept of God was
that he is not born he is Alpha & Omega, First & Last, yet god was born, and his mother was Mary. That' blasphemy against God and his Mightiness. The Birth of Jesus is in the further support that Jesus was a normal Human being, and not divines in any way, other then his title of Prophet. And according to the every Christian sect man has inherited the "Original Sin", and every child born has inherited this stain of imperfection, so according to this belief Jesus also inherited the same curse that every other human has inherited. So according to you God died for sin of the mankind, but who will die for his sin?
"The problem is, that most Christians have a hazy idea of what Trinity really means. Most Christians asked to explain Trinity would not have a clue, where to start. It is not important for our salvation that we can explain everything as long as the basis is right, salvation by faith in Jesus alone."

So you are saying that has long has you have faith in Jesus and his Cruci-fiction, Death, Resurrection, you have the salvation. You have the free license to rape, murder, steal, and verbally abuse, anyone you like, and you are not responsible for it. Cause according to your belief Jesus has paid for every bodys sins; we only have to except his resurrection to save our self from the hellfire.
Just another point, Christians claim that the Son-of-God died on the cross, but don' you think that is a bit edgy when you consider the verse "these three are one". Which means that Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in number. So who died on the cross was it the Father, Son, or the Holy Spirit? Or was it that God was dead altogether. Explain to me how can God die, and if He had died who bought him back to life? Or was God not dead at all He was just pretending presence of the Jewish and Roman crowd that He has died. And if he was pretending, then God has deceived all the Christiandom.

