Brother this was the last response to your message I will not be responding to any further messages of yours. But I urge you to post a response to my this message so i an atleast read it. If you are interested in a further dialouge then please join this community and I will be happy to disscuss wiht you the Islamic beleifs and hopefully I will be able to answer any of your questions regarding Islam.
I know exactly what it means. Instead of responding to the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that there are three Persons through Whom the One God manifests Himself, you attempt first to convince Christians that we believe there are really three gods, because that is easier for you to disprove.
AAA: Do you ever think that if I can disprove Trinity, which you agree is easier for me, then there is fault in the doctrine, and there is not fault in my aproach to understanding, let me give you a example.
16 + 16 adds to 32, is that the only way to get this answer? NO ofcoure not
8 x 4 4 x 8 and so on make add up to thirtytwo, You can use different numbers to get the same answer ,32. I am doing the same with the bible, I am using different verses and putting them in one big blender and the answer comes out "1 god, in the form of three beings, all equall in everything, son is dependant on the father, son was created by the father, Holy Spirit was to come after Jesus left the world, the holy spirit was in the world before Jesus (it came to overshadow Mary), and so on ...
"Think of it this way: Could a king take off his crown, put on rags, and leave his castle to mingle with the common people? Could he not stand on the street corner and beg for alms if he chose to do so? If he did that, would he not be a beggar? Would his doing that mean that he was no longer the king? Of course not! He would still be the king, because at any time, he could return to the palace, place his crown back onto his head, and sit on his throne."
and from this philosophical exposation i have learnt this: Son was God on the even on earth, son was god on earth but god went to eat the figs from the fig tree out of season.
You are making a mokery of God, I know you are sincere in your beleif but your sincerety is in vain. "Say: God is one. He beggets not (a son), nor he was beggotten, the enternal, absolute. NOne is equal onto Him (God)."
That is a "straw man". You set it up because it's easier to knock down than a real man (metaphorically, that is).
Well if I can set it up then that is not my fault, then there is a fault with your bible, and not my approach. You can try the same wiht the Quran and see if you can do the same with the Quran.
Go on tell Boxer Prince Naseem Ahmed that he is using the straw man tactic when he jabs his oppennant on the face and his apponannet is spining on the spot and then he knocks his oppanent out with the left hook, tell him that is not fair.
Are you serious? You really need me to furnish you with scriptures showing that there is one God? And if I prove it, will you believe it? OK, I'll bite. How about these?
YEah I am really serious, I never joke.
Deut. 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Isa 44:6 - This is what the LORD says- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
( Being Sarcastic) Vow! How did I miss these two passages, I can't beleive it, I never read the in the New Testament, so they must be from Old Testament. Yeah they are from the Old Testament, thats what my bible says, your could be different (Sarcastic Mode End).
Yeah that is from the Jewish Monotheistic beleif, no where in the Old Testament the "three in one" is found. Jews always beleived in One (Ikhad) God not three persons revealed one god. It was the Chritians who made this new hellish doctrine of trinity. Jewish monotheism is different then the Christian Monotheism. YOu are quoting the Jewish bible to support you claim, and you would agree that your dotrine is of God is not the same has Jewish dotrine one God. Therefore it is clear that when you use the Old Testament to prove that God is one, you must beleive in there doctrine of God (Absolute One God). But I wanted the refference from the Christian Bible, the New Testament. Which You have done so, but lets see if it stand the scrutney.
1 Cor. 8:6 - Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Well yeah it does teachg that God is One and not three in one. But here Paul's empathesi is not on the dotrine of Trinity nor about on the nature of God. If you read this whole chapter, you will realise that Paul was infact responding to a question asked to him by someone, about the eating of meat which has been sacrified to the Idols. Therefore Pauls arguments are not in theoon the fundametlas of Christianty he is only trying to reason, that: "
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. " So I don't think this verse fully expalians the Christian dotrine, there are alot more verses that have to be ombined to get some idean what the Chritians beleive in. For example the verse "Father ... Son ... Holy Spirit are One." explains in detail how the one God is made, but Corinthians only state that God is One. So this is not good enough brother, read
AAA, for a better understanding.
