The Trinity Challenge
By Ibn Saad
This is an open Challenge to those who accept the Trinity and believe that the Bible confirms this doctrine. I challenge you to bring at least one explicit biblical verse which clearly states something similar to the following:
“God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all gods, however, they are not three gods but one God,”
or
“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being,”
or
“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same” or etc.
Note that if you find a verse with the words “God,” “Jesus,” and “Holy Ghost” that appear together in one verse, this does not prove the “Trinity,” or “merging of three into one.” Even if this verse contains the word “one”, this still does not prove the “Trinity.” For example, if I say “Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language” this is not the same as saying “Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person.”
If you are unable to do what I ask, and trust me, you can’t , than you have to agree that the concept of the Trinity does not exist in the Bible. You might argue that Jesus told his disciples in secret and they spread it to his other followers who spread it to later generations. If this is your argument, know that this contradicts the verse in the Bible, where Jesus says:
“I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing” (John 18:20).
So now, you have to ask yourself, did Jesus really teach the Trinity or am I following a man-made paradox? I’ll let you decide.
(Ref: What did Jesus Really Say? http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/contents.html)
Assalamu’alaikum,
There isn’t an explicit verse anywhere in whichever Bible that promotes the trinity SAVE one. The verse is in the 1st Epistle of John Chapter 5 verse 7, the so called Johannine Comma. However, this verse is subject to immense controversy and is regarded by many Biblical experts as nothing more than an interpolation which crept into Latin texts from the 4th century onwards(see the NIV). The verse is not to be found in any early Greek manuscripts according to the New International Version, The Revised Standard Version, The Amplified Version, The Scofield Reference Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible and even the New Revised Standard Version indiates that the passage is not worthy of status as scripture. This is sufficient indication that the verse is a fabrication which wasforced into the Catholic church in its early days.
Trinity(man-made concoction) vs Absolute Monotheism:
1st Epistle of John Chapter 5:7 in KJV :
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the son and the holy spirit and these three are one.
Versus
17 John, verse 3:
“For this is eternal life, that they may know You(the Father) the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.”
Jazahullah
More to add about 1 John 5:7:
(Taken from http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html)
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says:
“This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.”
Also we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is.
Dear Muslim friends. I am a Christian. Not the kind of Christian you see on movies or in entertainment… they probably aren’t Christians at all.
I also hold a degree in Physics, have completed a second degree and have done some basic studies in logic.
I also believe in this elusive controversy called the Trinity. I want you to know that I wouldn’t believe it if: a) it were so easily proven untrue (as is the “Strawman” approach in many religious circles) and b) if it were not taught in Scripture.
I know that most Christians don’t study their Bibles, (shame on us) and I also admit that especially the Catholic Church has been guilty of adding and subtracting doctrines over the years. That’s why I am not a Catholic.
I am fully aware that Muslims have trouble with two major Christian beliefs: the Trinity and Jesus being the Son of God. I struggled with them both until I actually read the Bible instead of having others “Strawman” them to me. (Strawman is a cheap debating trick. Google-it, and ask if you’ve been Strawmanned! =)
Your challenge looks convincing only to readers who already agree with the premise of your challenge, though the rules of the challenge don’t a)help Muslims understand Christians b)further any useful dialog between faiths c) help a genuinely seeking Muslim or d) do not explore THE REAL REASON why Christians believe the Trinity. (By the way, the two people who posted already have more attacked the Bible than shed light on the topic at hand. If the doctrine is logically believable by reasonable people, it probably should not be addressed by Muslims).
I have a paper written on the Trinity for those who are interested in further reading on the matter. I’m not a theologian, or scholar, but I have read the Bible several times, I enjoy it, and am ready to be held responsible for what I believe.
The simple answer to the challenge is: No, besides the verse mentioned (and I disagree with the context in which it was discussed) there isn’t (and doesn’t need to be) a single verse in the Bible that wraps the Trinity up in a neat ball.
I can also say that without the Trinity, the Bible would completely unravel and not make any sense… but that is only a matter for those who study it for themselves. Feel free to email me for this list of Bible verses — but only if you’re really interested in dialog. Eternity is too long to regret unconcluded debates.
Roy Wahab
roywahab@yahoo.ca
NOTE: I don’t check this email address too often, but I will check it until the end of Oct/07
Assalamu’alaikum,
First of, what is the purpose of you saying “I’m not the kind of Christians you see on television” ? Secondly, what is the relevance of you saying “I hold a degree in physics,have completed a second degree and have done some basic studies in logic”? Is this suppose to add credebility to your belief in the trinity? If that is the case, though I hope it isn’t then it’s a very poor way of proving this problematic theology i.e. trinity since there are many physicists out there Muslims included who reject the concept.
I don’t think you are fully aware of the Muslim position. The Muslims are concerned and rather critical over 3 major Christian doctrines namely, the trinity, the crucifixion and the original sin. We do not have trouble accepting Jesus as the “son of God” provided that it is understood as how these verses are understood:
“Israel(Jacob) is my son, even my FIRSTBORN”. Exodus 4:22
“for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN.” Jeremiah 31:9
“Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:38
“I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me(King David), Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee.” Psalms 2:7
You said,”Your challenge looks convincing only to readers who already agree with the premise of your challenge, though the rules of the challenge don’t a)help Muslims understand Christians b)further any useful dialog between faiths c) help a genuinely seeking Muslim or d) do not explore THE REAL REASON why Christians believe the Trinity.”
This challenge is simply an honest attempt to see if there is indeed an unambiguous verse which declares the trinity since it is a most important foundation in most Christian denominations. The argument is basically that if it is indeed such an important concept then at least there should be one clear scripture which supports it, not puzzles of scripture put together. You said this kind of approach does not promote the understanding of why christians believe in the trinity…well is it really these kind of approaches or that which you yourself observed,”most Christians don’t study their Bibles” ?
You have a paper on the trinity? Please proceed it to the administrator of this site Abul Layth. His e-mail address is given in the “The Seekingilm Team” section. I would very much like to read what you have to say.
The Muslim stance is basically thus,” There is no definitive scriptual evidence of God’s plurality in three. Verses put forth by trinitarians to prove the concept are either misunderstood or ambiguous at best. If the idea existed, Jews an an early people of God would have believed in such a concept, but historically such a concept only existed in the Hindu Thrimurti before 3 to 4 CE. When the details are considered the reasonable man, Muslim or otherwise should reject the notion that trinity is scriptural.”
Ibn Anwardi
P.S. “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” mentions :
“(the trinity) is a product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”
It’s establishment and security was ensured after the slaughter and killing of Arius and his followers if I might add.
As a person who holds a degree in Biblical Studies and has spent many years studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew; I feel compelled to state that idea of the trinity is completely foreign to the Scriptures. The only place one would find the Trinity would be in either a perverse translation of the Holy Scriptures, or in some pagan religion. Roy Wahab has offered us exactly what all christians have given to the world concerning the Trinity, nothing but his own testimony concerning a “great mystery” that even he claims not to understand. I demand that proof from the word of God be offered to us. what good is the testimony of a man?
I agree completely with Rev. Roberts. I hold no impressive degrees — I can only point to the truth of the Word of God as validation for this view. Although we may be in the minority, there are many Christians who do NOT embrace the doctrine of the trinity, but are strict monotheists like myself.
Trinitarians would accuse us of denying two of their gods (“persons”) by only acknowledging One. That is not the case.
Didn’t God create man in His own image in the beginning? And wasn’t man created with a body, soul, and spirit while being ONE PERSON?
I have a body, soul, and spirit but am not 3 persons – only one. Since each of us has been created in God’s image, isn’t it reasonable to deduce that, in the same manner, God has a soul (Father), body (Son), and spirit (Holy Ghost) while also being ONE person, not three?
1Ti 3:16 And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory. (Amplified version)
Note that this scripture about the “mystery” does NOT say that God was manifest (made visible) in three persons. The mystery is that God was manifest in the flesh, and not just 1/3 of God, but God in all His fullness.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men’s ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah).
Col 2:9 For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].
(Amplified version)
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Greetings,
Karen you said:
“I have a body, soul, and spirit but am not 3 persons – only one. Since each of us has been created in God’s image, isn’t it reasonable to deduce that, in the same manner, God has a soul (Father), body (Son), and spirit (Holy Ghost) while also being ONE person, not three?”
Is the above like the white, yoke and shell of an egg or ice, water and gas analogies? lol…yes you have a body and soul…i’m not sure how you differentiate a soul from a spirit of a human being..are they not the same thing? Can you as a person survive if your soul left your body? Will you be considered a human being living on earth if your soul is devoid of a physical body? These are philosophical questions but I think you know what I’m getting at….God is one and is not consist of anything that we have knowledge of..as the Qur’an points out “There is NOTHING like unto Him” …He is absolutely unique from all points of view…to compare him to the likes of His creatures is to demean His position as the Ultimate Creator, different from anything and it also brings Him down to the level of the created. God can exist and survive without Jesus or any other thing for that matter. He is one without partner. This message is quite clearly declared in the First Commandment. Jesus does not in any way shape or form share even an ounce of God’s divinity. This is made clear in several places throughout the scriptures and particularly in the verse I pointed out in my previous comment i.e. John 17:3.
You said :
“The mystery is that God was manifest in the flesh, and not just 1/3 of God, but God in all His fullness.” This is in accordance with your understanding of the verses you provided from Colossians…However, like many scriptual verses it really depends on how you percieve them. There is also another verse, mentioned in the letters that “God dwells fully in the believers”..are we all now literally and fully ONE with God? Your interpretation is confounded further by such instances where Jesus made clear distinctions between him and God the Father, most often illustrating that the former is subservient to the latter. For instance, “Of that day knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, not the son, but only the Father.” If the Father or God is manifested FULLY in Jesus, isn’t it only logical that they would share the same powers, provileges and most importantly knowledge? Does your soul know something your body does not? This again is a philosophical question, but I think you know what I’m getting at…Well, I shan’t philosophy much further…In short “This is eternal life(salvation), that they may know You(The Father/God) are the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom You(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent(messenger)” John 17:3.
Ibn Anwar
Assalamu’alaikum,
Roy Wahab…thanks for that elaboration..sorry that I removed it…perhaps you should not have rudely ignored me and actually stick to the topic i.e. challenge to produce Biblical evidence for the trinity…good day
Thank you Roy Wahab, for your kind response. However with all due respect, I do not want the explanation of Roy Wahab. Rather, I want to know where did Jesus
preach the Trinity?
As Rev Samuel Roberts as so eloquently put it:
“I demand that proof from the word of God be offered to us. what good is the testimony of a man?”
lol, Ibn Anwar man, I just replied to a non-existent comment, u should have left it. Sigh……I am sure u know this Ayah of the Quran better than me, inshAllah I remind myself first than you:
Surah An-Nahal,
(16:125) Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Assalamu’alaikum,
Jazakumullah for that Ibn Saad..I will certainly take it under advisement..however, I will not hesitate to delete future posts from Roy should he continue to do the same.
Dr Von Tishendorf, one of the most resolute conservative defenders of the trinity, admitted that the New Testament had “in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written.” (Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 277)
Hey sorry guys. You’re right, my last (multi-page post) explained the Trinity, because I know all Muslims have trouble with it, and I tried to show that not only does it make credible/logical sense but that there are OTHER trinities that Muslims rely on as well. (Outside of the Islamic faith) I do apologize if this was interpreted as being rude. Sorry!
Deuteronomy 6:4 says “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” This is FUNDAMENTAL to Christian theology. Muslims frequently misunderstand us to be polytheistic, and we are adamantly monotheistic. Hence, I thought you wanted clarification, and an explanation based on reason and logic. (Because you don’t agree with our Scriptures anyways)
But if it is a short, one-worded answer you are looking for; the answer is NO! There is no single verse that carries the credentials you have set up. I’m not sure if you can conclude anything definite from these results based on the way you have set up the challenge. I suppose the challenge is over, and you can close/archive the thread.
I was however surprised that nobody contacted me about the 5-page list of Bible verses I put together where Christ claims equality with God, or the Holy Spirit does something only God can do.
Remember the premise, we believe in one God. Otherwise, we are openly contradictory! (or plain liars! =) Here’s my email again for those who are still seeking.
roywahab@gmail.com
Again, there is no single verse in the Bible that carries the credentials you have set forth.
Roy Wahab
Assalamu’alaikum,
Roy Wahab…your explanation would only be credible if the trinity was actually taught by the Bible…but as you have admitted..there isn’t a single verse in any version of the Bible that does!…so your logical reasonings really mean nothing…just because something is possible and logical does not mean that that’s how it is….your explanation would also help the Hindus in their concept of thrimurti…quite similar to the trinity….if a Hindu were to use the same logical reasoning..is that proof that their thrimurti is true? Sorry to burst your bubble Roy Wahab, but your research is void…
Trinitarian Christians are polytheistic yes…but there are those Christians who are monotheists like Reverend Samuel who’s an Arian. The Father, Jesus and the holy spirit are seperate beings…you say you have compiled a 5 page list of places where Jesus claimed equality with the Father…..I need only bring one to destroy your proposition and that is ” MY FATHER IS GREATER THAT I”…this clearly shows inequality between the two beings…in regards to the Holy Spirit in John 10 Jesus said “THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL” …all = everything which may inclue the Holy Spirit…and further more it is mentioned that “all blasphemy is forgiven except blasphemy against the holy spirit” this also shows clear inequality between the holy spirit and the other 2 in the godhead…
I suggest you go study more Roy Wahab. Thanks
Ibn Anwar
Hello Ibn. It is clear by the confines of this challenge that
THE REASONS WHY MUSLIMS DON’T BELIEVE THE TRINITY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS DO.
If you would like to make a new challenge to Christians to open conversation about why they are monotheists and believe the Trinity, I would be much obliged.
The verses you quoted are not in the context in which they were written. Here’s my challenge to you: Find a verse that says, in a single verse: “Jesus is greater than God, and God is greater than Jesus,” in the SAME verse. That would be very persuasive proof not only that God and Jesus are separate deities, but that the Bible is corrupt!
Roy Wahab….don’t try to pull a fast one with me..I know your New Testament like the back of my hand….I’ve quoted that verse ‘My Father is Greater than I(Jesus)”…you say it’s out of context..give us the context then and see if it goes against my reasoning..there isn’t a verse where Jesus said he’s greater than God..and for you to ask me to produce one is quite ludicrous..point being he was subservient and lower than God as he himself admitted in several places throughout the Gospels….the challenge is about the trinity..not whether the Bible is corrupt or not..start paying attention sir. Christians believe in trinity for many different reasons…in fact each sect and denomination or shall I say even to the individual level have their own distinct idea and notion about the trinity..very rarely will you find several trinitarianbs who are strangers to one another and yet share the same views about the trinity…and on the other side of the coin there are also Christians who deny the trinity such as Reverend Samuel….you are not in the position to pose any new challenges here..if you want to propose challenges, create your own platform. You have participated in the challenge here…so either you pick up the torch and win it by giving sufficient textual proofs in answer to THE challenge or you vacate in defeat…your silence in regards to my saying your “scientific” reasonings for the trinity that it’s worthless is taken into account as tacit approval..thank you
Praise be to Allah who has created all things. I too am a Christian – but I do not believe in the Trinity. There are many many others like me (probably tens of thousands in the US).
The biggest problem with the Trinity is that it is not self-sustained, it is contradictory in definition. Therefore a reasonable person would have trouble comprehending it, which is exactly what we see every time. Second, it is an impossible idea, that the Messiah is literally God, within Second Temple Judaism (of which Jesus is a part).
Deut 6.4 was the banner of Judaism’s monotheism. Perhaps the verse *could* be explained to support the Trinity. However, Jews in the centuries around Jesus’ time never did this (and all Christians would agree). Therefore when a Jew said Deut 6.4 he meant that only one Person, the God of Abraham, is God. Jesus agrees with this definition of God in Mark 12.28. He converses with a fellow Jew and they both agree who God is. This tells me there is one Person who is God, and Jesus says it is the God of Abraham. Thirdly, the Trinity is never upheld in Scriptures. Clearly the Scriptures could imply, or support an idea not explicitly stated within – but the first two points I’ve listed make it an impossibility for us to comprehend (1), or for Jesus to commit to (2).
Now, I have no problem with not comprehending something. God is someone I cannot fully comprehend (big surprise right!). However, the Scripture plainly tells me that I cannot comprehend the one Person of God fully. Nor can I comprehend how God created the world, he spoke and the power of His words made stuff happen – pretty amazing.
Finally, as a Christian, I care most about Jesus and what he said. I cannot go against what he said and consider myself a Christian.
I hope this helps
Why restrict claims in favor of the Trinity to explicit statements in the NT construed in the way they are above? Why presume that the Apostles had in their possession complex metaphysical explanations (e.g. one divine substance and three opposed relations). Why not also look at other sorts of claims in the Bible–such as identifying Jesus as seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, which in the OT and in 2nd Temple Judaism is the place of divine wisdom? Or again, why is it that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all worshiped or at least deemed worthy of worship in the NT?
Richard Bauckham has a little book on the narrative identity of Jesus called _God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament_ (1999). It may be worth someone’s time if they’d like to look at inter-testamental evidence from 2nd Temple Judaism that points in the direction that what NT authors attributed to Jesus were in fact _divine_ attributes (e.g. sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven).
Assalamu’alaikum,
Okay..so you have God sitting on the throne and then you have Jesus on His right hand side and the Holy Spirit is hovering somewhere…all are divine..How many Gods do you have? one? I think it’s 3…which brings us to the issue of polytheism..now, don’t tell me that these 3 distinct entities share some mysterious “divine nature” and that is what makes them ONE and not THREE…if that is the case then hindus are not polytheists because they too say such things i.e. that all the Gods are merely incarnations of Brahma the one true God…yet not one Christian have ever denied they’re polytheists…in addition, human beings also share similar traits and natures with each other..that certainly does not make us all one…the reason why there should be an EXPLICIT statement of trinity in the NT as is what the challenge is about is because “God is not the author of confusion”..the fact that there is no explicit statement in favour of the trinity says a lot..My simple question is this and it is a very important one: If there is such a thing as the trinity why was it not taught by any of the prophets and teachers in the Old Testament and why were the Jews never exposed to such a theology? This is a very crucial point in light of
“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them. Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)
In short, God here informs the people of old that if anyone came to them and teach them about divine concepts which they themselves never experienced, the person who brought the idea and the idea itself must be rejected. The message is quite clear.
In regards to the issue of worship…well you see the word worship as is used several times for Jesus in the NT is proskoneo in Greek…and if you know ur Greek sir then you would know that the word carries several different meanings. Likewise, in English the word worship can refer to a number of things depending on the context e.g. a man who worships his wife means he loves her tremendously. It is by no means an unequivocal statement or proof for divinity.
Jesus said :
“This is life eternal, that they may know you(The Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You(The only true God) have sent(annointed messenger).” John 17:3
The words in brackets are to help you in case you’re thinking he’s speaking about himself. Thank you.
Ibn Anwar
Dear Ibn Anwar,
It is not a small hyperbole to say that Christians have affirmed polytheism. They in fact deny it, and aim to avoid affirming it at all costs–whether or not you believe the Trinity yourself, you have to at least respect what orthodox Christians teach and believe.
Regarding the use of the word ‘worship’, why should I go with your interpretation over against another? How does this square with Jesus forgiving sins of sinners, when only God could forgive sins? If they thought Jesus forgave sins and actually did do this, and is called the ‘power and wisdom of God’, along with other titles–it is perhaps a little too easy to say the apostles and other folk just really really liked this guy from Nazareth. There is at least some ambiguity here about the way we should take the use of the word ‘worship’–and this is precisely displayed in the Gospel of Mark where the reigning question is ‘who is this Jesus?’ It isn’t until the middle or so of the gospel that his identity becomes better known.
I imagine the trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew’s gospel doesn’t persuade you about the identity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or the prologue of John’s gospel (1:1-14 or so)?
But why would the ‘trinity’ be ambiguous in the NT? Well, as you point out from Deut. such a revelation about God isn’t to be taken lightly in the least–if God indeed is a Trinity–then I would expect that this revelation would come about by a process–i.e. by learning who Jesus is and then believing as in the case of Peter; or again, with Thomas–who calls Jesus ‘my Lord and my God’.
Perhaps you may prefer to employ an interpretation where such terms like ‘lord and God’ predicated of a human (Jesus) must be hyperbole or a manifestation of the subjective feelings of the one speaking them toward some other person–but I think there are important weaknesses in this sort of interpretation –namely, presuming conclusion that they didn’t really mean to call Jesus ‘Lord and God’, or the ‘wisdom and power of God’, or ‘seated at the right hand of God the Father’.
Have a look at Bauckham’s book if you are interested in other sorts of evidence for Christian claims about the divine identity of Jesus.
Christians are not polytheists b/c they think the divine essence is not divisible as in the case of universals like ‘humanity’. If the divine essence were a universal that can be individuated as with universals like ‘humanity’ then you might be able to say Christians are polytheists, but b/c they (at least the metaphysically minded ones) deny that the divine essence is a universal that can be individuated-there is no chance (logically, temporally, or metaphysically) for some other entity to become God. There is a very strict distinction btwn. the Trinity and creatures (even if the creatures are angels, even if these angels are sempiternal–they still have ontological dependence on Trinity as their Creator).
A traditional acct. for Christians of the Trinity is to affirm one divine essence/substance that constitutes three persons (supposites) who are distinct from one another by an opposed real relation. I don’t know how familiar you might be with various metaphysical accts. of the Trinity that Christians have given through the centuries–but there are several that attempt to show the intelligibility of the Trinity of divine persons.
Assalamu’alaikum,
Right…as I have told others on this site, I will tell you the same..I call a spade a spade regardless of the labels he may use or not use for himself. A person may believe in something earnestly, but, if the fact shows something else..then I shall ascribe that fact to him rather than the belief he affirms. I am not new to Christianity. In fact, I have familiarised myself with it and its people for the past 5 years. Trinitarians whom I’ve encountered argue that God is one..sure..but this One God is in 3 persons(refer to the Creed of Athanasius)..it seems rather strange to say that 3 persons are 1..whenever the curious mind enquires, the trinitarian will explain that this 3 persons whom are clearly distinct one from the other scriptually, are one in the sense that they share some mysterious divine nature. In short, God is in 3 persons but they are 1 for they share a divine nature. I will ask the same question as I did in my previous comment; How is this dissimilar from the Hindu concept of God? Again, I submit that no Christian has ever considered Hindus as monotheists. They have basically the same notion as trinitarians about God i.e. One God who reveals Himself in different persons or beings..but it’s still the same God..one nature…yet everyone call them polytheists. In the same manner, trinitarians are also considered polytheists by strict monotheists. The trinitarian’s strong belief that their faith is monotheistic is quite natural. They trace their heritage to the Old Testament and the OT’s stance on polytheism is quite explicit. To relent and placate that their faith is polytheistic will only destroy it..naturally your people will continue denying that which is obvious to all others.
Here’s an analogy…you have a set of identical triplets. They are human beings….share the same features(look almost alike), anatomically similar and share many similar natures and not just one. Are they ONE or are they THREE? Any reasonable man will agree they are still THREE even though they have so much in common. Likewise, though trinitarians may argue however vehemently that the 3 heads of the trinity share some sort of mysterious nature..that does not satisfy the problem of plurality…whatever the argument…it’s still three, hence polytheism.
Well..you said regarding worship that why should you subscribe to my interpretation..well I can easily turn it around and ask you the same. Thus, a simple way to resolve the conflict is by doing some analyses of the word used. As I briefly explained to you in the previous post the word worship can carry several different meanings to it depending on the context. Now I shall delve a little more deeper for a clearer understanding. First here are two examples from the Gospels where the word “worshipped” occures :
“Lord, I believe, and he worshipped him.”
(John 9:38)
“they saw him, they worshipped him.”
(Matthew 28:17)
In both verses the word in the Koine Greek is “proskunesan” which is derived from the root word “proskuneo”. The literaly meaning of the word is “to kiss, like a dog his master’s hand”. It also carries general meanings like “bow, crouch, crawl, kneel and prostrate”.(refer to Strong’s Concordance)
In the days of old and actually even today, persons of high status receive reverence from commoners e.g. people kneel before the Queen of England. This is not a show of religious devotion or deification but simply a show of respect, reverennce. Likewise, when analysed the places where Jesus was “worshipped” are actually instances of him receiving respect and adoration for his status as God’s annointed. The translation “worship” itself is a selective one. This is not merely my interpretation(as you have alleged) but rather :
(God’s Word translation, 1995)
“The man bowed in front of Jesus and said, “I believe, Lord.” (John 9:38)
(Dhuay Rheims Bible)
“And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him” (John 9:38)
(Darby Bible translation)
“And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage.” (John 9:38)
(Weymouth New Testament)
“I believe, Sir,” he said. And he threw himself at His feet.” (John 9:38)
(Young’s Literal translation)
“and he said, ‘I believe, sir,’ and bowed before him.” (John 9:38)
Refer also to “The Complete Bible, an American translation” by Edward Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith.
If the action of throwing onself in adoration and respect for Jesus is exclusive to him in the Bible, it would indeed be something. However, as we see in the Bible, that is not the case.
“And his (Jospeh’s) brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we are thy servants.”
(Genesis 50:18)
“Then she went in, and fell at his (Elisha’s) feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.”
(2 Kings 4:37)
“And there went over a ferry boat to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan;”
(2 Samuel 19:18)
What about Jesus forgiving sins?
This is taken from Mark 2:10,”But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins “..so now that must make him God. Well if it’s his own power then sure. But as we see like all the other powers and teachings of Jesus, they were not really his. John 17:7 tells us,”Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;” and John 13:3 repeats the same idea,”Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God,”. Jesus was GIVEN the power, it was not his…if it was his then it would be something. God owns everything and is NOT given anything by anyone. You see, it’s like giving your solicitor the power of attorney. He can do many things on your behalf. But that power which you have given him, you can take it back anytime. If I’m a King and I had a lawyer and he is given the power of attorney, that certainly does not make him a King also. In addition, if being given the power of forgiving sins makes one God then John 13:3 should have made it clear that because Jesus is given everything he is God. Instead it just says that Jesus is from God like any tom,dick or harry and was going back to HIS God. I think even a 10 year old can grasp the idea. Further more, have you forgotten the Lord’s prayer? Jesus taught his companions a way to pray and in the prayer we are taught,”Forgive our sins as WE FORGIVE the sins of others”. If the ability to forgive sins makes one God..then the 12 disciples and everyone who believes in the “Lord’s prayer” are Gods too..are they? Finally, we are informed that Jesus though given power to forgive didn’t really have it absolutely,”And Jesus said Father FORGIVE THEM for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). Jesus was God’s instrument but He wasn’t God himself. The light switch turns on the light, but the power comes from a generator. The switch isn’t the generator and vice versa.
You said,
“I imagine the trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew’s gospel doesn’t persuade you about the identity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or the prologue of John’s gospel (1:1-14 or so)?”
As I understand, the trinitarian formula is “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and this three are one(in essence)”. I find no such verse in Matthew 28:19.
What I find is,”in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
Here’s an analogy. Let’s say there’s world war 4. America, England and Russia have allied themselves. I am an officer who serves under the banner of the said coalition forces. I meet the enemies and I demand,”Yield! Put down your weapons in the name of America, England and Russia!” Have I just declared that America, England and Russia are one and the same thing? No, that’s obviously not the case. I would submit that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in agreement as is explained in John 17:20 onwards and similar to the analogy presented but they are definitely not one in essence or godhood or anything like that.
You said,
“But why would the ‘trinity’ be ambiguous in the NT? Well, as you point out from Deut. such a revelation about God isn’t to be taken lightly in the least–if God indeed is a Trinity–then I would expect that this revelation would come about by a process–i.e. by learning who Jesus is and then believing as in the case of Peter; or again, with Thomas–who calls Jesus ‘my Lord and my God’.”
If you’ve studied the Old Testament, it has always been the nature of God to make His position clear and unequivocal to His people whenever He appears to them. This was his vivid nature as portrayed in the OT. Remember..Malachi states that “God does not change”..if that is the case..why did Jesus is he is God changed and did not follow that nature which he had in the OT assuming that he’s also God of the OT? Further more, the trinity if ity existed should have been taught since he said that “all things which he has heard from the Father he has made it known to the disciples” in John 15:15..ALL things…surely it must have included theology for when Jesus was asked what is the first and most important commandment of all in Mark 12, he affirmed it word for word without any addition or deletion. In fact, if you analyse the incident and when the scribe said “worship Him only” and Jesus never rebuking him…actually allude to the fact that Jesus himself is not God..for they were discussing about a third party.
