Print Page | Close Window

A Simple Question

Printed From: WhyIslam.org
Category: General
Forum Name: InterReligious Dialogue
Forum Discription: Forum for people of various faiths to discuss and inquire about different religions
URL: http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22476
Printed Date: 21 May 2019 at 3:17am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: A Simple Question
Posted By: desertdude
Subject: A Simple Question
Date Posted: 17 April 2008 at 10:15pm
 Can any one In simple an layman terms ,give me a worldy example of the trinity . The 3 = 1 and 1 = 3 .An example that would stand its ground under scrunity .I 've heard the Water theory ,The Egg theory ,The Father ,Husband and son theory ,Jesus chaniging ,wardrobe theory and quite a few others.But the can be very easily deconstructed

 I mean is all gods honest truth I cannot seem to grasp the idea of the trinity of 3 being 1 and vice versa .Just like my friend scruggy cannot grasp the idea of a god .I cannot grasp the theory of the trinity .

PS: As some will mostly claim (not naming names here )as soon as this goes up .NO this is not what u call a loaded question




-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen



Replies:
Posted By: yishmael
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 12:04am
I can't explain it, and can't understand it.

There's another analogy about a shamrock (3 leaves - 1 plant). These are actually mixed metaphors, because the trinity itself is supposedly a metaphor in the first place.

Jesus in the bible is praying to G-d in heaven... it doesn't make sense to see him as talking to himself. That implies something is wrong with him psychologically. I know that's going to be seen as impertinent, and I'm sorry. The only way the Christian scriptures make sense is if Jesus is a prophet, or a demigod that is subordinate to his father. He's obviously expressing gratitude and asking for help from someone else, in another place.

I hope my Christian friends don't take offense at any of this, because none is meant. I'm perfectly willing to concede that the problem is mine. Maybe I'm just not intelligent or creative enough to grasp the concept.

I would love to have someone explain it to me in a fashion that I could understand. Until someone does, I am resigned to the fact that I'll never understand it. It just seems to be a huge mass of contradictions.


-------------


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 10:10am

DD, I think the problem might be in the question and not the answers here.

You ask ‘how can 3 possibly be 1’ and any of the analogies you mentioned should answer that question.

While 1 pencil + 1 pencil + 1 pencil does not = 1  pencil,

one lead + one bit of wood + one coat of paint can = one pencil.

So the question how can 3 be 1 is easily explained.

The problem then is that the questioner expects the pencil analogy to explain all the complexities of the trinity (this is what I imagine what you mean when you say ‘they can be deconstructed very easily’) but this starts new questions which will not result in the pencil analogy.

You say you cannot grasp the idea of the trinity so I will give you my understanding if you like.

I see the Trinity as best understood as Father (God), Brother (Jesus) and Uncle (Holy Spirit).

The father is the creator, Brother is an equal and Uncle gives gifts and support.

I think the question you need to ask is why would God bother with something like a trinity?

Here I think it comes back to the above analogy. If you want to be a good father you don’t simply want to lay down the law and discipline your child when it errors. A good father would lower himself to the same level as his child at the right opportunity for the best interest of the development of the child.

In Christianity we believe that God says He is a God of Love and we also believe God demonstrates this practically, sparing no expense.

I hope this was useful.



-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: scruggnut
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 11:01am
I can grasp the concept of a god (and the older i get, the more that concept appeals to me...especially within the confines of islam); what i always maintained was that the likelihood of there being a god seemed slim.
I cannot grasp many of the tenents of organized religions, even some of those within islam; but that is a very different beast.
As far as the trinity goes, i neither believe nor disbelieve the theories that are proposed involving such a thing.
I do think that any attempts to explain such a thing will be accepted or discarded based upon ones own personal opinions of what they require from their god/religion; and, as in many cases, based on what dogmas they were fed at an early age.
However, if there is a god, i do not understand placing human limits upon it/him/her; and that is precisely what we are doing when we say that god can never be more than one.
If there is a god, it can be whatever it wishes to be...especially when we attribute such all encompasing powers to it...to then deny those powers by limiting them, seems to me, silly.
However, i do understand that in the qu'ran, allah himself claims to be only one, and that associating partners with him is one of the, if not the, gravest of sins...so i understand why muslims have a hard time accepting the concept of a trinity.
That brings up, at least to me, the idea of a very petty god who can forgive murder, rape, any number of things; but not the sin of associating partners with him...but i am using a very human perspective (which is what we all employ) to my understanding of such things; and i am not at all godlike.
I am happy to see that you consider me your friend...as i do you.


-------------
Waiting an eternity for an apology from one who never apologizes but always demands one.


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 11:21am
It can be referred as attributes in God.

-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: Brooklyn
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 12:26pm
I'm not really religious and this analogy won't be exactly correct because none exists, and this is probably some form of heresy but it should help in showing a possible relationship of 2=1 or 3=1 being possible.
 
Man is one being, yet consists of a physical body, a mind, and a spirit.  All are seperate and distinct from each other, yet all make up one whole.  In the Trinity God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are all seperate and dinstinct yet they are all part of one God.


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 3:12pm
 
 Lets be honest.... I don't think there will be anything which can trully explain the Blessed Trinity to the satisfaction of those who think of it it as  rediculous. . God's nature be He One or be three distinct individuals in One Godhead simply cannot be reasoned into our own human logic. When one says "how can" regarding God  its most likely to go downhill from there onwards from those two simple words.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 3:29pm

....



-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 7:02pm
"I think the question you need to ask is why would God bother with something like a trinity?"

 Actually thats a very very good question .Honestly speaking I have never thought about that angle .However the explination to this was a bit lacking

"In Christianity we believe that God says He is a God of Love and we also believe God demonstrates this practically, sparing no expense."

I could not agree more to this ,but still this does not explain the Trinity or the questioned you asked

 Ok ,another thing when one imagines a god what kind of mental image comes to mind ,now by image It doesnt have to be like a picture could be what can be best described as a feeling .Do u feel/see one God or the trinitarian god.To me when ever the chirstian god is mentioned instantly the image of chirst comes to mind ,For I cannot help it as chirstianity is so heavily associated with jesus.Always see pictures of jesus ,the cross everywhere and anywhere .So one can't help but associate a mental image of jesus with chirstianity .Another question pops to mind is I feel that jesus is pushed way too much into the limelight in chirstianity ,Even according to the bible and even If you believe in the trinity theory jesus is the THE gos he is son and his father is always more supreme to him ( Anyways thats another topic for another day )

 Back to the topic .Over to you People


-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: StoryMing
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 8:10pm
This may be one of those things that is simply not fully explainable in terms that logic can grasp- like some aspects of quantum physics, for example (prime case in point; bizzare and irrational doesn't always necessarily mean it ain't so!)
 
For what it's worth, you can try this analogy if it helps: a cube is made up of six sides, six squares = one cube. Something a Flatlander would never be able to get.


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by desertdude



 Ok ,another thing when one imagines a god what kind of mental image comes to mind ,now by image It doesnt have to be like a picture could be what can be best described as a feeling .Do u feel/see one God or the trinitarian god.To me when ever the chirstian god is mentioned instantly the image of chirst comes to mind ,For I cannot help it as chirstianity is so heavily associated with jesus.Always see pictures of jesus ,the cross everywhere and anywhere .So one can't help but associate a mental image of jesus with chirstianity .Another question pops to mind is I feel that jesus is pushed way too much into the limelight in chirstianity ,Even according to the bible and even If you believe in the trinity theory jesus is the THE gos he is son and his father is always more supreme to him ( Anyways thats another topic for another day )

 Back to the topic .Over to you People
 
I can understand how you.. when you think of God from the Christian perspective you think of Jesus... I guess this is probably due to the fact that Muslims find it hard to reconcile the idea of Jesus as God.. that its kinda etched in their minds so to speak whenever they view from this side... When i think of God.. i think of the Father as present but not fully distinguishable from a form of inpenetrable light which is not blinding but breathtaking to see, where-as Christ is visable but completely transformed to the form mentioned in the Apocalypse. The Spirit for me is something which i don't think is easily to comprehend in a visual manner and is another mystery like the Father.... Just my own take


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Squeegie
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 10:38pm
OK, how about an analogy from something I experience on a regular basis?

I am required to write a spiritual piece of fiction for our occasional literary journal in our home church. When you write, there is the person doing the thinking regarding the story, there is the act of thinking, working out the details of the story, and there is the thought itself, the final product. But because this happens as a process, there is no division between or among the parts, the thinker, the act of thinking and the resulting thought. No portion of this analogy could exist without the other two.

So, getting back to the trinity, the Father is the thinker, the Spirit is the act of thinking while the Son is the thought. There cannot be an act of thinking without a thinker or a resulting thought; if there is a thinker, the act of thinking must occur and result in a thought; if there is a thought, a thinker at some point engaged in an act of thinking.

At some point, any attempt at an analogy for the Trinity will come up short. We only have three dimensions to work with while an apt description of the triune nature of God may require eleven or better dimensions. If this is true, then human language may well be incapable of describing it in much the same way language is not able to deal with time travel. While we do not have enough verb tenses to deal with time travel(future pluperfect tense, which would deal with future events that will have an effect upon the past), we may find that we lack the adjectives necessary to describe dimensions beyond the three we are acquainted with.


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 18 April 2008 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by desertdude

"I think the question you need to ask is why would God bother with something like a trinity?"

 Actually thats a very very good question .Honestly speaking I have never thought about that angle .However the explination to this was a bit lacking

"In Christianity we believe that God says He is a God of Love and we also believe God demonstrates this practically, sparing no expense."