The straw man returns. What arguments have you presented to demonstrate that I believe in three gods? What arguments have you presented to demonstrate that the Bible teaches there are three gods? I have shown clearly above that the Bible teaches no such thing. I can't refute arguments that you have not made.
Ooops! I think you have lost it, mate. See a doctor, this heathen Muslim has made you mad, Muslim is the agent of the Devil, he is here to lead you astray. Thats the funny side of me. But here is what I have posted on the same thread on "page 1". I don't think you have read it. Now refute it with evindence point by point. Like mine.
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. "A1"
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.
"See if you agree with this (everything is its right order, literal meaning, nothing figarutive) : At the beggining there was only a monkey, he ate to many bananas, and became pregnant, then the banana gave birth to the monkey. There was only one monkey. The monkey had hair, but no hair at all, it was hairy, hairless monkey. On the fouteenth day of creation the monkey died, and the monkey rose on the third of creation. And after the monkey rose from the dead it creatted the first day called it the first day of the week."
"But, seriously, you are being absurd. I don't accept your "creation story" because you are not, in my opinion, a credible source. The Bible is, in my opinion, a credible source. Your story cannot be substantiated by the Bible, and the Trinity can. That's why I believe in one and not the other. Do I really have to explain this to you? You strike me as being more intelligent than that."
Well I did expect this from you, cause this was a "set-up". You can not accept the story of Creation that you say is absurd, and yes it is, there is nothing more (exluding Trinity) absurd then this. In this same why your dotrine of trinity is also absurd which makes no sense at all (read: AAA"). and your beleif a n not be substantiated by the bible either. If you think you can then try it. I am willing to learn from you.
Who says that a preson is limited by its nature? That's a definition of the term that you have made up, and I don't accept that as a premise. You are trying to apply human reasoning to the nature of God, and I assure you, it is well beyond your capacity or mine to understand.
I say and every one will agree, thyat man is limited by it's nature. Let me explain this phrase. Do you know when you will die? What will you eat tomarrow? And how muh will you eat? where will you die? Can you walk trough the wall? Can you see through the wall? Was you Born? Where would you be in 20 years? What will you be doing at the same time ten years in the future? Did you get what I ment? Or do I need to write more?
Only reason I am applying the human reasoning two understand God i because bible uses the Human language when reffering to god. let me explain, I am a father, and I have a son, You know that I have to have sexual interoure with woman to have a son, and at the birth of son will make me father. We are father and son, Kamran is my son, but he is not me, he is not equale with me, he is 3 years old and i am 23 years old. But the Bible says the Father, son where there at the sametime none was created by the other (see Chart "A1"). That does not make sense. Does it! It is the Huaman language and only way to understand it humanly.
But the teaching of Christianity is that Jesus was both divine and human. This is another straw man tactic. You are trying to convince me that I actually believe something other than what I believe, because it's easier for you to knock down.
Let me tell you what the straw-man tactic is, it mean when a person claims something but is not williing to give evidence to prove his case. But I have given you the evidence all the way through:
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, so he was limited
It was somewhat like that with Jesus. He was God, but he divested Himself of Heavenly glory for a time, and assumed a body of flesh. In doing so, He became a man. But he never ceased to be God; he simply assumed a different role for a limited time. That is why He referred to Himself both as "Son of God" and "Son of Man."
Lets suppose you are a Car Engineer but you have changed your career to Police man you. Your police petrol car breaks down, and you are middle of a dessert. What will you do? Will you fix the Car, cause you still know how to fix the cars? Or will you pretend that you don't know how to fix cars, and sit shouting swearing, and then finally setting the car on fire cause it broke down (but you can fix).
I am sure that you will fix the car and you are not going to set the car on fire. Even if you do set the car on the fire u will be fooling yourself pretending that you are ignorant of fixing cars.
