IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: From where did the trinity teaching come?

Author

Message

robin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595

Posted: 17 July 2008 at 2:12pm

Jesus is a lesser being that HIS God:-

John 14:28

I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.

John 20:17

Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’"

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 15:28

when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

Philippians 2:6

who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

"I AM" is not a name or title of or for God. It is just a 1st person personal pronoun that does not appear in the Hebrew Ex 3:14 and is not the correct translating of John 8:58 according to the Greek grammar:-

Edited by robin - 17 July 2008 at 2:18pm

IP Logged

minuteman

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642

Posted: 18 July 2008 at 4:16am

Originally posted by thomasd

Originally posted by minuteman

But if Jesus did not do any such thing then you may be on wrong platform. The important issue at hand is whether Jesus said that he was god. This is a very serious matter. It should be spoken explicitly, not to be derived from different phrases. (More later, if not offended,.,,)

John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One."

This is as explicit as it gets.

Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God.

Please see that> Sometime when praying for some one we say, God be with you. Does that mean when God is with him, he will also become a God. I am sorry. I requested for an explicit sentence (verse) from Jesus telling me that Jesus said he was a God.

10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 And she said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”

The authority to forgive sin is granted to no one but God.

Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives. He said that he also does not condemn her. That was a very good thing to do. But did it mean that he was a God? Did he say he was a God? No dear.

Johnn 8 54-59

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham. It is a derived sentence, not a direct news. Please excuse me....

I AM was how God identified himself to the Jewish people. When Jesus says "before Abraham was born, I am!" he is setting himself equal to God. The Jews understood this and that is why they tried to stone him.

The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man. They were already in great trouble due to Jesus tough preachings. They were almost exposed to the limit and they were ready to catch at a straw, ready catch Jesu for any flimsy excuse, right or wrong. I do not rely on such things.

The Jews may have accused Jesus for making himself as a god but i do not see any such thing in the words of Jesus. He should have told them, "Bloody fools, don't you know that i am God myself". But he did not do that.

Jesus did not come only as a prophet--a simple messenger, he came to form, through his death and 3 days later his victory over death, a covenant between God and all of humanity.

If any one is bad some one must suffer

IP Logged

thomasd

Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 13 July 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43

Posted: 19 July 2008 at 12:56pm

Originally posted by minuteman

Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God.

you just contradicted yourself. oneness is an entirely different concept than togetherness. oneness means they are the equivalent. togetherness means they occupy nearby locations in space. I mean no offense when I say this, but it seems to me that English is not your native language, in which case that is an understandable confusion on your part.

Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives

Matthew 9 1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

my guess is that you will reply to this and say that Jesus did not explicitly claim to be forgiving them himself. The next verse directly contradicts that claim, because it becomes clear that the others in the conversation understood his meaning and accused him of blasphemy.

Matthew 9 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"

Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham.

yes, if Jesus was a human claiming to be really old, it should be. but he does not say that. He is claiming that he still exists before Abraham, to say it more clearly, he is claiming for himself the independence from time that only God has.

The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man.

that is untrue, many of them did, or at least would have if he hadn't continually made claims of God-hood

that is precisely what he had just done. He had named himself with the name by which God identified himself to the Jews for their entire history since the time of Moses.

IP Logged

Salmaan

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 April 2001
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 926

Posted: 20 July 2008 at 4:11am

The fact that Jesus is subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god.

IP Logged

robin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595

Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:16am

Originally posted by Salmaan

The fact that Jesus is subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god.

TOTALY TRUE!

IP Logged

robin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595

Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:31am

Originally posted by thomasd

Originally posted by minuteman

Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God.

Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives

Matthew 9 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"

Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham.

The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man.

that is untrue, many of them did, or at least would have if he hadn't continually made claims of God-hood

that is precisely what he had just done. He had named himself with the name by which God identified himself to the Jews for their entire history since the time of Moses.