I could not agree more to this ,but still this does not explain the Trinity or the questioned you asked

 Ok ,another thing when one imagines a god what kind of mental image comes to mind ,now by image It doesnt have to be like a picture could be what can be best described as a feeling .Do u feel/see one God or the trinitarian god.To me when ever the chirstian god is mentioned instantly the image of chirst comes to mind ,For I cannot help it as chirstianity is so heavily associated with jesus.Always see pictures of jesus ,the cross everywhere and anywhere .So one can't help but associate a mental image of jesus with chirstianity .Another question pops to mind is I feel that jesus is pushed way too much into the limelight in chirstianity ,Even according to the bible and even If you believe in the trinity theory jesus is the THE gos he is son and his father is always more supreme to him ( Anyways thats another topic for another day )

 Back to the topic .Over to you People
 
I don't know about the others but I think of jesus being in God with full of grace. When I feel i am close to him is sometimes I read or watch the Jesus story, his grace comes upon me, and I could see a complexion of jesus that my consciousness is very alert. It is what makes me think he is still alive with me.  


-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 4:14am
Originally posted by desertdude

Actually thats a very very good question .Honestly speaking I have never thought about that angle .However the explination to this was a bit lacking

Hello again DD. I didn’t want to bore you with too much detail in case you were not interested.

What I was trying to say was that in order for God to demonstrate His love in the best possible way He approaches us in the best possible way. Being complex beings this changes from time to time like between a father and his son.

Sometimes a child needs a father figure to give boundaries and discipline, other times a child needs an example to follow and sometimes a child needs gifts and support to get on with things by himself.

In the same way, we as humans need differing help from God. God, through the Trinity, covers all bases if you will.

When we need boundaries and discipline we look to God the Father, Who offers us guidance and discipline in life.

When we need an example to follow we look to God the Son, Who experienced things as we did on our level.

When we need help and support we look to the Spirit Who strengthens us in our weakness.

So we have God of us (Father), God with us (Son/Brother/Equal/Example) and God in us (Spirit/Uncle/Support).

To go back to the child development thing I touched on earlier, a good father will guide and correct his child when the time is right to do so but he will also lower himself to the child’s level when the time is right. This might involve talking like a baby to encourage speech or working through simple mathematics or anything that is below the level of the father but he does it for the benefit of the child. Also the father might give gifts and support from a distance so the child can progress in their own way (hopefully taking on board the discipline of the father and the example of the son).

I hope this was interesting, Mad Cat

-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: wachemba
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:03am
Honestly speaking i have been reading, through the number of replies given on the issue of the Trinity, but i want to say it here, that its is not Biblical, en thats why its not understood. There is no verse in the Bible, that clearly points, to that, but what is clear is that some people sat down en accepted to declare the Trinity. The Bible, clearly states what has been revealed is for us an our children and secrets are for God.




-------------
Ahmed Wetaka
PO BOX 2488
Mbale-Uganda
+256772609636/0752609736


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:10am
Originally posted by wachemba

Honestly speaking i have been reading, through the number of replies given on the issue of the Trinity, but i want to say it here, that its is not Biblical, en thats why its not understood. There is no verse in the Bible, that clearly points, to that, but what is clear is that some people sat down en accepted to declare the Trinity. The Bible, clearly states what has been revealed is for us an our children and secrets are for God.


 
 
  Your welcome to your opinion... However the thread wasn't asking whether it was biblical... thats a separate issue entirely.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:24am
Ouch My eyes hurt !

-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 11:46am
Originally posted by scrugnut

That brings up, at least to me, the idea of a very petty god who can forgive murder, rape, any number of things; but not the sin of associating partners with him...but i am using a very human perspective (which is what we all employ) to my understanding of such things; and i am not at all godlike.
I am happy to see that you consider me your friend...as i do you.
 
Friend scrug, it is not that Allah cannot forgive the sin of associating partners with Him-- he can and does forgive that sin IF the sinner repents from it.
 
Likewise, He doesn't forgive any other sin unless the sinner repents from it. (Though He may forgive someone who is ignorant of having committed some certain sin, if such a case exists)
 
As you and others here have observed, the trinity is a flawed analogy, even as every analogy trying to illustrate any validity to the trinity theory is flawed.
 
 


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by eldon

Originally posted by scrugnut

That brings up, at least to me, the idea of a very petty god who can forgive murder, rape, any number of things; but not the sin of associating partners with him...but i am using a very human perspective (which is what we all employ) to my understanding of such things; and i am not at all godlike.
I am happy to see that you consider me your friend...as i do you.
 
Friend scrug, it is not that Allah cannot forgive the sin of associating partners with Him-- he can and does forgive that sin IF the sinner repents from it.
 
Likewise, He doesn't forgive any other sin unless the sinner repents from it. (Though He may forgive someone who is ignorant of having committed some certain sin, if such a case exists)
 
As you and others here have observed, the trinity is a flawed analogy, even as every analogy trying to illustrate any validity to the trinity theory is flawed.
 
 
 
Flawed if reasoned through human logic, hence why the Blessed Trinity is beyond human comprehension and will remain a mystery.
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by wachemba

Honestly speaking i have been reading, through the number of replies given on the issue of the Trinity, but i want to say it here, that its is not Biblical, en thats why its not understood. There is no verse in the Bible, that clearly points, to that, but what is clear is that some people sat down en accepted to declare the Trinity. The Bible, clearly states what has been revealed is for us an our children and secrets are for God.


 
The human trinity concept should not at all truely be empharsize. Even though the concept is associate with the christians. Much of the agruement should be, is Jesus part of God. That clearly is rejected by the muslims even through scripture, we know that. Be respectful to the replies, and Most of all lets be on topic. Cause its sound silly with the circles of agruments in this forum...
 
 


-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:26pm
All of these analogies are flawed away from the concept of trinity in that they portray three components comprising one thing:
 

one lead + one bit of wood + one coat of paint can = one pencil

Father (God), Brother (Jesus) and Uncle (Holy Spirit).

a physical body, a mind, and a spirit. All are seperate and distinct from each other, yet all make up one whole.

a cube is made up of six sides, six squares = one cube

the Father is the thinker, the Spirit is the act of thinking while the Son is the thought

The Father, Son, and Spirit however, according to Trinity as defined by the Athanasian Creed, are not components OF God but each in and of themselves ARE God:
 

Originally posted by Athanasian Creed

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.

So the idea of Father, Son, and Spirit being components of God is denied by the AC.
 
I realize that some Christians hold a view of subordination within the Trinity, but that also is denied by the AC:
 

Originally posted by AC

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.

As far as I know the best "working definition" of the Trinity among Christians is contained in the AC, and that definition is clearly illogical even according to the analogies posted here by people who believe in the Trinity!
 
There may be better "working definitions" of the trinity concept among Christians, however, they are still clearly in contrast to the thoughts of Jesus, that the Father is the ONLY true God, and that the Father is "my God and your God".
 
Demanding a belief in Trinity for anyone hoping to be saved is where Christianity historically departed from Truth, and for most part, that is also where most forms of Christianity ultimately depart from Truth still to this day.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:58pm
 
 Eldon ... My God and your God would have us going back to Phillipians and as many other verses such as "I and the Father are One" etc. I've seen the arguments that refute even the latter, and they themselves are flawed arguments.
 
 The Trinity consists of three distinct individuals yes... But being co-eternal and of the same divine nature. They embody the essence of each other. There is no imbalance nor ever will be.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 2:36pm
 
 Futher i find it strange how Muslims still apply the logic that in Genesis God said "let US make man in our ....   then say the use of "US" is a royal usage.
 
 Yet no-where else in the Bible is this "Royal US " or "WE" for that matter used when God spoke.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 2:47pm
Originally posted by Damo808

 
 Futher i find it strange how Muslims still apply the logic that in Genesis God said "let US make man in our ....   then say the use of "US" is a royal usage.
 
 Yet no-where else in the Bible is this "Royal US " or "WE" for that matter used when God spoke.


I'm surprised that you have said this. Look at the footnote in the NIV translation of the Bible to Genesis 1:1 ["In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"] and you will see that the word for God "Elohim", a plural word, is used for God, to denote respect or the "Royal We'.

The Royal plural is very common in semitic languages. It does not mean more than one.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 2:47pm
Ok a Little re-rephrasing .

Is it even possible to define it ?


As I still see it is possible to define it in two diff ways like One persons three attributes or 3 people with one common attribute.

 But the problem arises when you try to combine the two.
 You cant have One person who is actually 3 different indiviuals at the same time is a single person who yet at the same time can be thought of as 3 diff indiviuals something like a split personality .....................................and I am lost for words .And I hav'nt even scratched the surface yet

 I think such a major component sould be explainable in Human Terms.And so should any component of anything .



-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by desertdude

Ok a Little re-rephrasing .

Is it even possible to define it ?


As I still see it is possible to define it in two diff ways like One persons three attributes or 3 people with one common attribute.

 But the problem arises when you try to combine the two.
 You cant have One person who is actually 3 different indiviuals at the same time is a single person who yet at the same time can be thought of as 3 diff indiviuals something like a split personality .....................................and I am lost for words .And I hav'nt even scratched the surface yet

 I think such a major component sould be explainable in Human Terms.And so should any component of anything .

 
 DD... i know what your saying...
  But If you can separate God from every other thing for a sec... I hate to use this as any kind of analogy but if you have a company, which has three directors... the company is God, the directors are the bosses. But when relating this to God, it seemsa  harsh way of putting it.. But thats why i'm saying.. the concept is only perfect in God, with The Three ... They are perfect in that there is no imbalance where one could go off and start his own separate heaven and creation etc etc etc.. or by any other stretch of a splitting of any sort in by which 3 separate Gods, as then it would never have been God, and never Divine. ... I'm admit its not an easy idea to swallow.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 5:40pm
 Ok I'm trying to understand what ur saying .I appriciate the harsh analogy ,but The three Bosses are just that Bosses each a sperate entity .Which own and run The God Company .The GC is not really a seprate entity or even a thing .Its just what the three bosses call their Bussiness.

 Ok lemme ask a EVEN simpler question Is there One God or there are three Gods ?


-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: LtTony
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:20pm
 
One.  Definitely one.
 
I appreciate your desire to keep it simple as possible.


-------------
"“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.” Osama Bin Laden


Posted By: LtTony
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:21pm
..

-------------
"“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.” Osama Bin Laden


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:35pm
Originally posted by desertdude

 Ok I'm trying to understand what ur saying .I appriciate the harsh analogy ,but The three Bosses are just that Bosses each a sperate entity .Which own and run The God Company .The GC is not really a seprate entity or even a thing .Its just what the three bosses call their Bussiness.