Deuteronomy 13 have already been clearly explained. You failed to see the point and I do not intend to repeat myself. Others who are following the discussion may refer to my previous post for clarification on Deuteronomy which clearly disproves the concept of trinity.
In regards to Thomas in John 20:28 saying “My Lord and My God”..I suggest you seriously look into the context for a clearer picture. In any case, the verse if used as proof for trinity is at best an implicit affirmation of duality. Anyway, Thomas wasn’t exactly affirming that Jesus was his God but it was rather an exclamation like how one would explaim my God in an event of surprise. This again is not my singular interpretation but the same notion was expressed by Christian scholars like Theodore of Mopseustia the Bishop of Mopseuestia.
To your other comments…well sir..I’m really not that interested in your eschatological acrobatics not backed by hard scriptual evidence. To your last statement..that Christians throughout the ages have developed philosophies and rationales for the trinity that it may be somehow comprehended does not really reflect the age old saying “The trinity is a mystery” echoed even today
lol.
Like Roy Wahab, you have failed to meet the challenge presented. The logics proposed for believing in it means nothing.
Finally…I repeat the testimony of Jesus on the oneness of God and his being no part in that oneness :
“This is life eternal, that they may know You(The Father) the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.” (John 17:3)
Ibn Anwar
It is unfair to charge Christians as being polytheists. The very debate is on the nature of the Trinity; if you accept this doctrine you are not a polytheist, if you deny it, then you interpret Christians as polytheists. I have already suggested how the Christian acct. of the Trinity is different the Hindus. The three divine persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are not mere add-ons to the divine essence/substance, they are really identical with it. As Athanasius says, there was not a time when the Son was not; applied to the Holy Spirit as well, Christians believe that there was never a time when God is not this peculiar Trinity of persons. Moreover, (educated) Christians deny that the divine nature is a genus like any created nature (horseness, humanity, etc.). Created natures are communicable to a potential infinite amount of instantiations. The divine nature is not communicable in this way.
Further, a classical Christian acct. of divine persons is different from accounts of human persons (consider your example of three identical human persons). What distinguishes a divine person from another divine person is an opposed relation (Father-Son; active spiration-passive spiration-Holy Spirit). In human persons, what distinguishes one person from another are numerically distinct substances (form and matter). In divine persons, there is only one substance with three opposed relations. If you take this acct. as representative of a traditional Christian metaphysical explication of the Trinity, then the example of positing three human persons as an analogue to divine persons is misplaced.
So, from the above explication it at least shows one way the acct. of the Trinity is coherent. It is a further step to say that the Trinity is taught, whether explicitly or implicitly in Holy Scripture. If you grant that it is logically possible for God to be Triune, then you at least allow yourself the possibility of seeing why Christians have understood Holy Scripture as they have. You could for instance, see the worship of Jesus as not equivalent with people falling at the feet of Patriachs and prophets. If you deny the Trinity at the outset, then of course it is easier to see these cases in Scripture as basically equivalent. But if there is another explanatorily live-option, then baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not logically equivalent to the example of America, Britain and Russia.
Once we sort out the logical possibilities, then the hermeneutics can proceed; but if you start out thinking it is logically impossible, then of course the way Christians have interpreted the OT and NT will seem fishy.
So my question to you then, do you consider the doctrine of the Trinity logically possible? If no, then a discussion can’t really get going; if yes, then we can at least begin to reason together about Scripture, etc.
Assalamu’alaikum,
Scott, I will tell you the same thing I told Roy Wahab. The challenge posed by brother Ibn Saad was not whether it is possible or not possible for God to be a triune Godhead…the challenge is whether there is any explicit statement made by Jesus in support of the concept. Many things are possible and logical….yet, we do not try to conceive what God is without some evidence revealed by Himself….if you can prove that something is logical that does not automatically make that something true. There was not a time when God was not a trinity?
“The New Catholic Encyclopedia” mentions :
“(the trinity) is a product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”
Who developed this doctrine? Jesus? His companions? No…it was developed by men for God and its establishment was ensured by the murder and butcher of those who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus. As it is mentioned in history, the divinity of Jesus was VOTED upon at the Council of Nicea…is that how God becomes God i.e. through voting?
God the immortal, unique and uncreated cannot create another Uncreated…that certainly does not degrade his Sublimity and Supremacy. You’ll agree that it is impossible for God to break His word for He is not a liar. God does Godly things. God throughout the ages before the trinity was “developed” several hundred years after Jesus always made it unequivocally clear about His numerical ONENESS…the trinity is nothing but an innovation of polytheistic Christians who are as I said no different(in polytheism) from Hindus whom they the trinitarians consider polytheists(I did not say Hindu theology is exactly the same as Trinitarian theology, but rather they are “similar”). You would prefer your innovated philosophical acrobatics over the word of God….to me God’s word surpasses any logic or reason. His command preceeds reason. If you cannot first prove that Jesus made himself God by some explicit statement then we have nothing to discuss. The scripture itself is clear for those who have eyes to see.
“This is life eternal, that they may know You(The Father) THE ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom You(The Only TRUE GOD) have sent.” John 17:3
Your proposition is basically forget scripture and do logics first….after that then we’ll see what God and Jesus has to say…well I’m sorry but God never worked in such a silly way in history..this again is an innovated approach..a clever approach if you may by polytheists like yourself. When you do this..you’ll start forcing your own interpretations into the texts instead of seeing them as they are. All of your logics e.g. the distinction of one divine person to the other are not scriptually sound. Nowhere in the whole Bible(s) is there an instance where this explanation is given…this is your own idea! The problem is scripture does not support your doctrines..thus you and your fellow believers have formulated an approach which you have applied here…a rather deceptive approach if I might add. I would suggest you actually read what the challenge is before you proceed any further…if you post yet another comment filled with philosophical jargon with no scripture…I will delete it. Thank you.
Ibn Anwar
P.S. I hope you understand basic English. “This is life eternal, that they may know You(The FAther) THE ONLY TRUE GOD….”
In any case..the Christian agenda is further counfounded by the fact that their so called “word of God” is not an entirely trustworthy piece of work…in fact it is the manufacture of men..edited, revised, changed, altered, added to throughout the ages….
Mr. Ibn Anwar,
It doesn’t quite help to make such claims about ‘Christian scriptures’. Obviously there are textual traditions and Manuscripts to collate and edit. The same is true for any religion that has written texts revered as Holy, including the Qu’ran. The research is fairly new regarding the historical roots of Islam and its Holy book. Christianity has had to undergo various critical testing by historical-critical research throughout modernity; before we go too quickly down this sort of path, remember it is a difficult one to work through, though perhaps helpful at times, if you apply the same historical-critical standards to your own Holy Scriptures.
I usually have found John 8 as evidence for Jesus’s self-understanding of his divine identity. Here the Jews asked Jesus whether he is greater than Abraham and all the prophets, all of whom died, and Jesus says, [John 8:54-59]
‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. it is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say ‘He is our God’, though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say I do not know him I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad,” Then the Jews said to him (Jesus): ‘You are not yet fifty years old and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am [ego eimi].’ So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.’
So the Jews ask Jesus who he is, and he claims to know their God, and their God is his Father; and that Jesus perfectly keeps his Father’s word; and then he says that Abraham looked forward to when Jesus, the Son of God, would be on earth. The Jews with whom he was speaking didn’t believe him and doubted that Abraham ‘saw’ or looked forward to God’s Son’s arrival. Then Jesus says, ‘before Abraham was, I am’. The phrase ‘I am’ or ‘ego eimi’ is a standard greek phrase for declaring oneself divine. In this Jewish context, the only God is the God of Abraham and his children. But Jesus claims that he is this ‘I am’. From the OT we can compare this phrase with Exodus 3:14, and Isaiah 44:6, in both of these cases God is naming Himself. If Jesus claims such a title for himself, then we’ve got a problem. And early Christians had to sort this out since they believed Jesus is the Son of God, ‘the image of the invisible God’ [Col. 1:15], the one ‘through whom God the Father created the worlds. [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he [Jesus] sustains all things by his powerful word. When he [Jesus] had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…’ [Heb. 1:2-4].
These sorts of identity claims about Jesus don’t quite sound like claims made about a creature, especially if the Son of God is identified as the creator of all things visible and invisible? Obviously, we’d have to scratch our heads to figure these identity claims about Jesus, if we were taught from Deut. that there is only one God. The ecumenical church councils is the work of the Christian churches to try to express what they implicitly believe, that Jesus is not merely a creature but also God the Son, and a similar task laid for the Christian churches to express what they implicitly believe about the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps God isn’t interested in Christian attempts to express the Trinity by metaphysical explanations; nevertheless, Christians still declare Jesus the creator of all things, and likewise the Holy Spirit. It is only if you wish to give some sort of critical explanation of these facts about Christian life and belief that you turn toward technical sorts of expressions.
Besides, as Athanasius had argued, if Jesus was not divine, then his sacrifice was not sufficient to purify and forgive humans of their sins. It is written into the fabric of Christian belief regarding salvation (Jesus’s sacrifice to redeem sinners) that Jesus is not only a human being, but also divine.
So along with John 8 and the other passages I cited, I submit some material evidence that Jesus is not merely a creature; and if you accept that it is logically possible that God is a Trinity, then such evidence shouldn’t be immediately brushed aside as some interpolation by some 3rd or 4th or 5th c. Christian editor of the manuscripts. But if you wish to go the critical edition route for discussion, that’s a long and winding road.
Assalamu’alaikum,
You said,
“It doesn’t quite help to make such claims about ‘Christian scriptures’. Obviously there are textual traditions and Manuscripts to collate and edit. The same is true for any religion that has written texts revered as Holy, including the Qu’ran. The research is fairly new regarding the historical roots of Islam and its Holy book. Christianity has had to undergo various critical testing by historical-critical research throughout modernity; before we go too quickly down this sort of path, remember it is a difficult one to work through, though perhaps helpful at times, if you apply the same historical-critical standards to your own Holy Scriptures.”
Well, I agree that it would not help for me to make any claims of unitegrity for the Christian scriptures IF the claims are unfounded..but are they?
Bart D. Ehram, a reknown expert on the NT admitted that gradually, Christian leaders changed and altered the texts of the NT in tandem with the development of doctrines, so that they may appear uniform.
Besides that, the fact that each major denomination of Christianity have their own set of canons does indeed tell volumes about the textual integrity of the Bible(s):
Protestant Church:
“Historically, Protestant churches have recognized the Hebrew canon as their Old Testament, although differently ordered, and with some books divided so that the total number of books is thirty-nine. These books, as arranged in the traditional English Bible, fall into three types of literature: seventeen historical books (Genesis to Esther), five poetical books ( Job to Song of Solomon), and seventeen prophetical books. With the addition of another twenty-seven books (the four Gospels, Acts, twenty-one letters, and the book of Revelation), called the New Testament, the Christian scriptures are complete”
Catholic Church:
The Protestant canon took shape by rejecting a number of books and parts of books that had for centuries been part of the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate, and had gained wide acceptance within the Roman Catholic church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, at the Council of Trent (1546) the Catholic church accepted, as deuterocanonical, Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees. These books, together with those in the Jewish canon and the New Testament, constitute the total of seventy three books accepted by the Roman Catholic church”
Anglican Church:
“The Anglican church falls between the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations by accepting only the Jewish canon and the New Testament as authoritative, but also by accepting segments of the apocryphal writings in the lectionary and liturgy. At one time all copies of the Authorized or King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments”
Greek Orthodox Church:
“The Bible of the Greek Orthodox church comprises all of the books accepted by the Roman Catholic church, plus I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates I and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other Eastern churches have 4 Maccabees as well.”
Syriac Church:
“This represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church”
Source : “Oxford Companion to the Bible”, Bruce M Metzger & Michael D Coogan and “The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development”, Bruce M Metzger
Some Christians would ask me,”show us some textual variants and difficulties on texts that deal with belief.” Well…here’s one:
KJV:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.” (1st John 5:7)
RSV:
wow…it vanishes! Just like..magic..
You have brought the Qur’an into the equation..sorry to burst your bubble…nowhere in the 1400 years of Qur’anic history has it ever suffered the ill fate that the Bible has..you know about the sunni-shia divide…yet..despite our many differences, we still have ONE uniform text of the Qur’an..no verses or chapters disappear or suddenly surfaces…
Okay..finally…some scriptual evidence on your part…John 8:54-59. In regards to the reference provided you said,
“The phrase ‘I am’ or ‘ego eimi’ is a standard greek phrase for declaring oneself divine. ” Okay…this is what you’ve said..Let’s see how truthful you are. Open John 9:9..
ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν· ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· οὐχί, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. The blind man..used the exact same phrase…Ego Eimi..so if it connotes divinity…do you worship him too? lol
I could explain the whole thing myself..but I think I’ll just show you what experts say(makes my job a lot easier that way lol, mind you i have many things on my “to do” list):
John Cordaro writes,
Before Abraham was, I Am”.
These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah’s pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. So, is Yahshua is also Yahweh the Father??.
The phrase “I am” is “ego eimi” in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using “ego eimi” many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, “The I Am’s of Jesus”. It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua’s identity as the “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the “I AM,” can he also be Yahweh?
Ex.3:14-15 reads, “And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Therefore, the “I AM” in this passage, is identified as “Yahweh,” or rather, is representing Yahweh. Through this representative authority, this messenger to Moses is able to use the Name of the Divine Creator of all, Yahweh.
One thing which must be clearly understood at this point of our discussion, is that The Father Creator Elohom called Yahweh, is “Spirit,” as Yahshua clearly taught us in Jn. 4:24. And, He is the only one “who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or is able to see, to whom be respect and everlasting might.” 1 Tim. 6:16. “No one has ever seen Elohim,” (Yahweh) Jn. 1:18. All Scripture then being correctly understood, would have to lead us to the conclusion, that all apparent communications between “Yahweh” and man, is through a Messenger (angel) Representative speaking with the full authority and power of Yahweh, and is thereby able to use the Divine Name in the “first” person.
And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh (the Son is not the Father). Therefore, it stands, that Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the “I AM” who is (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the “I AM.” But let’s look into the matter a little farther.
It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the “I AM.” Why else would the Yahudain try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Yahudain, a stone-able offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM, and thereby trigger a stone-able offense?
Several individuals aside from Yahshua used “ego eimi” as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In Jn.9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Savior’s use of it was somehow different.
If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Yahudain (which is doubtful), he used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Yahudain seek to stone him (Jn.8: 58). Yahshua said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd in Jn.6: 35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Yahudain murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Yahudain questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51; 52.
In Jn.8: 12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, “…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.
An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Yahudain came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, “Ego eimi.” At that they fell backward to the ground, surprised and startled, that the one they were seeking, had the fortitude to confront them face to face. What followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the “I AM.”
After Yahshua’s arrest, the Yahudain took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28, 29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26: 57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn’t find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn’t bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8: 58?
The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn’t. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn’t. Why not? Because it wasn’t blasphemy, nor was it a stone-able offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth. The fact of the matter is, the Greek phrase “Ego eimi”, simply means “I am the one”, or “I am He.”
This brings us back to Jn.8: 58. Why did the Yahudeans seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;
1) accused the Yahudain of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).
Aside from that, the Yahudain misunderstood Yahshua’s words leading them to believe;
1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).
Yahshua’s words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Yahudain that they couldn’t restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn’t take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.
So what does Jn. 8: 58 really mean?
Let’s look at the context of Yahshua’s statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keeps my saying, he shall never see death.” The Yahudain thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a demonic teaching. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he saw Abraham as the Yahudain misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua’s day? Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” He saw Yahshua’s day by faith.
Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am the ‘coming’ one.” “was” is from the Greek “ginomai” meaning, “to come into being, to be born,… to arise.” In the Greek, the tense of the word is NOT pure “past” tense. It is 2 Aorist, middle voice, infinitive, meaning past tense action without any indication that the act was completed. What Yahshua actually said ‘literally’ was, “Before Abraham “comes” to be born, I am he. In other words, before Abraham comes to be born (at his resurrection into eternal life), I am he, (the “coming” one).” Yahshua was the eternal coming one (the Messiah, deliverer) in the plan of Yahweh from the beginning. Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading “Heterosis (Of Tenses),” sub-heading “The Present for the Future,” he writes “This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present.” He then lists some examples such as Mt.3: 10b, “therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;” and Mk.9:31a, “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.” Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8: 58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes into being, I am (the one)” with “I am the one” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be born, I am the one.”
Some translators believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect past tense. “was” is in the aorist ‘infinitive’ (or imperfect past) tense and “am” is in the present first person indicative tense. Let’s look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai ‘was’ (to have been born) is in the Greek aorist (infinitive) tense, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be understood as being in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect (to have been born) which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be born” not “Before Abraham was (or ‘existed’).”
In conclusion, Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. There are many occurrences in the Greek, which proves that the term “I am” is a very common phrase, a verb of existence, meaning “I am He” or “I am the one.” This phrase by it’s self is not a ‘stone-able’ offense, for it is used many times. As we have already shown, there were a lot of implications in this chapter which ground into the minds and heart of the Yahudain leaders. All the offenses combined, culminated at this point, into the prophesied path (end result) for Yahshua.
Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh, or the eternal self existing one, and Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He was, from the beginning of Yahweh’s plan, to be the Messiah, the deliverer, the King of Israel, the Son of Yahweh, the Son of the great “I Am.” The son had an eternal purpose (as do all of us) in the plan of the Father, but the son did not have a pre-existing life, or “life in himself” as a “Mighty One” or a deity from eternity past, for the Father Yahweh gave the son to have life in himself. (John 5:26).
Greek Muslims Tera Tak Adamar and Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi in response to answering islam writes:
The missionary Sam Shamoun under the banner of the infamous missionary website, Answering Islam, have claimed in his series of articles [1][2][3][4] that he has “refuted” our analysis of John 8:28 regarding the usage of the Greek ‘ego eimi’ (egw eimi). Unfortunately, to achieve that ambition, he had to resort to writing tons of text which is not only full of ad hominem against us, but also wholly unrelated to the issue of the Greek, thus committing the logical fallacies of strawman and red herring. We surmise that only 10% from his above presentation actually deals with the Greek and it is this portion that we shall seek to address extensively in our observation. Any other unrelated parts of his article shall either be ignored or addressed only in brief.
Evaluating The Missionary’s Writings
The missionary has made the following claim in the first part of his paper:
The main claim of the authors is, that since Exodus 3:14 refers to God and since the Greek translation there is Ho On, then John 8:58 doesn’t prove that Jesus is Yahweh because of the slightly different wording in that verse.
It is not hard to see why it is so. Throughout the various English translations of the Bible, the translators have translated ‘ego eimi’ in several ways and has not stuck to merely translating it to “I am”, as the missionary would like us to believe. This we have already shown in our original article. But our missionary seems to have a problem with the fact that ‘ego eimi’ does not neccessarily translate into “I am” and so he says that
First, the reason why different translations of John 8:58 have different renderings has nothing to do with the Septuagint�s rendering of Exodus 3:14. Rather, it has to do with the context of John 8:58. Scholars have noted that the use of ego eimi in the context of John 8:58 is to highlight past existence that continues to the present moment. This is known as PPA, or present of past action still in progress, or simply as EP, extension of past idiom.
The missionary then proceeds to cite a number of quotes from a couple of missionaries, not Greek scholars. He obviously wants to try to impress us with his knowledge of Greek grammar, but the truth is that he and his “scholars” have no idea of the Greek usage of ‘ego eimi’ in the above passage.
The action expressed in John 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such a situation, ‘eimi’ (eimi) which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax can be found in Luke 2:28; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; John 3:8.
Concerning the construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament by G.B. Winer, 7th ed., Andover, 1897, p. 267 says:
Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues – a state in its duration; as Jno. xv 27 ap archrV met emou este (ap’ ar-khes met e-mou e-ste), vii. 58 prin Abraam genesai egw eimi [prin A-bra-am ge-nesthai ego eimi]
Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J.H. Moulton, Vol III by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62 says
The present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress…It is frequent in the N[ew]T[estament]: Luke 2:48; 13:7…15:29….John 5:6; 8:58…
In short, one can easily get the impression that the usage of ‘ego eimi’ is certainly not uncommon throughout the Greek New Testament, and thus cannot be used as evidence for the claim that Jesus is God.
Other Side Issues
Though this is not related wholly to the topic, we would still like to comment on this obvious tendency of the missionary. In his response to our article, the missionary had often cited the early Trinitarian Church fathers such as Origen, Hippolytus and Justin Martyr and had even cited a part of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Maryr, With Trypho the Jew, in order to support his original argument that the Holy Spirit is the same with Jesus. What the missionary did not inform us, however, is that both these Church fathers have very different conceptions of not only what the Holy Spirit really is, they also had a very different idea with what the Trinity really is when compared with the definition in the mindset of the missionary! On Origen’s conception of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, we read that:
Origen (died c250 CE) insisted that Father and Son were two separate essences, and that the son was inferior to the father…Origen became head of the Alexandria College, and was ordained priest in 230 CE, in Palestine. Bishop Demetrius deposed and exiled him, so he started a new school in Caesarea. He was condemned in 250 CE by the Council of Alexandria for rejecting the doctrine of Trinity. (The Mysteries of Jesus, p. 195)
In other words, Origen clearly believed that Jesus was a much “lesser god”. On Hippolytus, we read that
Hippolytus (died c235CE) said ‘God is One God, the first and Only One, the Maker and Lord of all […] who had nothing of equal age with Him; Who, willing it, called into being that which had no being before.’ (ibid, p. 195)
In other words, Hippolytus believed that Jesus was non-existent prior to the existence of God the Father. That certainly does not bode well for the beliefs of the missionary regarding the Trinity!
And finally, we read the following information on Justin Martyr:
Justin, who pleaded the Christian case apparently accepted the Ebionite doctrine of Adoptionism, that the Divine Grace could fall upon a person at any moment of God’s choosing, thus elevating that person to the position of being an ‘adopted’ son of God. In Jesus’ case, he believed that this happened at his baptism. The notion of God impregnating a virgin was pagan and abhorrent to him, and quite unneccessary to his scheme…Justim maintained that John really had been Elijah, and that Jesus became the Christ at the moment of his baptism, when the ‘Godhead’ came upon him. (ibid, p. 118)
All this reveals that Justin Martyr was certainly not a Trinitarian in the definition known to us today, and therefore we find it hillarious to see the missionary appealing to someone who would be considered a ‘heretic’ today.
This concludes our observation of this missionary tendency. Any further treatment of how the early Church fathers had various (conflicting) views of the Trinity with the modern-day Trinitarians would be excellent material which would be more suitably addressed in a future paper, insha’allah.
Conclusions
It is clear that the missionary arguments are not only mostly out of topic concerning the Greek usage ‘ego eimi’ in John 8:58, he has also failed to convince us that this phrase can indeed be used, without a shadow of doubt, as evidence for the deity of Jesus. This is not surprising, as we can easily see in the gospels how Jesus actually denied that he is God, much to the chagrin of the pseudo-monotheists. Moreover, the missionary has appealed to early Trinitarian fathers who had very different conceptions of the Trinity from what the missionary himself believes about it!
And certainly, only God knows best!
Well in regards to Colossians 1:5..I’m sorry..but I don’t trust Paul…in any case..if that is proof for Jesus’ Godhood..then all of us are Gods since the OT states we are created in God’s image..
Thank you for quoting Hebrews..here’s a more powerful God than Jesus:
“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.”
(Hebrews 7:13)
In regards to Athanasius’ understanding of Jesus in regards to the atonement of sins refer to my article :
http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/salvation-only-comes-through-sacrifice/
Ibn Anwar
Dear Mr. Ibn Anwar,
Thank you for your response; although I am not persuaded by the arguments you make or report, I have additional questions that perhaps you can help me to understand your take on them.
You wrote/reported:
“Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh (the Son is not the Father). Therefore, it stands, that Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the “I AM” who is (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the “I AM.” But let’s look into the matter a little farther.”
Christian orthodoxy has already worked through this logical problem. And one classic explanation is the metaphysical explication that I have already mentioned. Your argument is a logical one and it fails if an explanation can be given to show how it is not a logical error. Given that there have been such explanation, the conclusion you draw (that the Father and Son cannot both be Yahweh) is not sound.
The relationship btwn. textual exegesis and philosophical presuppositions are closely related–especially for this question of whether Jesus is identical with Yahweh or not. We can go back and forth on textual exegesis–given that there is a textual basis for saying that Jesus not only understood that he is divine, but also that his Apostles also thought that.
One textual passage that we need to also look at his the one from Colossians that I cited:
Jesus is the one ‘through whom God the Father created the worlds. [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he [Jesus] sustains all things by his powerful word. When he [Jesus] had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…’ [Heb. 1:2-4].
Have you found passages where Melchizedek or Moses or Abraham or any other Patrich is identified as the Creator of all things? It is clear we’d both agree that whoever Yahweh, He is the Creator of all things. If we hear someone attributing the name ‘Creator’ to Jesus, then it seems Jesus is identified ontologically with Yahweh.
It is important when reading ancient Christian Fathers that the technical vocabulary had to be worked through.. what is an ‘essentia’ or an ‘ousia’? What is a ‘persona’ or a ‘hypostasis’? There was lots of confusion about these terms which is why it took awhile to work out the best expression of what Christians believed and practiced–thus the need for ecumenical Counsels.
Re: your article about Athanasius–I reject the notion that no Christian has thought that it logically possible that God could forgive sins without blood sacrifice. St. Thomas Aquinas, among other late medieval theologians, thought that God could have forgiven sins without the sacrifice of God’s Sons; however, as Aquinas argued, God wished that human sinners would actually be able to know that God loves them and forgives them, and the most fitting way to do this is by what we read in Holy Scripture, that the Father sent his only Son in order to bring salvation to sinner (John 3:16). Without the Incarnation of God, the way human learns about God’s forgiveness is fairly abstract and ill-suited to the ways in which human learn truths–starting with physical things and learning from them. A pure isolated subjectivity is not the Christian mode of knowledge–rather by communion with God in the Flesh we have assurance and a tangible way to know we are in communion with God. In fact, this just illustrates that God does in fact love us not by propositions or language alone, but by God the Son’s very incarnation, passion and resurrection.
As you know, Athanasius’s argument was against the Arians who did think Jesus was the 1st creature who in turn created all other things (a view you wouldn’t accept, would you?). Athanasius’s argument has bite if you already have this sort of high view of Jesus of Nazareth that the Arians had, and it only takes the additional argument that if forgiveness was obtained and performed by Christ’s passion, that this Christ wasn’t just a creature, but in fact God the Son in the flesh; otherwise Christ’s passion wouldn’t effect (bring about forgiveness) what Arians already believed about Christ’s passion. Arians thought that Christ’s passion did bring about forgiveness, Athanasius just pointed out that if they really want to hold to this teaching, then they need to recognize that Jesus is not just a creature, but also is God (Yahweh).
If you don’t ‘like’ Paul, then well, how can you say the NT doesn’t teach that Christ is God if you do recognize that Paul does explicitly attribute deity to Jesus? You might as well limit your claim to saying that the NT aside from Paul’s writings doesn’t attribute deity to Jesus. Of course, it is a little odd that Paul did learn some of his theology and christology from the Apostles–you’d think if he thought Jesus was divine and the other Apostles didn’t think Jesus was divine that they would’ve tried to correct him, e.g. this could’ve nicely fitted in Luke’s book on the Acts of the Apostles? John typically is seen as having the most explicit highest Christology–that God the Son was in fact with the Father when they created all things visible and invisible (John 1:3)?
One’s philosophical views do in fact shape what sort of possibilities there are when they read a text, and especially so with the NT claims about Jesus’s divinity. If you have agreed that the Trinity is not logically incoherent, then all I need to do is show that God the Son is the Creator of all things, an attribute only Yahweh has.. and I think I’ve shown that at least certain NT authors and Apostles thought this about Jesus. You can just disagree with them, but it is another thing to say they didn’t actually believe what they believe. It would be like me saying that Mohammed didn’t really say he is a prophet of God; I certainly recognize, if the manuscript traditions are accurate, that Mohammed made this claim about himself; what I deny is that what he believed is in fact true. Likewise, you can say that Jesus’s Apostles said and believed that Jesus is God, but you can just disagree with them-that to my mind, is a bit more honest.