Cathlolics that say the trinity is not a early Christian teaching but a later unscriptual addition:-

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Volume XIV, page 295.

"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘one God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. . . . The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299.

IP Logged

thomasd

Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 13 July 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43

Posted: 21 July 2008 at 7:57pm

Originally posted by robin

<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3>The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299.

you'll notice thus far I have not been debating the concept of the trinity, but rather the subject of Jesus's divinity. you just completely dodged the arguments in my previous post. if someone could take the time to respond to those it would be great.

IP Logged

robin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595

Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:58pm

Originally posted by thomasd

Originally posted by robin

The trinity teaches that Jesus is God, this is divinity, you should know that!

Jesus like God and the angels is divine, but the trinity says he is Almighty, this is as lie drafted in from paganisum which paganizes christian teaching and make them of no value!

Edited by robin - 21 July 2008 at 11:59pm

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: From where did the trinity teaching come?
	<< Prev Page of 32 Next >>

Author	Message
robin Senior Member Joined: 17 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 595	Posted: 17 July 2008 at 2:12pm
	Jesus is a lesser being that HIS God:- John 14:28 I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. John 20:17 Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’" 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 15:28 when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. Philippians 2:6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. "I AM" is not a name or title of or for God. It is just a 1st person personal pronoun that does not appear in the Hebrew Ex 3:14 and is not the correct translating of John 8:58 according to the Greek grammar:- Edited by robin - 17 July 2008 at 2:18pm
	IP Logged

minuteman Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1642	Posted: 18 July 2008 at 4:16am
	*Originally posted by thomasd* *Originally posted by minuteman* But if Jesus did not do any such thing then you may be on wrong platform. The important issue at hand is whether Jesus said that he was god. This is a very serious matter. It should be spoken explicitly, not to be derived from different phrases. (More later, if not offended,.,,) John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One." This is as explicit as it gets. Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God. Please see that> Sometime when praying for some one we say, God be with you. Does that mean when God is with him, he will also become a God. I am sorry. I requested for an explicit sentence (verse) from Jesus telling me that Jesus said he was a God. 10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 And she said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.” The authority to forgive sin is granted to no one but God. Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives. He said that he also does not condemn her. That was a very good thing to do. But did it mean that he was a God? Did he say he was a God? No dear. Johnn 8 54-59 54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." 57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" 58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham. It is a derived sentence, not a direct news. Please excuse me.... I AM was how God identified himself to the Jewish people. When Jesus says "before Abraham was born, I am!" he is setting himself equal to God. The Jews understood this and that is why they tried to stone him. The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man. They were already in great trouble due to Jesus tough preachings. They were almost exposed to the limit and they were ready to catch at a straw, ready catch Jesu for any flimsy excuse, right or wrong. I do not rely on such things. The Jews may have accused Jesus for making himself as a god but i do not see any such thing in the words of Jesus. He should have told them, "Bloody fools, don't you know that i am God myself". But he did not do that. Jesus did not come only as a prophet--a simple messenger, he came to form, through his death and 3 days later his victory over death, a covenant between God and all of humanity.
	If any one is bad some one must suffer
	IP Logged

thomasd Groupie Joined: 13 July 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 43	Posted: 19 July 2008 at 12:56pm
	*Originally posted by minuteman* Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God. Please see that> Sometime when praying for some one we say, God be with you. Does that mean when God is with him, he will also become a God. I am sorry. I requested for an explicit sentence (verse) from Jesus telling me that Jesus said he was a God. you just contradicted yourself. oneness is an entirely different concept than togetherness. oneness means they are the equivalent. togetherness means they occupy nearby locations in space. I mean no offense when I say this, but it seems to me that English is not your native language, in which case that is an understandable confusion on your part. Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives Matthew 9 1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." my guess is that you will reply to this and say that Jesus did not explicitly claim to be forgiving them himself. The next verse directly contradicts that claim, because it becomes clear that the others in the conversation understood his meaning and accused him of blasphemy. Matthew 9 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham. yes, if Jesus was a human claiming to be really old, it should be. but he does not say that. He is claiming that he still exists before Abraham, to say it more clearly, he is claiming for himself the independence from time that only God has. The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man. that is untrue, many of them did, or at least would have if he hadn't continually made claims of God-hood The Jews may have accused Jesus for making himself as a god but i do not see any such thing in the words of Jesus. He should have told them, "Bloody fools, don't you know that i am God myself". But he did not do that. that is precisely what he had just done. He had named himself with the name by which God identified himself to the Jews for their entire history since the time of Moses.
	IP Logged