 Ok lemme ask a EVEN simpler question Is there One God or there are three Gods ?
 
There is One God, but what is it to you when you admit the God the father but deny the kingdom of God? I don't know if I am coming the wrong way but hopefully you can answer me....


-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 7:55pm
Deny the kingdom of god ...what do you mean ?Or have you mistakenly referred to me instead of Tony .

 Well if it is indeed me than I'm not sure what excatly your asking .How have I denied the kingdom of god ?


-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 8:27pm
I wasn't saying it specificly to you, I wanted to know what is it you when you admit God the father but don't include the kingdom of God? When speaking of kingdom it means: A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. For us we call upon all three(father, the son and the holy spirit) in order for the kingdom to respond.

-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: bcgirl
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 8:45pm
Hi there, im sorry i missed your name i just looked at the column and as soon as i saw aetheist, i was quite intrigued..and you are on an Islam site...well i hope you are learning and if you have questions alot of pp are more than happy to answer for you. i believe in Allah and everything about him...all his prophets and teachings... at the same time i do not judge...you have the right to believe or not believe whatever you so choose...do you believe in any idols or shall isay do you worship satan or just dont beleive in God?? i cant say ive ever knowingly met an aetheist so im intersted in what your thoughts are and if something significant happened that made you to stop believing....by the way i am not a muslim yet i think like one but havent officially converted i guessyou could say... my lifestyle is not completely geared towards the the Islamic faith,i've made some changes but alot more to go....anyways i would really like some feedback on what you think....get back to me if you so choose..thanks

-------------
Salam Aleikum, my new mission statement:Why worry? God's in control...


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 8:46pm
Ahh Ok then

 Hey but wait a minute .here are two of your quotes from your last two posts and I dont think I'm quoting out of context

"There is One God" next post "For us we call upon all three"

Dint you just say there was only one

Ok If the father is considered to be God "The One "what are the other two ?


-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 9:25pm

you didn't answer my question and you misunderstood me. I was saying God is three in one all along.



-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: Giovanni
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 10:27pm
John 14: 1 - 12
1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
4 And you know the way where I am going."
5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

  The Trinity is a mystery, there really is no way in our puny minds that we can explain God's nature other than what has been revealed to us by Jesus.  However many try, and I guess I don't blame you DD for asking.
  But, such is all you are going to get from any Christian, any analogies trying to explain it from man's perspective just puts a tiny dent into this mystery and at time bring up more questions.



-------------
May the Love of God be With you.


Posted By: katy098
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 10:34pm

Desertdude:

“In simple an layman terms, give me a worldy example of the trinity”

 Answer: Impossible!

We as humans, have limited knowledge, thus when trying to explain the Trinity we should understand that using analogies will not completely explain the trinity, which is who God is. God created us and the laws which governs each one of us. Therefore we can not explain God, who is much above us, using what he created and the physical laws he gave us. Yes, 1+1+1 is not 1, but God isn’t a number.

This are the mystery of the Christian faith- How is God one, and yet triune; but as one of my favorite saying goes, ‘With God anything is possible’.



Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 10:50pm
Originally posted by desertdude

 Ok I'm trying to understand what ur saying .I appriciate the harsh analogy ,but The three Bosses are just that Bosses each a sperate entity .Which own and run The God Company .The GC is not really a seprate entity or even a thing .Its just what the three bosses call their Bussiness.

 Ok lemme ask a EVEN simpler question Is there One God or there are three Gods ?
 
 Yeah its just what noun we attribute to the company. If we can see beyond the noun God.  There is only one God, the Three have always existed in this nature, never apart and never in imbalance a co-eternal divine harmony.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: hamayoun
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 11:22pm
This are the mystery of the Christian faith- How is God one, and yet triune; but as one of my favorite saying goes, ‘With God anything is possible’.

Hi Katy and welcome to our forum!  If what you are saying is the case, does that not imply that God wants us to believe in something beyond our rationale?  And if so, how can this be fair?


-------------
May Allah give me patience, Ameen.

My blog: http://regularbaba.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 2:46am
Originally posted by katy098

Therefore we can not explain God, who is much above us, using what he created and the physical laws he gave us.

Hi Katy.
 
Welcome to WhyIslam.
 
If we cannot explain God, who created us, making us a father, mother, son or daughter, then how can we say God has a son? By saying God has a son, aren't we appying the same law by which He creates, to Him?
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 2:53am
Originally posted by Giovanni

  The Trinity is a mystery, there really is no way in our puny minds that we can explain God's nature...
 
By that very same logic, how then can we say God has a son? We can't even explain His nature, yet we dare say He has a son?
 
Isn't it more appropriate to say "God is one", period? Isn't that what was taught to us all?
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 2:59am
Noah said, "Our God is one God".
Abraham said, "Our God is one God".
Jacob said, "Our God is one God".
Joseph said, "Our God is one God".
Moses said, "Our God is one God".
 
All the biblical prophets said "Our God is one God".
 
None said "Our God is one, but his nature is 3".
 
Where did that come from?
 
Peace be upon all the prophets.
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: amoxoxoma
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 3:51am
Traveller, many christians have tried to explain theologically what Jesus meant when he said:
 
He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
 
and
 
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?
 
The Trinity, though not explicit in the New Testament, is implicit in the very words of Jesus.
 
How do you understand those words of Jesus? Or, do you not believe he said those things and referred to himself that way?


-------------
The more deeply we are our true selves, the less self is in us.
Meister Eckhart


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 7:35am

Here is a simple question back.

If Paul or anyone else in the early days did corrupt the teachings of Jesus, as so many here are quick to say, why does Jesus not say ‘I am God’ or why is the Trinity not declared more clearly if that was the corrupter’s purpose?

-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 9:08am
Are there three Gods or ONE God?
 
Originally posted by LtTony

 
One.  Definitely one.
 
I appreciate your desire to keep it simple as possible.
 
Originally posted by Damo

 I'll admit its not an easy idea to swallow.
 
 
I think those two sentiments are exactly what the Most High is looking for from people of Faith concerning the trinity controversy.
 
The Athanasian Creed however, demands that one MUST believe in the Trinity as stated within the Creed in order to be saved. While I was still a Christian I realized that I had to divorce myself from what is contained in the Creed and cease to make it a part of my relationship towards unbelievers, even though the Creed has been part of Christianity for ~1500 years.
 
But as I strove to do just that, I found myself being divorced from fellowship with other Christians, because of my rejection of the AC!
 
Our Maker wants us to understand Him as He is, ONE who is THE Most High.
 
Jesus is not THE Most High, yet the AC demands we recognize him and the Holy Spirit as "co-equal" with the Father.
 
Demanding that belief is not only not simple, and not easy to swallow, it is unjust. I hope more Christians will realize that.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 9:14am
Originally posted by amoxoxoma

Traveller, many christians have tried to explain theologically what Jesus meant when he said:
 
He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
 
and
 
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?
 
The Trinity, though not explicit in the New Testament, is implicit in the very words of Jesus.
 
How do you understand those words of Jesus? Or, do you not believe he said those things and referred to himself that way?
 
The very words of Jesus include his words addressing the Father as "the ONLY true God" and his words declaring that the Father is "my God and your God".
 
Though your quotes from John 14 may fit the trinity schema, his words in John 17:3 and John 20:17 definitely do not fit the trinity schema.
 
Man lives by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and that includes all the words just spoke, not just the ones that fit into the trinitarian tradition.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: struggle
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 11:01am
.....


-------------
EYE FOR EYE


Posted By: Nura
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 11:26am
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Here is a simple question back.

If Paul or anyone else in the early days did corrupt the teachings of Jesus, as so many here are quick to say, why does Jesus not say ‘I am God’ or why is the Trinity not declared more clearly if that was the corrupter’s purpose?
 
We don't know if Jesus' teaching were corrupted with porpouse. Maybe not, but those who tried to build a christian philosophy and theology was influenced by other sources.
If the Trinity is true, why hasn't Jesus explained it without ambiguity? And why have Christians groups quarreled about it fro more than 400 years? And why did the "winners" felt the need to persecute the others, for example the followers of Arius?
 


-------------
Spare me the political events and power struggles, as the whole earth is my homeland and all men are my fellow countrymen. K.Gibran


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 11:33am
Originally posted by eldon

Originally posted by amoxoxoma

Traveller, many christians have tried to explain theologically what Jesus meant when he said:
 
He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
 
and
 
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?
 
The Trinity, though not explicit in the New Testament, is implicit in the very words of Jesus.
 
How do you understand those words of Jesus? Or, do you not believe he said those things and referred to himself that way?
 
The very words of Jesus include his words addressing the Father as "the ONLY true God" and his words declaring that the Father is "my God and your God".
 
Though your quotes from John 14 may fit the trinity schema, his words in John 17:3 and John 20:17 definitely do not fit the trinity schema.
 
Man lives by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and that includes all the words just spoke, not just the ones that fit into the trinitarian tradition.
 
 
 
Eldon... you continue to use the limited few verses which suit your argument while leaving out the many many others which completely contradict it. Jesus in relating to the Father was relating to him from a human perspective having "emptied himself" and taken the form of a servant. Jesus was with humanity for but a blink of an eye in the grand scale of things. This is why it was more important to relate to people the way He did, as Philippians 2, 5-9, makes clear people just wouldn't be able to grasp equality with God.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: katy098
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:13pm
Hamayoun:
"If what you are saying is the case, does that not imply that God wants us to believe in something beyond our rationale?  And if so, how can this be fair?"

So if you are able to talk to him face to face and if he tells you himself that the Trinity is true will you then reply him, "How could you expect me to believe in this irrational concept, this is unfair!"

God is who he is- we can not expect him to modify himself or limit himself or we limit what he wants to reveal to us, just because we consider it unfair.

Actually, one question, how can a women who is a Virgin give birth to a child? And I want a rational answer, something that can be proven by science, so no "By God's power" or something similar.