"The bible makes a clear distinction between Jesus the Son of God, Jesus the Man and God. God cannot be divided, He is not three, but one. If you say, that Mary is God's Mother, than you say that God has a beginning, and for that matter, an end. He becomes a creation. Even to say, that Mary mothered God would be wrong, as this implies that God had to learn making Him imperfect, but God is perfect."
The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the
Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm )
Impossibility upon impossibility, irregularity upon irregularity, I will summarize the above to see if I can get a penny out of the penniless man.
in
the unity of the Godhead Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Three Persons being truly distinct one from another "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." the Son is begotten of the Father the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.
Father
Son
Holy Spirit.
Co-eternal
Co-eternal
Co-eternal
Co-equal
Co-equal
Co-equal
Uncreated
Uncreated
Uncreated
Omnipotent.
Omnipotent.
Omnipotent.
God
God
God
From the above data produced by the Catholic Encyclopedia I have faithfully have attempted to draw the above chart accurately has possible. I will carry out certain checks to verify the soundness of it. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the Son is begotten of the Father", at this very moment of this discussion it is not relevant to scrutinize the terminology used in this passage, nor I am interested in to find out what it exactly means. It is irrelevant what it means, but the importance in here is laid on the fact that "the Son is begotten of the father", which means at some point God Almighty decided to beget Jesus, doesnt matter how? He was begotten, but if we look in the chart we get a different picture altogether.According to the chart above the Son is "Uncreated" just like the rest two, this inconsistency is rather obvious. Therefore it is in directly in conflict with that "the Son is begotten of the father", cause this means that at some stage Jesus did not exist, and he was somehow bought to existence through the act of "begetting".
Now looking at from a different perspective will further shed more light on this blasphemous Tri-unity, and will help to expose such a dubious doctrine ever attributed to the God Al-mighty. According to the above chart, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same attributes with each other, Co-equal, Co- eternal, Uncreated, Omnipotent, so why is one called the Father? And the other Son-of-god yet he was always there with the father, Son was "Uncreated", or at least that is the belief, and the same applies to the Holy Spirit.
It is mentioned that these three are, "Three Persons being truly distinct one from another" in their physical nature, therefore is it not fair to conclude that Christians believe in three gods while categorically stating that they believe in one God. These three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share same attributes has one another, but are still distinct in their out look. Suppose there are three twins, Tom, Dick, and Harry, they all share absolutely similar characteristics, there is no difference in there behavior or anything else, except that they all look different then each other. What would you say, they all are one or will you judge them individually, believing in three different people then in one. Common sense tells us even though these three, Tom, Dick, Harry, are similar in their characteristics but they still are different human being. If we apply the same analogy to the members of Trinity it is in perfectly valid, which leads us to believe that Christians believe in THREE GODS and not in the existence of one God.
By analyzing the chart with the Biblical teaching more inconsistencies in the Doctrine of Trinity can be observed. Which further can help us to realize the irrational of this Doctrine. I will only include a few examples to put forward my evidence in refutation or your claims. The Doctrine of Trinity teaches that all three, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are Co-equal, Co-eternal, Uncreated and Omnipotent, but I found a lot of evidence which is in conflict with this belief held by Christians.
For instance in the Gospel of John chapter fourteen verse twenty-eight (John 14:28), Jesus say " I go to the Father; for the father is greater than I." This verse unequivocally refutes the claim that the Son (Jesus) is in the same rank has God.
And you might want to argue that in this verse the word greater doe not necessarily mean being greater or better in authority or status. Then please take notice of John, chapter thirteen, verse sixteen, (John 13:16) where Jesus said "I tell you the truth, no servant is I greater that his Master nor is a Messenger greater then the one who sent him." In the Gospel of John Jesus confirms that he has been sent by the God Al-Mighty so that the Jews may believe in the only one true God. John Chapter 17 verse 3 state this belief in an explicit manner " And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent."
It is clear from this that Jesus did not believe in his equal-ness to God. He merely believed that he was a messenger of God, who by his own admission he is inferior to the Mighty-ness of God. The church has forced the Doctrine of Trinity on Jesus and he is clearly not in favor of this Hellenistic Doctrine.
"Jesus, the man, on the other hand had to learn obedience through the things he suffered and was perfected (Heb 5/8). Why do you think, that his name is called Emmanuel, God with us? Why was his name not Jehova? The reason is simple, Jehova is the name of God, Immanuel the name of the Son of God. If you try to divide the trinity in three separate distinct persons, you don't have trinity anymore, but tritheism."
According to my knowledge of the Bible only place Jesus is referred to has Emmanuel is when the angle of the Lord visits Mary to give her the good news of the birth of Jesus; there the angle states that "he shall be called Emmanuel". But there is no other place in the Bible with which Jesus is referred has "Emmanuel". Therefore I doubt in the incident taking place, cause not even once he has been referred has such has the angle of the Lord Prophesied.
The Quran, Chapter Al-Imran verse forty-five (3:45) states the truth concerning the name of Jesus: "Behold! The angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
The phrase in Arabic which denote this meaning are "Iss-mu hul maseeh-hu Isa", has far has my knowledge of the Arabic goes the word "Iss-mu" denotes the meanings, "name" and has "title". And in this verse the both meaning are perfectly valid because of the name, Jesus, and the title of Jesus, the Christ. Where has the Bible is in error when it states that Jesus will be called Emmanuel.
5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did. [5.15] O followers of the Book! Indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; [5.16] With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path. [5.17] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things, [5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming. [5.19] O followers of the Book! Indeed Our Apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) apostles, lest you say. There came not to us a giver of good news or a Warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a Warner. And Allah has power over all things."
M.s.ali
Muslim