Salmaan Senior Member Joined: 30 April 2001 Online Status: Offline Posts: 926	Posted: 20 July 2008 at 4:11am
	The fact that Jesus is subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god.
	IP Logged

robin Senior Member Joined: 17 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 595	Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:16am
	*Originally posted by Salmaan* The fact that Jesus is subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god. TOTALY TRUE!
	IP Logged

robin Senior Member Joined: 17 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 595	Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:31am
	*Originally posted by thomasd* *Originally posted by minuteman* Very good of you to present a verse of the bible (John 10:30). Please it does not say that Jesus is God. It says something else and the context is not clear. It simply says that Jesus and God are one. They are together. There is no difference. Jesus is from God. It does not mean Jesus is God. Please see that> Sometime when praying for some one we say, God be with you. Does that mean when God is with him, he will also become a God. I am sorry. I requested for an explicit sentence (verse) from Jesus telling me that Jesus said he was a God. you just contradicted yourself. oneness is an entirely different concept than togetherness. oneness means they are the equivalent. togetherness means they occupy nearby locations in space. I mean no offense when I say this, but it seems to me that English is not your native language, in which case that is an understandable confusion on your part. Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives Matthew 9 1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." my guess is that you will reply to this and say that Jesus did not explicitly claim to be forgiving them himself. The next verse directly contradicts that claim, because it becomes clear that the others in the conversation understood his meaning and accused him of blasphemy. Matthew 9 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham. yes, if Jesus was a human claiming to be really old, it should be. but he does not say that. He is claiming that he still exists before Abraham, to say it more clearly, he is claiming for himself the independence from time that only God has. The Jews may have understood that. But they did not believe in Jesus as a good man. that is untrue, many of them did, or at least would have if he hadn't continually made claims of God-hood The Jews may have accused Jesus for making himself as a god but i do not see any such thing in the words of Jesus. He should have told them, "Bloody fools, don't you know that i am God myself". But he did not do that. that is precisely what he had just done. He had named himself with the name by which God identified himself to the Jews for their entire history since the time of Moses. Cathlolics that say the trinity is not a early Christian teaching but a later unscriptual addition:- The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Volume XIV, page 295. "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘one God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. . . . The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development." The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299.
	IP Logged

thomasd Groupie Joined: 13 July 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 43	Posted: 21 July 2008 at 7:57pm
	*Originally posted by robin* <FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3>The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299. you'll notice thus far I have not been debating the concept of the trinity, but rather the subject of Jesus's divinity. you just completely dodged the arguments in my previous post. if someone could take the time to respond to those it would be great.
	IP Logged

robin Senior Member Joined: 17 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 595	Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:58pm
	*Originally posted by thomasd* *Originally posted by robin* <FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3>The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299. you'll notice thus far I have not been debating the concept of the trinity, but rather the subject of Jesus's divinity. you just completely dodged the arguments in my previous post. if someone could take the time to respond to those it would be great. The trinity teaches that Jesus is God, this is divinity, you should know that! Jesus like God and the angels is divine, but the trinity says he is Almighty, this is as lie drafted in from paganisum which paganizes christian teaching and make them of no value! Edited by robin - 21 July 2008 at 11:59pm
	IP Logged