Traveller:
member_profile.asp?PF=1219&FID=44 - "If we cannot explain God, who created us, making us a father, mother, son or daughter, then how can we say God has a son? By saying God has a son, aren't we appying the same law by which He creates, to Him?"

I hope you don't think that because we call Jesus, God the Son, it means the Father and relations with some women and gave birth to a son


Posted By: hamayoun
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:23pm
Salam

Katy, have you never heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis - Parthenogenesis ?

I simply cannot fathom that God will throw anyone into hell because that person was told to believe something contrary to his internal nature, and to what he sees with eyes, and hears with his ears.  God cannot be that unjust.  After all, God is our creator and He knows what our brains are capable of encompassing.


-------------
May Allah give me patience, Ameen.

My blog: http://regularbaba.blogspot.com/


Posted By: hamayoun
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:24pm
Salam

I hope you don't think that because we call Jesus, God the Son, it means the Father and relations with some women and gave birth to a son

Katy, does not the NT say that God love the world so much, he sent down his only begotten son?


-------------
May Allah give me patience, Ameen.

My blog: http://regularbaba.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Mad Cat
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:39pm

Originally posted by Nura

   We don't know if Jesus' teaching were corrupted with porpouse.

I think more should be known before such claims are brought forwards. It seems unfair to make such a claim without knowing who, when, why, how and where.

Originally posted by Nura

   If the Trinity is true, why hasn't Jesus explained it without ambiguity?

It depends a lot on what exactly you have in mind when you say this. IMO there are very good reasons Jesus didn’t just say ‘I am God’.

Originally posted by Nura

   And why have Christians groups quarreled about it fro more than 400 years? And why did the "winners" felt the need to persecute the others, for example the followers of Arius?

Quarrels occur when things stop being about God and start being about power and this is not limited to Christianity. As for persecuting, if you can find any teaching of Jesus where He permits persecution of non-believer in any way I would like to see it. If you cannot, be sure that these persecutors were working in direct contradiction to Jesus’ teachings.

-------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 10:55pm
Originally posted by katy098

Actually, one question, how can a women who is a Virgin give birth to a child? And I want a rational answer, something that can be proven by science, so no "By God's power" or something similar.
 
That is not the same argument. A totally different field. We are talking abt ONE God, not what God wills. For whatever He wills, He just say "Be" and it will be.
 
You said so it's impossible to explain how God is one and yet three. That makes it irrational. And in order to believe in the christians doctrine, one has to be irrational. Is that how God expect of us?
 

I hope you don't think that because we call Jesus, God the Son, it means the Father and relations with some women and gave birth to a son
 
Please explain begotten son, not made.
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by amoxoxoma

He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?  
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?
How do you understand those words of Jesus? Or, do you not believe he said those things and referred to himself that way?
 
Hi Amox.
 
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said something similar.
 
"I am Ahmad, without the m"
 
Ahmad without the letter M makes it Ahad, which means One, essentially God. I'm not going into this. Just to say that if Jesus had said the above, I understand what he meant.
 
This is my saying. "He who has seen a bird flying, has seen God." But that does not make the bird God.
 
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: StoryMing
Date Posted: 20 April 2008 at 11:37pm
It seems that the "1 cube = 6 squares" analogy did not particularly help anyone here...?  
 
Originally posted by traveller

You said so it's impossible to explain how God is one and yet three. That makes it irrational. And in order to believe in the christians doctrine, one has to be irrational. Is that how God expect of us?
 
As I said earlier: have you ever looked at quantum physics? (I defy anyone to call that branch of science "rational"!)
 
 Please explain begotten son, not made.
 
What is made is something of a different kind than that which makes it: birds make nests, beavers make dams, people make furniture, buildings, clothes, art, &tc.
 
What is begotten is of the same kind as that which begets it: birds beget birds, beavers beget beavers, humans beget humans.
 
This is not about a physical act of procreation, it is about the dynamics of interpersonal relationship (a father protects, supports and cares for his son; a son looks up to and respects his father) and the "genetics" of family resemblance (a son "looks like" his father: Jesus shares his father's traits- holiness, compassion...)
 
(most of the above arguments are taken from C.S. Lewis, by the way.)


Posted By: amoxoxoma
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:02am
Originally posted by Traveller

 
You said so it's impossible to explain how God is one and yet three. That makes it irrational. And in order to believe in the christians doctrine, one has to be irrational. Is that how God expect of us?
 
 
What is unexplainable is not necessarily irrational. Because I (or you)cannot explain how and why God acts they way He acts, and is the way He is, and creates the way He creates, does not mean my belief in God is irrational.
 
There is only one God, "in him we live, and move, and have our being."  This faith is suprarational, not irrational.


-------------
The more deeply we are our true selves, the less self is in us.
Meister Eckhart


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 8:34am
Originally posted by Damo808

 
 
 
Eldon... you continue to use the limited few verses which suit your argument while leaving out the many many others which completely contradict it.
 
Damo, there aren't any verses that completely contradict Jesus when he called the Father the only true God, my God and your God. The fact is that his later disciples chose to teach a "co-equal trinity" which contradicts those two very specific statements of his.
 
Jesus in relating to the Father was relating to him from a human perspective having "emptied himself" and taken the form of a servant. Jesus was with humanity for but a blink of an eye in the grand scale of things.
 
But AFTER Jesus completed his mission, AFTER the crucifixion when he appeared to his disciples, THEN he told them via Mary, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
 
That is how he defined the relationship between him and God, and that is how he expected humanity to understand the relationship between him and God.
 
Instead, Christianity adopted the Son and Holy Spirit as their God, along with the only true God.
 
 
This is why it was more important to relate to people the way He did, as Philippians 2, 5-9, makes clear people just wouldn't be able to grasp equality with God.
 
"He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at", so why should any follower of his think to grasp at equality with God for him?
 
... especially those who accept the fact that Jesus used the term ONLY in reference to the true God?


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 9:01am
Originally posted by StoryMing

It seems that the "1 cube = 6 squares" analogy did not particularly help anyone here...?  
 
 
Actually, I gave that one quite a bit of thought.
 
If you were trying to draw an analogy for a union of six "persons in God" that would be a good illustration. However, strangely enough, there is no three sided, three dimensional figure that I'm aware of that illustrates the concept of trinity.
 
(if you join three triangles to make a pyramid, you end up with another triangle at the base for a total of four)
 
If you limit your illustration to two dimensions, an equilateral triangle would suffice: three lines, one triangle. But if one of the "lines" called another "the only true Line" that would sort of spoil your illustration, if you paid any attention to what that line said! 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by StoryMing

As I said earlier: have you ever looked at quantum physics? (I defy anyone to call that branch of science "rational"!)
 
Yet Quantum physics is acknowledged as highly theoretical. If trinitarianism was only promoted as a theory, that would be different.
 
As it is, many Christians, in accord with the Athanasian Creed, demand that everyone must believe in trinitarianism in order to be saved.
 
That is a theological injustice.
 


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 8:22pm
[mis-post

-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 9:16pm
 
 
Eldon... you continue to use the limited few verses which suit your argument while leaving out the many many others which completely contradict it. 
 
Damo, there aren't any verses that completely contradict Jesus when he called the Father the only true God, my God and your God. The fact is that his later disciples chose to teach a "co-equal trinity" which contradicts those two very specific statements of his.
 
 Well as i said earlier there is Philippians 2:5-9, which is in in print in the bible, you will ofcourse claim this is a clumsy translation, and ofcourse you have no choice but to play that card when your argument falters, you've already suggested Jesus was in some way omnipresent in the other thread, an attribute only of God.
 
Jesus in relating to the Father was relating to him from a human perspective having "emptied himself" and taken the form of a servant. Jesus was with humanity for but a blink of an eye in the grand scale of things. 
 
But AFTER Jesus completed his mission, AFTER the crucifixion when he appeared to his disciples, THEN he told them via Mary, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
 
That is how he defined the relationship between him and God, and that is how he expected humanity to understand the relationship between him and God.
 
Instead, Christianity adopted the Son and Holy Spirit as their God, along with the only true God.
 
 Who is the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2. ?
  of Psalms 50.13
  of Issiahs 63;10-11
  Judges 6;34
  Judges 13;25
 
 
[This is why it was more important to relate to people the way He did, as Philippians 2, 5-9, makes clear people just wouldn't be able to grasp equality with God.
 
"He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at", so why should any follower of his think to grasp at equality with God for him?
 
... especially those who accept the fact that Jesus used the term ONLY in reference to the true God?
 
 Certainly not at the time did he expect it to be grasped not until the fulfilment of prohpesy in Him, and miracles were done in His name after His assension.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: katy098
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 1:06am
hamayoun:
"Katy, have you never heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis - Parthenogenesis ?"

Yes I have. But do you consider this to be the 'rational' explanation of Jesus' birth.

hamayoun:
"I simply cannot fathom that God will throw anyone into hell because that person was told to believe something contrary to his internal nature, and to what he sees with eyes, and hears with his ears.  God cannot be that unjust.  After all, God is our creator and He knows what our brains are capable of encompassing."

There are people including myself who believe in the Trinity, so it isn't something that is impossible to believe. I guess since everything required a rational explanation, you do not believe in miracles.

Traveller:
"
That is not the same argument. A totally different field. We are talking abt ONE God, not what God wills. For whatever He wills, He just say "Be" and it will be.
 
You said so it's impossible to explain how God is one and yet three. That makes it irrational. And in order to believe in the christians doctrine, one has to be irrational. Is that how God expect of us?"

The discussion here is if we can believe in something that can't be explained and proven. The birth of Jesus, even though Mary was a virgin, is not explainable, but Muslims and Christian still believe in it.

I believe in the Trinity and so do other, so I guess you consider us irrational

About the word 'begotten', someone has already explained this, I am not going to repeat.



Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 7:36am
 
 
Damo, there aren't any verses that completely contradict Jesus when he called the Father the only true God, my God and your God. The fact is that his later disciples chose to teach a "co-equal trinity" which contradicts those two very specific statements of his.
 
 Well as i said earlier there is Philippians 2:5-9, which is in in print in the bible, you will ofcourse claim this is a clumsy translation, and ofcourse you have no choice but to play that card when your argument falters, you've already suggested Jesus was in some way omnipresent in the other thread, an attribute only of God.
 