Assalamu’alaikum,
You said,
“Thank you for your response; although I am not persuaded by the arguments you make or report, I have additional questions that perhaps you can help me to understand your take on them.”
Right…yet you have not a single response to the lenthy two articles I “reported” on the issue of “I am” which you brought up. I take it you are devoid of any response….and I now expect you to worship the beggar in John 9:9…or maybe you were lying and trying to deceive when you said “Ego Eimi” is the standard statement of divinity in the Greek of the NT. Further more, just because you are not “persuaded” does not render my case weak. The Pharisees denied Jesus and his message, that certainly does not negate the truth of Jesus and his message.
You see….we’re going back and forth..you with ur philosophical arguments and me with my textual arguments….all of this could be easily reolved if ONLY you answered and satisfied the challenge…but of course it is understandable that you cannot.
You said,
“Jesus is the one ‘through whom God the Father created the worlds. [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he [Jesus] sustains all things by his powerful word. When he [Jesus] had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…’ [Heb. 1:2-4].”
I get somewhat a different picture from the following translation:
“God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being [the] effulgence of his glory and [the] expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made [by himself] the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,” (Hebrews 1:1-4)
Your translation makes it seem as if Jesus is the one who sustains the universe but here we see that actually..it is the Father who sustains it through the Son. I personally do not subscribe to this obviously…
After quoting the verses you posed the question,
“Have you found passages where Melchizedek or Moses or Abraham or any other Patrich is identified as the Creator of all things?”
I don’t see where the verses from 1 to 4 in Hebrews 1 show Jesus as the creator of all things…what I see is that it claims that the Father is the creator and he sustains the creation BY His son.
Let me show you how Melchisedec is quite clearly greater than Jesus:
“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.”
(Hebrews 7:13)
Melchisedec is given the following attributes:
1. King of Righteousness
2. King of Peace VS Jesus who is known only as Prince of Peace and even that is somewhat problematic in light of Jesus’ own admission that “I have not come to bring peace”.
3. Without Father VS Jesus who has a Father.
4. Without Mother VS Jesus who had a mother.
5. Without geneology(meaning he is not of human origin in the very least) VS Jesus who has two geneologies.
6. No beginning or end of life VS Jesus as Alpha and Omega which means the first and the last which in Greek means with beginning and with ending. In addition, Jesus also had an apparent “end of life”.
Clearly..from all those attributes this Priest has an has an awesome position…if you still refuse to acknolwedge his being greater than Jesus..then you hav to at least recognise that He is God too..since he is without beginning nor end..an attribute only belonging to God.
Well, thank you for your response to my article and clarification on the traditional Christian stance on the issue. The article however is directed to those who think that it is unjust and impossible for God to forgive without sacrifice…a belief held by most of the Christians whom I’ve encountered before, learned and laity alike.
You said,
“If you don’t ‘like’ Paul, then well, how can you say the NT doesn’t teach that Christ is God if you do recognize that Paul does explicitly attribute deity to Jesus?”
Let me illustrate to you why I do not like Paul.
Acts 9:1-7
1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
In verse 7, we see that the men whom journeyed with Paul heard a voice.
But..the above report conflicts with another in Acts 22: 5-9
5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Now, we are told that they heard not the voice..hmm which one exactly was it?
Again..looking at the same incident reported in several different places throughout Acts:
Acts 26:12-14 :
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Note that they all FELL down…
Acts 9:5-7 :
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man
Note now that the men whom accompanied Paul STOOD speechless.
Finally Acts 22:5-7 :
. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Note that only Paul is reported as falling to the ground.
Anyone can see that there are clear problems with the reports….which leads us once again to the issue of integrity and reliability of your texts.
I can give so many examples of Paul’s blunder…but let me just show you one more:
“…for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” 2:16
“But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident…”3:11
Versus
“Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.” (Deuteronomy 6:25)
“Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that (for this purpose) it might be well with them and with their children forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29)
No one is justified by the law?
“Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God’s eyes, careful to obey all of the Lord’s commandments and regulations.”
(Luke 1:6)
Notice that both Zachariah and Elizabeth were righteous BECAUSE they obeyed the commandments and regulations.
Paul tried to make a case that no one is justified by works and obedience to the Laws and Commandments but only through faith and belief. A notion not shared by scripture as has already been shown and will further be proven.
What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)
“…just as Abraham “Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness”. (Galatians 3:6)
Paul did tell the truth…but only half of it..
“Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:5-6)
I would ask what is this righteousness?
Genesis itself answers :
“Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws.” (Genesis 26:3-5)
Let me again remind you of the challenge of the article posed by Ibn Saad…produce scriptual evidence of Jesus teaching the trinity!
By the way, thank you for admitting to the numirical plurality of the trinity by the use of “they” in your own words :
“that God the Son was in fact with the Father when they created all things visible and invisible (John 1:3)?”
Ibn Anwar
P.S. The reliability of Hebrews is quite doubtful since we have no certainty who the auhor is..some scholars “believe” it was Paul whilst many believe it was not. So once again the issue of reliability comes into play. Thank you for not responding to the report I gave on the evident differences between the major denominations in terms of canons. I take it as your tacit approval.
Your interpretation of my ‘silence’ regarding your argument re: John 8:58 is unfair and ill justified. I might as well think that you are a Mormon b/c you haven’t given me reason to think that Joseph Smith has superseded Mohammad as Allah’s most recent and authoritative prophet.
In John 8 not only does Jesus criticize his interlocutors, but he also distinguishes himself from them by identifying himself as greater than Abraham. But who could be greater than Abraham? Well, perhaps somebody who is a high priest of God who is greater than the priestly geneaology of the Levites? In order to identify Jesus as being greater than Abraham, the author of Hebrews identifies Jesus with the ‘order of Melchizidek’. But who is M.? What do we learn about M. in Genesis 14:18-20?
All translations from NRSV
Gen. 14:18-20
‘And King M. of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him [Abram] and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything.”
In Psalm 110:4 we learn:
“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are a priest forever according to the order of M.’
But it is not until Hebrews 6:19-8:13 that we learn a bit more telling details about him, or rather, we actually learn something about Jesus by the author of Hebrews citing a historical precedent for a priest outside the levitical priesthood who is a priest of the Most High God. The Hebrew’s author whole intention is this: (Heb. 8.1-2) Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. … (Heb. 8:6) But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises.”
So what then is the author of Hebrews trying to say when he says, M. is ‘without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever”?
Why does the author qualify the claim that M. is a ‘priest forever’ by saying that M. is such b/c he resembles the Son of God? From Genesis we don’t see such a claim about M. having eternal life. In Psalm 110 we seeing that somebody is a ‘priest forever in the order of M.’. What does the ‘in the order of’ mean? It seems that ‘in the order of’ means ‘being a priest like M.’ that is, not being a priest according to the levitical priesthood, but somehow distinct from it. In fact, the way the Hebrew’s author makes the point that M. is not in the levitical priesthood is to empahsis that he has no genealogy. Why is this relevant? B/c genealogy when it comes to talking about priests indicates one is either a priest by being in the genealogy of Levi or not. So, not having a genealogy means not being a descendant or in the order of the levitical priesthood. If one doubts the interpretation, it is helpful to look at why the Hebrews author mentions M. in the first place, which is to say Jesus is a priest outside the levitical order and genealogy. So, to say that M. didn’t have a real mom and dad misses the point–the point about not having a father and mother and genealogy addresses the ‘kind of priest’ that M. is not, it is not about whether M. is a mortal man or not.
Further, the Hebrews’ author says that M. is a kind of priest that is higher than the levitical order b/c the type of priest he was is not under the old covenant, but the type of priest he was foreshadows the new covenant–which is what the Hebrews author wishes to claim.
The Hebrew’s author also cites Psalm 110:4 in Heb. 7:17. Why? He wants to attribute to Jesus that the type of priest he is not according to the ‘old covenant’ that the Hebrew author says Jesus made ‘obsolete’ (Heb. 8:13). Rather, he wants to say that Jesus is the High Priest who will be so forever. How is this possible? Or, does the author really think this? Well, the author says that Jesus is a priest in heaven presently–presumably, this is a correlation with saying that Jesus’s being an eternal priest means he will not be superseded by a yet newer covenant or newer high priest.
I think my interpretation is quite plausible and quite textually based. It makes sense of the passages and what the author says his main point is (Heb. 8:1-2) in talking about M. in the first place. The Hebrew’s author is not asking and answering the question, “did some guy who lived hundreds of years before have a mother and a father?” No. He is asking and answering the question, ‘what kind of priest was this M.?’ And he clearly says that he is not a levitical priest, but some other kind, a higher kind of priest–and that Jesus is this kind of priest.
Then, if we look to the beginning of Hebrews 1-2, we see that this same author thinks God the Son is higher than angels and in fact, he says this Son of God is the one ‘through whom [God] created the worlds’ and that ‘[the Son of God] sustains all things by his powerful word’. Not only does this author think that the Son of God is the Highest Most perfect eternal Priest, but he thinks this Son of God not only was a means by which God [the Father] created all things, but that the Son himself ‘sustains all things by his powerful word’.
If you accept that this is what the Hebrew’s author is claiming about Jesus, and you believed what the author said to be true, at minimum I’d think you’d be an Arian Christian, and if you look at other passages you might find it hard to think that God [the Father] ‘needs’ any subordinate by which he could or would create all things. This view would diminish God’s own power-as though God needs some 1st creature to create all things visible and invisible. The best explanation for this is the doctrine of the Trinity.
And this goes back to Roy’s claims above; if you want to learn how Christian’s arrived at their explanation of God as Triune, you have to see the task of trying to make sense of what the believed to be true: God alone is the creator of all things. And, if this God is a Father, this necessarily means he has a Son. For who could be a Father without having a Son (or daughter)? The name ‘Father’ requires their be some Son (or daughter). And, if God truly is Father prior to his creative actions, it means there was a Son there with Him before all things were created. And this in fact coheres with John 1:1, ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God’. The Word, who is this Son of God (John 1:14), was with His Father prior to all things being created, including.
Further, if you accept that it is logically and metaphysically possible that God is Triune; and you acknowledge that the Hebrew’s author makes the claim that Jesus is a High Priest not within the levitical order, but as a priest of God who is outside of it and ‘higher’ than it, then the situation is not that certain authors of the NT don’t teach that Jesus is divine, but rather they do make this claim and it is matter of agreeing with this claim or not.
If you wish to interpret any discussion about the Trinity solely by the criterion you have set up, a single clear statement like: God is one substance and three persons, then any attempt you might engage in to understand why Christians claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally divine will fail. How would you feel if I set up some criterion by which you’d have to prove to me some essential claim about your own religion? What if I said, unless your prophet actually spoke to me in my own language and with a latino accent, then I won’t believe he says what you say he says, you’d think I was being unfair and ask me to be fair by saying, ‘look, try to understand why the people of my faith came to believe what we do in the first place–don’t posit just any criteria you want–but look at the criteria the text and those whose book this understand their holy book’.
If the kind of explicit statement you want is not found in the NT, then of course you’ll end with the conclusion you started with. But if you examine the criteria that you posit, you could ask, is this fair to the text and to the criteria by which the Christian tradition came to understand what they did?
This is my last rebuttal; I wish I could continue with our discussion but I have many other things to attend to at present.
Peace be with you,
Scott
Assalamu’alaikum,
You said,
“Your interpretation of my ’silence’ regarding your argument re: John 8:58 is unfair and ill justified. I might as well think that you are a Mormon b/c you haven’t given me reason to think that Joseph Smith has superseded Mohammad as Allah ’s most recent and authoritative prophet.”
You example to qualify your claim that my interpretation of your silence is quite fallacious. If we’re discussing about Jospeh Smith and Muhammad s.a.w. I would of course be more than pleased to provide a resounding response, but we were quite obviously not discussing about that. The point of the matter is that points were raised, you touched a few and left many..in a proper verbal debate with allocated time limits, one may be excused for leaving out a few points here and there..but we’re not in a verbal debate, are we? Thus, my interpretation was not unfair, but quite justified. If you think it is unfair..instead of giving a silly comparison you should provide answers.
You said,
“In John 8 not only does Jesus criticize his interlocutors, but he also distinguishes himself from them by identifying himself as greater than Abraham. But who could be greater than Abraham?”
I hope you’re not blind brother, but I do believe we’ve covered John 8 quite thoroughly with you left speechless save for “I am not persduaded”. For you to again use it as evidence..is astounding to say the least.
You have utterly counfounded me with your utter confusion in regards to Melchisedec. I don’t think it even deserves an answer…you have completely missed the mark. I brought up Melchisedec because you were making claims about Jesus being God since he is apparently given attributes construed by you with having divine connotations. So my proposition was quite simple i.e.if what you claim makes Jesus God, then Melchisedec, another entity whoever he is, should also be worshipped as God either equally with jesus or greater for the reasons I gave in my previous post. You will not convince anyone of the trinity by going about a Bible merry-go-round sir…you have only confused yourself and all others. You seem to not pay much attention Scott…you brought up Hebrews 1 yet again and said that the Son of God sustains everything when I’ve shown you another translation which shows that that’s not entirely the case. It is the Father who sustains it by the Son…The Son has no power as he himself admitted that “all power is given unto me” and that “I seek not my will but the will of the one who sent me”. And then after you’ve completed your thesis on melchisedec..you said my interpretation is quite PLAUSIBLE…lol..do you know what that means? That means you’re speaking out of your own authority not backed by solid evidence. They are mere conjectures that are PLAUSIBLE.
And the Free Dictionary.com defines PLAUSIBLE :
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
I particularly like the second one, don’t you?
you said,
“The Word, who is this Son of God (John 1:14), was with His Father prior to all things being created, including.”
Thank you for again admitting to the numerical plurality of your Gods..yes,”the word was WITH…”.Do check up your dictionary as to what the word “with” means.
You said,
“If you wish to interpret any discussion about the Trinity solely by the criterion you have set up, a single clear statement like: God is one substance and three persons, then any attempt you might engage in to understand why Christians claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally divine will fail. How would you feel if I set up some criterion by which you’d have to prove to me some essential claim about your own religion? What if I said, unless your prophet actually spoke to me in my own language and with a latino accent, then I won’t believe he says what you say he says, you’d think I was being unfair and ask me to be fair by saying, ‘look, try to understand why the people of my faith came to believe what we do in the first place–don’t posit just any criteria you want–but look at the criteria the text and those whose book this understand their holy book’.”
Yet another fallacious comparison. You see, the challenge or proposition made by Ibn saad was not invented out of thin air but is actually scriptually sound.
Throughout the Bible or shall I say Old Testament, God was always explicit, precise, vivid, unequivocal, clear and ABOVE ALL SIMPLE and STRAIGHT TO THE POINT in theological statements and declarations. It was never His nature to give theological ideas broken into little pieces scattered all over different books by different authors of different periods of time. In short God never set forth theological puzzles for His creation to piece together in order to get a true understanding of His nature which He Himself revealed. This is shown is many places throughout the Old Testament e.g. Genesis 35:11, Exodus 20:2, psalms 81:10, isaiah 41:10, Jeremiah 32:27,
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 etc.
And Jesus himself, when quizzed about the first and most important commandment of all affirmed deuteronomy 6:4-5 without even the slightest alteration. One may easily ascertain from the above given passages and many others God always made it unambiguous and clear so much so that conflicting interpretations is virtually impossible. This was a trait and nature which God bore throughout the Old Testament. How do you account for this with the Trinitarian’s mishmashed and hodgpodged reports? For instance, to prove the trinity, Trinitarians may take you first to Genesis, and then jump to John and then jump to revelations and then conclude Jesus is God and we have a trinity! What is this?? Long Jump? Acrobatics? what? To make it simple for you Scott and your mates in trinity…if God had the nature of making theological matters aboutHis being as clear as crystal..why then after Jesus did He make things so complicated as to confuse most Christians themselves? Why the absence of clear, unequivocal statements? If Jesus could say, The Father is God..why couldn’t he have said I am God as well? If he made it plain that There is Only one God..why did he not make it plain that the “ONE” actually consists of 3 persons in a clear single sentence or a few statements in one context? If he could say “Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”..why couldn’t he have added and “these three are One and we are God”? You see..these questions are significant and they require answers from trinitarians like yourselves…We demand a verse or a few in one context where jesus unequivocally TAUGHT the trinity and gave the formula in light of the NATURE of God in making things clear as crystal in theological matters pertaining to His being in accordance with Malachi,”God is an unchanging God”.
But of course..we may reasonably conclude from your long winded, confusing, textually unsound, jargon filled arguments that you cannot really answer the simplest of questions.
The following are a list of things you(Scott) failed to satisfy and respond to in our almost 2 weeks of exchanges:
1. The challenge by Ibn Saad itself.
2. The similarity(not exactness) between Hindu theology and Trinitarian theology(an important point since the latter consider the former polytheistic)
3. Trinity debunked in light of Deuteronomy 13:1-3.
4. My linguistic and textual explanation of worship.
5. Forgiving sins..which you brought up and I answered at length and you responded with nill.
6. Trinity developed over a period of 3 hundred years after Jesus as stated by the catholic Encyclopedia.
7. Unreliability of the Bible in general considering the many conflicting canons, disappearing verses etc.
8. John 8:54-59, the issue of Ego Eimi. Unwittingly you deemed the beggar in John 9:9 as God by your statement that “Ego Eimi” is a standard divine statement. No response.
10. Lengthy scholarly explanation and analyses of John8:54-59, merely brushed aside by “not persuasive”.
11. Melchisedec, a being apart from the trinity with no beginning or end which clearly equals him with God. No response.
12. The clearest of all denials to divinity by Jesus in John 17:3, repeated more than 3 times throughout our discussion with not a single response from you.
Thank you Scott. It has been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you. May Allah guide you to the path of non-confusion and true monotheism.
Ibn Anwar
(http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com)
Assalamu’alaikum,
Sorry..I forgot to add
13. The case of Paul and why I do not like him or consider him a trustworthy source. No response.
Thanks
Dear Mr. Ibn,
I have read some of the above arguments for and against the trinity as posted by you and some of the other philosophisers. I myself do not presume to be as well versed as you or the others in these matters, but I would like to respectfully add a comment. It is clear that an agreement cannot be reached regarding the trinity, however I believe the bible does support at least a duality, if you will. In one of the threads you asked, “If Jesus could say, The Father is God..why couldn’t he have said I am God as well?” According to John 10:30, Jesus did say, “The Father and I are one”.
I know that you do not like to rely on logic, and I can see your point, however wouldn’t it follow that if Jesus the Son and God the Father are “one” as Jesus says in John 10:30, that it could be possible for God to be of three natures, just as much as it is possible for him to be of two?
Therefore, based on John 10:30, Christians can at least worship God and Jesus as one without it being considered as polytheism.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth
From(http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.7.html)
The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30
“I and my father are one.”
This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:
“And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.”
John 10:23-30
In divinity? In a holy “Trinity”? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus’ hand, so too shall no one pluck them out of God’s hand.
Need more proof? Then read:
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”
John 17:20-22
Is all of mankind also part of the “Trinity”?
Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,”
1 Corinthians 6:15-17
And also
“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Ephesians 4:6
And
“For as the (human) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Once we read the above verses and understand what the message was that Paul was trying to get across, then we can begin to understand his words in such places as
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Ephesians 4:4
“St. Paul” was speaking about Christian unity, not about a plurality of gods merged into one body. As we shall soon see, he was completely ignorant of where his teachings would later lead, and how decades later, they would be the foundations which would spawn the “Trinity” doctrine.
Also @Elizabeth
Regarding your statement:
“wouldn’t it follow that if Jesus the Son and God the Father are “one” as Jesus says in John 10:30, that it could be possible for God to be of three natures, just as much as it is possible or him to be of two?”
Even if we assume that John 10:30 is what you want it to mean, why stop at a Trinity , why not make it a Quadrinity or a Pentarinity or etc.?(LoL I don’t think I spelled those right)
By this reasoning, it would be possible for the Hindus to be correct, as some of them claim that each idol is a “representation” of God.
Elizabeth, I would recommend you to look into the History of Christianity and see how pagan Roman ideas have been assimilated into the Christian religion.
And I invite you to true monotheism, as confirmed by the Old Testament:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”
(Deuteronomy 6:4)
Hello Mr. Ibn,
Thank you for your quick (and very detailed) response to my posting. The rules of your challenge state that you are looking for ONE VERSE that says God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. If I understand it correctly, you are claiming that if it cannot be proved in one verse, that worshiping God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit together must be considered polytheism. In keeping within the boundaries of your challenge as much as possible, I provided you with ONE VERSE (John 10:30) that says that at the very least Jesus and God are one (therefore not polytheistic). I do not feel I can be charged with taking this verse out of context or too literally any more than you can be for adding your own “in PURPOSE” addendum to it. Again, you asked “If Jesus could say, The Father is God..why couldn’t he have said I am God as well?” Following your own reasoning, I could ask you, “If Jesus really meant that they were one in purpose, why didn’t he just come right out and say that they were one…in purpose?”
With John 10:30 as my one verse, I have been aiming to establish that Jesus did in fact claim to be God because I believe this is the true foundation of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is also an important facet of God’s nature, but it is through Jesus that salvation is obtained. You are clearly well versed in the Bible, so as you know there are many verses to support this (John 3:16, John 14:6, Romans 10:9-10, etc.).
Mr. Ibn, I will not attempt to prove the Trinity in one verse to you, because as you yourself pointed out in the opening paragraphs, “trust me, you can’t”, but I do hope you would consider again what the Bible is saying about Jesus being the way to God and to salvation. I earnestly wish you all the best in your search for the truth.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,
I don’t have much time..so I’m just gonna get down straight to the point.
1. Elizabeth has tried to answer the challenge i.e. prove the trinity in one verse by using John 10:30. I rate her argument thus far 5 out of 10…however, one slight flaw…John 10:30 if we were to understand it as how Elizabeth has understood it and her trinitarian cohorts is at the most a proof for duality and NOT trinity. It only mentions the two persons of the trinity whilst leaving the last out of the equation. Thus, Elizabeth’s whole thesis is destroyed..just like that.
2. Yes, the challenge is to produce one verse, but that one verse should NOT be devoid of context. Ibn Saad’s not obligated to say that the one verse should be accompanied by the context for that is a GIVEN if you’re in the business of seeking truth and honesty. We’re not here to score cheap points through silly childish tactics, but rather to seek knowledge as is the name of the website itself. Thus, in context it is evident that Jesus was not speaking of oneness in nature or being but rather the oneness in purpose. This is further substantiated by John 17, where the same Greek word Hen meaning One is used over three times to describe a sort of unity amongst the Father, Jesus and the disciples(Judas included). This unity is again that of purpose and not of nature or being. Lastly, if we were to subscribe to Elizabeth’s context”LESS” interpretation i.e. Jesus is ONE with the Father(equal and all that) then one will have to say that Jesus was lying when he said the Father is GREATER than ALL(Jesus included since in another place Jesus declared that “The Father is Greater than I”.
3. Start READING! The challenge states “PRODUCE AT LEAST ONE VERSE” NOT “JUST ONE VERSE”..at least..if you can provide more than one..even better…
4. Based on point number one contrary to what you may have thought, YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY in addressing the challenge.
5. You’ve messed with the wrong website.
6. John 17:3,” This is Life Eternal, that they may know You(THE FATHER) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.”
Thank you for the comments.
Ibn Anwar
http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com
http://www.seekingilm.com
Hello Mr. Ibn. I not only find Elizabeth and Scott to be reasonable, but polite. I appreciate when people respond to my faith with courtesy, although they may have differing opinions. Rating people’s reviews out of 10, telling them they’ve failed miserably etc. don’t invite open-minded debaters to a Muslim website, and do not enhance inter-faith dialog.
I can say, based on the length of this strand, it seems there is no lack of material to present, many credible believers feel strongly that the Trinity is at least credible. Perhaps you should reissue your challenge in a wider context. For example:
1). “Is it logical to believe the Trinity.” [you don't need to be a scholar or historian to decide!]
2). Did Jesus teach that He was God?
3). Does the death of Jesus make any sense if He wasn’t God?
There are many more variants that would open your forum to more enriching discussion, less subjective criticism and actually answer the burning question that we’ve more than dabbled in already!
Souls are never won by coercion. Despite the many words above, I don’t think anyone has become more convinced either way.
Roy
You probably won’t publish this but I am going to
Trinity Proof Texts:
55 Triadic Bible texts that prove the Trinity
Divine qualities ascribed equally to the Father, Son and holy Spirit.
Old Testament Trinity Proof Texts
Genesis 1:26
“Let US make man in OUR image”: Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus.
Genesis 19:24
“Then Yahweh [on earth in human form] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh [in spirit form in heaven] out of heaven. Genesis 19:24. In this text Abraham is visited by three individuals, one being Yahweh and the other two angels. Here we have God on the earth (Jesus) and God in heaven (father) sending down fire from heaven. This incident when Abraham met with Yahweh God, is what Jesus referred to when he said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
(John 8:56) The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that Jesus visited Abraham in Genesis 18 and 19.
Isaiah 6
Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah really saw the glory of Christ. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. Combine this with the fact the Yahweh said, “Who will go for US” is a plural pronoun indicating more than one person in the Godhead.
Isaiah 40-55
Jesus echoes the “I AM” statements in Isaiah chapters 40-55. This spectacular link explores over 20 different passages in Isaiah and John.
Isaiah 45:23-24
I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him shall be put to shame.
Micah 5:2
But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.
New Testament Trinity Proof Texts
Mark 2:5-12
Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
John 5:18
For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 8:58
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.
John 10:33
“I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. … Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”
John 12:41 + Isaiah 6
A simple reading of the context of John 12 makes it clear that John is saying that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ himself in Isaiah 6. This proves Jesus is Yahweh.
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses explanation of John 19:7 is so bad, we awarded them the STINCS Trophy.
Romans 14:11
For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God.”
2 Corinthians 13:14
Philippians 2:1-2
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Philippians 2:9-11
“Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Revelation 22:3
“And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall [latreuo] serve Him.”
Jesus worshipped in the highest sense of “latreuo”
What about the false profits that Jesus warned us about?
Wonderful Works Are Done By False Prophets In The Name Of The Lord:
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
According to scripture, Mohammad was a false profit. It is clearly written in the bible.
I have one question.
Why is it that Muslims cannot agree on your religion?
Christians know that God is not the author of confusion. God’s word is clear.
Muslims have destroyed their religion with man made doctrines called hadiths.
Jesus said that the only way the the Father is by Him.
Hadeeths are actually narrations of what the Messenger of Allah , Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said or did.
The new testament bible is technically a “hadeeth”, narrations by “John”, “Matthew”, “Mark”, etc of what Jesus said and did.
The difference between your “hadeeth” and ours is that we have a scientific understanding of how to classify hadeeth and come to a conclusion of what is authentic, and what may be fabricated.
To us, your Bible is a weak hadeeth at the
Hadeeths are actually narrations of what the Messenger of Allah , Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said or did.
The new testament bible is technically a “hadeeth”, narrations by “John”, “Matthew”, “Mark”, etc of what Jesus said and did.
The difference between your “hadeeth” and ours is that we have a scientific understanding of how to classify hadeeth and come to a conclusion of what is authentic, and what may be fabricated.
What we believe to be Allah’s Word, the Qur’an, is clear, spoken by the Creator of the Heavens of the Earth.
Hello Abu Usaama, thank-you for your kind and respectful reply.
Christians believe that the New Testament is ENTIRELY written by God, through the hands of men. (i.e. no opinion/human interpretations etc)
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
“God-breathed” means, it came from the mouth of God! (Not his literal mouth =)
We also have Scientific ways to classify our hadeeth and know what is fabricated and what is authentic. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I know when the Bible was compiled, they would have considered the book authentic if:
1) Jesus quoted from the book.
2) It does not contradict His teaching or other doctrines in Scripture
etc. etc. If you are interested, there are about 10 “Scientific” (i.e imperical) tests for our New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, but they detract from the purpose of our brother’s challenge. The above two are empirical enough for now.
Roy Wahab
This brother is my hero, May Allah bless him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY95lfigBvI
Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,
Jesusisgood..thank you for all those verses…what you have done is employed a very cheap debating tactic and that is shooting a barrage of bullets expecting us to catch every single one of em. Do yourself a favour and read the previous comments. Many of the verses you brought up have been explained and dealt with. If you’d like to further the discussion you are most welcome to visit http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com
Thank you. Jesus isn’t God..he is God’s.
