IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Tanakh vs. NT

Message

Originally posted by Jack

So the title of the string says that we are going to compare the OT (Tanakh) with the NT to see if they contradict.  We seem to be discussing mostly the OT.  Are you telling me now that we should not be quoting from the NT at all?  Because I barely quote anything from the NT in any of our discussions?  What are your standards for comparison, IslamisPeace?  Do we really have comparison if we do not quote from both testaments?

No,
 I said that you cannot use the NT to explain the Tanakh.  We are 
definitely trying to compare the two.  That is the point of this 
thread.  But what you are trying to do is to use the NT to explain the 
Tanakh, instead of using the Tanakh to explain the Tanakh.  Do you see 
the difference?

Originally posted by Jack

I have told you that the Trinity is not a doctrine, but is a term that refers to what is already in the OT and NT.  It doesn’t refer to anything more than what is already in the Holy Bible.  When
 a book speaks of leaves rustling in the wind, apples dropping to the 
ground, and the color of bark in the sunlight, it would be incorrect to 
say that the existence of apple trees is not supported by the story 
because the story does not mention apple trees, yet this is the same 
reasoning you are using with the OT.  Jesus
 simply spoke of what was already present in the OT and did give some 
indication that this was all the same God, and the Christians who were 
taught by Him gave this a name, the Holy Trinity.  The Holy Trinity is not some foreign concept or teaching.  It is just a name for what is already and clearly in both the OT and NT.

Then I think it is safe to say that the trinity as it is understood by Christians is not present in the Tanakh.  

Originally posted by Jack

Your
 whole argument, IslamisPeace, is about the meaning of the OT according 
to modern Jewish sources, while telling me to stop quoting the NT.

Of
 course!  Why would I be interested in the NT's "commentary" on the 
Tanakh?  If you want to use the NT to explain Christian doctrine, that 
is fine.  But you cannot use it to explain Jewish doctrine.  You 
primarily use the NT to explain the inconsistencies between the two 
books, something which does not explain why the Tanakh flat-out 
contradicts the NT in many places nor does it explain the 
inconsistencies.  It just shows how Christians have tried to justify 
their theology.  

Originally posted by Jack

Then you turn around and make it clear that your Jewish sources don’t agree with one another.

They
 disagree with each other on minor points, just as Christians disagree 
with each other on minor points.  Every religion has its internal 
disagreements.  But the point you are missing is that all Jewish sources
 agree unanimously on the major points which we have been discussing, 
namely that the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Shekinah and that at 
least the former is definitely created.  

Originally posted by Jack

 I, on the other hand, am simply comparing NT with OT and reflecting on how that comparison has affected Christian belief.

Nope. 
 What you are primarily doing is using Christian sources and teachings 
to explain the Tanakh, when you should be using Jewish sources.  I, on 
the other hand, have used Jewish sources to explain the Tanakh and have 
found that the Tanakh contradicts the NT in many places.  Therefore, I 
conclude that the two are not in agreement.  You have not been able to 
refute this conclusion.

Originally posted by Jack

Yes,
 I did use the Answer.Yahoo page to begin with, as you can see that the 
answer given by a poster on the page was so full of biblical references 
that one almost could not follow what he was trying to say.

And
 I showed that that poster's conclusions contradict authentic Jewish 
sources.  The poster made a blanket statement (that the "Holy Spirit is 
called Shechinah in Hebrew"), something which I showed was completely 
false.  I backed up my claims with academic sources.  You will also 
notice that the poster references Wikipedia.  Besides the fact that 
Wikipedia is NOT an academic source, no where in the actual article is 
it claimed that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Shekinah, except for a
 vague reference to a Yiddish song which doesn't even mention the Holy 
Spirit ("Will I, shekinah, to you come")[1].  Therefore, that claim was made-up by the poster and is not supported by the evidence.  

Originally posted by Jack

He did a very fine job in answering a question, and without trying he showed very concisely how OT and NT do not contradict.

I
 disagree.  I think he simply manipulated the facts due to bad research 
and came to a false conclusion as a result.  One thing is for sure.  He 
is definitely not a Jewish scholar nor has he actually studied Jewish 
sources.  

Originally posted by Jack

And this is how I used it:  I simply looked at it, took the biblical references contained in it, and ran with those biblical references.  I did not use the web page address as a source, as the Holy Bible did just fine as a source of its own accord.  I
 did not use my own interpretation of the Holy Bible, nor did I use the 
Yahoo author’s interpretation, but simply used biblical context to 
establish the meaning of the verses referenced.