Phillipians 2:5-9 in ANY translation still doesn't contradict " the only true God" of John 17:3
 
And I said I DON'T believe that Jesus is/was omnipresent, I said that the Catholic catechism used John 3:13 to CLAIM Jesus being omnipresent.
 
I DO believe what he said there, that he was somehow present in heaven even while he was speaking here on earth, yet he himself prayed that all his followers could have that same heavenly presence, so that verse is not a proof text for the deity of Christ. 
 
 
 Who is the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2. ?
  of Psalms 50.13
  of Issiahs 63;10-11
  Judges 6;34
  Judges 13;25
 
Who? as in What is his name?
 
none of those texts supply a name of the Spirit there mentioned.
 
The word translated as spirit is Ruwach in Hebrew and means wind or breath OF God. The texts don't say that the Ruwach IS God.
 
 
 
 
"He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at", so why should any follower of his think to grasp at equality with God for him?
 
... especially those who accept the fact that Jesus used the term ONLY in reference to the true God?
 
 Certainly not at the time did he expect it to be grasped not until the fulfilment of prohpesy in Him, and miracles were done in His name after His assension.
 
After the prophecies concerning him were fulfilled, he said that the Father was his God and our God, in John 20:17.
 
The miracles done in his name after he departed the earth were done by Allah's power, just the same as the miracles Jesus did while he was here on earth. 


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 11:25pm
Damo, there aren't any verses that completely contradict Jesus when he called the Father the only true God, my God and your God. The fact is that his later disciples chose to teach a "co-equal trinity" which contradicts those two very specific statements of his.
 
 Well as i said earlier there is Philippians 2:5-9, which is in in print in the bible, you will ofcourse claim this is a clumsy translation, and ofcourse you have no choice but to play that card when your argument falters, you've already suggested Jesus was in some way omnipresent in the other thread, an attribute only of God.
 
Phillipians 2:5-9 in ANY translation still doesn't contradict " the only true God" of John 17:3
 
 No... there is no contradiction correct, but you choose to plainly ignore context in which things are said. Christ in the form of flesh was still in humble form, fully man, yet also fully God, " equality with God (the Father) would not be grasped" and at any point if he so willed it could have transformed himself into the figure spoken of in the Apocalypse. Christ spoken of in the passage is evidently more terrifying than any testimony of those who witnessed angels and where afraid, even the reverence even shown to Him by the heavenly hosts make obvious He IS 
 
 
And I said I DON'T believe that Jesus is/was omnipresent, I said that the Catholic catechism used John 3:13 to CLAIM Jesus being omnipresent.
 
  
I DO believe what he said there, that he was somehow present in heaven even while he was speaking here on earth, yet he himself prayed that all his followers could have that same heavenly presence, so that verse is not a proof text for the deity of Christ. 
 
 
 Don't get me wrong i'm not arguing against your bi-location theory, i genuinely believe he was omnipresent. Its made clear in John's gospel 1;48 Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered, and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
 
 Who is the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2. ?
  of Psalms 50.13
  of Issiahs 63;10-11
  Judges 6;34
  Judges 13;25
 
Who? as in What is his name?
 
none of those texts supply a name of the Spirit there mentioned.
 
The word translated as spirit is Ruwach in Hebrew and means wind or breath OF God. The texts don't say that the Ruwach IS God.
 
 Yes Breath of God... which even the Hebrew's acknowledged was the very Spirit of God, which from their early concept of this Spirit was the very essence of God, a divine power which could enter people of His chosing.
 
i.e Issiah's 44;3 For I will pour out waters upon the thirsty ground, and streams upon the dry land: I will pour out my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy stock.
 
Joel 2.28 :And it shall come to pass after this, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
 
"He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at", so why should any follower of his think to grasp at equality with God for him?
 
... especially those who accept the fact that Jesus used the term ONLY in reference to the true God?
 
 Thats a dumb question... seriously... The very point of mentioning equality was because it was written in retrospect, or else no mention of it at all.. as there would have been no reason.. Its quite simple.
 
 Like for example if i'm talking in retrospect about my local priest, who at the time no-one knew was going to go on and become Pope to everyone's astonishment.
 
 
 From His chosen humbled form. As His equality could not be grasped, was He lying in saying my God when in his flesh form he was as one of us. In all honesty, i believe Jesus was paying huge respect to his Father in saying my God. Taking no form of glory upon himself John 5:41, John 8:50
 
 
 
 Certainly not at the time did he expect it to be grasped not until the fulfilment of prohpesy in Him, and miracles were done in His name after His assension.
 
After the prophecies concerning him were fulfilled, he said that the Father was his God and our God, in John 20:17.
 
 Yet still in the form of the humblest of humans.
 
The miracles done in his name after he departed the earth were done by Allah's power, just the same as the miracles Jesus did while he was here on earth.
 
 Yes God the Truine God. Why the REQUIREMENT of Jesus name in exorcism, healing the sick, raising the dead, making the lame walk , etc etc etc etc ? "In the name of Jesus Christ"- stand and walk, see, hear, live ? Why not in the name of Allah ?
 "Ask anything in My Name and it shall be given" Jesus Christ 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: amoxoxoma
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 2:19am
Can you guys stop with all the colors?
 
How about just simple quote and response. I can't tell who is saying what anymore


-------------
The more deeply we are our true selves, the less self is in us.
Meister Eckhart


Posted By: Squeegie
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 8:12am
Originally posted by eldon

"He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at", so why should any follower of his think to grasp at equality with God for him?
 
... especially those who accept the fact that Jesus used the term ONLY in reference to the true God?
 



Consider why you don't have to grasp at anything in life. I do not have to grasp at motherhood because I have been a mom for twenty some years now. I don't have to grasp at being a wife because I have been one for that and a couple more years.

Jesus didn't have to grasp at equality with God because he possessed it from eternity past. It was just for those 33 years when he was voluntarily stranded in time just as we are, he was in a subordinate position to his father. During his final days on earth, he made a big deal of what was going to happen upon his return to his father. He was looking forward to the time when he would again share the glory he had with his father in "the beginning".


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 9:42am

Amoxoma, the quote box messes up at times on my computer, quoting everything I say within the quote box of the original poster to whom i'm responding. That is why I responded using different colors, sorry. I'll try to make things clearer.

Squeegie, to me, huparcho (subsisting) in Philippians 2:6, along with 1Corinthians 15:28, is solid evidence that Jesus has always been and always will be subordinate to the Father.

He is not ashamed to call Him Allah (God) anymore than he is ashamed to call those who believe brethren (Hebrews 2:11,12).
 
Damo: Don't get me wrong i'm not arguing against your bi-location theory, i genuinely believe he was omnipresent. Its made clear in John's gospel 1;48 Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered, and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
 
my response: That verse is evidence of Jesus having prophetic insight of Nathanael, which some Christians claim as evidence of Jesus being omniscient (not omnipresent). However, Jesus in Mark 13:32 acknowledges himself as not being omniscient.
 
Damo: Yes Breath of God... which even the Hebrew's acknowledged was the very Spirit of God, which from their early concept of this Spirit was the very essence of God, a divine power which could enter people of His chosing.
 
my response: Yes, no problem. The Spirit is the very essence OF God.
 
Damo: The very point of mentioning equality was because it was written in retrospect, or else no mention of it at all.. as there would have been no reason.. Its quite simple.
 
I believe the point in mentioning equality with God was that it was not to be grasped at, by Jesus or anyone else.
 
Damo: Why the REQUIREMENT of Jesus name in exorcism, healing the sick, raising the dead, making the lame walk , etc etc etc etc ? "In the name of Jesus Christ"- stand and walk, see, hear, live ? Why not in the name of Allah ?
 
my response: The requirement for Jesus' name to be mentioned in the performance of those miracles mentioned in the book of Acts was to verify the message he brought, and to avoid anyone thinking that the disciples were doing those mighty works in their own power.
 
Likewise, Jesus did his own works in the Name of Him who sent him, so as to affirm him being from Allah, and to avoid anyone thinking that he was doing those mighty works in his own power. It was only generations later that Jesus began to be exalted as God Himself, as people forgot or disregarded the words of Jesus as to how he did those works.
 
This very day an ongoing miracle is taking place in the name of Allah as millions if not billions of people bow themselves in prayer saying Bismillah (in the name of Allah). 
 
 


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 1:56pm
 Hi Amoxoma appologies for the dogs breakfast in quote's.
 Like Eldon, the quote boxes don't always come out as planned, believe me it would make it a whole lot easier for me also.
 
 
Damo: Don't get me wrong i'm not arguing against your bi-location theory, i genuinely believe he was omnipresent. Its made clear in John's gospel 1;48 Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered, and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
 
Eldon: That verse is evidence of Jesus having prophetic insight of Nathanael, which some Christians claim as evidence of Jesus being omniscient (not omnipresent). However, Jesus in Mark 13:32 acknowledges himself as not being omniscient.
 
 Damo:  Prohetic insight...??  It seems to be a bit of a pointless prophetic vision. Jesus doesn't indicate he seen him through a vision, or dream etc, which usually describes the accounts for other prophetic insights by others. Jesus simply says. "I saw thee"  You imply things which simply are not there. 
 
Damo: Yes Breath of God... which even the Hebrew's acknowledged was the very Spirit of God, which from their early concept of this Spirit was the very essence of God, a divine power which could enter people of His chosing.
 
Eldon: Yes, no problem. The Spirit is the very essence OF God.
 
Damo :Is this Spirit not then the Holy Spirit of God ?
 
Damo: The very point of mentioning equality was because it was written in retrospect, or else no mention of it at all.. as there would have been no reason.. Its quite simple.
 
Eldon : I believe the point in mentioning equality with God was that it was not to be grasped at, by Jesus or anyone else.
 
 Damo : But if equality was not an issue,  not within the mindset of anyone at the time  why mention it at all if it had absolutley no bearing on the situation, a bit odd don't you think ? A bit like throwing a comment regarding the best way to get a soft boiled egg for breakfast into a conversation discussing quantum mechanics...   
 