Assalamu ‘alaykum,
Can anyone give me the reference where Prophet Muhammad(saws) forbade the Sahabah from reading other religious book except Qur’an…..then the reference where he(saws) allowed them later; i think it was because their Imaan was high enough and they understood tawhid so he(saws)allowed them to read them.?
Jazak’Allah khair
anyone ?
Assalamu’alaikum,
Akhi, I’ve written article in response to your question. Do chec it out here
http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/did-the-prophet-forbid-reading-the-bible/
Jzk
Barak’Allahu Feekum
I appreciate the dialogue and those that have shared their knowledge as the website is titled ‘seek knowledge’. But Abu anwar, I respect that you are teaching the truth of islam but can you not be so offensive to people of different faith. Islam teachs respect of other faiths, teaching should be with respect and tact. Ive read several of your posts and its a bit brash from people that are coming to this site with good will.
its not a good example and not what islam teaches.
Can you please sow me where I was being “so offensive” ?
PROOF OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS From the Koran and the Bible.
( AND THE CONCEPT OF TRINITY )
God began by choosing a chaste woman, Mary (Maryam). To qualify her, He necessarily exalted her in advance ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION, for birth is the women’s GREATEST pride and, yet Mary would EXTRA-ORDINARILY give the birth that is the GREATEST of all times. See Luke 1:28, 30:34, 41-44, 48-49, and 54-55. Also says Qur’an 3:42, “….O Mary! Allah has CHOSEN thee, and PURIFIED thee, and PREFERRED thee ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION”.
After that, God settled His soul (Ruh) inside His word (Kalimat) which he had put in the womb of Mary, who had been spiritually qualified as we have seen earlier. That was how Mary conceived Jesus. That was to enable the divine attribute have human features through her for the humans to understand Him better (Hence only Jesus is Biblicaly and Qur’anically declared as GOD’s WORD and GOD’s RUH (Spirit): John 1:1, 14:8:23, Phl. 2:5-8; and the Qur’an 4:171, 2:252 etc. (By implication, Jesus’ flesh is not actually biological but God’s Word; similarly, his life is not actually human’s but from God’s own as we will see more later).
Therefore, even after his humanly birth, Jesus was declared as much superior to angels and, in fact, God said, “Let ALL God’s angels WORSHIP him (Jesus)” (Heb. 1:6; 1Pet. 3:22; Mat. 4:11), as was Adam, of course, in Qur’an 2:30-34.
Thus, apparently, Jesus was a human, the rationality and aim of his humanized birth. See Rom. 8:3-6; Heb. 2:16-18. Also, says Allah according to Qur’an 6:9, “Had We appointed an ANGEL our messenger, We ASSUREDLY had made him LIKE A MAN SO THAT HE MIGHT SPEAK TO (associate with) MEN….”
Muslims often cite John 5:30-31; Mark 13:32-33 and John 1428 etc as disproofs of Christ’s divinity. But, logically, these verses, rather than disprove Jesus’ divinity, expressed the anticipated and expected demonstrations of the character that was Jesus-in-exemplary-typical-human-nature and , therefore , in accordance with God’s programme as stated in the Qur’an 6:9 and:-
(1) Phil. 2:6, “Who (Jesus) being in very nature God, did NOT consider equality with God something to grasp, 7 But made himself NOTHING, taking the very nature of a SERVANT, being made in human likeness 8, and found in appearance as a MAN, he HUMBLED himself and became OBEDIENT to the death, even death in the cross”
(2) Heb. 2:16, “For surely it is NOT ANGELS that he (Jesus) helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 FOR THIS REASON HE (GOD) HAD TO MAKE HIM (JESUS) LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY in order that……” (Compare Qur’an 6:9)
(3) Rom. 8:3, “(Jesus)….in the LIKENESS OF A SINFUL MAN……….”
So, in the light of these verses, it should be clear that Jesus’ humanized acts did not mean that he was actually a human being (John 8:23) but were the divinely designs that were to make Jesus not unnecessarily scare the humans but, rather be their SOURCE OF INSPIRATIONS.
In other words, if Jesus were to act God-the-father again even when haven purposely transformed into a man, the transformation would logically be nonsense.
The Holy Bible reveals relationship between Adam and Jesus thus, “The FIRST Adam became a LIVING SOUL, the LAST Adam (Jesus) a QUICKENING SPIRIT”, 1 Cor. 15:45. Therefore, to understand the nature of Jesus more, we must go back to the Adam’s case.
Thus, when God breathed life into Adam (Qur’an 38:73-78 and Gen. 2:7), he (God) declared him His (God’s) own IMAGE/LIKENESS (Gen. 2:7) or His VICEROY (Qur’an 2:30). Also, according to Qur’an 28:37-38, 15:39-44; 17:61-62; 7:11-13 and 2:34, Allah instructed ALL the angels to WORSHIP Adam on the ground that He (Allah) had breathed something of His SpIRIT into Adam for a soul (see Heb. 1:2-6, for the same instruction in respect of Jesus). In fact, according to these Qur’anic verses, Satan’s curse and demotion are God’s reaction to his (Satan’s) refusal to prostrate himself before Adam.
Therefore, Biblically and Qur’anically Adam, whose flesh was made from just the sand (Gen. 2:7, Qur’an 28:72), was notwithstanding such GLORIOUS initially. And, logically, the glorious qualification came from what God breathed in him.
However, Adam did not pass Satanic test but sinned (that shows some relative weakness in him), thereby lost his INITIAL STATUS and therefore was ordered out of MOST EXALTED DWELLING, the Garden of Eden(Qur’an 7:19-24, Gen. 3:1-24). But Jesus passed all the Satanic tests (Mt.4:1-11, Heb. 4:15; Qur’an 19:19), which logically implies comparative superiority in him.
Therefore, the fact that SOIL is the comparative parent of Adam, who, again, could not pass Satanic test, sinned and was demoted; and Mary, the SUPERIOR among all women, is the comparative parent of Jesus, who, again, passed all the Satanic tests, did not sin and therefore was NEVER demoted, given that both Adam and Jesus got their souls unbiologically from God directly; it follows that whatever type of soul God gave Adam was originally INFERIOR to the one He gave Jesus. Thus Jesus would still have been superior to Adam even if he (Adam) had been able to defend his INITIAL STATUS, (and thus Jesus was very superior to the demoted Adam (and, by the way, EXTREMELY superior to Adam’s descendants including MUHAMMAD, whom Allah found STRAY: Qur’an 12:3, 93:6-8).
So if initially Adam, made from soil, was inter-alia, QUALIFIED to be God’s IMAGE/LIKENESS (Biblically) or GOd’s VICEROY and WORTHY OF A WORSHIP BY THE ANGELS OF GOD (Qur’anically), all because his soul was God-breathed, then Jesus, who has much greater of these qualifications and miraculousness (Bible, Qur’an 5:113), is logically divine.
Thus to Jesus’ divinity God did order the angels to worship; indeed, only divinity can be worshiped (Mt. 4:8-10; Qur’an 16:36; Heb. 1:2-6).
That was why when Jesus was asked to disclose God he said, “Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know me…? He who has seen me has seen the Father (God); how can you say, ‘show us the Father?..I do not speak on my (the human) authority, but the Father who DWELLS IN ME DOES HIS WORKS”, John 14:8-10.
That is why Jesus was Biblically likened to (or understood to be) The Great Spirit Priest, Melchizedek who (being a spirit), has no biological father, mother, genealogy and dates of birth and death, but remains an eternal priest; Heb. 7:1-3, (i.e. the genealogy and date of birth of the ever living Jesus were but symbolic as earlier seen).
And, that is why when Jesus accomplished his mission on the Earth naturally, he went back to where he came from, Qur’an 4:158, “God has raised him up unto HIMSELF”. See also John 6:28, 62, and Mk. 16:19. John 8:23.
Yes! Jesus is, according to both the Bible and the Qur’an, back to his origin, God.
This brings us to the issue of TRINITY.
The TRINITY
The term ‘Trinity’ is not of Biblical origin but the concept is. Thus, as any Biblically foreign word, it is not necessary to employ it in particular in whatever situation. However, the word ‘Trinity’ is relevantly expressive, thus it was employed as a term by some Bible interpreters just because it was the best word that simply expressed the ONENESS of the Almighty God, His soul in a born human body, and His soul when , or as, not inside a body. Thus:
1. God-the-FATHER, means the ALMIGHTY God.
(Deut.32:6; Mt.5:48,6:9-14; 1Cor.8:4-6)
2.God-the-SON, means the SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God inside His (GOD’S) WORD, which was physically born as a human body. (Col. 1:15, 19; John 1:1, 14-18, 17:5; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 1:18; Isa. 9:6; John 14:10; Pls. 82:6)
3. God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form. (John 4:24; MK. 3:28-29; Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2; Pls. 139:7-12; Hab 3:3; 2Cor. 3:17-18). .
Thank you
THE ABORTED SCANDALOUS ‘TRINITY’ OF ISLAM
The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was born in a pagan community that believed in three Goddesses: Al-lat, Manat, and Uzza among other idols and fetish things. Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, Islam initially declared it recognition of the deityship of these pagan Gods (or Goddess) via a supposed Allah’s revelation to Muhammad that, according to ‘hoarded’ Hadith, went thus:
Qur’an 53:13, ‘And he (Muhammad) saw him (angel Gabriel) yet
Another time.
14. By the lote-tree at the furthest boundary.
15. Near unto which is the Garden of Abode.
16. When that which covers the tree does cover it.
17. The sight turned not aside, nor did it extend beyond the
Limit.
18. Indeed he saw some of the greater signs of his Lord
19. Have ye seen al-lat and Uzza?
20. And Manat the third one besides?
* These are the Exalted Gharaniq (Damsels)
* And verily their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped
For’
When the pagan Arabs heard such a Qur’anic endorsement of their deities, they massively converted to Islam. But that the story of their conversion was so exaggerated that the Muslim refugees confidently returned home from Abyssinia (Ethiopia).
The returnee refugees and Muhammad himself were disappointed to discover that the story of the massive conversion was largely a hoax. The angry Muhammad then withdrew his recognition of the deityship of the Three Goddesses and blamed Satan for making him include in the recitation false words, “*These are the Exalted Gharaniq. *And their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped for“.
Thus Muhammad expunged these ?Satanic Verses? (as they are now called by Muslim scholars) and replaced them with a supposed reaction from Allah:
21.” What! For you the *male sex, and for Him (Allah) the
Female?
22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
23. These are nothing but names which ye have devised, ye
And your fathers!”
(*Allah supposedly rejected the pagans’ recognition of Him, at this stage, as being the father of the three goddesses) See Hadith al-Gharaniq al-Ula gotten from al-Waqidi, ibn Hantab, Abu Jaafar Ibn at-Tabari etc for details.
I know many Muslim readers would dismiss this as lies because must of these sensitive issues are hidden away from them. But whoever cares to do research on this or ask renowned Islamic scholars will be shocked to discover that the ‘Satanic Verses’ scandal is a historical fact.
In fact , the nature of the early chapters of the Qur’an tends to confirm the historicity of the ‘Satanic Verses’ scandal for, as Encyclopedia Britanica 15 page 342 puts it, ”(In the Qur’an) strangely enough, there is NO REFERENCE TO THE ONENESS OF GOD (The premier Islamic doctrine now) in these early chapters. According to one tradition, on one occasion Mohammed even acknowledged the relative authorities of three goddesses: Al-lat, Manat and Uzza, but later on abolished the passage in which the reference occurred” said the Encyclopedia
Thus Islam’s belated attacks on Christianity with respect to the TRINITY is just a cover-up to this scandal of an attempt to ‘Trinitinize’ the three pagan Arab goddesses which (the attempt) failed.
Christian TRINITY does not imply three Gods at all. It is a logical and scientific phenomenon that expresses the three major ways that personifies Himself.
The greatest Christian Law is the perfect belief in the oneness of God (Mk. 12:28-32; 1 Cor. 8:3-6; Jms. 2:18-21).
In fact not only Muslims , Jehovah Witness and the Jews too should realize that the concept of ‘God-The-Son’ scripturally predated the times of Jesus Christ (Pls. 82:6; John 10:34-38); likewise ?God-The-Father? (Deut. 32:6); and ‘God-the-Holy-Spirit’ (Job 32:4, Pls 139:7-12).
It is, therefore simplistic to think that Christian Trinitarian concept originated from paganism just because the pagans had ‘similar’ doctrine before the word ‘Trinity’ was employed by some Bible interpreters. Pagan ‘Trinity’ differs from the Christian own in the sense that it has always referred to three entities (Just like the aborted Al-Lat, Manat and Uzza) whereas that of Christian refers to only one entity who acted in three ways.
Science also suggests the possibility of the Christian TRINITY. Thus: some matters can exist in many physically different capacities and chemically remain their exact selves nevertheless. See ALLOTROPY. Allotropy is the EXISTENCE OF AN ELEMENT IN MANY PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES AND CHEMICALLY REMAINS IT EXACT SELF, just as Trinity is the EXISTENSE OF THE GOD IN THREE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES BUT SPIRITUALLY REMAINS HIS EXACT SELF. Of course, if matter can exhibit such a rare capacity as the allotropy, how much more can the creator himself do? Hence the exceptional ‘allotropy‘, (the SPIRITUAL ALLOTROPY) the Trinity.
There never was and there never will be a trinity of any kind in Islam. The Prophet NEVER recognized any deity except the One and only true God. Any stories that suggest otherwise have never been considered authentic, rather, they are fabrications.
What is sad is that we are going to have to waste time refuting this kufr and shirk.
Abd ul-Ghafûr, if you don’t know don’t it is a fabrication. The sources of this story are all credibly Islamic–
al-Waqidi, ibn Hantab, Abu Jaafar Ibn at-Tabari etc. So you can’t say it is a fabrication. You should note also that I am an Arab like you and formally a Muslim. So you can’t deceive me about Islam.
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb
@ Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq
I would like to ask you since you are a Trinitarian and do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. If you could help me to understand something. I also hope the Muslims reflect upon this too. Too often we have seen debates and dialouge centered around Christ Jesus and his deity. However the Holy Spirit seems to have taken the back seat in these dialouges and discussions.
I would like to ask you Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq
Could you please show us a statement in the Bible that you believe advocates that the Holy Spirit is God? In order for the Trinity doctrine to be true. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit would have to be absolute deity, yet not three absolute deities (as that would be a contradiction in terms) but one absolute deity.
@Ibrahim AbdulTawwab,
It means you have not read my response. In the response I referred to God The Father, God The Son and God the Holy Spirit and the verses of the Bible that talk about them.
God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form. (John 4:24; MK. 3:28-29; Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2; Pls. 139:7-12; Hab 3:3; 2Cor. 3:17-18).
But it should be clear to you that the Ruh of Allah is Divine.
Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq,
Fabrications are found in the books of ahadith–not every ahadith is authentic, even in the well-known books–so you have proved nothing with quotations without consulting the mufassirun and scholars of exegesis. They all agree that such stories are, in fact, fabrications.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf quoted Ibn Taymiyyah with the profound and true words that Ahl ul-Bida’ will select what fits their innovations and doctrines of bid’ah, while Ahl us-Sunnah will take it all and then analyze it, in other words, it might still remain in the canons and well-known books.
And I should have added the muhaddithun and scholars of ahadith.
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb
@ Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq
you said,
God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, “not inside any bodily form”. (John 4:24; MK. 3:28-29; Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2; Pls. 139:7-12; Hab 3:3; 2Cor. 3:17-18).
“not inside any bodily form”
However, Luke 3:22 “And than the Holy Spirit descended in “Bodily form” like a dove.
This is interesting because in Colossians 2:9 In Christ all fullness of deity lives in Bodily Form”.
So let me ask you. If you were standing there a witness to the baptism of Christ Jesus and you saw him and you saw the dove. How many incarnate deities are present?
Why doesn’t the church teach the double incarnation view? God became a man and God became a dove for the salvation of mankind.
If the Holy Spirit is truly omnipresent why the need to stress the fact that it took on the form of a dove?
Also does Apologist James White or William Lane Craig or Norman Geisler support the view that the Holy Spirit is Omni present?
For example does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?
Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerated Non Christian?
Your passage citation of Pslam 139: 7-12 Was a bit difficult for me to follow when I also took into account a few verses that followed it.
Psalm 139:7-12 (New International Version)
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
Seems to be a bit poetic or in a language that could be interpreted in more than one way. For example the wings of the dawn? Does the dawn have wings? The far side of the sea would be where?
Your right hand would hold me? Do you feel the grip of God’s hand around you is it physical?
This is why in the Qur’an we have rules for interpretation given down by Allah.
When you quote John 4:24 It is also important that you quote the translation you are giving in this particular instance. or Greek/Aramaic text As I do not know your school of thought and don’t wish to assume.
Because the KJV John 4:24 “God is a Spirit”
NIV (God is Spirit)
An important distinction for such a discussion. God is A Spirit (one of many)
God is Spirit (God is something intangible or powerful)
Again we are confusing an Attribute or description of God by saying that that the Attribute is God.
To say God is Love is fine, but to say that Love is God is difficult.
Mark 3:28-29 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”
This passage I find interesting as well for several reasons.
1) As you are aware Muslims have used it as a proof text against the Trinity for obvious reasons.
2) This is such a poweful verse but does not give us any context to which the Holy Spirit may be blasphemed.
3) This would also raise interesting questions concerning Calvin’s view in the Calvnist Arminian faith controversy that you have in Christianity.
There is no “regenerated unbeliever” or “regeneration before faith” in Calvin’s point of view.
You also may wish to read this book
(The Divine Feminine in Biblical Wisdom Literature – by Rabbi Rami Shapiro)
Where he states about your quotes Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2;
“It is no small thing to note that Wisdom is feminine. The original language of the texts, both Hebrew and Greek, make this very clear. Hebrew Chochma and Greek Sophia are both feminine nouns. The authors of the Wisdom books took this gender specificity seriously and envisioned Wisdom as Mother, God’s consort and bride, the Divine Feminine through which the masculine God fashioned all creation. Further, they saw in the union of masculine and feminine a powerful analogy for the greater unity of all in the ineffable Godhead that transcends our imagination.
To keep the power of their language before us, I refer to Wisdom as She and to God as He, knowing that it is in the unity of the two that the full Godhead is manifest. It is important that you do not mistake my use of language for something it is not. I do not believe that God is literally male or that Chochma is literally female. We are not dealing with biological facts, but with theological archetypes residing within each of us. What is needed is a marriage of the two within the individual.
The unity of these forces creates a new person, the divine anthropos, the fully integrated human who is called the sage in these Wisdom books. The sage, regardless of gender, is married to Chochma; he or she is the partner of the Divine Feminine.” (The Divine Feminine in Biblical Wisdom Literature – by Rabbi Rami Shapiro)
This should also make you ponder some of the statements you made about the Qur’an which was actually made popular by Robert Eisenman in his book ‘James the brother of Jesus’. Who took from Orientalist before him.
But even if it were true that the Qur’an definites the Trinity as Mother, Father and Son, Well well, well.
What do we fine here?
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Notice he created Him (singular) male and female plural
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR IMAGE after OUR likeness…
Let Us (God The Father, God The Son, and God the Feminine Holy Spirit /Mother)
Let’s not forget the controversy of the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceeding from the father, vs. the issue of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son while the Son proceeds from the Father, we can now come to a new doctrinial understanding that the Son proceeds from both the Father and the Feminine Holy Spirit/Mother.
With the added bonus of making the feminine movement happy and possibly attracting a few disgruntled Muslim women over to your side of the fence.
Habakkuk 3:3 I honestly didn’t understand the point on that quotation.
Before I am allowed (if the moderators allow us to continue that is ) to comment on your passage of 2 Corinthians 3:17-18
I need to confirm your position that you are not a Modalist or Sabellian?
Again from my humble view point I do not believe you have substantiated the doctrine of the Trinty from the Bible because to do so you would have to prove that the Holy Spirit is God but is not Jesus or the Father. Since classical doctrine goes:
“The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.”
So in closing I will let you retract 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 as a proof text if you want to defend the doctrine that the Trinity is taught in the Bible. However, that is up to you.
May Allah give you the guidance.
@Ibrahim Abdul Tawwab,
In Luke 3:22 the phrase “like a dove” implies that the Holy Spirit is not in the form of a dove. Similarly, the phrase, “in a bodily form” implies that being in a bodily form is not the usual state of the Holy Spirit otherwise there would have not been any need to mention it. For instance, if you Ibrahim Abdul Tawwab, go to a place IN A BODILY FORM, it would not be mentioned that it was in a bodily form that you went to the place, because that is the normal form in which you are. However, if you go NOT IN A BODILY FORM but IN A SPIRITUAL FORM, it becomes interesting deserving of mention because it is not your nature to go to a place in a spiritual form since you are a physical being.
So, at that point the Holy Spirit assumed the likeness of a dove apparently in order to enable the disciples of Christ witness the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ; because without the Holy Spirit assuming any perceivable figure or doing some relevant spectacular action in the presence of the disciples, they could not claim to be eye witnesses of the remarkable event since spirit (Ruh) is not a physical entity.
In fact all spiritual beings, since they don’t have any specific form, do assume the likeness of various relevant beings for human beings to easily understand. That is the wisdom of God. For instance the angels sent to Maryam, and Lot (Lut) assumed the perfect likeness of human beings etc.
You also suggested that we Christians should equally add that, “…God became a dove for the salvation of mankind“. But God has not instructed us to do so. The fact that you Muslims added an object of worship without God instruction does not mean that we too will do the same. Imitation leads to blunders. For instance, you Muslims met pagan Arabs worshiping the BLACK STONE which they claimed came from Heaven; and you too imitate them by housing it in the Islam’s most holy place on Earth, the Ka’aba, where you worship it directly and indirectly and ignorantly and knowingly. Yet there is no verse in the Qur’an that instructed you to house the fetish “Black Stone” in Ka’aba, where you face to worship. If a meteorite fell from heaven it does not mean it is should be housed in the most holy place. Now the unexplainable presence of the BLACK STONE in Kaaba is a source of confusion among the “TAUHIDIST” Muslims. Similarly, you met Christians with their TRINITY doctrine and you decided to imitate them by sort of ‘trinitinizing’ the threesome pagan Goddesses only to suffer a scandalous fate. So, we Christians will NOT consider your suggestion.
You strangely asked me— as if you were an Atheist— that if I believed the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, then “does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?
Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerated Non Christian?”
Let me answer you with a question. If you believe too that God is Omnipresent does he then live in theses places you mentioned? Or don’t you believe that God is Omnipresent?
You said Psalms 139:7-12 is poetic. I want to add that substantial part of ancient writings (including the Qur’an) is poetic; but that does not stop it from being clear. The Bible is consistent about God’s being a Spirit. For instance, in the Qur’an, Allah is reported to have said He created Adam with His (Allah’s) both hands—.But once we assume that God has normal hands, we are limiting Him. So there is poetry every where but the messages are clear.
Again, some of your analogies appear incorrect. For instance, it is wrong to say, “God is a Spirit” and “God is Spirit” are the same as saying “God is love” and “Love is God”. It appears you desperately wanted to defend your stance.
You said also, ‘Since classical doctrine goes:
“The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.”‘
Well, they are PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT persons but SPIRITUALLY the same. Look at their qualifiers: Father, Son and the Soul (Spirit). They are not the same. So, how can you be surprised that the so-called Classical Doctrine says they are not the same? Is it not obvious? They are supposed to be physically different; that is why they have different physical qualifiers. But they are spiritually the same because it is the same spirit that is in them. Or do you feel since God is ONE if He put His spirit (Soul) in Jesus He (God) would be left with no life? God is beyond that; He is not limited by time and space.
@ Nur el Masih Ben Haq
I’ve studied the bible since i was a little boy seriously and had the trinity indoctrinated by the Chrisitian community where i belong all my life. i find it’s all so irrational. all the theories and justification with regard to it do not makes sense. this doctrine will only make devouted Christians feel doubtful and inferior when confronted with adherents of other religions, especially those of Judaism and Islam. NT ,especially the trinity doctrine, is inconsistent with the whole bible, i am sorry to say. OT is a lot more consistent. i know some learned Christians friends of mine turned atheist, converted to Judaism or Islam due to this.
So Nur, since you said you were formerly muslim and thus new to Christianity, i think you should learn more about this religion and i suggest you learn the viewpoints held by groups in Christianity that disagree with the trinity.
i really dont want to argue, just offering sincere advice. if you think things over, you’ll find that the arguments proposed by the proponents of trinity is flawed.
@Baldwin
Thank you for that advice. But the doctrine of Trinity makes my brain develop; it makes me think deeper instead of shallow or simplistic. I find it very logically, mathematical and scientific (It is like Allotropy in science). If you think simplistically like 1+1+1=3 you can’t get it. In science we have some intriquing situations like this that requires deeper thinking. I believe that is why God has not made believing in Trinity mandatory in Christianity otherwise many would go to hell because simple mathematics is difficult to some people not to talk of Spiritual ‘intrique’ such as the Trinity.
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb,
@ Nur-el-Masibh Ben Haq
Al hamdulililah though I’m glad platforms such as this exist so people can see the on going discussion. They can get a sense of flow for who is getting irritated and who is addressing the points. Who’s arguments are flawed and who’s arguments are coigant.
#1) You stated,
In Luke 3:22 the phrase “like a dove” IMPLIES that the Holy Spirit is not in the form of a dove. Similarly, the phrase, “in a bodily form” IMPLIES that being in a bodily form is not the usual state of the Holy Spirit otherwise there would have not been any need to mention it.
My response: The word IMPLIES does not seem to suggest that you are quite sure on this matter? What is the usual ‘state’ of the Holy Spirit?
#2 You state:
For instance, if you Ibrahim Abdul Tawwab, go to a place IN A BODILY FORM, it would not be mentioned that it was in a bodily form that you went to the place, because that is the normal form in which you are. However, if you go NOT IN A BODILY FORM but IN A SPIRITUAL FORM, it becomes interesting deserving of mention because it is not your nature to go to a place in a spiritual form since you are a physical being.
My response:
But does the text of Luke 3:22 state Spiritual form or bodily form? I do find it interesting that you would want to bring that into discussion. Maybe you could also share with us why you believe it was necessary to be in the Form of a Dove? Why not in the form of a Falcon? In the form of an Owl?
Your response raises more questions and problems than it solves.
Again Colossians 2:9 In Christ all fullness of deity lives in Bodily FORM”.
So based upon the reasoning you utilize about the Holy Spirit it looks like Christ Jesus never was actually Flesh but just a ‘Form’ or as the gnostics thought an apparation?
Do you agree with the Gnostic Christians? Jesus was just a form that appeared to be a body? Or do you accept the Christ Jesus did indeed incarnate as a flesh and bone human being ?
Your comment:
So, at that point the Holy Spirit assumed the likeness of a dove apparently in order to enable the disciples of Christ witness the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ; because without the Holy Spirit assuming any perceivable figure or doing some relevant spectacular action in the presence of the disciples, they could not claim to be eye witnesses of the remarkable event since spirit (Ruh) is not a physical entity.
My response:
When the disciples witnessed this spectacular event did they see the power of God manifest equally in two different forms? Was the Trinity in all it’s glory and power manifest in both Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the same time? Therefore how many deities were witnessed? Let’s leave hermenuetics and exegesis and just think about it.
Your comment:
You strangely asked me— as if you were an Atheist— that if I believed the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, then “does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?
Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerated Non Christian?”
Let me answer you with a question. If you believe too that God is Omnipresent does he then live in theses places you mentioned? Or don’t you believe that God is Omnipresent?
My response: To answer a question with a question seems to be always be a problem with apologist. I would also ask you to not let such an otherwise congenial discussion between us and you degenerate. Let’s not say things like “you asked me as if you were an Athiest” let’s show people who read your post that you are a ‘spirit filled Christian’.
So I am going to assume thta you do believe that the Holy Spirit is ominipresent. Does this not raise even more problems for your understanding of Luke 3:22?
If the Holy Spirit is indeed omnipresent (which I am assuming you believe since you did not answer my questions but instead asked some of your own) than we have a really big problem with the above passage Luke 3:22.
If the Holy Spirit is indeed omnipresent that means he was not in Christ Jesus? Obviously not since he descended down in bodily shape like a dove? So Christ Jesus was without the Holy Spirit? Was the Spirit of God on Christ before than? IF we use some of the logic you implored above than obviously not. He would not have to emphasize the point. Since the usual state of Christ Jesus would be not to have the Spirit of God upon him.
This than raises another quandry. in Colossians 2:9 We are told he has the ‘fullness of the deity’ So what was he lacking that the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God had to come upon him?