Now you said jesus ".... never ceased to be God; he simply assumed a different role for a limited time." So if he was god then he would have known that he is looking for the figs fro the fig tree out of season. The Gospell writer mark knew that Jesus was looking for the figs out of season, but God who created the four season didn't knew that he was looking for the figs out of season. And god was ignorant of the four seasons but he god does not realise his fault but curses the fig tree whih drys up immediatly.
I pray to Allah that you realise the truth.
| 16:10 | It is He who sends down rain from the sky: from it ye drink, and out of it (grows) the vegetation on which ye feed your cattle. |
| 16:11 | With it He produces for you corn, olives, date-palms, grapes and every kind of fruit: verily in this is a sign for those who give thought. |
And, yes, this is difficult to understand. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And, there is only one God. It seems illogical, but all these facts can be demonstrated from the Bible.
"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. Same attributes, different forms, equales three gods, and you agree that these three are gods but then bite on yout tonge and go further to state that thses three are one god.
And no one said that He was the Father. Jesus is the Son, but is no less God than the Father. Are you sure you're not a JW? Your method of argumentation is incredibly similar to theirs. Like a JW, you think that by proving that Jesus is not the Father, you have proven that He is not God. Sorry, it doesn't work.
I think you are suffering from a very serious form of ignorance. What makes you think that I am JW disgusied has a Muslim. I dont beleive in the Bible hs the word of God, I say it is the word of man, but I declare that "There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is the messenger of Allah." And I declare that the Quran is the Kalam Allah, Speach of Allah. My style might be same but I have not read any of there literature on the Trinitairain beleif. Please visit my site for a quick confirmation of my muslim bak ground: www. [email protected].
Why do you continue to ask me for proof of statements I have not made? I never said that Jesus was greater than His Father. I even conceded that while he was on earth, as a human, he was lesser than His Father. As I pointed out in a previous post, this is in harmony with scriptures found at Phillipians 2:5-7 and Hebrews 2:9. Here, I'll quote them for you:
V.S.
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.
LEt me remind you that Yahweh and Allah both mean God. I think you own me an appology.
Phillipians 2:5-7 - Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Hebrews 2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Jesus let me explain that Jesus claimed that he has ome to fullfill the Law and not to destroy it, but this kind of teaching are not to be found in the old testament at all.
Interestingly, paul is using rational arguments and none of his arguments are from any of the sriptures. BAre in mind that the Gospells of MArk, was written after the Pauls letters, this is established by the Christian and Orientalist scholars, so there was no way that paul ould have been using any of the four conical gospels Mark the first Gospll to be wrttien after pauls letter John, Metthew Luke. Pual has been natorius for using rcude logic to support his claims,most of his beleife are not supportted by any biblial evidence. These letters where no where to be considered has a revelation of God, they where written in response of questions made to him by oter fallowers of his. Please read "James the BRother of Jesus" by bruce metzger, he explains the real ontext of these verses and the letter of paul.
So Jesus "made himself nothing" by becoming a man, became "a little lower than angels," therefore certainly lesser than His Father. After His resurrection, He was glorified again by His Father and given "all authority in heaven and on earth." Could anyone, even the Father, have more authority than that?
Are you saying that JEsus is greater then the father?
Notice, too, that Jesus was worshiped by his disciples, something that would have been entirely inappropriate if He was not God.
Can you read the greek? it says tey praised him not worshiped him, meaning they said you are a good man, woderfull man you are, and etc:
The scripture that I was referring to in this exchange was the one cited in your material where Gabriel told Mary that her child would be called Emmanuel. As I understood it, this was taken from an exchange that you had with another Christian about the Trinity. Your response was that you didn't believe that such an event had occurred. I think it is quite dishonest of you to cite Bible text after Bible text in an effort to prove your point, but when you are presented with a text you cannot explain within your paradigm, you in effect claim that it is spurious. Either the Bible is useful for proving doctrine or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
First of all what makes you think that wrong and right can not be in one book, can goood and evil co-exist in this world? YEs they do exist in one world. I can not expalin the passages of the bible reffering to Emmanuel but is there any Christian who can? Please do explain to me what is to be undderstood of this? If anyone know better please do inform him/her that his/her help is required.