 
Damo: Why the REQUIREMENT of Jesus name in exorcism, healing the sick, raising the dead, making the lame walk , etc etc etc etc ? "In the name of Jesus Christ"- stand and walk, see, hear, live ? Why not in the name of Allah ?
 
Eldon: The requirement for Jesus' name to be mentioned in the performance of those miracles mentioned in the book of Acts was to verify the message he brought, and to avoid anyone thinking that the disciples were doing those mighty works in their own power.
 
 Damo: I doubt it ..Why would anyone think they were performing the acts by their own power if they had just attributed the mirracles to say the God of Abraham, which would have verified both Jesus and the apostals anyway ?
 
Eldon : Likewise, Jesus did his own works in the Name of Him who sent him, so as to affirm him being from Allah, and to avoid anyone thinking that he was doing those mighty works in his own power. It was only generations later that Jesus began to be exalted as God Himself, as people forgot or disregarded the words of Jesus as to how he did those works.
 
 Damo : Jesus made the dead alive, the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, rebuked demons. All this He did by His own authority.
 
Eldon: This very day an ongoing miracle is taking place in the name of Allah as millions if not billions of people bow themselves in prayer saying Bismillah (in the name of Allah). 
 
Damo : No dis-respect, but in what way does this constitute a mirracle ?
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: sbananamarie11
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 11:51pm
I've never been able to understand the idea of 3 being one.  If that were true then since we are made in God's image... shouldn't we be 3 split personalities also? The idea of the Trinity was never introduced until long after Christ's death and is never once mentioned in the bible.

Emperor Constantine on May 20, 325 AD. called for a meeting of his 318 Bishops at Nicea. At this council meeting the Trinity-Theory was made the Official Doctrine of the Catholic Church, later in 381 AD. at the Council of Constantinople the Catholic Church reconfirmed the State Official doctrine of the Trinity, and made it more complete.



-------------
Shanna


Posted By: Yousef1
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 3:43am

If a person had lived his entire life in an isolated and totally un-inhabited forest, would this person reach the conclusion that:

"My Creator is One" OR would he say "My Creator is T.H.R.E.E in one"???
 

Only the truth comes naturally to human instinct, logic, and intellect.

 

Pure Monotheism is innately recognized within man's natural instinct and it stands out clearly and independently.

 

Pure Monotheism can never be twisted, re-defined, diluted, or stretched in order to accomodate multiple 'god-heads' or multiple divine personas, or multiple characters to be sharing together in divinity.
 
Throughout history, The ONE God sent many honorable human Messengers to convey the single consistent truth to the rest of humanity:
 
Noah, Solomn, David, Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob, Yousef, Aaron, Moses, Jesus, and finally, Muhammad (peace be upon them all); All of these noble human Messengers conveyed one single pure consistent Message:
 

God is ONE and ALONE worthy of worship.  Nothing and Nobody shares in the divinity of the One and Only God.

 
That was the Pure Monotheistic message that was repeatedly addressed to the conscience of mankind, because it's the innate truth that the human instinct naturally recognizes.
 
 


-------------
Prophet Jesus was a Muslim; he humbly worshipped HIS Lord, the One & Only God. So follow the true message of Jesus: Worship God ONLY, Not the Prophets, Not "Popes", Not "saints".


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 9:41am
Eldon: This very day an ongoing miracle is taking place in the name of Allah as millions if not billions of people bow themselves in prayer saying Bismillah (in the name of Allah). 
 
Damo : No dis-respect, but in what way does this constitute a mirracle ?
 
Do you think those millions are all just conspiring to pray together every day, without the Wonderful Influence of Allah Most High, inspiring them to do so?   It's an ongoing evidence of His miraculous work in our lives that we actively worship Him.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 10:38am
Originally posted by eldon

Do you think those millions are all just conspiring to pray together every day, without the Wonderful Influence of Allah Most High, inspiring them to do so?   It's an ongoing evidence of His miraculous work in our lives that we actively worship Him.
 
In adhering to a requirement of faith whether it be observed by 100 people, or a billion people is a compliment to the people of that faith. Though not miraculous by any means.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 11:02am
Originally posted by sbananamarie11

I've never been able to understand the idea of 3 being one.  If that were true then since we are made in God's image... shouldn't we be 3 split personalities also? The idea of the Trinity was never introduced until long after Christ's death and is never once mentioned in the bible.

Emperor Constantine on May 20, 325 AD. called for a meeting of his 318 Bishops at Nicea. At this council meeting the Trinity-Theory was made the Official Doctrine of the Catholic Church, later in 381 AD. at the Council of Constantinople the Catholic Church reconfirmed the State Official doctrine of the Trinity, and made it more complete.

 
 The council of Nicea was in reality by means of decree, setting down once and for all that which was already held as common knowledge by the heirarchy of the Church from the Early church fathers such as Ireneus, Polycarp and others onwards, so as to set clear what was already known and understood, and prevent the rot if you like of Gnosticism getting a foothold in spreading heresey by taking advantage of anything which could be seized apon as ambiguous
 
 The concept of the Blessed Trinity was held long before 325... the earliest of Christian writings, see the The Huleatt Manuscript 50 AD, the Letter of Barnabas 74 AD  (not to be confused with the gospel of barnabus forgery ),Hermas 80 AD, Aristides 140 AD, Justin Martyr 150 AD. There's plenty more and i'll list more if you wish... The Trinity as a word is not used in the Bible, but is non the less there in black and white in accounting all three members as God.
 
  http://bible.ca/H-trinity.htm - See here
http://bible.ca/H-trinity.htm -  
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 11:11am
Originally posted by Yousef1

If a person had lived his entire life in an isolated and totally un-inhabited forest, would this person reach the conclusion that:

"My Creator is One" OR would he say "My Creator is T.H.R.E.E in one"???
 

Only the truth comes naturally to human instinct, logic, and intellect.

 

Pure Monotheism is innately recognized within man's natural instinct and it stands out clearly and independently.

 

Pure Monotheism can never be twisted, re-defined, diluted, or stretched in order to accomodate multiple 'god-heads' or multiple divine personas, or multiple characters to be sharing together in divinity.
 
Throughout history, The ONE God sent many honorable human Messengers to convey the single consistent truth to the rest of humanity:
 
Noah, Solomn, David, Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob, Yousef, Aaron, Moses, Jesus, and finally, Muhammad (peace be upon them all); All of these noble human Messengers conveyed one single pure consistent Message:
 

God is ONE and ALONE worthy of worship.  Nothing and Nobody shares in the divinity of the One and Only God.

 
That was the Pure Monotheistic message that was repeatedly addressed to the conscience of mankind, because it's the innate truth that the human instinct naturally recognizes.
 
 
 
 But man didn't live in isolation, God over time allowed man to come to know more about His nature over many generations.
 
 God is One , and alone worthy of worship.. Christians do not dispute that, and never have. But God is , if you like one Body of three distinct Individuals. Each of the same Divine essence and nature making them as One , and not as Three Gods, since before time began.  
 
 
150 AD Justin Martyr: "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"
 
  


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 9:44pm
Damo. You said, "God over time allowed man to come to know more about His nature over many generations"
 
Would that be fair to the people of earlier generations, that they never come to know God coz God only revealed His true nature to the later generations?
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by Traveller

Damo. You said, "God over time allowed man to come to know more about His nature over many generations"
 
Would that be fair to the people of earlier generations, that they never come to know God coz God only revealed His true nature to the later generations?
 
 
 
 Its reality .. nothing to do with whats fair or whatever. For example many of the patriarchs of the OT where given prophesy by God... much of that prophesy would not be fulfilled within their lifetime or perhaps even be fully understood by the prophets themselves until some generations later.
 I don't thik this is any different. God to men in those early days is no different in nature to the God understood by Christians today, in that He is all powerfull, created all that is seen and unseen, creator of Heaven and Earth. Beside him there are no gods.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 12:27am
God to men in those early days is no different in nature to the God understood by Christians today
 
Surely it is. God in the early days is just 1 God. Christians now say God is 1 God but in three different forms. Surely that is a major difference in nature.
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 9:28am
Originally posted by Damo

150 AD Justin Martyr: "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"
 
Justin Martyr's belief is unacceptable according to the Athanasian Creed, compiled ~300 years afterwards. He is describing a heirarchy under the True God, not a "co-equal trinity within God".


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 10:45am
Originally posted by Traveller

God to men in those early days is no different in nature to the God understood by Christians today
 
Surely it is. God in the early days is just 1 God. Christians now say God is 1 God but in three different forms. Surely that is a major difference in nature.
 
 
 
 God in Genesis 1:1 "B’raishees buruh Elohim ais hashomayim v’ais hueretz"
Translates literaly as ""In the beginning God(s) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is the plural form meaning God's.
 
 Hosea 1:7 God speaks from the 1st person perspective and says :And I will have mercy on the house of Juda, and I will save them by the Lord their God:
 
 I could provide further examples if need be.
 
 
Originally posted by eldon

Originally posted by Damo

150 AD Justin Martyr: "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"
 
Justin Martyr's belief is unacceptable according to the Athanasian Creed, compiled ~300 years afterwards. He is describing a heirarchy under the True God, not a "co-equal trinity within God".
 
 Eldon, the Nicean Creed hold that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, and that the Holy Spirit is the Third. All glory and honour emanate through the Son and the Spirit from the Father.
 
  But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote."
Justin Martyr
 
 Much of what is said above also agrees with what i said in the other thread regarding the Angel of the Lord as Jesus pre-incarnate
 
The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter,
Justin Martyr:
 
   
 
 
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Damo808

 
 
 
 The concept of the Blessed Trinity was held long before 325... the earliest of Christian writings, see the The Huleatt Manuscript 50 AD, the Letter of Barnabas 74 AD  (not to be confused with the gospel of barnabus forgery ),Hermas 80 AD, Aristides 140 AD, Justin Martyr 150 AD. There's plenty more and i'll list more if you wish... The Trinity as a word is not used in the Bible, but is non the less there in black and white in accounting all three members as God.
 