Also if he is indeed the same in essence as the Holy Spirit is in essence could you tell us in Luke 3:22 how his spirit (Christ Jesus) is different in essence from the Holy Spirit?
Also because you didn’t wish to answer my questions about the Holy Spirit being omnipresent and you assumed that I’m an athiest. I will assume you are a Calvinist and my question is fatal to that particular doctrine.
Because Genesis 2:7 states,
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So how does the spirit of Christ Jesus in essence differ from that of the Holy Spirit in essence?
Christ Jesus had a human soul and he was also fully divine at the same time so he had a double dose?
Yet the quandry continues…
@Ibrahim AbdulTawwab,
From your first paragraph it appears you don’t like my style of response. You said, “
Al hamdulililah though I’m glad platforms such as this exist so people can see the on going discussion. They can get a sense of flow for who is getting irritated and who is addressing the points. Who’s arguments are flawed and who’s arguments are cogent”
My Response
If you want me to be quoting you and answering you part by part, as you seem to be doing to my comments, so will I. But I am not getting irritated by whatever you say as I had heard them many times because I am from a Muslim background was a Muslim myself, so you hardly can say anything so new to me that could irritate me. Pls my friend feel free to express yourself the way you want.
Your Comment
The word IMPLIES does not seem to suggest that you are quite sure on this matter? What is the usual ‘state’ of the Holy Spirit?
My Response
I am sure you are familiar with modesty words since you appear to have been writing for some times. The word ‘IMPLIES’ in the context I used it, is a modesty word. It does not in any way mean that I was not sure of what I was saying. That was why I cited examples, one of which was your personality.
You Asked
What is the usual ‘state’ of the Holy Spirit?
My Response
Like the name implies, Holy Spirit is a spirit being and, therefore, normally INVISIBLE.
Your Comment
But does the text of Luke 3:22 state Spiritual form or bodily form? I do find it interesting that you would want to bring that into discussion. Maybe you could also share with us why you believe it was necessary to be in the Form of a Dove? Why not in the form of a Falcon? In the form of an Owl?
My Response
The text of Luke 3:22 states ‘bodily form’ so as to make it clear that it was not in its normally INVISIBLE form that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus
Pls note that I did not say that the Spirit must come in the form of a Dove or any one particular form. However, the form is normally symbolically ideal and not associated with negativity.
For instance, Dove is associated with peace, holiness and harmlessness etc. So it is not improper for the Holy Spirit to assume the form of a Dove. But it does not assume the form of, say, Dog or Pig or Vulture etc for obvious reasons.
Your Comment
Your response raises more questions and problems than it solves. Again Colossians 2:9 “In Christ all fullness of deity lives in Bodily FORM”.
So based upon the reasoning you utilize about the Holy Spirit it looks like Christ Jesus never was actually Flesh but just a ‘Form’ or as the Gnostics thought an apparition?
Do you agree with the Gnostic Christians? Jesus was just a form that appeared to be a body? Or do you accept the Christ Jesus did indeed incarnate as a flesh and bone human being?
My Response
Jesus is Kalimat’Allah that became human flesh that has the Ruh’Allah as his soul. So “In Christ all fullness of deity lives in Bodily FORM” of course. Nevertheless, the Holy Bible says Jesus had assumed the perfect form of human beings. Hebrews 2:16-17 “For surely it is NOT ANGELS that he (Jesus) helps, but Abraham’s descendants. FOR THIS REASON HE (GOD) HAD TO MAKE HIM (JESUS) LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY in order that…” (Compare Qur’an 6:9).
Your Comment
When the disciples witnessed this spectacular event did they see the power of God manifest equally in two different forms? Was the Trinity in all it’s glory and power manifest in both Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the same time? Therefore how many deities were witnessed? Let’s leave hermeneutics and exegesis and just think about it.
My Response
The disciples of God should not necessarily see the power of God manifest equally in two different forms. The power of God does not have variety; it does not change form. The channels through which the Power of God operates might change form but certainly not the power of God. Similarly, in Trinity, there is only ONE Spirit. It is only the medium that might change or differ and the Divinity is with the Spirit, not the physical form; and the Spirit is ONE; so only ONE Deity, Jesus, was witnessed—the dove was obviously not a deity nor a real entity for that matter; similarly, the Holy Spirit is a spirit and can’t be seen. Only Christ, who is the physical manifestation of the Spirit of God at human level ,was the deity seen there.
Mr. Ibrahim, you can’t limit the Holy Spirit of God to time, space or form the way you do with mundane objects. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SIMPLISTIC NATURAL LAW. For instance, even if God-The-Father, God-The-Son and God-The-Holy-Spirit come together in one place, they don’t constitute three deities because the spirit, which is the divine factor in the God-The-Son and in its pure state of God-The-Holy-Spirit, is not a varied entity. It is that particular Spirit that is in God-The-Father.
At this juncture, let me use Islamic example to you. We know Allah is Omnipresent. But the Hadiths say at the Night of Leilat-el-Kadr, Allah descends down to our sky –asking for whoever is seriously praying to Him so that He would answer his prayers. Here you may wish to ask—using your same logic—”Since Allah is Omnipresent, when he descends to our sky does he meet Himself already waiting for Himself so that the two parts of Himself would listen to human prayers?” Or “is Allah no longer ‘Closer to us than the hair of our heads?’ ” Similarly, “which part of Allah descends down to our sky at the Leilat-el-Kadr and which one is left at the al-Arsh?” Or “does Allah vacate the Kursiyun to come down to our sky to hear us better? In that case can He be said to be Omnipresent or Almighty?” etc etc. So, you see, it is only the Spirit of Allah that can be said to descend to our sky even then it is ceremonious as Allah is every where. So, my friend Ibrahim AbdulTawwab, when discussing spiritual matters your ‘medulla oblongata’ should be hotter than while discussing mundane things.
Your Comment
If the Holy Spirit is indeed omnipresent (which I am assuming you believe since you did not answer my questions but instead asked some of your own) than we have a really big problem with the above passage Luke 3:22.
If the Holy Spirit is indeed omnipresent that means he was not in Christ Jesus? Obviously not since he descended down in bodily shape like a dove? So Christ Jesus was without the Holy Spirit? Was the Spirit of God on Christ before than? IF we use some of the logic you implored above than obviously not. He would not have to emphasize the point. Since the usual state of Christ Jesus would be not to have the Spirit of God upon him.
My Response,
I must commend you for this obviously intelligent question! The answer is this: The descend of the Holy Spirit on Jesus was meant to be a spectacular CEREMONIOUS honor–it was intended for human beings–especially the desciples of Jesus–to witness the greatness of the occasion. It was a CEREMONY of Christ’s baptism and formal public divine declaration of him as the Son of God. It was not the beginning of Christ having the Spirit of God. Christ had the Spirit of God already. The descend of the Holy Spirit in the form on a dove after the baptism was an EMPHACY of the CEREMONY. It was not to strengthen Jesus with Holy Spirit.
And, like I said, even though Allah is Omnipresent, He, according to Hadiths, descend to our sky in every Night of Leilat-al-Kadr–asking where prayers are said to Him so that He would answer. You may wish to similarly ask, “Was there not the Omnipresent Allah in our sky before Allah comes down to our sky in the Leilat-al-Kadr?” etc etc etc. You see, God employs certain EXPRESSIONS and ACTIONS for our understanding. So, Jesus Christ already had the Spirit of God before that Baptismal and Declaratory CEREMONY that the Holy Spirit descended from Heaven to lead.
Your Commet
This than raises another quandary. in Colossians 2:9 We are told he has the ‘fullness of the deity’ So what was he lacking that the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God had to come upon him?
My Response
The descend of the Holy Spirit on Jesus was not because he was spiritually lacking any thing at all. The ‘descend’ was a spectacular effect of the Holy Spirit coming down to lead the event. The entire CEREMONY was meant for human beings to witness to God’s declaration of Jesus as his beloved Son. It was meant to emphasize the ceremony of Christ’s baptism and God’s declaration on him.
Your Comment
Also if he is indeed the same in essence as the Holy Spirit is in essence could you tell us in Luke 3:22 how his spirit (Christ Jesus) is different in essence from the Holy Spirit?
My Response
You still pathetically view the Spirit of God like any other finite entity. The Spirit of God is NOT limited by time, space or a form. So, the Spirit that had been in Christ did not differ from the Holy Spirit as it is the same thing. The ceremony that followed Jesus’ baptism and God’s declaration and the background emphasy should be seen for what they were—ceremonious and demonstrational!!
Your Comment
Also because you didn’t wish to answer my questions about the Holy Spirit being omnipresent and you assumed that I’m an atheist. I will assume you are a Calvinist and my question is fatal to that particular doctrine.
My Response
But how can you say, that if I believed the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, then “does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?” Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerate Non Christian?” That was why I asked: If you believe too that God is Omnipresent does he then live in theses places you mentioned? Or don’t you believe that God is Omnipresent? You know, it is Atheistic to say if SOMETHING is omnipresent it should equally be in the heart of Satan. The phrase, “as if you were an Atheist” implies that I don’t believe you were an Atheist but you used their style of question which questions the sense in saying God is Omnipresent.
By the way, I am not a Calvinist or a believer in any of the Western forms of Christianity. Western Christians are largely non-Christians. The Devil is largely using them to destroy Christianity. I AM A SEMITIC CHRISTIAN!! I PRACICE SEMITIC CHRISTIANITY, THE RELIGION PRACTICED BY JESUS AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. I have very little in common with Western Christians, who blindly follow Roman innovations!
Your Comment
Because Genesis 2:7 states,
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So how does the spirit of Christ Jesus in essence differ from that of the Holy Spirit in essence?
My Comment
I have never said the Spirit of Jesus in essence differs from that of the Holy Spirit in essence. Spiritually, it was the same thing that was in Jesus that descend on him in the form of a dove, not to add any powers or grace to him but, to show to the world, in a spectacular ceremony form, that God has declared Jesus as His beloved Son after his baptism. Like I said earlier, is it not ceremonious that Allah descends to our sky (where he already was) at Lailat-el-Kadr? Or do you think Allah does come down to our sky because he is not there or because He really needs to? Note that Allah will never NEED to leave the Al-Arsh to go to any where. So, it is His Spirit that would do that –even then for ceremonious reason and not for the need of it.
Your Comment
Christ Jesus had a human soul and he was also fully divine at the same time so he had a double dose?
My Response
It is in the wisdom of God that whenever He sends a non human being to human beings the messenger assumes perfect form of human beings. I gave you examples earlier.
Your Comment
Yet the quandary continues…
My Response,
Of course the quandary will continue until when you Muslims understand why Allah commanded His Angels to prostrate to Adam as soon as He breaths SOMETHING of His (Allah’s) Spirit into Adam or why God said in the Bible that He would create Adam in His Image and likeness before He created and breathed life into Adam; and why Jesus is spiritually likened to original Adam ( Adam before the fall ) in the Bible. When you realize that any person into whom Allah breathed His Spirit (or something of His Spirit) is a ‘STRANGE’ person, then you are on your way to knowing that there is a ‘divine ingredient’ in whatever Allah breaths out into someone. After that you would begin to understand the concept of The Holy Trinity. Bi izni’Allah you will understand, AbdulTawwab. I am praying for you already.
You said:
Like the name implies, Holy Spirit is a spirit being and, therefore, normally INVISIBLE.
This should help you to understand that the knowledge you derive from your passage citation is a bit fuzzy. In John 4:24 God is ‘A’ Spirit has now been corrected to God is Spirit, and it also takes the wind out of the Trinity.
Point 1) It shows that God is Spirit (Pneuma) intangible, invisible.
Point 2) Even if we accepted your translation that God is ‘A’ Spirit it does not say that God is The Spirit, as it is an indefinite article. Again God is ‘A’ Spirit (one of many) is also not support for the Trinity as there could be a multitude of spirits; even thousands.
You said:
The disciples of God should not necessarily see the power of God manifest equally in two different forms. The power of God does not have variety; it does not change form. The channels through which the Power of God operates might change form but certainly not the power of God. Similarly, in Trinity, there is only ONE Spirit. It is only the medium that might change or differ and the Divinity is with the Spirit, not the physical form; and the Spirit is ONE; so only ONE Deity, Jesus, was witnessed—the dove was obviously not a deity nor a real entity for that matter; similarly, the Holy Spirit is a spirit and can’t be seen. Only Christ, who is the physical manifestation of the Spirit of God at human level ,was the deity seen there.
There are a few problems with your paragraph above.
Point 1) you said “the Holy Spirit is a spirit and can’t be seen.” Yet above you say that it is ‘normally invisible’. Saying that something can’t be seen and saying that it is normally invisible are two different things indeed my friend.
Point 2) you said:
The descend of the Holy Spirit on Jesus was not because he was spiritually lacking any thing at all. The ‘descend’ was a spectacular effect of the Holy Spirit coming down to lead the event. The entire CEREMONY was meant for human beings to witness to God’s declaration of Jesus as his beloved Son. It was meant to emphasize the ceremony of Christ’s baptism and God’s declaration on him.
My question: If the Holy Spirit is invisible (which your not sure is always or most of the time based upon your own statements) than what would be the purpose of having this “spectacular ceremonious honor’? You did say that the entire ceremony was ‘meant for human beings to witness’? Witness something they can’t see?
I personally believe that this is an overlooked issue that misses the embarrassment of the duel incarnation concept that Christianity has not admitted to believing in. That God became man and that God became a pigeon. Obviously it was necessary for God to become a pigeon according to the theology of the one writing or it wouldn’t have been written.
You state:
“Mr. Ibrahim, you can’t limit the Holy Spirit of God to time, space or form the way you do with mundane objects.” < This was the most beautiful thing you have said if you would just reflect upon it.
You see unlike Christianity John 1:1 that The Word co-existed with God, Muslims do not believe that anything ever co-existed with Allah not space or time. They are both creations. Allah almighty operates outside of Space/Time.
Your idea that God is everywhere and in all things is what has led some to embrace pantheism the belief that everything is divine since it was after all created from the divine essence. I would suggest since you come from a Muslim background to reexamine what the orthodox Muslim belief is on this issue.
Your idea that Allah is omnipresent shows a few things
1) Your lack of education in traditional Islamic creed that may have never necessitated your faith crisis.
2)The incorrect assertion in Genesis 1:1 that in the beginning there was God.
This is problematic because it does not assert that God was before the beginning. Omni (means all pervasive) and present means place.
So you mean to tell me that Christian belief is that space has always existed along with the creator? Are you saying that the Almighty did not give rise to its creation?
Apparently you state:
"You still pathetically view the Spirit of God like any other finite entity. The Spirit of God is NOT limited by time, space or a form."
However your above view of not being limited by space and time is contradicted by the following statement of yours:
But how can you say, that if I believed the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, then “does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?” Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerate Non Christian?”
So what do you believe? Is the view that God is limited by space and time ‘pathetic’,or has the Holy Spirit always been Omnipresent?
As far as we know we live in one universe it has three moral elements, good, evil and neutral. Yes neutral! Example a coffee table is neither morally good or evil it does not even apply. They are three different things yet they are not one in essence. They all exist in one reality or in one universe but they are not the same in essence. Most of the known universe is matter or dark matter. Good and evil in terms of morality apply only to the living soul of the Jinn and Humanity.
I do not answer any of your questions on Islamic theology you may have noticed because this particular thread deals with your ability or disability to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. If however you are genuinely interested in sitting with an Islamic scholar who can go over some of these more fine points with you insh’Allah you will find the people here at this site most accommodating.
You have also stated the reason for the Holy Spirit to descend down into Jesus was the following:
"I must commend you for this obviously intelligent question! The answer is this: The descend of the Holy Spirit on Jesus was meant to be a spectacular CEREMONIOUS honor–it was intended for human beings–especially the desciples of Jesus–to witness the greatness of the occasion. It was a CEREMONY of Christ’s baptism and formal public divine declaration of him as the Son…"
My response:
I disagree that it was a Public announcement. You see the Bible I’m reading has the following:
Luke 3: 22 “And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.”
This raises even more questions.
Like why is God’s voice changed in Matthew 3:17 where it says:
This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
So I disagree since Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 make it a PRIVATE revelation to Christ Jesus and Matthew (or whom ever wrote it) changes God’s voice from ‘You are’ to “This is” making it a PUBLIC revelation as you proclaim to the people.
Simple slight of the pen and the theology is completely changed. Jesus goes from being an adopted son of God like David in Psalms 2:7 to the divine son of God as the writer of Matthew sets out to do.
I also find it odd that God would say to Jesus in Luke 3:22 (Moffat Bible) that TODAY I have begotten you.
You ended with:
"Of course the quandary will continue until when you Muslims understand why Allah commanded His Angels to prostrate to Adam as soon as He breaths SOMETHING of His (Allah ’s) Spirit into Adam or why God said in the Bible that He would create Adam in His Image and likeness before He created and breathed life into Adam; and why Jesus is spiritually likened to original Adam ( Adam before the fall ) in the Bible. When you realize that any person into whom Allah breathed His Spirit (or something of His Spirit) is a ‘STRANGE’ person, then you are on your way to knowing that there is a ‘divine ingredient’ in whatever Allah breaths out into someone."
My response:
I understand that the entire creation is made from what ever ‘ingredients’ Allah has made it from that doesn’t make it on the same level or worthy or worship as Allah. Because my understanding the understanding of Orthodox Islam is that all things are not capable in and of them-selves to do anything except as Allah decreed. If you would have just stuck to the Islamic formula that there is ‘nothing like unto him’ you wouldn’t have got caught up trying to find out how we are like unto Him (God).
Go read Genesis again my friend. It’s when humanity starts thinking they are LIKE the creator is when the trouble began. Satan deceived them with promise of Gnosis (secret knowledge).
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)
Let me ask you this? In the above passage is this a physical union or a spiritual union? If you say it’s a physical union than I have nothing more to post on this thread and this is the parting of ways between us.
May Allah guide you.
@Ibrahim AbdulTawwab
Where I said:
Like the name implies, Holy Spirit is a spirit being and, therefore, normally INVISIBLE.
You Reacted Thus:
This should help you to understand that the knowledge you derive from your passage citation is a bit fuzzy. In John 4:24 God is ‘A’ Spirit has now been corrected to God is Spirit, and it also takes the wind out of the Trinity.
Point 1) It shows that God is Spirit (Pneuma) intangible, invisible.
Point 2) Even if we accepted your translation that God is ‘A’ Spirit it does not say that God is The Spirit, as it is an indefinite article. Again God is ‘A’ Spirit (one of many) is also not support for the Trinity as there could be a multitude of spirits; even thousands.
My Comment:
The fact that there are so many spirit beings is a settled belief in all the Abrahamic religions. When you say, “God is the spirit”, you are obviously referring to the Holy Spirit; when you say, “God is a spirit”, you are simply saying God is one of the spirit beings. But Ibrahim your English literature does not appear so poor that you would not understand this simple grammar. So, honestly I suspect you are merely exhibiting pretentious ignorance as a better evil out of this quagmire of attempting to refute the actuality of the Holy Trinity.
You Said:
There are a few problems with your paragraph above.
Point 1) you said “the Holy Spirit is a spirit and can’t be seen.” Yet above you say that it is ‘normally invisible’. Saying that something can’t be seen and saying that it is normally invisible are two different things indeed my friend.
My Comment:
Can you see a SPIRIT? You can’t Ibrahim! But when the Spirit assumes a bodily form can’t you see the bodily form? You can! But that which you see is, nevertheless, not the NORMAL form of the Holy Spirit—it is not even a real entity. So, in respect to its real form, Spirit is invisible; in respect to a bodily form it assumes, you can see the mock object ( What you see is not its NORMALITY but a sight guide to what the Spirit wants to publically do ). So, relative to its exact nature, you CAN’T see the Holy Spirit; and relative to its assumed form, you CAN’T NORMALLY see the Holy Spirit. So, it depends on the context and the conditions under which you are referring to the Holy Spirit. It appears you perceived the expressive word, “NORMAL” in simplistic terms of occasion; but it is perceived in terms of OCCASION and FORM especially in an important and non routine discussion such as this one.
Your Comment:
If the Holy Spirit is invisible (which your not sure is always or most of the time based upon your own statements) than what would be the purpose of having this “spectacular ceremonious honor’? You did say that the entire ceremony was ‘meant for human beings to witness’? Witness something they can’t see?
I personally believe that this is an overlooked issue that misses the embarrassment of the duel incarnation concept that Christianity has not admitted to believing in. That God became man and that God became a pigeon. Obviously it was necessary for God to become a pigeon according to the theology of the one writing or it wouldn’t have been written.
My Comment:
I told you several times that the Holy Spirit, which can’t be seen, can assume a bodily form for the purpose of making its action clearer to human beings. Have you forgotten or you are still pretending?
Secondly, the supposed DUAL INCARNATION CONCEPT is an Islamic ‘daawa-ist’ simplistic and trivial blackmail and propaganda against Christianity. Even if GOD BECAME A PIGEON as daawa-ists claim, for how long was God a pigeon to warrant equaling it with the incarnation of the everlasting Jesus, who has according to both the Bible and the Qur’an gone back to where he came, God? Tell me where is the pigeon? Do you call such MOMENTARY appearance of Holy Spirit as a pigeon an incarnation even amounting to duality? On many occasions we read of spirit beings like the Jinns assuming bodily forms; Iblis assuming bodily form, angels assuming human bodily forms. Do you, with all sincerity, call all these incarnations amounting to dualities? Pls free yourself from all these cheap and old-fashioned daawa propaganda.
JESUS HAS RULED OUT DUALITY OF HOLY SPIRIT LONG AGO
Said Jesus in John 14:16, “ And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you FOREVER 17 the SPIRIT of truth…….. YOU KNOW him, for he LIVES WITH YOU and will be IN YOU ”.
So, according to Jesus, it is that omnipresent Spirit that is already in the disciples of Jesus that Would be sent by God to them with a special message of guidance. Just like the same Spirit that was in Jesus as his soul was sent on him to lead the ceremonious divine declaration on Jesus after the baptism. So, public and ceremonious coming of the omnipresent Holy Spirit is a Biblical concept. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is clearly said to come to where it is already existing. Your problem is, you perceive the Holy Spirit as a mundane entity that is subject to the ordinary law of physics.
Mr. Ibrahim, Holy Spirit needs not vacate where he lives and go back to God to receive new message before he can be re-cent to back to the same place with the new messages because Holy Spirit is NOT subject to time, space and form like a mundane entity. It does not necessarily obey the routine law of physics which is: being in just one place at a time. So get this clear.
You Said:
You see unlike Christianity John 1:1 that The Word co-existed with God, Muslims do not believe that anything ever co-existed with Allah not space or time. They are both creations. Allah almighty operates outside of Space/Time.
My Comment:
John 1:1-2 says, “In the BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the BEGINNING. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made…”
So, John 1:1 is talking about the BEGINNING of creation; not the beginning of God. God has no beginning in the routine or simplistic definition of the word “beginning”. So, the Word (Kalimat’Allah) which became the bodily form of Jesus was the first thing to be created by God. Thus God created a bodily form of Himself initially as a Word ( Kalimat ) since in the beginning, meaning before the creation of Heavens and the Earth. But God placed His soul ( Ruh’Allah ) in the Word (Kalimat’Allah ) only after he converted the Word to flesh through a pious woman, Maryam, whom he had promoted ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION preparatory for that.
You Said:
Your idea that God is everywhere and in all things is what has led some to embrace pantheism the belief that everything is divine since it was after all created from the divine essence.
My Comment:
According to Islam too God is EVERYWHERE. Even after the Islamic Renascence, which brought about so many of these theological controversies that diverted the Islamo-Arabic World from sciences, technologies and humanitarianism; Muslims are only divided on this issue but have never reached consensus. I remember when I was a Muslim we used to debate seriously on this matter in schools during Islamic periods because, that Allah is not Omnipresent is a later and post-Renascence idea which is NOT supported by the Qur’an nor Hadiths. The proponents of this idea can only quote the Qur’an and Hadith where Allah is said to be above the Heavens and His al-Arsh, which is the majestic location of Allah. But the Qur’an and Hadith have never said Allah is ONLY above the Heavens and al-Arsh.
ACCORDING TO ISLAM, ALLAH IS EVERYWHERE
Says an Islamic Dictionary http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=allah, “….Allah is considered by Muslims to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is said to be “in Heaven” (Qur’an 67:16) and “in the heavens and the earth” (Qur’an 66:3), but also said to be “nearer to him [man] than his jugular vein” (Qur’an 50:16);….”
More Qur’anic Evidences:
Qur’an 2:115 “The east and the west belongs to Allah, wherever you turn your face you will see the face of Allah…”
YUSUFALI: To Allah belong (sic) the east and the West: Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing [002.115]
Allah is everywhere; no need to turn your face east or west for Allah…2:177
YUSUFALI:
Allah is everywhere…4:126
YUSUFALI: But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things. [004.126]
Hadiths Evidences:
(Sahih Bukhari, 1.12.720)
“When you pray, Allah is in front of you, so do not spit in front of Him…”
1.12.720: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
The Prophet saw expectoration in the direction of the Qibla of the mosque while he was
leading the prayer, and scratched it off. After finishing the prayer, he said, “Whenever any of you is in prayer he should know that Allah is in front of him. So none should spit in front of him in the prayer.”
Ibn Majah, 1.763
‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, “Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw some expectorated matter on (the wall of the qibla of the mosque, while he was saying prayer leading the people. So, he rubbed it off (and thereafter he said as he concluded the prayer:(Sic) Verily when anyone of you is in the state of prayer, Allah is in front of his face. Thus, none of you should ever spit out sputum in front of his face during prayer.
Other Islamic Sources:
http://www.islamtutor.com/basics.php?p=what-is-allah
“God is the creator of everything in this universe. Allah is omnipresent, omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Allah is the supreme God and is without limits….”
Says http://www.faizani.com/portal/allah.html,
“Allah is considered by Muslims to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Islam teaches…”
So, Mr. Ibrahim, you can see that I was not an unknowledgeable Muslim for believing, when I was a Muslim, that Allah is omnipresent. If you need further verifiable Islamic evidences I will give you.
You Said
I would suggest since you come from a Muslim background to reexamine what the orthodox Muslim belief is on this issue.
My Comment:
And what is the orthodox Muslim belief on this matter? Are you trying to claim that Muslims ( or even Christians for that matter ) have ever reached any consensus on this? I am ready to further prove you wrong if you dare make such claim.
You Said
Your idea that Allah is omnipresent shows a few things
1) Your lack of education in traditional Islamic creed that may have never necessitated your faith crisis.
My Comment
I don’t know how deep you are in Islamic knowledge; but I sincerely doubt if you know Islam more than I do. I come from a typical Arabo-Islamic rural background where we were regimented and confined to pure Arabo-Islamic idea and doctrines. But fortunately for few of us we were Westernly Educated later. So, I am now able to distinguish between original Islamic doctrines from later innovations ( Bid’ah) by those who think that is a way of making Islam look sophisticated in the competitive World of religions.
You Said
2)The incorrect assertion in Genesis 1:1 that in the beginning there was God.
This is problematic because it does not assert that God was before the beginning. Omni (means all pervasive) and present means place.
So you mean to tell me that Christian belief is that space has always existed along with the creator? Are you saying that the Almighty did not give rise to its creation?
My Comment:
Look at the verse once gain. It is talking about the beginning of creation; what God created in the beginning–the Heavens and then the Earth. Other things and the development of universe followed later. The concept of the ‘beginning’ of God or how God came about is outside the imagination of human brain. In fact, even the concept of ‘beginning’ of ordinary matter is still not fully grasped in science. So, the concept of the beginning of existence is even scientifically relative as scientifically no body can explain the sourse of the FIRST force that kick-started life since scientifically matter can neither be created nor be destroyed but can only change from one form to another.
You Said
So you mean to tell me that Christian belief is that space has always existed along with the creator? Are you saying that the Almighty did not give rise to its creation?
My Comment:
Like I said, open your eyes and mind clearly and read the verse. You would discover that it is talking about how God created Heavens, Earth, time and space. Don’t get unnecessarily confused or pretend to be so.
Where I said:
But how can you say, that if I believed the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, then “does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of Satan?” Does the Holy Spirit dwell in the heart of the unregenerate Non Christian?”
You responded thus:
So what do you believe? Is the view that God is limited by space and time ‘pathetic‘, or has the Holy Spirit always been Omnipresent?