Part Two:
From the above data produced by the Catholic Encyclopedia I have faithfully have attempted to draw the above chart accurately has possible. I will carry out certain checks to verify the soundness of it. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the Son is begotten of the Father", at this very moment of this discussion it is not relevant to scrutinize the terminology used in this passage, nor I am interested in to find out what it exactly means. It is irrelevant what it means, but the importance in here is laid on the fact that "the Son is begotten of the father", which means at some point God Almighty decided to beget Jesus, doesnt matter how? He was begotten, but if we look in the chart we get a different picture altogether.According to the chart above the Son is "Uncreated" just like the rest two, this inconsistency is rather obvious. Therefore it is in directly in conflict with that "the Son is begotten of the father", cause this means that at some stage Jesus did not exist, and he was somehow bought to existence through the act of "begetting".
Now looking at from a different perspective will further shed more light on this blasphemous Tri-unity, and will help to expose such a dubious doctrine ever attributed to the God Al-mighty. According to the above chart, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same attributes with each other, Co-equal, Co- eternal, Uncreated, Omnipotent, so why is one called the Father? And the other Son-of-god yet he was always there with the father, Son was "Uncreated", or at least that is the belief, and the same applies to the Holy Spirit.
It is mentioned that these three are, "Three Persons being truly distinct one from another" in their physical nature, therefore is it not fair to conclude that Christians believe in three gods while categorically stating that they believe in one God. These three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share same attributes has one another, but are still distinct in their out look. Suppose there are three twins, Tom, Dick, and Harry, they all share absolutely similar characteristics, there is no difference in there behavior or anything else, except that they all look different then each other. What would you say, they all are one or will you judge them individually, believing in three different people then in one. Common sense tells us even though these three, Tom, Dick, Harry, are similar in their characteristics but they still are different human being. If we apply the same analogy to the members of Trinity it is in perfectly valid, which leads us to believe that Christians believe in THREE GODS and not in the existence of one God.
By analyzing the chart with the Biblical teaching more inconsistencies in the Doctrine of Trinity can be observed. Which further can help us to realize the irrational of this Doctrine. I will only include a few examples to put forward my evidence in refutation or your claims. The Doctrine of Trinity teaches that all three, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are Co-equal, Co-eternal, Uncreated and Omnipotent, but I found a lot of evidence which is in conflict with this belief held by Christians.
For instance in the Gospel of John chapter fourteen verse twenty-eight (John 14:28), Jesus say " I go to the Father; for the father is greater than I." This verse unequivocally refutes the claim that the Son (Jesus) is in the same rank has God.
And you might want to argue that in this verse the word greater doe not necessarily mean being greater or better in authority or status. Then please take notice of John, chapter thirteen, verse sixteen, (John 13:16) where Jesus said "I tell you the truth, no servant is I greater that his Master nor is a Messenger greater then the one who sent him." In the Gospel of John Jesus confirms that he has been sent by the God Al-Mighty so that the Jews may believe in the only one true God. John Chapter 17 verse 3 state this belief in an explicit manner " And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent."
It is clear from this that Jesus did not believe in his equal-ness to God. He merely believed that he was a messenger of God, who by his own admission he is inferior to the Mighty-ness of God. The church has forced the Doctrine of Trinity on Jesus and he is clearly not in favor of this Hellenistic Doctrine.
"Jesus, the man, on the other hand had to learn obedience through the things he suffered and was perfected (Heb 5/8). Why do you think, that his name is called Emmanuel, God with us? Why was his name not Jehova? The reason is simple, Jehova is the name of God, Immanuel the name of the Son of God. If you try to divide the trinity in three separate distinct persons, you don't have trinity anymore, but tritheism."

According to my knowledge of the Bible only place Jesus is referred to has Emmanuel is when the angle of the Lord visits Mary to give her the good news of the birth of Jesus; there the angle states that "he shall be called Emmanuel". But there is no other place in the Bible with which Jesus is referred has "Emmanuel". Therefore I doubt in the incident taking place, cause not even once he has been referred has such has the angle of the Lord Prophesied.