 
 
 
  • 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

First, the date of this "manuscript" is generally agreed upon as circa 200AD, not 50AD.
 
Secondly, there are only three small fragments to be examined, the translation of which as alleged posted above is practically impossible. See the link for a picture of the actual fragments:
 
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/images/general/P64.gif - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/images/general/P64.gif
 
  • 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

That says nothing about a co-equal trinity, but only affirms pre-existence of the Word.
 
  • 80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

again, no co-equal trinity there.
 
  • 140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

 Acknowledging God IN the Son and Holy Spirit is a far cry from acknowledging God AS the Son and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian dogma is a later corruption of the writings of the Apostles of Jesus, there is nothing in his words demanding belief in a co-equal Trinity, but rather his words contradict such a demand.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Janet Waters
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by desertdude

 Can any one In simple an layman terms ,give me a worldy example of the trinity . The 3 = 1 and 1 = 3 .An example that would stand its ground under scrunity .I 've heard the Water theory ,The Egg theory ,The Father ,Husband and son theory ,Jesus chaniging ,wardrobe theory and quite a few others.But the can be very easily deconstructed

 I mean is all gods honest truth I cannot seem to grasp the idea of the trinity of 3 being 1 and vice versa .Just like my friend scruggy cannot grasp the idea of a god .I cannot grasp the theory of the trinity .

PS: As some will mostly claim (not naming names here )as soon as this goes up .NO this is not what u call a loaded question.



From my understanding about why there was a need to coin the Trinity theory....  Is to combine two supposed "opposing" classifications of God:

(1)  Godhead Doctrine:  Trying to understand how Eloheim (which is a plural) can yet be "one" at the same time.

(2)  Monotheism theory:  Devise a way that a plural understanding about God can fit into the the theory about what constitutes "monotheism."


Some Christians would say that God has to be both.  Yet other people would have to pick one way and reject the other.....saying it is not possible to be both at the same time.

But notice.....that the Trinity and Monotheism are both theories and not doctrine.  So we are then forced to go back and study what the Godhead doctrine is or is not.






Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 4:39pm
  • 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

Eldon :First, the date of this "manuscript" is generally agreed upon as circa 200AD, not 50AD.
 
Secondly, there are only three small fragments to be examined, the translation of which as alleged posted above is practically impossible. See the link for a picture of the actual fragments:
 
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/images/general/P64.gif - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/images/general/P64.gif
 
 Damo:  Circa 200 AD generally agreed apon ? Can you show evidence of this ?
Be it so we don't agree on this one, i can live with that .
 
 
  • 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

 Eldon: That says nothing about a co-equal trinity, but only affirms pre-existence of the Word.
 
 Damo: , Jesus is recognised as Lord of ALL the world, to who God said "let US make man after OUR image and after OUR likeness. Muslims certainly do not contend Jesus is Lord of all the world.
 
  • 80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

Eldon: again, no co-equal trinity there.
 
 Damo: Not in this verse, but what this verse does show is that the point you made regarding a pre-existence of all people prior to creation and that of these people Jesus was created also is false according to this.
 
  • 140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

 Eldon: Acknowledging God IN the Son and Holy Spirit is a far cry from acknowledging God AS the Son and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian dogma is a later corruption of the writings of the Apostles of Jesus, there is nothing in his words demanding belief in a co-equal Trinity, but rather his words contradict such a demand.
 
 Damo: Eldon this verse testifies to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity.
  But what of :
 "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." 
 
 Or "The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter,"  <This is a clearly illustrative of the Trinity.
 
 Or  "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
 
Or  "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Tatian Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

 
Or  "[T]o Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on Earth and under the earth" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

 "Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 26 April 2008 at 9:02am
Damo, all those quotes are further examples of the contrast between John 20:17 versus John 20:28
 
(Jesus said the Father is his God and our God, whereas Thomas is implied to profess that Jesus is his God.)
 
I believe Jesus was right and Thomas was misinterpreted. There is no doubt that most Christians through the ages have followed after Thomas' exclamation rather than what Jesus said concerning this issue.
 
A "co-equal trinity" schema rules out the idea of one member calling another "my God"


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 26 April 2008 at 12:05pm
 
Eldon :
Damo, all those quotes are further examples of the contrast between John 20:17 versus John 20:28
 
(Jesus said the Father is his God and our God, whereas Thomas is implied to profess that Jesus is his God.)
 
I believe Jesus was right and Thomas was misinterpreted. There is no doubt that most Christians through the ages have followed after Thomas' exclamation rather than what Jesus said concerning this issue.
 
  
A "co-equal trinity" schema rules out the idea of one member calling another "my God"
 
 
 
Damo:
Eldon.... As has been explained... Equality with God the Father could not be grasped in Philippians, 2.5-9 (which you call a clumsy translation).
 
 Which explains why "my God" was used, the aim was not to confuse those who could not grasp His equality, but rather that they maintain the worship of the one True God. Ignorance of His status at that time Jesus willingly overlooked.
 
 You believe Thomas was mis-interpreted, but thats you opinion because to believe otherwise negates Islam. It also doen't make sense why Jesus if Thomas did say what he did Jesus wouldn't have rebuked him. But aside from this there are as many other verses as have been pointed out numerously which can only be equated with God when Jesus spoke.
 
 Eitherway.. i think the quotes provided demonstrate that the assertion that Jesus as God only came about at the Council of Nicea in 325 is nonesense.
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 8:57am
It has never been true and never will be true that a person is equal to -- or considers himself equal to-- the One he calls "my God".

-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 9:21am
"It has never been true and never will be true that a person is equal to -- or considers himself equal to-- the One he calls "my God". "
 
 
   I think its safe to say Eldon... that your going to stick to that verse, against context, as well as against the better judgement of the apostals themselves and the apostals of the apostals i.e the early church fathers. Your welcome to your opinion, however i can't help thinking the early church fathers's understanding is vastly superior to yours.


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 9:41am
John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Giovanni
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 10:40am
Originally posted by eldon

John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.


  I am going to be blunt.
You keep bringing up the Qu'ran to confirm your truth.  How do you know the Qu'oran is the truth.  Who was with Muhammed to confirm the message he got and who he got it from.  No witnesses.  Most if not all trials would be thrown out of court if there are no material witnesses to confirm the case.



-------------
May the Love of God be With you.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Giovanni

Originally posted by eldon

John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.


  I am going to be blunt.
You keep bringing up the Qu'ran to confirm your truth.  How do you know the Qu'oran is the truth.  Who was with Muhammed to confirm the message he got and who he got it from.  No witnesses.  Most if not all trials would be thrown out of court if there are no material witnesses to confirm the case.



Even if Eldon brought witnesses, historical reports surrounding the Qur'an and Muhammad's life as it was in the process of being sent to him, I doubt you would be swayed.

The issue, in my view, is the text itself. I don't know if you have ever read any of the Qur'an at all, but please do. Not because you want to convert, but rather to understand the Muslim viewpoint and its basis.

Eldon, even as a Muslim, can still find reference to the Bible, because he wants to communicate with Christians. He has to speak to them in their language. It doesn't mean you will accept what he's saying, but at least you can understand where he's coming from. Please try the same with regards to the Qur'an itself.

Regards,
S.Waheed


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Giovanni
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 11:46am
Originally posted by waheed1

Originally posted by Giovanni

Originally posted by eldon

John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.


  I am going to be blunt.
You keep bringing up the Qu'ran to confirm your truth.  How do you know the Qu'oran is the truth.  Who was with Muhammed to confirm the message he got and who he got it from.  No witnesses.  Most if not all trials would be thrown out of court if there are no material witnesses to confirm the case.



Even if Eldon brought witnesses, historical reports surrounding the Qur'an and Muhammad's life as it was in the process of being sent to him, I doubt you would be swayed.

The issue, in my view, is the text itself. I don't know if you have ever read any of the Qur'an at all, but please do. Not because you want to convert, but rather to understand the Muslim viewpoint and its basis.

Eldon, even as a Muslim, can still find reference to the Bible, because he wants to communicate with Christians. He has to speak to them in their language. It doesn't mean you will accept what he's saying, but at least you can understand where he's coming from. Please try the same with regards to the Qur'an itself.

Regards,
S.Waheed


  Neither eldon or anyone else now or ever can without  proof say the Qu'ran is the truth.  
  If I have a question about Islam, I would receive the answer with the understanding that such is your belief and move on, NOT TELL YOU, YOU ARE WRONG.  That is why at times I respond as I do.
  Eldon and any other Muslim can't tell me the Qu'ran affirms the truth about Jesus, and you cannot say he is speaking to them (me) in my language telling me what I believe is wrong.  Then just prohibit all Christians from this forum and just tell each other how great you all are with such a great religion where every one else is misled and going to hell and you are the only ones with the truth.



-------------
May the Love of God be With you.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 12:50pm
I can see your point, but at the same time everyone thinks their religion is the correct one, so that's unavoidable.

There are many people who were Christians prior to their acceptance of Islam. Through their own initiatives and knowledge, they have decided that the Qur'an is from God. I think that during the course of a conversation, it would basically come out that such and such, etc..

If I joined a catholic forum, and entered into conversations there, they would say I am wrong for such and such belief. That's again, simply unavoidable.

Whether I believe what I am told there would be another issue alltogether. The same here. Eldon tells you things about the Bible, I tell you things, other people say things. You can accept it as true or dismiss it.

FYI, personally i don't believe in telling people their religion is wrong, i do believe in dialogue, and that facts, or atleast perceptions, come out of such discussions, and that's a good thing.


-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 7:31pm
Originally posted by eldon

John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.
 
 Christian don't "de-emphasize" they take the whole of scripture instead of two verses ( taken out of context ) to make their decisions.
 
 You suggest erroneously that tradition and core beliefs passed on by the apostals to their apostals became completey scewed within a few decades of Christ's passing going by what the earlierst of Christian writters attest to regarding Jesus nature. Which begs the question.. For all the prohpesy concerning the coming of the Messiah in the OT, was the message He brough to be fruitful only to one or two generations after His appearing with the consecutive app 500 centuries passing in error until Mohammud. Seems to me if this is the case, the Messianic prophesy was very much over exagerated as it held significance to but a few, for so long to the detriment of the souls of as many generations.
 