My Comment:
The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything ( the Devil inclusive ) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is every where. The question is: as what is the spirit in where it is? Is it as inspirator ( as it exists in pious Christians ) or as the soul ( as it exists in Jesus Christ ) or just as the unrestricted spiritual existence of God ( as it exist every where including inside the Satan or even the worst thing you can imagine ). No condition, bad or good, can limit the spiritual presence of God. So, you need to get this clear. Omnipresence ( like omniscience, omnipotent, and Omni…..) is not subject to physics or any scientific law. You can’t use the mundane scientific concept of time, form and space to describe the existence of God in whatever state.
There is that simplistic logic that if the Holy Spirit is omnipresent then, like you reasoned, it should be inside the Satan as well; and if the Holy Spirit is inside the Satan, it should be able to change the Satan. This is laughably interesting! The fact is that God has not failed to change the Satan because of space ( distance ). Distance or proximity does not matter to God. If God is not capable ( assafgafarullah ) of changing the Satan from his ‘distant’ Kursiyin, He can’t do it by coming closer and vice versa. The Holy Spirit is not inside the Satan as an inspirator since Satan is not a child of God, but as unrestricted spiritual existence of God that does not respect time, space, form or condition ( like smells, najas, and any worst thing you can think about ). Do you thing every condition is so even with regards to God? A terribly hot environment would be equally too hot for God to survive in? You thing a rotten egg would indeed be rotten as it relate to God? Satan who is indeed Satan with regards to human beings would also be Satan with regards to the existence of God etc etc? It is not so Ibrahim! What is a smelly toilet in relation to human beings react as the best hotel imaginable, with regards to God.
To use an Islamic example, there is that Hadith that says the smells that come out of the mouth of he that fasts ( like in the Holy Month of Ramadan etc ) are like a very fine perfumes as they relate to God. So, when the perceiver changes, the perception likewise changes especially if He is Divine. So, stop limiting your thinking!
You Said:
I do not answer any of your questions on Islamic theology you may have noticed because this particular thread deals with your ability or disability to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. If however you are genuinely interested in sitting with an Islamic scholar who can go over some of these more fine points with you insh’Allah you will find the people here at this site most accommodating.
My Comment:
But you should be able to prove to me that the Islamic evidences I cited are not correct, so that you would have moral justification to continue to challenge the Christian evidences I cited.
You Said:
I disagree that it ( Luke 3:22 ) was a Public announcement. You see the Bible I’m reading has the following:
Luke 3: 22 “And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.”
My Comment:
You should note that omitting parts of the passage will not help your argument as readers would always refer to the scriptures themselves to verify.
Luke 3:21-22, says: When ALL THE PEOPLE were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” So, it was indeed a PUBLIC DECLARATION —before the other people who came to be baptized, Christ’s disciples and others!
You Said:
This raises even more questions.
Like why is God’s voice changed in Matthew 3:17 where it says:
This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
So I disagree since Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 make it a PRIVATE revelation to Christ Jesus and Matthew (or whom ever wrote it) changes God’s voice from ‘You are’ to “This is” making it a PUBLIC revelation as you proclaim to the people.
My Comment:
John the Baptist was publicly baptizing the people when Christ came to be baptized by him. So it was a public event. The divine declaration on Jesus was witnessed by these people. So, whether God said, “You are” or “This is” all the people present would witness the declaration. So you have no case to argue–in any case it remains a PUBLIC DECLARATION.
You Said:
Matthew (or whom ever wrote it) changes God’s voice from ‘You are’ to “This is” making it a PUBLIC revelation as you proclaim to the people.
My Comment:
Three things were possible: Either God used the both expressions thus: “This is my beloved son; You are my beloved son” for effect and Mark and Luke prepared to use “You are” while Mathew prepared to use “This is”. Of course a hypothetical forth person could use the both expressions. So, there is no problem at all! Or, the original expression could stand for either “This is” or “You are”. There are these kind of situation in ancient talks. In fact even in modern literature such situation exists in few cases.
But what made the divine declaration public was NOT the expression “This is” as you wrongly believe; it was the presence of the people at the baptismal place where the divine declaration happened.
By the way, if you say because one narration says, “This is” and another one says, “You are”, you will not believe, then it means you are on your way to leaving Islam because the Qur’an, which supposed to have been uttered by one person or God, for that matter, is littered with worse inconsistencies, which I will prove if you decide to change the topic of the debate.
You Said:
Simple slight of the pen and the theology is completely changed. Jesus goes from being an adopted son of God like David in Psalms 2:7 to the divine son of God as the writer of Matthew sets out to do.
My Comment:
The concept of Children of God or Son of God in the Bible are not in the ordinary or biological sense. That biologically, God has no son is well known to Christians centuries before Islam evolved. The Holy Bible is clear about it.
You Said:
I also find it odd that God would say to Jesus in Luke 3:22 (Moffat Bible) that TODAY I have begotten you.
My Comment:
That further tells you that the word ’begotten’ God used in this context is not biological. Because Jesus was already a matured man when God said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”. So, Don’t worry, the simplistic concept of: “WALAM YA LIT, WALAM YI LAT, WALAM YA KULLAHU…..” is perfectly preserved here.
You Said:
I understand that the entire creation is made from what ever ‘ingredients’ Allah has made it from that doesn’t make it on the same level or worthy or worship as Allah . Because my understanding the understanding of Orthodox Islam is that all things are not capable in and of them-selves to do anything except as Allah decreed. If you would have just stuck to the Islamic formula that there is ‘nothing like unto him’ you wouldn’t have got caught up trying to find out how we are like unto Him (God).
My Comment:
The concept of God as “NOTHING LIKE UNTO HIM” is a Christian one; and is far beyond how you simplistically express it in Islam.
You Then Quoted:
1 Cor. 6:19, “What? Know ye not that your body is temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
Let me ask you this? In the above passage is this a physical union or a spiritual union? If you say it’s a physical union than I have nothing more to post on this thread and this is the parting of ways between us.
My Comment:
This is clearly a spiritual ‘union’ as our body can’t be physical temple of God. Secondly, the Holy Spirit is not a physical entity. It only assumes bodily ( physical ) form momentarily for a purpose.
Wallahu aalam.
May the light of Isaah el-Masih, Ruh’Allah, Kalimat’Allah, ibn Maryam ( the woman that Allah declared her placement above all other women of creation) lead you to the right path, so that you will join me to save souls in Arabo-Islamic countries. Amen!!
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem
@ Nur el Masih
My response to you:
Like the name implies, Holy Spirit is a spirit being and, therefore, normally INVISIBLE.
This should help you to understand that the knowledge you derive from your passage citation is a bit fuzzy. In John 4:24 God is ‘A’ Spirit has now been corrected to God is Spirit, and it also takes the wind out of the Trinity.
Point 1) It shows that God is Spirit (Pneuma) intangible, invisible.
Point 2) Even if we accepted your translation that God is ‘A’ Spirit it does not say that God is The Spirit, as it is an indefinite article. Again God is ‘A’ Spirit (one of many) is also not support for the Trinity as there could be a multitude of spirits; even thousands.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
The fact that there are so many spirit beings is a settled belief in all the Abrahamic religions. When you say, “God is the spirit”, you are obviously referring to the Holy Spirit; when you say, “God is a spirit”, you are simply saying God is one of the spirit beings. But Ibrahim your English literature does not appear so poor that you would not understand this simple grammar. So, honestly I suspect you are merely exhibiting pretentious ignorance as a better evil out of this quagmire of attempting to refute the actuality of the Holy Trinity.
My response: I am going to take into account that English is not your first language and will make allowances for your failure to comprehend the above paragraph. I am not saying to you anything. I am simply quoting the passage to you and telling you what the English text means to English readers. I believe you’re having some problem comprehending English grammatical structure. I mean this respectfully. I believe even fellow Tri-theist who have a better command of English will be able to understand your problem with using John 4:24 as a proof text for the Trinity.
Please explain how John 4:24 proves that the Holy Spirit is God?
You (Nur el Masih) state:
Secondly, the supposed DUAL INCARNATION CONCEPT is an Islamic ‘daawa-ist’ simplistic and trivial blackmail and propaganda against Christianity. Even if GOD BECAME A PIGEON as daawa-ists claim, for how long was God a pigeon to warrant equaling it with the incarnation of the everlasting Jesus, who has according to both the Bible and the Qur’an gone back to where he came, God? Tell me where is the pigeon? Do you call such MOMENTARY appearance of Holy Spirit as a pigeon an incarnation even amounting to duality? On many occasions we read of spirit beings like the Jinns assuming bodily forms; Iblis assuming bodily form, angels assuming human bodily forms. Do you, with all sincerity, call all these incarnations amounting to dualities? Pls free yourself from all these cheap and old-fashioned daawa propaganda.
My response:
Your counter arguments are lacking any logical flow. You went off on a tangent about spiritual beings assuming bodily forms. That’s not a problem. Muslims never said that Allah took upon any form like his creation. It’s Christians who say that God took on human flesh (John 1:14) and that God became a pigeon (Luke 3:22). How long that incarnation (as a pigeon) lasted I leave to you to figure out. It has nothing to do with my theology. By the way we are not claiming anything; it’s your scriptures that say that God became a pigeon and I don’t see the reason to get so upset about it.
You (Nur El masih) state:
JESUS HAS RULED OUT DUALITY OF HOLY SPIRIT LONG AGO
Said Jesus in John 14:16, “ And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you FOREVER 17 the SPIRIT of truth…….. YOU KNOW him, for he LIVES WITH YOU and will be IN YOU ”.
My response:
You may be having problems with English grammar and comprehension but if you could please give me the quote where I said that Jesus preached the duality of the Holy Spirit I will concede the point. I read and re-read my post and couldn’t seem to find it. I feel that instead of thinking about your response you’re getting flustered. Look my friend Christianity does not hang in the balance here we are simply having an exchange.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
So, John 1:1 is talking about the BEGINNING of creation; not the beginning of God. God has no beginning in the routine or simplistic definition of the word “beginning”. So, the Word (Kalimat’Allah ) which became the bodily form of Jesus was the first thing to be created by God. Thus God created a bodily form of Himself initially as a Word ( Kalimat ) since in the beginning, meaning before the creation of Heavens and the Earth. But God placed His soul ( Ruh’Allah ) in the Word (Kalimat’Allah ) only after he converted the Word to flesh through a pious woman, Maryam, whom he had promoted ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION preparatory for that.
My response:
I found the above paragraph fascinating. I’m still learning all the time. Perhaps you can clarify some questions. If God places his soul in his word only after it (the Word) became flesh does this mean the soul of God was not in ‘The Word’ prior to it becoming flesh. So in the beginning was the Word (without the soul of God)? You also state that the Word became the bodily form of Jesus but it did not have the Soul of God in it until ‘God placed His soul’ in it. Personally I found this fascinating because I think you are making claims that are well beyond Christian Orthodoxy. Could you please quote to me a single Christian theologian that argues that the Word was the first thing ‘created’ by God? It says simply that the word was there at the beginning WITH God.
You took exception to the fact that I found that you were not such a very knowledgeable Muslim so to prove that you were a knowledgeable Muslim you quoted to me web sites. This also shows a lack of western education on your behalf. It is well known that anyone can quote from a web site. This is not considered academic in most if not all intellectual circles.
However, since you were fond of quoting various passages from the Qur’an and dictionaries but have yet to quote to us what Imam Abu Hasan Al Ashari, Imam Tahawi, or Imam Abu Mansur Al Maturdi has said I would suggest the following to you.
Take a look at these passages.
1st Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (Holy Spirit is sent down from heaven not omnipresent)
“You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8) (Come unto you: meaning it was not already there and thus not omnipresent)
“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32 ( Being in all places is to be aware of all things the Holy Spirit is not even aware of the day of judgment thus it is not omnipresent and/or outside of space/time)
John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (The Holy Spirit wouldn’t have to come any where if he is already there and thus not omnipresent).
So in conclusion to all of this what your doctors of religion do with different passages that seem to contradict or pose problems with each other is reconcile them. Have you ever considered this is what Muslim scholars have done? So with your vast Islamic knowledge and background it never crossed your mind to ask?
You (Nur El masih) state:
And what is the orthodox Muslim belief on this matter? Are you trying to claim that Muslims (or even Christians for that matter) have ever reached any consensus on this? I am ready to further prove you wrong if you dare make such claim.
My response: The Muslim view is that Allah is not contained by the six directions and that Allah is not in place; either one place or every place as ‘place’ is a creation. I wished your teachers would have passed that information on to you. In fact it would be helpful if we could know the names of some of your Islamic teachers? Maybe for example of the traditional sheikhs you studied under? What Ijaza they gave you as such?
You (Nur El masih) state:
I don’t know how deep you are in Islamic knowledge; but I sincerely doubt if you know Islam more than I do. I come from a typical Arabo-Islamic rural background where we were regimented and confined to pure Arabo-Islamic idea and doctrines. But fortunately for few of us we were Westernly Educated later. So, I am now able to distinguish between original Islamic doctrines from later innovations ( Bid’ah) by those who think that is a way of making Islam look sophisticated in the competitive World of religions.
My response: So due to your Western Education your now able to distinguish between original Islamic doctrines from latter innovations? Interesting! But occasionally it’s quite fine to quote sources on the internet rather than quote a classical Islamic text on creed? Must have been some education indeed!
You (Nur el Masih) state:
The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything ( the Devil inclusive ) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is every where.
My comment: I agree with you God is not physically inside of anything including Christ Jesus! You’re close to coming back to Islam mash’Allah!
You (Nur el Masih) state:
There is that simplistic logic that if the Holy Spirit is omnipresent then, like you reasoned, it should be inside the Satan as well; and if the Holy Spirit is inside the Satan, it should be able to change the Satan. This is laughably interesting! The fact is that God has not failed to change the Satan because of space ( distance ). Distance or proximity does not matter to God.
My comment:
If the fact that God ‘dwells inside Satan spiritually’ is not the reason God ‘failed’ to change him. Than what is the reason he ‘failed’?
You (Nur el Masih) state:
You should note that omitting parts of the passage will not help your argument as readers would always refer to the scriptures themselves to verify.
Luke 3:21-22, says: When ALL THE PEOPLE were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” So, it was indeed a PUBLIC DECLARATION —before the other people who came to be baptized, Christ’s disciples and others!
My comment: First and foremost I cited Luke 3:22 I don’t know that I left out anything. I believe you left something out because your citation does not have ‘This day I have begotten you’. Why did you do that? Because it shows that Christ Jesus was not the ‘eternally begotten of the Father’ as is church creed. It supports adoption theology.
I’ll agree with you that it was a public declaration based upon two points.
1) The mention of God’s incarnation in the form of a dove would only be necessary for the people, and thus duel incarnation theory is a proven fact.
2) That the voice says ‘This is’ is due to the fact that this writer believes that Christ Jesus is already the Son of God and thus does not need to be informed of who he is but the people need to be informed.
However; I can still disagree with your assertion because no where does it say that the people heard anything. Just because people are present doesn’t mean they witnessed anything.
You (Nur el Masih) state:
Three things were possible: Either God used the both expressions thus: “This is my beloved son; You are my beloved son” for effect and Mark and Luke prepared to use “You are” while Mathew prepared to use “This is”. Of course a hypothetical forth person could use the both expressions. So, there is no problem at all! Or, the original expression could stand for either “This is” or “You are”. There are these kind of situation in ancient talks. In fact even in modern literature such situation exists in few cases.
My response: When you say things like ‘a hypothetical forth person could’ or say things like ‘the original expression could’ it does not help your case.
How about I offer another plausible scenario? The writers when they were compiling had different theological outlooks as to who Jesus was. In Mark and Luke Jesus is the adopted son of God in the same way that David is in Pslams 2:7. Not the divine son! However, Matthew (or whoever wrote it) believed that Christ Jesus was the son of God based upon his virgin birth; therefore the voice addressing Jesus was bit mundane and a voice addressing the crowd would fit better with the theology. I’ll leave the readers to decide whose explanation has a more logical flow.
You (Nur el Masih) state:
By the way, if you say because one narration says, “This is” and another one says, “You are”, you will not believe, then it means you are on your way to leaving Islam because the Qur’an, which supposed to have been uttered by one person or God, for that matter, is littered with worse inconsistencies, which I will prove if you decide to change the topic of the debate.
My response: If you say that the Qur’an has ‘worse inconsistencies’ than is this an admission on your behalf that the Bible has inconsistencies?
You (Nur el masih)
That further tells you that the word ’begotten’ God used in this context is not biological. Because Jesus was already a matured man when God said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”. So, Don’t worry, the simplistic concept of: “WALAM YA LIT, WALAM YI LAT, WALAM YA KULLAHU…..” is perfectly preserved here.
My response: Actually what my passage citation of Luke 3:22 does is to disprove that Christ Jesus was eternally the Son of God, and if you accept this than my friend your on your way to coming back to Islam insh’Allah.
Otherwise you need to explain to us what God meant when he says to David in Pslams 2:7 “Today I have begotten you”.
I also wanted to quote to you Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
I wanted to point that out to you because there are several things you said in our exchange that seemed to lack direction by the Holy Spirit such as…
“merely exhibiting pretentious ignorance as a better evil”
“still pretending”
“simplistic and trivial blackmail”
“ready to further prove you wrong if you dare make such claim”
“Don’t get unnecessarily confused or pretend to be so.”
“So, stop limiting your thinking”
“cheap and old-fashioned”
I understand that being a convert from one religion to another can be a moment of uncertainty and I’m sure there is a flood of emotion going on within you. However, I feel a great deal of anger inside of you. I quote that passage to you because I hope in the future in your exchanges with us Muslims you could be a little more kind gentle and patient. You also need to understand that if you believe I am pretending than why would you need to carry on a dialogue with me? I also fail to understand how someone can be pretentiously ignorant? As far as your command for me to ‘stop my limited thinking’ I’m sorry but as a human being who will never be ‘all knowing’ I have no other choice.
And you still have yet to prove that the Holy Spirit is God or that the Trinity is proven in the Bible!
@Ibrahim AbdulTawwab
You Said:
I am going to take into account that English is not your first language and will make allowances for your failure to comprehend the above paragraph. I am not saying to you anything. I am simply quoting the passage to you and telling you what the English text means to English readers. I believe you’re having some problem comprehending English grammatical structure. I mean this respectfully. I believe even fellow Tri-theist who have a better command of English will be able to understand your problem with using John 4:24 as a proof text for the Trinity.
My Response:
I will not response to your diversionary insinuations so that this important debate or dialogue will not derail.
You Said:
Please explain how John 4:24 proves that the Holy Spirit is God?
My Response:
Says John 4:24, “ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth”. This clearly refers to God in a pure state of Spirit or God as a spirit.
Now, ‘God The Holy Spirit’ refers to the soul (life) of God The Father when or as not in any bodily form; or God in a pure state of spirit ( regardless of any physical form of his that no one knows). So, based on John 4:24, it is proper to refer to God as a Holy Spirit even if you are not aware of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is so obvious that your trick of hiding behind any trivial excuse to refuse to believe would not impress your fellow non-Trinitarian, not only my fellow Trinitarians.
You Said:
Your counter arguments are lacking any logical flow. You went off on a tangent about spiritual beings assuming bodily forms. That’s not a problem. Muslims never said that Allah took upon any form like his creation. It’s Christians who say that God took on human flesh (John 1:14) and that God became a pigeon (Luke 3:22).
My Response:
I respond to your comments point by point; I challenge you to do so with mine. Like I said, even if GOD BECAME A PIGEON as daawa-ists claim that that is what Luke 3:22 means; for how long was God a pigeon to warrant equaling it with the incarnation of the everlasting Jesus? Tell me where is the pigeon now? And based on your grammatical and logical understanding of Luke 3:22, did Holy Spirit BECOME a pigeon or ASSUMED its likeness. Do you call such MOMENTARY appearance of Holy Spirit as a pigeon an incarnation even amounting to duality? On many occasions we read of spirit beings like the Jinns assuming bodily forms; Iblis assuming bodily form, angels assuming human bodily forms. Do you, with all sincerity, refer to all these as incarnations and even amounting to dualities? Can you grammatically or logically refer to such MOMENTARY appearance as incarnations. Is there no grammatical and logical difference between “ASSUMPTION OF LIKENESS of and object” and “BECOMING the object”?. Please Ibrahim, like I advised, free yourself from all these cheap and old-fashioned daawa propaganda. There are better points you can make based on the well thought arguments you made elsewhere.
You Said:
How long that incarnation (as a pigeon) lasted I leave to you to figure out. It has nothing to do with my theology. By the way we are not claiming anything; it’s your scriptures that say that God became a pigeon and I don’t see the reason to get so upset about it.
My Comment:
Like I said above, Luke 3:22 does not impliedly or directly say God BECAME a pigeon. There is a logical and grammatical difference between “BECOMING” and “ASSUMPTION OF LIKENESS” ( of something ). So, our scriptures have NEVER said that Holy Spirit or God BECAME a pigeon. The notion is a daawaists propaganda. I was into it so I am familiar with the twist.
Secondly, I have never gotten upset since we started this debate or discussion. I might have sounded angry in view of your, possibly deliberate, refusal to understand a simple explanation by a brother of yours such as me.
You Said:
You may be having problems with English grammar and comprehension but if you could please give me the quote where I said that Jesus preached the duality of the Holy Spirit I will concede the point. I read and re-read my post and couldn’t seem to find it. I feel that instead of thinking about your response you’re getting flustered. Look my friend Christianity does not hang in the balance here we are simply having an exchange.
My Comment:
I have not directly or impliedly said that you said Jesus preached duality. Let me quote what I said:
JESUS HAS RULED OUT DUALITY OF HOLY SPIRIT LONG AGO
Said Jesus in John 14:16, “ And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you FOREVER 17 the SPIRIT of truth…….. YOU KNOW him, for he LIVES WITH YOU and will be IN YOU ”.
So, according to Jesus, it is that omnipresent Spirit that is already in the disciples of Jesus that Would be sent by God to them with a special message of guidance. Just like the same Spirit that was in Jesus as his soul was sent on him to lead the ceremonious divine declaration on Jesus after the baptism. So, public and ceremonious coming of the omnipresent Holy Spirit is a Biblical concept. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is clearly said to come to where it is already existing. Your problem is, you perceive the Holy Spirit as a mundane entity that is subject to the ordinary law of physics.
I was just proving to you that the concept of the coming of the Holy Spirit where it is already existing is a Biblical reality. The Holy Spirit exists in bodies as inspirator ( as in good Christians ) or as the soul ( as in Jesus Christ ) or as the usual unrestricted existence of God that is not affected by condition, distance or form ( as in the Satan, smelly places or any worse places you can imagine ). While it exists in bodies in any of the aforementioned states, it can still come with another message. This is because the quantitative nature of the of Holy Spirit is not the same with the quantitative nature of mundane object. So Holy Spirit comes even while he is still there. That at least is how Christ described Holy Spirit in the passage in question ( John 14:16-18 ).
You Said:
I feel that instead of thinking about your response you’re getting flustered. Look my friend Christianity does not hang in the balance here we are simply having an exchange.
My Respond:
Ask journalists and historians that: between Christians and Muslims who are more prone to getting ‘flustered’ on religious issues?. Virtually on daily bases, Muslims bitterly argue on theological issues which leads to harmful or even deadly end in Islamic communities ( Inclusive of my village ). But whenever I go to Christian communities I see and experience peace. In fact, I am said to have become much more polite ( like a Westerner, as our people would say ) since I became a Christian. So, may be it is you who don’t understand me.
You Said:
If God places his soul in his word only after it (the Word) became flesh does this mean the soul of God was not in ‘The Word’ prior to it becoming flesh. So in the beginning was the Word (without the soul of God)? You also state that the Word became the bodily form of Jesus but it did not have the Soul of God in it until ‘God placed His soul’ in it. Personally I found this fascinating because I think you are making claims that are well beyond Christian Orthodoxy. Could you please quote to me a single Christian theologian that argues that the Word was the first thing ‘created’ by God? It says simply that the word was there at the beginning WITH God.
My Respond:
Prominent in the theology of Jehovah Witness is that Jesus was the first creation ( then as ‘Word’ ) and they normally cite this John 1:1 as a proof. We, the Semitic Christians and others too believe so. And that the Soul of Jesus has no beginning because it is the Soul of God The Father.
You Said:
You took exception to the fact that I found that you were not such a very knowledgeable Muslim so to prove that you were a knowledgeable Muslim you quoted to me web sites. This also shows a lack of western education on your behalf. It is well known that anyone can quote from a web site. This is not considered academic in most if not all intellectual circles.
My Response:
Ibrahim, do you want those reading our posts to see you as somebody who believes that I quoted a website to show him how knowledgeable I am? Please don’t give the impression to your readers that that is how you think. It is too cheap. Or is that how to escape the difficulties of responding to the verses of the Qur’an and Hadiths ( along with the relevant websites ) supporting the fact that God is every where (omnipresent)? No wonder you dogged commenting on them.
The reasons why I added the websites to the verses of the Qur’an and Hadiths are obvious:
The first website I cited (http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=allah), is an Islamic online dictionary (of course you can’t disprove it‘s definitions). The second website ( http://www.islamtutor.com/basics.php?p=what-is-allah ) and the third website ( http://www.faizani.com/portal/allah.html ) are fatwa sites. The FOUR websites are in addition to the EIGHT Qur’anic verses and TWO Hadiths I cited. If you were too educated to react to any evidence from the websites why did you not react to the evidences from the Qur’an and Hadiths?.
Secondly, if I had cited books and dictionaries that are not on the web, how can you verify? Would you not have used ‘inaccessibility to the sources quoted’ as an excuse?
Of course “anyone can quote from web site“. But the website he quotes and how he quotes is what matters. I found it pathetic that a possibly exposed person like you would say, quoting from website “is not considered academic in most if not all intellectual circles”. Ibrahim we are no longer in the stone-age. All the ‘wonderful books’ whose quoting them impresses you, have been converted to soft-copies and are online (on the internet).
By the way, is the medium of our debate or discussion not the internet? Pls look for more convincing excuses Ibrahim.
You Said:
However, since you were fond of quoting various passages from the Qur’an and dictionaries but have yet to quote to us what Imam Abu Hasan Al Ashari, Imam Tahawi, or Imam Abu Mansur Al Maturdi has said I would suggest the following to you.
Take a look at these passages.
1st Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (Holy Spirit is sent down from heaven not omnipresent)
My Comment:
Jesus has already explained that it is that Holy Spirit which is already in us that is regularly sent down to us ( John 14:16-18 ).
Let me cite an Islamic example to you: According to Qur’an 50:16, Allah is nearer to human being than the jugular vein of human being nears human being. And according to Qur’an 4:126; 66:3; 2:115; 2:177; Allah is everywhere. Yet according to Hadith, Allah descends down to our sky in the Night of Leilat el-Kadr to listen to those earnestly praying to him in the Night. Can you then say the descend of Allah in Leit el-Kadr to hear prayers indicates that God is not closer to us than our jugular vein (as the Qur’an says) or everywhere (as the Qur’an says)?
Secondly, if Allah does not descend to our sky quantitatively unrestricted as a SPIRIT but descend say, perpendicular to Ka’aba and as quantitatively single entity, then would Allah not miss those praying at the other 180 degree halve of the Globe and hardly listen to the prayers of even those at say, 30 to 90 degree to the plane of Kaaba on the Gobe? So, Allah’s soul needs to be an omnipresent Holy Spirit to achieve his mission at Leitlat el-Kadr.
You Said:
“You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8) (Come unto you: meaning it was not already there and thus not omnipresent)
My Comment:
Like I told you, Holy Spirit is not quantitatively restricted. So, its existence in a place does not implies its being absent elsewhere. Its existence in American Christians and its existence in African Christians is not mutually exclusive but simultaneous. Similarly its being in the World and in heavens is simultaneous, not mutually exclusive. Consequently, its existence in a particular place for a purpose does not prevent it from being, at the same time, on its way from heaven with another message to that particular place and/or many other places in different parts of the World. Jesus has explained that in John 14:16-18. So, the science of the Holy Trinity describes how God operates.
You Said:
“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32 ( Being in all places is to be aware of all things the Holy Spirit is not even aware of the day of judgment thus it is not omnipresent and/or outside of space/time).
My Comment:
If God The Father knows it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ) knows, since it is the same thing spiritually. But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) a phenomena that is simply referred to as “ONLY GOD THE FATHER KNOWS” in the ancient expression. And the Holy Bible indeed says the SON does not know except the FATHER. The simplest or modern meaning of this phenomena is GOD HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVEAL TO HUMAN BEINGS YET. So, Jesus in his state of Son of God needed not to ‘know’ since the purpose of his assuming the PERFECT nature of human beings was to communicate with them at their human level and demonstrate to them an ideal life of a human being and not to display ‘GODness‘.