But
 as I showed, those "biblical references" do not prove that the Holy 
Spirit is the Shekinah.  Instead, I showed using actual reliable sources
 which quote the Bible, the Talmud and scholarly Jewish sources in 
detail which show that the two are not the same.  

Originally posted by Jack

First,
 in reference to Ruach Elohim and Ruach HaKodesh, you said that your 
sources said they are identical over a certain range and are both 
sometimes used as straight synonyms for Allah, yet these Jewish sources 
claim that the two terms are “conceptually distinct”.  Then here is what you said in your own words about your Jewish sources,

Right,
 which shows that at most, the Holy Spirit and Shekinah are "similar" 
but not the same.  That was the issue, wasn't it?  You have been 
claiming they are the same.  I said that they are not.  The Jewish 
sources support my claim.  

Originally posted by Jack

This doesn’t bode well for the credibility of the Talmud.

Why
 not?  All it would prove is that the Talmud is not divinely inspired.  I
 never said it was.  However, the Talmud is an authoritative source for 
traditional Jewish teachings.  We are not concerned with whether it is 
divinely ordained as Jews claim.  We are concerned with ascertaining 
what Jews believe.  Therefore, the Talmud needs to be consulted.  And as
 I showed, upon consulting the Talmud, we find no evidence that the Holy
 Spirit and Shekinah are the same except for certain similarities which 
can be explained as either due to copyist errors or man-made 
contradictions.  

Originally posted by Jack

Second, you have said regarding the Shekhinah’s being created, 

Wrong,
 I said this with regard to the Holy Spirit.  You keep confusing the 
two.  Whether the Shekinah was created or not is not clear.  But what is
 clear is that the Holy Spirit was definitely created.

Originally posted by Jack

In this verse of Amos 4, the wind is mentioned, not the Breath of Allah, nor His Spirit, nor His mind.  Thus, all this verse says is that the wind is created.  Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are not included in the verse.  So it is incorrect to say that Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are created.  So this verse is evidence that the wind is created, but not that the Shekhinah is created.

That's
 because this verse is not concerned with the Shekinah but with the Holy
 Spirit.  The Talmud states clearly that this verse shows that the Holy 
Spirit was created.

The Shekinah may also have been created, as 
Maimonides claimed.  This may or may not be true and it is true that 
other Jewish scholars disagreed with him.  But what is true is that the 
Holy Spirit is created.  The Talmud states this clearly.

Originally posted by Jack

This also does not bode well for the credibility of the Talmud.

Not at all.  Minor disagreements do not negate its credibility as a source of authentic Jewish teachings.

Originally posted by Jack

Then
 about your extra Jewish sources, you also have admitted that they do 
not get correct their assumptions about what Christianity teaches.  Here is what I wrote, followed by your honest response:  “Your
 Jewish sources keep referring to the Holy Trinity as three separate 
gods, but the Holy Trinity is not three separate gods, so your sources 
are arguing against a concept of Allah that Christians would argue 
against as well.”  Your honest response was, “The website "Turn to Torah" did, which I admit is wrong.”  So this does not bode well for the credibility of your extra-Jewish sources, either.

Why? 
 We are not concerned with their understanding of Christian doctrine.  
We are concerned with their understanding of their own religion.  Just 
as the fact that your knowledge of Jewish teachings is weak does not 
mean you cannot be a credible source for understanding Christian 
teachings, websites like "Turn to Torah" do not lose their credibility 
as reliable sources on Jewish teachings, just because there was an error
 in its understanding of the trinity.  

The point is that "Turn 
to Torah" is a Jewish website which supports my contention that the Holy
 Spirit is created.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit in the Tanakh is not the
 same as the one in the NT.  Hence the two contradict each other.  

Originally posted by Jack

I
 have to commend you, IslamisPeace, for finally bringing official 
Catholic teaching from official Catholic sources into this discussion.

There
 is nothing to "commend" here.  If the issue were Catholic teachings, 
then an objective researcher would utilize authentic Catholic sources.  
In the same way, if the issue were Jewish teachings (which it is here), 
then the objective researcher would utilize authentic Jewish sources, 
which I have done.

Originally posted by Jack

As you are trying to prove the teaching of the Holy Trinity wrong,

Actually,
 no.  The issue here is not whether the trinity concept is "wrong".  
That is a separate issue altogether.  The issue here is whether the 
Tanakh supports the NT's teaching of the concept.  The evidence so far 
shows that the Tanakh does not support the NT.