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by Damo808

 God in Genesis 1:1 "B’raishees buruh Elohim ais hashomayim v’ais hueretz"
Translates literaly as ""In the beginning God(s) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is the plural form meaning God's.
 
 
Does it say which god created what?
 
If there are more than 1 creator, don't they have to get together and coordinate?
 
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 10:08pm
Originally posted by Traveller

Originally posted by Damo808

 God in Genesis 1:1 "B’raishees buruh Elohim ais hashomayim v’ais hueretz"
Translates literaly as ""In the beginning God(s) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is the plural form meaning God's.
 
 
Does it say which god created what?
 
If there are more than 1 creator, don't they have to get together and coordinate?
 
 
 
 
 It doesn't work that way Trav. They are as One. How the earth came into being litteraly was by His Word "Let there Be"


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Traveller
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 10:48pm
I'm confused Damo. Seriously.
 
I can't, for the life of me imagine how it is for 3 different beings to come together as one and said, "Let there Be".
 
How you can accept it is something that is beyond me too.
 
 


-------------
In life, be like a traveller. Take only what you need


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 11:05pm
Originally posted by Traveller

I'm confused Damo. Seriously.
 
I can't, for the life of me imagine how it is for 3 different beings to come together as one and said, "Let there Be".
 
How you can accept it is something that is beyond me too.
 
 
 
 Traveller.. i appreciate  how contradictory and illogical the concept may appear . What i mention concerning the Trinity is as far as even i a Christian can elaborate on it. The Triune God is incomprehendable to man but that in itself though  doesn't make it an impossibility.. especially when God cannot be grasped by comparrison to anything else we base logic upon.
 
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - Irenaeus replies to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm - Gnostics , who held that the world was http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm - created by a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm - demiurge other than the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - supreme God , by affirming that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm - Word and His Wisdom, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#VI - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#VI
 


-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: eldon
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 8:06am
Originally posted by Giovanni

Originally posted by eldon

John 17:3 and 20:17 are two very strong verses which directly address the question of whether or not Jesus is God. Spoken by Jesus himself, there are no other verses in the whole Bible comparable to them concerning the subject of the relationship between God and Jesus.
 
Christians should never have de-emphasized those verses in favor of less authoritative scriptural implications to construct the image of tri-unity.
 
Thankfully, though, Allah sent the Quran to affirm the truth of the God Jesus worshipped and free him from erroneous traditons of men.


  I am going to be blunt.
You keep bringing up the Qu'ran to confirm your truth.  How do you know the Qu'oran is the truth.  Who was with Muhammed to confirm the message he got and who he got it from.  No witnesses.  Most if not all trials would be thrown out of court if there are no material witnesses to confirm the case.

 
I know the Quran is the Truth because it told me as a "person of the Gospel" to judge by the things written in the Gospel. As I judged by the things written in the Gospel, I found that the Spirit of Truth bore witness to the things written in the Quran.
 
In particular, the Quran quotes the words of Jesus where his message to his followers is for them to worship "my Lord and your Lord". Searching the New Testament, I found there was no basis for a "co-equal trinity" based on the words of Jesus himself since he used very exclusive language to delineate the difference between himself and his God.
 
I concluded that the Quran is true because it is a basic principle of Revelation that the Most High will not leave humanity without a Scripture of witness in the earth. When people who have received one Revelation of the Truth corrupt that truth by their traditions, then He sends another Messenger to reaffirm the Truth in denial of the added traditions.
 
He did that with Jesus, after the Jews had corrupted the Truth by their traditions and He did that with Muhammad after Christians had corrupted the Truth of what Jesus taught. My purpose in saying these things is not to offend you in the Christian traditions that you hold, but to simply bear witness to the Truth that I have received through the Quran.
 
Like brother Waheed pointed out, it is not for me to tell you that your religion is wrong, but I will tell you as the Quran tells you:  Judge by the things written in the Gospel --even as you have it today-- if you can read the words of Jesus there and rest content that you are following him as he intends, then peace be unto you.
 
My experience is that I could not follow him by associating myself with many Christian traditions.
 
Damo, the same goes for you:  if you can rest content that you are taking proper heed to the words of Jesus to worship his God, the only true God, then peace be unto you. I sincerely hope the best for you, even as I hope the best for my own family members who are following Catholic tradition. My testimony regarding the Truth of the Quran is part of my best wishes for both you and them.


-------------
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083966/Confirming-the-Glory - Islam - Islam


Posted By: Janet Waters
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 6:59pm
Originally posted by eldon

I know the Quran is the Truth because it told me as a "person of the Gospel" to judge by the things written in the Gospel. As I judged by the things written in the Gospel, I found that the Spirit of Truth bore witness to the things written in the Quran.
 
In particular, the Quran quotes the words of Jesus where his message to his followers is for them to worship "my Lord and your Lord". Searching the New Testament, I found there was no basis for a "co-equal trinity" based on the words of Jesus himself since he used very exclusive language to delineate the difference between himself and his God.
 
Amen.  There is a definate distinction between Elohim and Jesus.
 
Originally posted by eldon

I concluded that the Quran is true because it is a basic principle of Revelation that the Most High will not leave humanity without a Scripture of witness in the earth. When people who have received one Revelation of the Truth corrupt that truth by their traditions, then He sends another Messenger to reaffirm the Truth in denial of the added traditions.
 
True.  At the beginning of every Dispensation (Seal), the Lord dispenses the gospel message back in it's purity.  We know that there are a total of 7 dispensations (Seals), the last having Christ reigning as King (2nd Coming).  Christ's first coming consisted of the 5th Dispensation (Seal).  Each time period is approximately 1000 years.
 
The beginning of a Seal is when it is in its pristine condition, then towards the end (1000 years or so later) the gospel message has had the interpolutions of men added.  Then when the Lord sees fit, he will open a new dispensation to restore that which was lost.
 
 
Originally posted by eldon

He did that with Jesus, after the Jews had corrupted the Truth by their traditions and He did that with Muhammad after Christians had corrupted the Truth of what Jesus taught. My purpose in saying these things is not to offend you in the Christian traditions that you hold, but to simply bear witness to the Truth that I have received through the Quran.
 
I agree to a degree.  You are right, with the gospel being restored through Jesus (and then he sent his apostles to teach abroad).  From the time of 700-585BC, the majority of the prophets who preached about the Messiah being the Son of God....the Jews rejected the Lord's messengers and killed them.  Then when the Messiah did come....their descendents also sought to take his life and the life of his apostles.  Even during the life of the apostles, they declared that the Apostacy had already set in.  Stating that wolves in sheep's clothing had already entered.
 
The Abrahamic Covenant was issued through the Tribes of Israel as an eternal inheritance.  This covenant that God made with Abraham, blessed Abraham's birthright holder with the responsibility to spread the gospel message with priesthood authority.  Yes....the Jews disqualified themselves of this position.  However, to Judah their father, he was blessed to hold the scepter (priesthood authority) until Shiloh (Christ) came.  Then He whose right it was to rule would.  However they rejected him, yet again.  The tribe of Judah is not the only tribe of Israel.  In fact the true heir was Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brethren, because Jacob gave him the coat of many colors (priesthood robes of authority) causing the other's to bow down to him (as Joseph's dream stated).
 
Tell me if I am wrong here.....Muhammad didn't claim to be a Dispensation Head (one who opens a seal) but one who closed a Seal.  For Muhammad was the last seal.  Meaning he closed a dispensation...not opened it.  Then no other prophet was sent to Islam again. 
 
But for the 6th Dispensation the prophethood is to continue not to end.  In fact as Malachi, stated that if the children and the fathers' hearts weren't welded together.....that the whole earth would be wasted at the second coming.  In other words, the prophethood (Seership) is to be currently held at the time that Christ comes again.  Seers seal family members together as eternal families through his priesthood.  If this is not the case....then the whole earth would be wasted by his coming.
 
 
Originally posted by eldon

Like brother Waheed pointed out, it is not for me to tell you that your religion is wrong, but I will tell you as the Quran tells you:  Judge by the things written in the Gospel --even as you have it today-- if you can read the words of Jesus there and rest content that you are following him as he intends, then peace be unto you.
 
My experience is that I could not follow him by associating myself with many Christian traditions.
 
I would have also had a hard time accepting the Trinity theory as well.  But there again, not all Christians are trinitarians.  Some of these traditions are incorrect.....however many are correct.
 
Originally posted by eldon

Damo, the same goes for you:  if you can rest content that you are taking proper heed to the words of Jesus to worship his God, the only true God, then peace be unto you. I sincerely hope the best for you, even as I hope the best for my own family members who are following Catholic tradition. My testimony regarding the Truth of the Quran is part of my best wishes for both you and them.
 
I am glad to see personal revelation in action. 
 
 


Posted By: Janet Waters
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by Damo808

God in Genesis 1:1 "B’raishees buruh Elohim ais hashomayim v’ais hueretz"
Translates literaly as ""In the beginning God(s) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is the plural form meaning God's.
 
This is the Godhead Doctrine.
 
 
Originally posted by Traveller

Does it say which god created what?
 
Yes.  The Father created all things through the Son.  In other words....the Father decreed it and the Son performed it.  The Father is the Architect and the Son is the Builder/Carpenter.
 
Originally posted by Damo808

If there are more than 1 creator, don't they have to get together and coordinate?
 
This is the Trinity theory.....
 


Posted By: desertdude
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 8:26pm
 No disrespect intentented to either catholics or LDS members but I feel there is a lot of techinical jargon in them .Honestly me being a layman it rather confuses me more than making things clear and reads more complicated than an engine overhaul service manual.
 I am truly struggling to keep up with the jargon and sometimes give up on reading on them all toghter.

 Sorry for hijacking my own thread for a while .Maybe if posters try it keep it simple for the sake of simpletons like me


-------------
We r not the conspiracy theorists on this issue.It seems 2 me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four airliners and hitting 75 % of their targets-that feels like a conspiracy theory.C.Sheen



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info