So, God can indeed decide not to reveal the day through any one including the Son and the Holy Spirit and the situation would be expressed in an ancient statement as: NO ONE–NEITHER THE ANGELS NOR THE SON KNOWS EXCEPT THE FATHER.
You know, the Holy Bible is the oldest surviving book ( it was written several centuries before Qur’an was written ), and ancient expressions ( among which is the relatively much younger Qur’an) have contextually variant expressions. For instance, if the instances where Allah is reported to have TESTED individuals or groups in the Qur’an ( or the Bible) were to be expressed in modern sense, the term ‘TEST’ would not be used because test is carried out to know what is currently not known. But Allah is ALL-KNOWING.
That God is ALL-KNOWING is not in the simplistic sense you appear to want to express. If you are not careful your ‘young’ logic would lead you into asking questions as:
“Had the ALL-KNOWING God created the Satan PERFECTLY righteous, would Satan have sinned? —-was it not garbage-in garbage-out?” or, “Why is the ALL-KNOWING God annoyed with the sinners since he is responsible, through impliedly defective method of creation, for their destined sins?” Or “Why did the ALL-KNOWING God fail to know that the particular way he wanted to create Adam would destine him (Adam) for failure?” All these questions sound logical on simplistic look. But they are not on the bases of absolute logic–a logic that takes spirituality into consideration. So, Ibrahim, the issue of God being ALL-KNOWING ( just like his being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience and Omni…) is not an ordinary concept.
You Said:
John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (The Holy Spirit wouldn’t have to come any where if he is already there and thus not omnipresent).
My Response:
Then you are impliedly saying that Allah is not “nearer to us than our jugular vein” as the Qur’an claims since he (Allah) needs to come down to our sky in the Night of Leilat al-Kadr to hear those praying in earnest. Allah goes to where he exists already or wherever goes he simultaneously exists already. He does not go to a place for the need of it. The phenomenon of Allah or God or Holy Spirit going to a place is for our mundane understanding. Holy Spirit does not come down to avoid the hindrance of distance; so its being omnipresent is not a solution for the need for it to come down. See again what Jesus told his desciples in John 14:16-18.
You Said:
So in conclusion to all of this what your doctors of religion do with different passages that seem to contradict or pose problems with each other is reconcile them. Have you ever considered this is what Muslim scholars have done? So with your vast Islamic knowledge and background it never crossed your mind to ask?
My Reponse:
Like you must have realized by now, these passages neither contradict one another nor pose any problem. The problems are from the limited understanding of human beings.
Secondly, it is very wrong to say Muslim doctors of religion have reconciled the different passages of Islamic literatures. Why then do we witness injurious or even deadly theological crises in Muslim communities every day? In my typically Arabo-Islamic village people are pre-occupied with endless heated theological arguments.
You Said:
The Muslim view is that Allah is not contained by the six directions and that Allah is not in place; either one place or every place as ‘place’ is a creation. I wished your teachers would have passed that information on to you.
My Response:
“Allah is not in place; either one place or every place as ‘place’ is a creation.” The implication of this brand new theology is that Allah does not leave within the universe a the ‘universe’ is a creation! ; Allah is not in Heaven because ’Heave’ is a creation; Allah is not anywhere closer to us than our jugular vein as we AS A WHOLE leave in the universe, which is a creation of Allah; Allah does not descend to our sky in the Night of Leilat el Kadr as the ‘sky’ is an Allah’s creation; etc etc. Mr. Ibrahin you really ‘respect’ God. But I advise you to say that is your personal view, not Muslim as a whole.
You Said:
In fact it would be helpful if we could know the names of some of your Islamic teachers? Maybe for example of the traditional sheikhs you studied under? What Ijaza they gave you as such?
My Comment:
My erstwhile Islamic Sheikhs (whom I still respect and pray for them to be Christians too), and indeed any renowned sheikhs, would certainly not have said Allah is not in any place because ’place’ is a creation.
You Said:
So due to your Western Education your now able to distinguish between original Islamic doctrines from latter innovations? Interesting! But occasionally it’s quite fine to quote sources on the internet rather than quote a classical Islamic text on creed? Must have been some education indeed!
My Response:
It is amusingly interesting that, on the other hands, your sources are so ‘greatly’ CLASSIC that they are not on an ‘inferior’ place such as the internet.
You Said:
I agree with you God is not physically inside of anything including Christ Jesus! You’re close to coming back to Islam mash’Allah!
My Comment:
What I said was, “The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything ( the Devil inclusive ) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is every where.” So, I am not any close to going back to Islam.
Your Said:
If the fact that God ‘dwells inside Satan spiritually’ is not the reason God ‘failed’ to change him. Than what is the reason he ‘failed’?
My Response:
The Satan is NOT ready for changes, and so the omnipresent Holy Spirit is merely inside the Satan as an unrestricted existence of God but not as an inspirator or the soul.
You Said:
First and foremost I cited Luke 3:22 I don’t know that I left out anything. I believe you left something out because your citation does not have ‘This day I have begotten you’. Why did you do that? Because it shows that Christ Jesus was not the ‘eternally begotten of the Father’ as is church creed. It supports adoption theology.
My Comment:
The statement, ‘This day I have begotten you’, is not in Luke 3:22, not even in 3:21-22. It is elsewhere. Nevertheless, I explained to you its import.
You Said:
1) The mention of God’s incarnation in the form of a dove would only be necessary for the people, and thus duel incarnation theory is a proven fact.
2) That the voice says ‘This is’ is due to the fact that this writer believes that Christ Jesus is already the Son of God and thus does not need to be informed of who he is but the people need to be informed.
However; I can still disagree with your assertion because no where does it say that the people heard anything. Just because people are present doesn’t mean they witnessed anything.
My Response:
It is either you innocently don’t know the meaning of incarnation or you are, as usual, feigning ignorance. That act was logically and grammatically not an incarnation. Secondly, when something is programmed to take place in public, you don’t need to be told wether the actor had indeed allowed the audience to see and hear the event.
You Said:
When you say things like ‘a hypothetical forth person could’ or say things like ‘the original expression could’ it does not help your case.
My Response:
I hope you are not just learning the art of discussion as it relates to historical event.
You Said:
How about I offer another plausible scenario? The writers when they were compiling had different theological outlooks as to who Jesus was. In Mark and Luke Jesus is the adopted son of God in the same way that David is in Pslams 2:7. Not the divine son! However, Matthew (or whoever wrote it) believed that Christ Jesus was the son of God based upon his virgin birth; therefore the voice addressing Jesus was bit mundane and a voice addressing the crowd would fit better with the theology. I’ll leave the readers to decide whose explanation has a more logical flow.
My Response:
If you do that your teacher will fail you for sure! Jesus’ being ‘divine son’ or ‘adopted son’ has no any logical connection with making the declaration public or private. God could publically or privately tell Jesus, “You are my ADOPTED SON” or “You are my DIVINE SON” and tell the crowd, “This is my ADOPTED SON” or “This is my DIVINE SON”.
Secondly, before you hypothesize that Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was an ADOPTED son of God as ‘opposed’ to Matthew who might have believed that Jesus was the DIVINE son of God, you have to show that the expressions, ’This is’ and ’You are’ have either logical or grammatical exclusive relationship with the two expressions–which they don’t.
Thirdly, the expression that followed both ’This is’ and ’You are’ is the same–‘MY SON’ and not ’my DIVINE son’.
Forthly, you have to show that the hypothetical believe you want to ascribe to Mark and Luke to the exclussion of Matthew is consistent with the general trend of their individual perceptions of Jesus.
So, while my hypothesis is simple, yours is so impossible that it has too many missing links.
You Said:
If you say that the Qur’an has ‘worse inconsistencies’ than is this an admission on your behalf that the Bible has inconsistencies?
My Response:
Of course, ‘This is’ and ‘You are’ amount to inconsistency. But they are expected in reports of an event coming from different individuals. It shows that the story is not a fabrication, in which case the writers would have collaborated to write identical account; but a true story written independently by the writers.
However, while it is OK for the Biblical stories to exhibit such INDIVIDUALITY and CONDITIONALITY of concept, it is fatal for the Qur’anic stories to be inconsistent because they are supposed to have come from one individual (Allah).
Any time you descide to open a debate of comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an, I will give you details.
You Said:
Actually what my passage citation of Luke 3:22 does is to disprove that Christ Jesus was eternally the Son of God, and if you accept this than my friend your on your way to coming back to Islam insh’Allah.
Otherwise you need to explain to us what God meant when he says to David in Pslams 2:7 “Today I have begotten you”.
My Response:
You are right here. Only that you have quoted Luke 3:22 out of context. The phrase, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” is not in Luke 3:22. Check your Bible carefully.
Secondly, I am simply not on my way back to Islam because I have not seen any reason for going back to where I left for good.
You Said:
I understand that being a convert from one religion to another can be a moment of uncertainty and I’m sure there is a flood of emotion going on within you. However, I feel a great deal of anger inside of you. I quote that passage (Galatians 5:22-23) to you because I hope in the future in your exchanges with us Muslims you could be a little more kind gentle and patient.
My Response:
May be you need to go over our posts to see who is more patient and who started insinuations that might have led us into this. I hate to hurt the feelings of my dialogue-mate or debate-mate. Where I unprovokedly hurt you I am sorry. I will hencforth try to exercise restraint even when I feel provoked by you.
You Said:
You also need to understand that if you believe I am pretending than why would you need to carry on a dialogue with me? I also fail to understand how someone can be pretentiously ignorant? As far as your command for me to ‘stop my limited thinking’ I’m sorry but as a human being who will never be ‘all knowing’ I have no other choice.
My Response:
I knew that as a human being like me, you can’t be ‘all-knowing’. That was why I advised you to ‘stop YOUR limited thinking’, which implied a particular kind of ‘limited thinking’ as opposed to ordinary human limitation. In any case, I am sorry if you were hurted by my style of response.
You said:
And you still have yet to prove that the Holy Spirit is God or that the Trinity is proven in the Bible!
My Response:
I have proved several times that Holy Spirit is God’s pure Soul and that the Holy Trinity is an actuality and Biblically expressed fact. What I am posting now are Over Time.
@ Nur el Masih
I said:
Please explain how John 4:24 proves that the Holy Spirit is God?
You (Nur el Masih) state:
Says John 4:24, “ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth”. This clearly refers to God in a pure state of Spirit or God as a spirit.
Now, ‘God The Holy Spirit’ refers to the soul (life) of God The Father when or as not in any bodily form; or God in a pure state of spirit ( regardless of any physical form of his that no one knows). So, based on John 4:24, it is proper to refer to God as a Holy Spirit even if you are not aware of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is so obvious that your trick of hiding behind any trivial excuse to refuse to believe would not impress your fellow non-Trinitarian, not only my fellow Trinitarians.
My response
It is very interesting to have a dialogue with an individual that accuses me of tricks. Do you know this for a fact? Can you prove as a spirit filled Christian being directed by the Holy Spirit that I am using tricks? I think what the readers can see quite obviously is that initially in your first post to me you quoted John 4:24 as ‘God is ‘a’ spirit. Now you have quoted John 4:24 as God is spirit. Good man! Again I can agree with the assertion that God is intangible and that invisible to our eyes.
But to say that God is The Holy Spirit is simply not stated by John 4:24.
Example Luke 4: 33 “and in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice.”
So imagine the text said “and in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit; and he cried out with a loud voice.”
We could assume that ‘the spirit’ was the Holy Spirit. However; the text gives us the description of an unclean demon. So when you say that God is Spirit or that God is intangible or invisible the Muslim position is not to disagree with you. Again I am happy to see you adopt the translation which says that God is spirit over the one that says God is ‘a’ spirit. But the text simply does not say that the Holy Spirit is God or that God is the Holy Spirit.
For you John 4:24 is sufficient as a statement of creed that God is the Holy Spirit that’s fine. For me John 4:24 is a statement that is not sufficient in to show that God is the Holy Spirit. You are free to comment but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
Like I said above, Luke 3:22 does not impliedly or directly say God BECAME a pigeon. There is a logical and grammatical difference between “BECOMING” and “ASSUMPTION OF LIKENESS” (of something). So, our scriptures have NEVER said that Holy Spirit or God BECAME a pigeon. The notion is a daawaists propaganda. I was into it so I am familiar with the twist.
My response: Luke 3:22 says, “and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten thee.”
Colossians 2:9 Says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.”
The word bodily (somatikos) is used in Colossians 2:9 and Luke 3:22. The same word is used and it denotes the physical nature as distinct from the spiritual nature. And it doesn’t matter if this is a daawaists assertion or if it came from Aunt Jemima of syrup bottle fame. Anyone reading our on going discussion can clearly see you make a huge deal about how Luke 3:22 was witnessed by bystanders. The event doesn’t need to happen for the sake of Christ Jesus. He already should know who he is. The event happens for the sake and benefit of the people (according to Matthew 3:17 at least). If you take exception to the word pigeon fine, but it does state he became a dove.
Maybe you should go and check out
Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
So Jesus took on the ‘form’ of a servant, but was he really a servant or just had the appearance? It also says he was made in the ‘likeness of men. So did he really become a man or just had the assumption of likeness? If he really didn’t become a man but only had the assumption of likeness than your concept of Christ Jesus being both fully divine and man falls to the ground.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
Ask journalists and historians that: between Christians and Muslims who are more prone to getting ‘flustered’ on religious issues?. Virtually on daily bases, Muslims bitterly argue on theological issues which leads to harmful or even deadly end in Islamic communities ( Inclusive of my village ). But whenever I go to Christian communities I see and experience peace. In fact, I am said to have become much more polite ( like a Westerner, as our people would say ) since I became a Christian. So, may be it is you who don’t understand me.
My response: If you are not able to prove the Trinity that’s fine but please let’s not go chasing rabbits. I strongly advise you to read the book “How Jesus became God” by Richard Rubenstein if you want to read about how the Trinity ‘peacefully’ came about.
I said:
If God places his soul in his word only after it (the Word) became flesh does this mean the soul of God was not in ‘The Word’ prior to it becoming flesh. So in the beginning was the Word (without the soul of God)? You also state that the Word became the bodily form of Jesus but it did not have the Soul of God in it until ‘God placed His soul’ in it. Personally I found this fascinating because I think you are making claims that are well beyond Christian Orthodoxy. Could you please quote to me a single Christian theologian that argues that the Word was the first thing ‘created’ by God? It says simply that the word was there at the beginning WITH God.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
Prominent in the theology of Jehovah Witness is that Jesus was the first creation ( then as ‘Word’ ) and they normally cite this John 1:1 as a proof. We, the Semitic Christians and others too believe so. And that the Soul of Jesus has no beginning because it is the Soul of God The Father.
My response: This is also interesting that you believe that Jesus was the first creation. If he was the first creation he is not eternal and therefore he is not God. He is not co-equal to ‘God the Father’ and your doctrine of the Trinity has just been wiped out time again by your very own statements. Where does the scripture say that Jesus is the first creation? John 1:1 Says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word was God. It does not state that God created the Word! Show me how John 1:1 proves that Christ Jesus was the first creation?
Also rather interesting is your whole approach to the idea of the Holy Spirit being omnipresent by quoting only one proof text.
You quoted the following passage to show that the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent
Psalms 139:7-10 where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me;
your right hand will hold me fast.
If you look closely at this passage it says where I can go from your Spirit. It does not say where I can flee from your Holy Spirit. Where can I go from The Spirit?
One would wonder which spirit is being talked about.
Revelation 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.
Which of the Seven Spirits is Psalms 139:7-10 talking about? Can you provide other passages that will help with your interpretation of Psalms 139:7-10?
Your teaching that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent also runs against many proof texts from the Bible that teaches otherwise.
Acts 19:2 Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?
Acts 1:8 you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive you the Holy Ghost
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
1st Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (Holy Spirit is sent down from heaven not omnipresent)
“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32 ( Being in all places is to be aware of all things the Holy Spirit is not even aware of the day of judgment thus it is not omnipresent and/or outside of space/time).
You (Nur El Masih) responded thus:
If God The Father knows it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ) knows, since it is the same thing spiritually. But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) a phenomena that is simply referred to as “ONLY GOD THE FATHER KNOWS” in the ancient expression.And the Holy Bible indeed says the SON does not know except the FATHER. The simplest or modern meaning of this phenomena is GOD HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVEAL TO HUMAN BEINGS YET. So, Jesus in his state of Son of God needed not to ‘know’ since the purpose of his assuming the PERFECT nature of human beings was to communicate with them at their human level and demonstrate to them an ideal life of a human being and not to display ‘GODness‘.
So, God can indeed decide not to reveal the day through any one including the Son and the Holy Spirit and the situation would be expressed in an ancient statement as: NO ONE–NEITHER THE ANGELS NOR THE SON KNOWS EXCEPT THE FATHER.
My comment: I have no further need to continue to post because anyone who can see your attempt to escape from a most difficult dilemma is futile. Through and through in the above paragraph is an open admission that God the Father is superior to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You have failed to prove the Trinity. Interestingly through our exchanges you have done a great job debating yourself! And how sweet the victory that it comes from your own mouth! Your attempt to prove the Trinity has only unraveled the very doctrine to its core with your own statements. Disguise them as your ancient phenomena as ‘Only God the Father Knows” all you want but you just handed victory over to Islam on this point!
You (Nur El Masih) state:
That God is ALL-KNOWING is not in the simplistic sense you appear to want to express. If you are not careful your ‘young’ logic would lead you into asking questions as:
“Had the ALL-KNOWING God created the Satan PERFECTLY righteous, would Satan have sinned? —-was it not garbage-in garbage-out?” or, “Why is the ALL-KNOWING God annoyed with the sinners since he is responsible, through impliedly defective method of creation, for their destined sins?” Or “Why did the ALL-KNOWING God fail to know that the particular way he wanted to create Adam would destine him (Adam) for failure?” All these questions sound logical on simplistic look. But they are not on the bases of absolute logic–a logic that takes spirituality into consideration. So, Ibrahim, the issue of God being ALL-KNOWING ( just like his being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience and Omni…) is not an ordinary concept.
My response: More chasing rabbits!
You (Nur El Masih) state:
Secondly, it is very wrong to say Muslim doctors of religion have reconciled the different passages of Islamic literatures. Why then do we witness injurious or even deadly theological crises in Muslim communities every day? In my typically Arabo-Islamic village people are pre-occupied with endless heated theological arguments.
My response: Yet more rabbit chasing.
You (Nur El Mashih) state:
“Allah is not in place; either one place or every place as ‘place’ is a creation.” The implication of this brand new theology is that Allah does not leave within the universe a the ‘universe’ is a creation! ; Allah is not in Heaven because ’Heave’ is a creation; Allah is not anywhere closer to us than our jugular vein as we AS A WHOLE leave in the universe, which is a creation of Allah ; Allah does not descend to our sky in the Night of Leilat el Kadr as the ‘sky’ is an Allah ’s creation; etc etc. Mr. Ibrahin you really ‘respect’ God. But I advise you to say that is your personal view, not Muslim as a whole.
M response: And yet I have asked and even now beg you for the sake of the readers so that they can see that you are indeed an honest gentleman and not someone who has come to this forum to have fun. Name to us your teachers? Who were your sheikhs who taught that Allah is every where? Why don’t you again quote to us a single classical Islamic text? If you want to use the internet by all means but please give a quote from a classical text that is found on the internet? Since you are constantly accusing me of trickery I’m afraid I have to say that I no longer believe your claim that you’re a convert from Islam to Christianity. Though I have no proof either way, I would say that it is a dubious claim at best.
I also said:
In fact it would be helpful if we could know the names of some of your Islamic teachers? Maybe for example of the traditional sheikhs you studied under? What Ijaza they gave you as such?
You (Nur El Masih) state:
My erstwhile Islamic Sheikhs (whom I still respect and pray for them to be Christians too), and indeed any renowned sheikhs, would certainly not have said Allah is not in any place because ’place’ is a creation.
MY comment: “You’re erstwhile Islamic Sheikhs (Who have yet to be named) …. Thus the claim that you were once a Muslim remains dubious if not quite possibly a flat lie.
I said:
I agree with you God is not physically inside of anything including Christ Jesus! You’re close to coming back to Islam mash’Allah!
You (Nur el Masih) respond:
What I said was, “The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything ( the Devil inclusive ) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is every where.” So, I am not any close to going back to Islam.
My response: Indeed you are not close to going back to Islam because it is highly doubtful that you were a Muslim even. However, if you do accept that God is not inside anything which is a Muslim statement not a Christian one than your theology is very close to that of Islam. Christian theology is that God is physically inside of a being named Christ Jesus. Colossians 2:9 and John 1:14. Let me see umm it’s called the incarnation!
You (Nur El Masih) state:
The Satan is NOT ready for changes, and so the omnipresent Holy Spirit is merely inside the Satan as an unrestricted existence of God but not as an inspirator or the soul.
My response: That is a false claim. To state that the Holy Spirit is inside of Satan and not affect him spiritually is an affront to Christian Orthodoxy. Not the Aramaic, Greek, Catholic or the 1001 denominations of Protestant Christianity hold this view. You also just blasphemed the Holy Spirit since you obviously deny its power to change an individual.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
The statement, ‘This day I have begotten you’, is not in Luke 3:22, not even in 3:21-22. It is elsewhere. Nevertheless, I explained to you its import.
My response: “This day I have begotten you’ is indeed in Luke 3:22 (Moffat’s Translation) so what translation are you using?
You (Nur El Masih) state:
If you do that your teacher will fail you for sure! Jesus’ being ‘divine son’ or ‘adopted son’ has no any logical connection with making the declaration public or private. God could publically or privately tell Jesus, “You are my ADOPTED SON” or “You are my DIVINE SON” and tell the crowd, “This is my ADOPTED SON” or “This is my DIVINE SON”.
Secondly, before you hypothesize that Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was an ADOPTED son of God as ‘opposed’ to Matthew who might have believed that Jesus was the DIVINE son of God, you have to show that the expressions, ’This is’ and ’You are’ have either logical or grammatical exclusive relationship with the two expressions–which they don’t.
Thirdly, the expression that followed both ’This is’ and ’You are’ is the same–‘MY SON’ and not ’my DIVINE son’.
Forthly, you have to show that the hypothetical believe you want to ascribe to Mark and Luke to the exclussion of Matthew is consistent with the general trend of their individual perceptions of Jesus.
So, while my hypothesis is simple, yours is so impossible that it has too many missing links.
My response:
Actually your hypothesis is very simple indeed “they are inconsistent you claim!” Both inspired by one Holy Spirit! So in order for your hypothesis to be correct you would have to show which is the consistent statement ‘you are’ or ‘this is’. You would than have to show which one became inconsistent and than you would also have to show why. You have failed and would continue to fail to do so.
My hypothesis makes allot of sense. The reason Jesus is addressed in Mark 1:11 is because he needs to be addressed. In the same way God addresses Jesus in Psalms 2:7.
You (Nur El Masih) state:
Of course, ‘This is’ and ‘You are’ amount to inconsistency. But they are expected in reports of an event coming from different individuals. It shows that the story is not a fabrication, in which case the writers would have collaborated to write identical account; but a true story written independently by the writers.
My response: Wow! Simply wow! If you can say ‘Of course it amounts to inconsistency’ than I have to admit defeat. There is no way I can wrap my mind around the ‘logic’ you employ.
I said:
Actually what my passage citation of Luke 3:22 does is to disprove that Christ Jesus was eternally the Son of God, and if you accept this than my friend your on your way to coming back to Islam insh’Allah .
Otherwise you need to explain to us what God meant when he says to David in Pslams 2:7 “Today I have begotten you”.
You (Nur el Masih) state:
You are right here. Only that you have quoted Luke 3:22 out of context. The phrase, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” is not in Luke 3:22. Check your Bible carefully.
My response:
I told you that “Today I have begotten you” Is in Luke 3:22 (Moffat’s Translation) why is such an issue to you? And I am right? I am right that Christ Jesus is not the eternal son of God?
Any way the conclusion to this debate is a paragraph by you. Your very own words nonetheless inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If God The Father knows it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ) knows, since it is the same thing spiritually. But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) a phenomena that is simply referred to as “ONLY GOD THE FATHER KNOWS” in the ancient expression.And the Holy Bible indeed says the SON does not know except the FATHER. The simplest or modern meaning of this phenomena is GOD HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVEAL TO HUMAN BEINGS YET. So, Jesus in his state of Son of God needed not to ‘know’ since the purpose of his assuming the PERFECT nature of human beings was to communicate with them at their human level and demonstrate to them an ideal life of a human being and not to display ‘GODness‘.
@Ibrahim AbdulTawwab,
You Said:
It is very interesting to have a dialogue with an individual that accuses me of tricks. Do you know this for a fact? Can you prove as a spirit filled Christian being directed by the Holy Spirit that I am using tricks?
My Response:
There are several proves and I am sure our readers know. For instance, at times you deliberately omit important part when you quote my statement. That is to enable you reach a conclusion of your desire. That is a very wrong scholarship Ibrahim. You also wrongly paraphrase what I say so that you can avoid difficult comment. Where I cite Islamic evidences you avoid comment because you know what I say is a fact and you are afraid of falsifying the Islamic evidence because fellow Muslims would not agree with you. I will cites such instances as I respond to your comments.
You Said:
I think what the readers can see quite obviously is that initially in your first post to me you quoted John 4:24 as ‘God is ‘a’ spirit. Now you have quoted John 4:24 as God is spirit. Good man!
My Response:
This is the type of dishonesty you exhibit in your trickeries. In the first place, I had never quoted John 4:24 in my posts to you other than now. This is the first time I quoted it. You are just pretending to be confused. I CHALLENGE YOU ( and indeed any of our readers ) TO SHOW ME WHERE I QUOTED JOHN 4:24 other than now.
You Said:
Again I can agree with the assertion that God is intangible and that invisible to our eyes.
But to say that God is The Holy Spirit is simply not stated by John 4:24.
My Response:
This is another unnecessarily dubious statement. Where did I say, “God is The Holy Spirit”. The grammatical and logical implication of saying, “God is The Holy Spirit” is different from that of saying “God-The-Holy is the Spirit of God-The-Father as or when not in any bodily form”, which is what I said. It is right to say “The Holy Spirit is God” but in this context it is wrong to say, “God is The Holy Spirit” because that would mean God the Father is normally in the state of Spirit.
You Said:
Example Luke 4: 33 “and in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice.”
So imagine the text said “and in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit; and he cried out with a loud voice.”
We could assume that ‘the spirit’ was the Holy Spirit. However; the text gives us the description of an unclean demon. So when you say that God is Spirit or that God is intangible or invisible the Muslim position is not to disagree with you.
My Response:
By saying, for the first time, “So when you say that God is Spirit or that God is intangible or invisible the Muslim position is not to disagree with you”, you are now beginning to admit the fact which you were running away from—that the Holy Spirit is God.
You Said:
Again I am happy to see you adopt the translation which says that God is spirit over the one that says God is ‘a’ spirit. But the text simply does not say that the Holy Spirit is God or that God is the Holy Spirit.
My Response:
You are still dribbling yourself Ibrahim. I have not ‘adopted’ any translation. I simply quoted the Bible. Nevertheless, if you say, “God is a Spirit”, you are simply saying that God is not the only spirit. There are others (Like the unclean spirit which you quoted in Luke 4:33, and the Jinns etc). If you say, “God is Spirit”, you are simply stating the state of God in a particular context regardless of whether there are other spirits or not. Like “Obama is black” in a particular context; or “Obama is a black” all the time and there are other blacks.
You Said:
For you John 4:24 is sufficient as a statement of creed that God is the Holy Spirit that’s fine. For me John 4:24 is a statement that is not sufficient in to show that God is the Holy Spirit. You are free to comment but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
My Response:
For me John 4:24 is ‘sufficient as a statement of creed that’ The Holy Spirit is the soul of God-The-Father when, or as, not in a bodily form and therefore Holy Spirit is God.
I said, “ Luke 3:22 does not impliedly or directly say God BECAME a pigeon. There is a logical and grammatical difference between “BECOMING” and “ASSUMPTION OF LIKENESS” (of something). So, our scriptures have NEVER said that Holy Spirit or God BECAME a pigeon. The notion is a daawaists propaganda. I was into it so I am familiar with the twist.