The Quran, Chapter Al-Imran verse forty-five (3:45) states the truth concerning the name of Jesus:
"Behold! The angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
The phrase in Arabic which denote this meaning are "Iss-mu hul maseeh-hu Isa", has far has my knowledge of the Arabic goes the word "Iss-mu" denotes the meanings, "name" and has "title". And in this verse the both meaning are perfectly valid because of the name, Jesus, and the title of Jesus, the Christ. Where has the Bible is in error when it states that Jesus will be called Emmanuel.
"5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did. [5.15] O followers of the Book! Indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; [5.16] With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path. [5.17] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things, [5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming. [5.19] O followers of the Book! Indeed Our Apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) apostles, lest you say. There came not to us a giver of good news or a Warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a Warner. And Allah has power over all things."
Was-salam
NeonMadman

I will explain to you why you should believe in three gods, god the Father, god the Son, god the Holy Spirit.

Why? Why would you want to do that? Again, you are taking a "straw man" approach to this issue. Rather than attempt to deal with what Christians actually believe - because you cannot - you set up a "straw man" in the form of a teaching that Christians do not believe, because it is easier for you to knock down than the real thing. Christians don't believe in three gods; there is no point in trying to convince us that we do, just so that you can disprove it.
So, you can conclusively go on to prove that there are not three gods, but one God, and you may have made your point, but you haven't told the Christian anything he did not already know.
Most Christians believe that there is one God, who manifests Himself in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is considered to be the "orthodox" teaching among Christians about the nature of God. Now you can argue, just as do the JW's, that it's illogical that 1+1+1=3, not 1, "Tom, Dick and Harry," and, frankly, we've heard it all before. The Trinity is an antimony of scripture; a seeming contradiction that must be accepted by faith. Why would we expect that the infinite God would be fully comprehensible to finite human minds?
For instance in the Gospel of John chapter fourteen verse twenty-eight (John 14:28), Jesus say " I go to the Father; for the father is greater than I." This verse unequivocally refutes the claim that the Son (Jesus) is in the same rank has God.
Obviously, you've been reading a lot of JW literature. The simple answer to that question is that when he said it, Jesus was lesser than the father. Philippians 2:5-7 tells us that Jesus had divested himself of Heavenly power and glory and made himself a human - lower even than the angels - while he was on earth as a man. (also see Hebrews 2:9) JW's and other anti-trinitarians love to take the scriptures that refer to Jesus' human nature and twist them to apply to Jesus after his exaltation. It doesn't work. Philippians 2 goes on to tell us that God exalted Jesus to "the highest place" and gave him the "the name that is above every name," even above the name of Jehovah (Yahweh) or, for that matter, of Allah.
According to my knowledge of the Bible only place Jesus is referred to has Emmanuel is when the angle of the Lord visits Mary to give her the good news of the birth of Jesus; there the angle states that "he shall be called Emmanuel". But there is no other place in the Bible with which Jesus is referred has "Emmanuel". Therefore I doubt in the incident taking place, cause not even once he has been referred has such has the angle of the Lord Prophesied.
That's a reprehensible way to use scripture, in my opinion. You argue your points from the Bible at length for several paragraphs, then, when you are presented with a scripture that utterly destroys your argument, you dismiss it with a wave of your hand, and say you doubt the events it records ever happened. If the Bible is that unreliable, why do you refer to it at all? It would be just as logical for me to say that Islam cannot be of God, because I doubt there ever was such a person as Muhammad.
I suspect from reading what you have written that you have not studied very much in the way of orthodox, evangelical writings. It looks to me as if you are getting all your ideas about Christianity from the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you will not get an accurate picture of things from them. I'd suggest getting a good translation of the Bible (not the New World Translation, which has been altered to fit JW doctrine) and start reading it. Start with the books of John and Romans. At least then, you'll be getting an accurate picture of what real Christians believe, and not the twisted version presented by a cult.

Father	Son	Holy Spirit.
Co-eternal	Co-eternal	Co-eternal
Co-equal	Co-equal	Co-equal
Uncreated	Uncreated	Uncreated
Omnipotent.	Omnipotent.	Omnipotent.
God

Muhammed (pbuh) In The Bible - Fact or Fiction??

Share this