Originally posted by Jack

The word was used by the Catholic Church officially for the first time to refer to the Holy Trinity back in the 3^rd or 4^th century, so that is the definition I will use.  In Christian theology, it refers to a mask.   This
 is probably part of the reason why Muhammad and Judaism can’t seem to 
get it correct that the Christian faith does not recognize the Holy 
Trinity as three connected gods, but rather as one God.  That is also why I chose to refer to the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity in our discussion as aspects of the same God.  Do you understand now, my friend, IslamisPeace?  Maybe not.  Let’s look at what you wrote (I’ll explain in green and in parenthesis throughout):

The
 meaning of the word "person" with regard to the trinity is not the 
issue here, nor is the issue "Turn to Torah" and its incorrect 
understanding of the trinity, nor is it your incorrect claim regarding 
the prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) understanding of the trinity (this is a 
separate issue which needs to be discussed in a separate thread).  The 
issue is whether the NT and Tanakh agree or disagree on the teaching of 
the trinity (although we have been specifically discussing the Holy 
Spirit and how Judaism and Christianity understand the term).  As such, I
 have shown that they do not agree, despite Christian insistence that 
they do.

Originally posted by Jack

You say that the Holy Spirit is created.  First of all, you never showed where the OT said word for word that the Shekinah “is created.”

For
 like the 10th time, that is because the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah 
are not the same thing.  As I have shown several times already, Jewish 
sources state that the Holy Spirit is created and is also distinct from 
the Shekinah.  It is also true that some Jewish scholars, like 
Maimonides, did regard the Shekinah as also being created, although 
others disagreed.  

Originally posted by Jack

You simply said that its meaning included the word, “wind,” and that the wind was created.  But Shekinah means so much more than “wind.”

Shekinah
 does not mean "wind".  You need to get your facts straight because you 
continue to confuse the Shekinah with the Holy Spirit.  They are not the
 same thing.  The Holy Spirit was conceived as a type of wind (see the 
Jewish Encyclopedia) whereas the Shekinah is represented by light.  
Light and wind are not the same.

Originally posted by Jack

Even in point 3, you say that Shekinah is another name for Allah and refers to His “presence.”  “Presence” is not an object to be created.  Rather, it is a condition. So
 if Allah is present in your house right now, IslamisPeace, can you say 
that Allah’s presence is an object that was “created” for you?  It just does not make any sense to say that Allah’s presence is a created thing.  So, no, the OT does not say that the Shekinah is created.

Yes,
 that is the Shekinah and not the Holy Spirit.  However, you need to 
remember that the Shekinah is a light and light was created.  That is 
probably why Maimonides believed that the Shekinah was created as well. 
 One thing is for sure though.  The Holy Spirit was definitely created 
and it is represented by wind.  

Originally posted by Jack

You haven’t shown that it did, nor where it did, nor does it make any sense to say that it was created.  Rather,
 you have shown a bunch of Jewish sources that don’t agree with one 
another where only some claim the Shekinah was created, and others 
disagree.

I
 showed that famous Jewish scholars like Maimonides did believe it was 
created.  With regard to the Holy Spirit, the Talmud is crystal clear 
that it was created.  You are confusing the Shekinah with the Holy 
Spirit.

Originally posted by Jack

Your second point against the Catholic understanding of the Holy Spirit is null and void due to disagreement of your sources.

Just
 because you say so, doesn't make it so.  As I said, the Jewish sources 
agree that the Holy Spirit is created.  The Catholic Church teaches that
 it was not created.  Therefore, the Catholic understanding contradicts 
the Jewish understanding and is therefore "null and void".  
Disagreements do not negate the authority of Jewish sources to explain 
Jewish scripture.  If anything, the very fact that the Church is a 
Gentile institution, its understanding of Jewish scripture is irrelevant
 to begin with.

Originally posted by Jack

If
 we look in the NT in the following verses (Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, Luke 
1:67, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:48, Acts 4:31, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:9, and Acts 
13:52), we see that the believers who do great work for Allah are able 
to do so because they are “filled with the Holy Spirit.”  In
 other words, they are filled with the “presence” of Allah, and isn’t 
the Shekinah simply the “presence” of Allah, as you have shown that the 
Jews believe?