Then change your quotation of Luke 3:22 thus:
Luke 3:22 “and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, AS A DOVE ..”, But before now you were quoting Luke 3:22 as, “And then the Holy Spirit descended in Bodily form LIKE A DOVE…” But because you want to prove your false claims that the Bible ( ridiculously ) says God became a pigeon or incarnated as pigeon you now substituted “AS A DOVE” for “LIKE A DOVE” thinking that that will work for you; you don‘t know that grammatically the words “AS” and “LIKE” have the same function here. In your thinking, while ‘LIKE’ indicates mere resemblance, ‘AS’ means real status. But unfortunately for you ’AS’ grammatically stands for “LIKE” unless the context itself indicates that it is otherwise. In this context, even if “AS” is used scholars and every user of English ( perhaps with the exception of daawaists like you ) would not understand it to mean God has became a pigeon. This is yet another example of your trickeries that I am talking about.
You Said:
Colossians 2:9 Says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.”
The word bodily (somatikos) is used in Colossians 2:9 and Luke 3:22. The same word is used and it denotes the physical nature as distinct from the spiritual nature. And it doesn’t matter if this is a daawaists assertion or if it came from Aunt Jemima of syrup bottle fame. Anyone reading our on going discussion can clearly see you make a huge deal about how Luke 3:22 was witnessed by bystanders. The event doesn’t need to happen for the sake of Christ Jesus. He already should know who he is. The event happens for the sake and benefit of the people (according to Matthew 3:17 at least).
My Response:
Of course, as for Jesus, ‘the whole fullness of deity dwells in bodily form’ ( Colossians 2:9 ) But as for the pigeon, The Holy Spirit descended LIKE it, ( or AS It, if you like ) momentarily, rather than DWELL IN IT like the fullness of deity DWELLS in Jesus. ( I hope you even know the meaning ‘deity’ ).
You Said:
If you take exception to the word pigeon fine, but it does state he became a dove.
Maybe you should go and check out.
My Response:
Even the word, “AS a dove” which you dubiously used in place of “LIKE a dove” that you had been using does not logically or grammatically mean that the Holy Spirit BECAME a dove especially in this context. It only de-emphasized the fact that it was mere ASSUMPTION of a LIKENESS. So, yours is an unethical effort in futility.
You Said:
Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
So Jesus took on the ‘form’ of a servant, but was he really a servant or just had the appearance? It also says he was made in the ‘likeness of men. So did he really become a man or just had the assumption of likeness? If he really didn’t become a man but only had the assumption of likeness than your concept of Christ Jesus being both fully divine and man falls to the ground.
My Response:
Even by your quotation Jesus was “MADE in the likeness of men”. It is different from a MOMENTARY “coming or descending LIKE a dove”, which is a mere appearance. The word, “MADE” has made Jesus being in the PERSISTENT likeness of men to be physical because he was so MADE. Even though, according to the full passage ( 5-11 ), he was “in very nature God”.
So, grammatically, logically and contextually the two situations are different. Anyway, I have observed that you have quietly withdrawn the charges that the Bible says God incarnated as a pigeon.
Again, can you, as a Muslim, say the Qur’an has said that the angels sent to Lut BECAME human beings? Or that the angel(s) sent to Maryam BECAME human beings; Or Jinns BRCAME human beings? You can’t. Yet the Qur’an says they appeared like PERFECT human beings.
You Said:
If you are not able to prove the Trinity that’s fine but please let’s not go chasing rabbits. I strongly advise you to read the book “How Jesus became God” by Richard Rubenstein if you want to read about how the Trinity ‘peacefully’ came about.
My Response:
The Christian World is evidently peaceful and tolerant to free speech. So, every Rubenstein is free to express his view. Christian communities don’t scare scholars from expressing their scholarly views on the Bible because we have nothing to hide. But, on the other hand, since Salman Rushdi wrote “The Satanic Verses”, which is in memory of the erroneously scandalous and, therefore, abandoned Islamic Trinity ( Which recognized the deity-ship of Al-lat, Manat and Uzza ) have you not been looking for him to kill? Have you not scared global scholars from criticizing the Qur’an such that only the courageous dare do? Is it not because you are afraid of the likes of Rubenstein in the Islamic communities? So, naturally you should expect many Rubenstein in the Free World such as Christendom. In fact, the Holy Bible is “an anvil on which many hammers have been broken”!
I Said:
Prominent in the theology of Jehovah Witness is that Jesus was the first creation ( then as ‘Word’ ) and they normally cite this John 1:1 as a proof. We, the Semitic Christians and others too believe so. And that the Soul of Jesus has no beginning because it is the Soul of God The Father.
Then you responded:
This is also interesting that you believe that Jesus was the first creation. If he was the first creation he is not eternal and therefore he is not God. He is not co-equal to ‘God the Father’ and your doctrine of the Trinity has just been wiped out time again by your very own statements.
My Response:
I said Jesus as Word ( that is the Word that became flesh ) was the first creation; and I concluded by further explaining thus, “And that the Soul of Jesus has no beginning because it is the Soul of God The Father”. Can’t you read what I say? Are you tired of the debate and therefore trying to fabricate a conclusion?
This is another trickery of yours. Did I not make it clear that it was in reference to Jesus as The Word? Did I not say, “And that the Soul of Jesus has no beginning because it is the Soul of God The Father? Why do you take solace in leaving critical aspects when quoting me? What impression of your personality do you think you are creating in the mind of our readers? You should have a rethink Ibrahim.
You Said:
Where does the scripture say that Jesus is the first creation? John 1:1 Says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word was God. It does not state that God created the Word! Show me how John 1:1 proves that Christ Jesus was the first creation?
My Response:
The scripture needs not directly say, “God created the Word”. And when you say, ’Jesus is the first creation’ you better add, ’then as the Word’ or understand Jesus then to be the Word but his Ruh ( Soul or Spirit ) which was that of God the Father was with God The Father.
There are many ways of expressing an event. The Bible did NOT say, “In the beginning there was God and the God is with Word…..” because God the Father is eternal. The Bible says, “ In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” Thus it is clearly talking about the beginning of creation. Secondly, your highlighting the word “WITH” is pointless as the first statement is, “In the beginning was the Word”. It continues, “AND the Word was with God”.
The Whole Passage ( John 1:1-5 ) Reads, “ In the beginning was the word, AND the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him ALL THINGS WERE MADE; without him nothing WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness can never extinguish it”.
So, the Word was the divine powers that God UTTERED in the creation such as “Let there be light” etc in Genesis 1:3. That is why John 1:3 says, “Through him (The Word) ALL THINGS WERE MADE; without him nothing WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE“.
See what the Bible says in the BEGINNING of the creation of the universe. Genesis 1:1, “In the BEGINNING God created the Heavens and the Earth…” So, the BEGINNING refers to the beginning of creation either with regards to the first creation ( The Word ) or Heavens and Earth– depending on the context.
In any case, the Soul of Jesus which was the Soul of God; has no beginning as I earlier said. In other word, it is eternal. And even at that point—at the infancy of creation of universe, God was acting in Spirit (Genesis 1:1, “….and THE SPIRIT OF GOD was hovering over the waters”. So, even as at then the Holy Trinity was glaring.
You Said:
Also rather interesting is your whole approach to the idea of the Holy Spirit being omnipresent by quoting only one proof text.
You quoted the following passage to show that the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent
Psalms 139:7-10 where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me; your right hand will hold me fast.
If you look closely at this passage it says where I can go from your Spirit. It does not say where I can flee from your Holy Spirit. Where can I go from The Spirit?
One would wonder which spirit is being talked about.
My Response:
If you want to use the word “Holy Spirit”; it is not necessary to add “of God” to become “Holy Spirit of God” because Holy Spirit is understood to be the Spirit of God; so simply say, “Holy Spirit”. Similarly, if you use the word ‘God’ in connection with the word ‘spirit’, it is not necessary to add the word ’Holy’ to the word ‘spirit’ to become ‘Holy Spirit of God’ because the spirit of God is obviously holy; so simply say, ’Spirit of God’.
You Said:
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.
Which of the Seven Spirits is Psalms 139:7-10 talking about? Can you provide other passages that will help with your interpretation of Psalms 139:7-10?
My Response:
Psalms 139:7-10 is obviously not talking about any other spirit (be it one of the seven spirits mentioned in Revelation 1:4 or unclean spirit) than the OMNIPRESENT Spirit of God. The passage is so clear that you can’t manipulate it.
Revelation 1:4–was a letter of “John to the SEVEN Churches in the Province of Asia” about what he saw in a dream or revelations concerning them. In fact he was SPECIFICALLY instructed to “ write on the scroll what you see and send it to the SEVEN churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Thus in every episode in the dream or revelation, each of the SEVEN Churches is represented. For instance, Verse 20 says, “…the SEVEN stars are the angels of the SEVEN churches; and the SEVEN lamp stands are the SEVEN churches themselves”.
Thus the SEVEN spirits of God refer to the Holy Spirit as it EXCLUSIVELY affected each of the SEVEN churches.
Secondly, towards the end of each of the SEVEN letters it is warned, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”.
You Said:
Your teaching that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent also runs against many proof texts from the Bible that teaches otherwise.
Acts 19:2 Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?
Acts 1:8 you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive you the Holy Ghost
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
1st Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (Holy Spirit is sent down from heaven not omnipresent)
My Response:
Here you are merely repeating what you said before. And my response was:-
The concept of the coming of the Holy Spirit where it is already existing is a Biblical reality. This is because the Holy Spirit exists in bodies as inspirator ( as in good Christians ) or as the soul ( as in Jesus Christ ) or as the usual unrestricted existence of God that is not affected by condition, distance or form ( as in the Satan, smelly places or any worse places you can imagine ). While it exists in bodies in any of the aforementioned states, it can still come with another message. This is because the quantitative nature of the of Holy Spirit is not the same with the quantitative nature of mundane object.
So Holy Spirit comes even while he is already there. That at least is how Christ described Holy Spirit in the passage in question ( John 14:16-18 ). Jesus has already explained that it is that same Holy Spirit which is already in us that is regularly sent down to us ( John 14:16-18 ).
Let me cite an Islamic example to you: According to Qur’an 50:16, Allah is nearer to human being than the jugular vein of human being nears human being. And according to Qur’an 4:126; 66:3; 2:115; 2:177; Allah is everywhere. Yet according to Hadith, Allah descends down to our sky in the Night of Leilat el-Kadr to listen to those earnestly praying to him in the Night. Can you then say the descend of Allah in Leit el-Kadr to hear prayers indicates that God is not closer to us than our jugular vein (as the Qur’an says) or everywhere (as the Qur’an says)?
Secondly, if Allah does not descend to our sky quantitatively unrestricted as a SPIRIT but descend say, perpendicular to Ka’aba and as quantitatively single entity, then would Allah not miss those praying at the other 180 degree halve of the Globe and hardly listen to the prayers of even those at say, 30 to 90 degree to the plane of Kaaba on the Gobe? So, Allah ’s soul needs to be an omnipresent Holy Spirit to achieve his mission at Leitlat el-Kadr.
On Your Comment:
“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32 ( Being in all places is to be aware of all things the Holy Spirit is not even aware of the day of judgment thus it is not omnipresent and/or outside of space/time).
My Response was:
If God The Father knows it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ) knows, since it is the same thing spiritually. But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) a phenomena that is simply referred to as “ONLY GOD THE FATHER KNOWS” in the ancient expression. And the Holy Bible indeed says the SON does not know except the FATHER. The simplest or modern meaning of this phenomena is GOD HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVEAL TO HUMAN BEINGS YET. So, Jesus in his state of Son of God needed not to ‘know’ since the purpose of his assuming the PERFECT nature of human beings was to communicate with them at their human level and demonstrate to them an ideal life of a human being and not to display ‘GODness‘.
So, God can indeed decide not to reveal the day through any one including the Son and the Holy Spirit and the situation would be expressed in an ancient statement as: NO ONE–NEITHER THE ANGELS NOR THE SON KNOWS EXCEPT THE FATHER.
You know, the Holy Bible is the oldest surviving book ( it was written several centuries before Qur’an was written ), and ancient expressions ( among which is the relatively much younger Qur’an) have contextually variant expressions. For instance, if the instances where Allah is reported to have TESTED individuals or groups in the Qur’an ( or the Bible) were to be expressed in modern sense, the term ‘TEST’ would not be used because test is carried out to know what is currently not known. But Allah is ALL-KNOWING.
That God is ALL-KNOWING is not in the simplistic sense you appear to want to express. If you are not careful your ‘young’ logic would lead you into asking questions as:
“Had the ALL-KNOWING God created the Satan PERFECTLY righteous, would Satan have sinned? —-was it not garbage-in garbage-out?” or, “Why is the ALL-KNOWING God annoyed with the sinners since he is responsible, through impliedly defective method of creation, for their destined sins?” Or “Why did the ALL-KNOWING God fail to know that the particular way he wanted to create Adam would destine him (Adam) for failure?” All these questions sound logical on simplistic look. But they are not on the bases of absolute logic–a logic that takes spirituality into consideration. So, Ibrahim, the issue of God being ALL-KNOWING ( just like his being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience and Omni…) is not an ordinary concept.
You Now Comment Thus:
I have no further need to continue to post because anyone who can see your attempt to escape from a most difficult dilemma is futile. Through and through in the above paragraph is an open admission that God the Father is superior to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
My Response:
Before you funnily arrive at that conclusion, I am sure our readers would be eager to see how you would debunk the succeeding comments which you dogged in which I said:-
“You know, the Holy Bible is the oldest surviving book ( it was written several centuries before Qur’an was written ), and ancient expressions ( among which is the relatively much younger Qur’an) have contextually variant expressions. For instance, if the instances where Allah is reported to have TESTED individuals or groups in the Qur’an ( or the Bible) were to be expressed in modern sense, the term ‘TEST’ would not be used because test is carried out to know what is currently not known. But Allah is ALL-KNOWING.
That God is ALL-KNOWING is not in the simplistic sense you appear to want to express. If you are not careful your ‘young’ logic would lead you into asking questions as:
“Had the ALL-KNOWING God created the Satan PERFECTLY righteous, would Satan have sinned? —-was it not garbage-in garbage-out?” or, “Why is the ALL-KNOWING God annoyed with the sinners since he is responsible, through impliedly defective method of creation, for their destined sins?” Or “Why did the ALL-KNOWING God fail to know that the particular way he wanted to create Adam would destine him (Adam) for failure?” All these questions sound logical on simplistic look. But they are not on the bases of absolute logic–a logic that takes spirituality into consideration. So, Ibrahim, the issue of God being ALL-KNOWING ( just like his being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience and Omni…) is not an ordinary concept.”
You Said:
You have failed to prove the Trinity.
My Response:
I have PROVED the actuality of the Holy Trinity. In fact, that is why you are afraid to react to the Islamic evidences I cited through out the debate.
You Said:
Interestingly through our exchanges you have done a great job debating yourself! And how sweet the victory that it comes from your own mouth! Your attempt to prove the Trinity has only unraveled the very doctrine to its core with your own statements. Disguise them as your ancient phenomena as ‘Only God the Father Knows” all you want but you just handed victory over to Islam on this point!
My Response:
Since you have, as usual, laughably dogged the most salient aspect of the comment, it is an obvious admission of failure. You have woefully failed Islam ‘on this point’.
Where I said:
That God is ALL-KNOWING is not in the simplistic sense you appear to want to express. If you are not careful your ‘young’ logic would lead you into asking questions as:
“Had the ALL-KNOWING God created the Satan PERFECTLY righteous, would Satan have sinned? —-was it not garbage-in garbage-out?” or, “Why is the ALL-KNOWING God annoyed with the sinners since he is responsible, through impliedly defective method of creation, for their destined sins?” Or “Why did the ALL-KNOWING God fail to know that the particular way he wanted to create Adam would destine him (Adam) for failure?” All these questions sound logical on simplistic look. But they are not on the bases of absolute logic–a logic that takes spirituality into consideration. So, Ibrahim, the issue of God being ALL-KNOWING ( just like his being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience and Omni…) is not an ordinary concept.
You Responded Thus: More chasing rabbits!
My Response:
But Ibrahim you funnily failed to scholarly prove to our readers that the comment is nothing but CHASING RABBITS. If you were really convinced that it was RABBITS that I was CHASING and not your vulnerable points, why then did you ran with them (your ‘points’) to safety.
You Said:
And yet I have asked and even now beg you for the sake of the readers so that they can see that you are indeed an honest gentleman and not someone who has come to this forum to have fun. Name to us your teachers? Who were your sheikhs who taught that Allah is every where?
My Response:
It will be foolhardy for me to name my teachers while I was a Muslim. Why are you so particular about knowing my teachers? If I name my teachers and you go and ask them and they say, yes they taught me that Allah is every where will you believe Allah is everywhere just because my former teachers so believe? If your concern is actually to know whether I have credible evidence you would have insisted that I should cite Qur’an or Hadith; since the reasons of my teachers can only be considered Islamic if they are based on the Qur’an or Hadith. Surprisingly, I substantiated my claims with the Qur’an and Hadith but you ‘cleverly’ refused to say whether they prove that Allah is everywhere or not. So, I am sure there is more to your wanting to know my Islamic teachers than meet the eye. What is the difference between telling you ( or any of our readers ) how to trace me and naming my former Islamic teachers online? No amount of blackmail will make me compromise my safety. I am not in this forum to prove that I was a Muslim, but to prove that the Holy Trinity is a REALITY and I have done that.
You Said:
Why don’t you again quote to us a single classical Islamic text? If you want to use the internet by all means but please give a quote from a classical text that is found on the internet?
My Response:
There is no such classical Islamic text that every Muslim believes in every aspect of it. But there is no Muslim that does not believe in the Qur’an. And apart from the ‘Qur’niyun’ ( the Qur’anists ), every Muslim believes in the Hadith. If I had quoted a ‘classical’ Islamic text you would have, more than likely, dismissed it as trash or so. In fact the sources I quoted in the internet could not be courageously dismissed by you at once. That was why you dogged making any specific comment about them; you resorted to beating about the bush.
I quoted you to have said:
“Allah is not in place; either one place or every place as ‘place’ is a creation.”
I then responded:
“The implication of this brand new theology is that Allah does not live within the universe as the ‘universe’ is a creation! ; Allah is not in Heaven because ’Heaven’ is a creation; Allah is not anywhere closer to us than our jugular vein as we AS A WHOLE live in the universe, which is a creation of Allah ; Allah does not descend to our sky in the Night of Leilat el Kadr as the ‘sky’ is an Allah ’s creation; etc etc. Mr. Ibrahin you really ‘respect’ God. But I advise you to say that is your personal view, not Muslims as a whole”.
My reason is that you are saying something that is totally against Islam. Are you a recent convert to Islam? If you are, I advise you to study the religion further. Before I became a Christian, I knew much about the religion because I privately studied comparative religions and I was involved in da’awah and constant argument with Christians. Yet when I became a Christian, I disciplined myself to further study the religion.
You then responded:
And yet I have asked and even now beg you for the sake of the readers so that they can see that you are indeed an honest gentleman and not someone who has come to this forum to have fun. Name to us your teachers? Who were your sheikhs who taught that Allah is every where? Why don’t you again quote to us a single classical Islamic text? If you want to use the internet by all means but please give a quote from a classical text that is found on the internet? Since you are constantly accusing me of trickery I’m afraid I have to say that I no longer believe your claim that you’re a convert from Islam to Christianity. Though I have no proof either way, I would say that it is a dubious claim at best.
My Response:
I am too experienced for you to blackmail me into compromising my security. I can’t play into anybody’s hand. I should name my former Islamic teachers willingly not because I am blackmailed to do so. Since you obviously failed to falsify the Qur’anic verses and Hadiths I cited, how can I believe that you really want to know my teachers while I was a Muslim before you will believe that Islam teaches that ALLAH IS EVERYWHERE? What logical connection exists between the proof or otherwise of the belief that Allah is everywhere and naming my erstwhile Islamic teachers online? What is your reasons of wanting to know them or let our readers know them.
You also said:
In fact it would be helpful if we could know the names of some of your Islamic teachers? Maybe for example of the traditional sheikhs you studied under? What Ijaza they gave you as such?
Then I responded:
My erstwhile Islamic Sheikhs (whom I still respect and pray for them to be Christians too), and indeed any renowned sheikhs, would certainly not have said Allah is not in any place because “place” is a creation.
You now responded:
You’re erstwhile Islamic Sheikhs (Who have yet to be named) …. Thus the claim that you were once a Muslim remains dubious if not quite possibly a flat lie.
My Response:
Unlike Islamic Daawa, in which Daawaists employ lies in accordance with Taqiyya principles in order to win converts; Christian Evangelism does not allow Evangelists to lie in order to win convert. So if I lie in order to win you Ibrahim ( or our readers ) to Christianity, God will not accept such ‘evangelism’ work.
You misrepresented my view by saying:
I agree with you God is not physically inside of anything including Christ Jesus! You’re close to coming back to Islam mash’Allah !
I then drew your attention to what I really said thus:
What I said was, “The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything ( the Devil inclusive ) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is every where.” So, I am not any close to going back to Islam.
You then angrily responded:
Indeed you are not close to going back to Islam because it is highly doubtful that you were a Muslim even.
My Response:
Were you not the very one who just said I am “ close to COMING BACK to Islam mash’Allah ”? What informed your sudden change of your perception of me? Was it logical reasoning or an emotional vendetta?
You Said:
However, if you do accept that God is not inside anything which is a Muslim statement not a Christian one than your theology is very close to that of Islam.
My Response:
I said God is not PHYSICALLY inside anything, but SPIRITUALLY inside everything. I was so clear.
You Said:
Christian theology is that God is physically inside of a being named Christ Jesus. Colossians 2:9 and John 1:14. Let me see umm it’s called the incarnation!
My Response:
It is you that either don’t logically and grammatically understand the passage or you just want to employ the usual daawaists propaganda.
Colossians 2:9 reads, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”
Before I go further let us look at dictionary definition of Deity.
Thus deity is defined as:
1. god or goddess: a god, goddess, or other being regarded as divine
2. divine state: the condition or status of a god or goddess
3. somebody or something resembling god: somebody or something that is treated like a god.
Note also the small letter ‘g’ used in “god”. So, while God always means Deity; it is not in every case that Deity means God. In other words, Deity means an object of worship. God is always an object of worship; but an object of worship is not always God.
Therefore, the Apostle Paul ( in Col. 2:9 ) is simply saying in Christ all the fullness of object of worship lives in bodily form. The passage is NOT implying that God The Father dwells in Christ in bodily form, but that Jesus, physically, has ALL the features of deity ( an object of worship ) in him, simply.
As for how Jesus physically represents God The Father, the Apostle Paul had explained earlier thus: Colossians 1:15, “ He ( Jesus ) is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God”.
Similarly, John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one….who CAME FROM the Father full of grace and truth”.
So, here too it is not God The Father that PHYSICALLY lives in Jesus, but that the divine Word which God The Father used in creation, CAME FROM God the Father and became flesh and God The Father place in him his Ruh (Spirit).
You Said:
That is a false claim. To state that the Holy Spirit is inside of Satan and not affect him spiritually is an affront to Christian Orthodoxy. Not the Aramaic, Greek, Catholic or the 1001 denominations of Protestant Christianity hold this view. You also just blasphemed the Holy Spirit since you obviously deny its power to change an individual.
My Response:
So, you think Allah failed to change Satan because of the huge distance between where Allah lives ( in ‘far away’ Heaven ) and where the Satan lives? You think if Allah is omnipresent and therefore inside the Satan he should then be able to change the Satan because he is then close enough? My friend, distance is not a hindrance as far as God is concerned. The hindrance is the Satan’s state of mind.
Secondly, like I said, the Holy Spirit exists in bodies as:
i. Inspirator ( as in good Christians ) or
ii. as the Soul ( as in Jesus Christ ) or
iii. as the usual unrestricted existence of God that is not affected by condition, distance or form ( as in everywhere or everything, including the Satan, smelly places or any worse places you can imagine ).
This is because conditions or forms don’t behave to God the same way they behave to human beings. I gave you an Islamic example where the Hadith says the ODOUR that comes from the mouth of he that fasts during the month of Ramadan smells like a good PERFUME before ALLAH. I think you have to broaden the scope of your thinking.
You Said:
This day I have begotten you’ is indeed in Luke 3:22 (Moffat’s Translation) so what translation are you using?
My Response:
Even though I have explained to you the meaning of “This day I have begotten you”, I will still check this Moffat’s Translation to see what Luke was quoted as saying.
You Said:
Actually your hypothesis is very simple indeed “they are inconsistent you claim!” Both inspired by one Holy Spirit!
My Response:
What matters is the implication of the INCONSISTENCY. The Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily have to make them write identical think. It is the various perspectives of the same event that enable readers to have detailed picture. However the Qur’an has no reason to be inconsistent that it is other than human tempering since it is supposed to have come from one person (Allah).
You Said:
So in order for your hypothesis to be correct you would have to show which is the consistent statement ‘you are’ or ‘this is’. You would than have to show which one became inconsistent and than you would also have to show why. You have failed and would continue to fail to do so.
My hypothesis makes allot of sense. The reason Jesus is addressed in Mark 1:11 is because he needs to be addressed. In the same way God addresses Jesus in Psalms 2:7.
My Response:
I am sure your readers can clearly see that you are not sure of what to say here.
You Said:
Wow! Simply wow! If you can say ‘Of course it amounts to inconsistency’ than I have to admit defeat. There is no way I can wrap my mind around the ‘logic’ you employ.
My Response:
You definitely appear tired. Please properly comment on my points. Remember that others are reading us.
You Said:
I told you that “Today I have begotten you” Is in Luke 3:22 (Moffat’s Translation) why is such an issue to you? And I am right? I am right that Christ Jesus is not the eternal son of God?
My Response:
Don’t mix things up. I have never disputed the fact that the statement, “ Today I have begotten you” addressed to Jesus is in the Bible. Secondly, we have never discussed about Jesus being or not being ETERNAL son of God. Stop crying wolf as a diversionary tactics Ibrahim.
You Said:
Any way the conclusion to this debate is a paragraph by you. Your very own words nonetheless inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You then quoted me, “If God The Father knows, it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ) knows, since it is the same thing spiritually. But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) a phenomena that
is simply referred to as “ONLY GOD THE FATHER KNOWS” in the ancient expression .And the Holy Bible indeed says the SON does not know except the FATHER. The simplest or modern meaning of this phenomena is GOD HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVEAL TO HUMAN BEINGS YET. So, Jesus in his state of Son of God needed not to ‘know’ since the purpose of his assuming the PERFECT nature of human beings was to communicate with them at their human level and demonstrate to them an ideal life of a human being and not to display ‘GODness‘.
My Response:
Mr. Ibrahim, I hope you know the logical implication of adopting this particular statement of mine. It means you have accepted among other expressions that, “If God The Father knows, it spiritually means that God (in his state as God-The-Son ) Knows and again God ( in his state as God-The-Holy -Spirit ). If that is the case then HALLELUYA!! HOSSANA!!!!.
However, if you were carried away by a part of the expression which says, “ But the SON ( physical Jesus as the Son of God ) who assumed perfect nature of human beings, may not ‘know’, meaning God has decided not to reveal the day or the hour ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) ….”; then I will advice you to be more careful before you respond next time.
Physical Jesus does not “know” (with the word ‘know’ in quotation marks) is different from: Physical Jesus does not know (with the word ‘know’ NOT in quotation marks. Similarly; Physical Jesus does not “know” is different from God-The-Son does not know.
JESUS IS BOTH PERFECTLY HUMAN BEING AND PERFECTLY GOD.
Similarly, where I said, ( through the normal channels–Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ) ….” in response to Physical Jesus but mistakenly added, “ and Holy Spirit”, you should ignore that. It should read, “ ( through the normal channel–Jesus Christ ).
So, you have much more to do if you ‘may’ win the debate. A debate in which you select only what you can answer and dog the my ‘difficult’ comments. Where I cite Islamic evidences you fear to comment; yet you feel you have won the debate. You are funny Ibrahim.
from:
comparative-religion-points.blogspot.com
since no idol worship is allowed, no concept of trinity. and other religions too do not allow idol worship.
Oneness of God & Prohibition of Idol Worship:- VEDA: Yajur Veda 32:3, 40:8-9; Rig Veda 1:164:46, 6:45:16; UPANISHAD: Khandogya: 6:2:1, Shwetashvatara 6:9, 4:20; GEETA: 7:20, 10:3; BRAHMA SUTRA; //BIBLE: Leviticus 26:1; Exodus 20:4; //QURAN: 2:163, 2:255, 4:171, 7:191, 16:20, 25:3, 112:1-4.