If you doub that I ever had a debate on this issue you will find it at: http://groups.msn.com/IslamChristianty/debateboard.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=4&LastModified=4675386701270443437
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.
Yes, the bible is unrelaible. But there is enough truth in the bible that I can prove Islamic arguments with out going to the Islamic sources. Just like the verse "father ... son. Holy Spirit these three are one" verse was found a forgery, in the same way there are other verses which should have not been in their.
Well, I know I've been accusing you of reasoning like a JW, but now I'm going to accuse you of reasoning like a Mormon instead. Mormons claim that the Bible is God's Word "insofar as it is translated correctly." So, whenever they are presented with a text that disagrees with their position, voila!
That becomes one of the texts that must not be translated correctly. You're doing the same thing by claiming that the Bible is unreliable, but contains some truth. You get to cite scriptures to prove your arguments, but when someone else responds with other texts that refute your arguments (such as Jesus being called Emmanuel), you get to dismiss them as being unreliable. It's a very convenient way to argue, but not a very honest one.
You have acused me of dishonesty more than twice, I think it is the time you are made to pay for this.
Where did I say "Bible is not translatted correctly? I said that Bible in its original Greek, Hebrew, Latin is still not relaible cause there are too much non-sense in there.With regard to te Emmanuel, no one has ever presented to me a deffene of this, I have been debating with thte missionaries for three years. And you an visit the site i suggested and read for your self the arguments in the defene of this. And if you find any with regard to this then pleaase let me know.
Personally, I use the NIV. But I have no problem with any that you mention except the NWT, which has been dishonestly altered to conform to JW doctrine. But why bother? You consider the Bible to be unreliable anyway. What point is there in studying it,
if that's how you feel? Really, instead of arguing the Trinity using Bible texts, you ought to be here demonstrating why you believe the Bible is unreliable and why you think that the Quran, by contrast, is reliable. That would make more sense to me as being an appropriate framework for your discussion.
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
I study the Bible to develop a clear understanding of the Quranic texts. quran denys the Trinity, but it also encourages to learn. I am doing what is commanded fo me from Allah, that is to learn and then procalim to others.
All the effort was to prove that Christian docrine is in onflit with the Bible, which automatily will prove that Bible is at fault, but you never realised that.
I rarely quot e the Quran has the refference book fro my argumetns cause you Christians do not beleive in it has I beleive. So rather is is irrelevent to for the Quranic teaching on the Bible.
| 19:16 | Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. |
| 19:17 | She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. |
| 19:18 | She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God." |
| 19:19 | He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. |
| 19:20 | She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" |
| 19:21 | He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed." |
| 19:22 | So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. |
| 19:23 | And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" |
| 19:24 | But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; |
| 19:25 | "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. |
| 19:26 | "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'" |
| 19:27 | At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! |
| 19:28 | "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" |
| 19:29 | But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" |
| 19:30 | He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; |
| 19:31 | "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; |
| 19:32 | "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; |
| 19:33 | "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! |
| 19:34 | Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. |
| 19:35 | It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. |
| 19:36 | Verily God is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. |
| 19:37 | But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! |
| 19:38 | How plainly will they see and hear, the Day that they will appear before Us! but the unjust today are in error manifest! |
| 19:39 | But warn them of the Day of Distress, when the matter will be determined: for (behold,) they are negligent and they do not believe! |
| 19:40 | It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us will they all be returned. |
Brother I have done my Islamic duty to give dawah (invitation to become a muslim) to you and I leave the rest on Allah and your intelletual abillity to decide.Brother I apologise if I have caused you any offence, I know that i am not the best of the representative of the muslims. I appologise again if I have offended you with anything, and I pray to Allah that you see the light of the truth soon Ameen! 112:1 | Say: He is God, the One and Only; |
112:2 | God, the Eternal, Absolute; |
112:3 | He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; |
112:4 | And there is none like unto Him. Peace! |