That's
 exactly the point!  The NT applies the Shekinah's characteristics to 
the Holy Spirit.  That's why it is wrong!  For you see, people are not 
"full of the Holy Spirit", according to Jewish sources.  No where in the
 Tanakh or in the Talmud is it stated that a person is "full of the Holy
 Spirit".  Instead, the Holy Spirit simply "rests" on a person, like the
 Shekinah also rests.  This is one of the places where the two are 
similar in character.  They both "rest" on a person.  Therefore, when 
the NT states that people are "full of the Holy Spirit", it is 
contradicting the Jewish understanding.  

Originally posted by Jack

In terms of the Shekhinah, the OT and NT does not contradict.
This, my friend, IslamisPeace, is what I have been saying throughout.  It is what the Catholic Church has always taught since the beginning.  As
 this is a Jewish description from the OT, then it only makes sense that
 on all accounts you are right about the OT and Jewish belief, but are 
wrong about the Catholic Church and the NT by claiming they are in 
disagreement with the OT.  They 
are in full agreement, and nearly so with Jews it seems (accept that 
Jews claim they are not, though their theology seems to be in full 
agreement).

Yes, I agree.  However, they
 contradict in terms of the Holy Spirit.  Whereas the Tanakh regards 
them as two separate concepts, the NT regards them as one and the same.

Originally posted by Jack

By all indications, it seems that the Shekhinah is what the NT refers to when it speaks of the Holy Spirit.  So
 though you say that the Shekhinah is not the Holy Spirit of the Old 
Testament (Ruach Elohim, Ruach Hakodesh), it is definately the Holy 
Spirit of the NT.  I have to say that in terms of the Shekhinah and the NT, there is no (what are your exact words?) opposition with what the Tanakh states.

I
 agree.  However, since the NT equates the Holy Spirit with the 
Shekinah, it contradicts the Tanakh.  The two are not the same.  I 
acknowledge that the Tanakh and the NT generally agree on the nature of 
the Shekinah.  However, they disagree on the nature of the Holy Spirit. 
 Therefore, the NT contradicts the Tanakh which is the central point of 
this thread.  

Originally posted by Jack

You had said that Elohim is the royal “we” name for God, and HaKodesh means “of God” and refers to Allah’s Divine Wisdom.

When did I say this?  "HaKodesh" means "Holy" as in "Holy Spirit" and not "of God" nor does it refer to "Divine Wisdom".  

Originally posted by Jack

Therefore
 we can be sure that if the terms Elohim or HaKodesh accompany the term 
Ruach, that the meaning of Ruach is not “wind,” but rather one of the 
other three meanings:  spirit, breath, or mind, and that these are referenced to Allah himself.

Every
 Jewish source contradicts you on this matter.  The "Holy Spirit" was 
created as a kind of wind (Jewish Encyclopedia).  Since wind was created
 (Amos 4:13), the rabbis taught that the Holy Spirit too was created.  

I
 think one verse in the Tanakh closes the case that the Holy Spirit is 
not the Shekinah.  You referred to this verse previously and upon closer
 inspection, I think it seals the deal:

"Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11).  

Notice
 how the verse mentions both "presence" (which refers to the Shekinah) 
and "Holy Spirit" and treats them as separate.  This verse proves 
conclusively that the two are not the same.  

Originally posted by Jack

So everything here, though choppy, is exactly what Christians believe about the Holy Spirit, IslamisPeace.

I
 disagree.  I think there are small similarities but also major 
differences.  Christians erroneously apply many false characteristics to
 the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Jack

How can one say that the Catholic concept of the Holy Spirit is not the same.

Because they are not.

Originally posted by Jack

The
 Jews believe that the Holy Spirit is Allah interacting with Humanity 
through His Spirit, and this is what Catholics believe. Jews
 say that this is not the same for them, but when they describe the 
details of their beliefs, it matches Catholic theology exactly.  

No, they believe that it is a "means" for Allah to interact with humanity.  This is what Turn to Torah states:

"The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a means of Hashem  interacting with humanity" [2].

Turn to Torah also states that it is created.  Catholics don't believe that.  Therefore, there is a contradiction.

Originally posted by Jack

Thus,
 Christians recognize the Holy Spirit to be the transforming presence 
(Shekhinah) and wisdom (Ruach HaKodesh/Elohim) of Allah.

And hence, Christianity contradicts the Tanakh and Talmud, the two most authoritative Jewish sources.  

Originally posted by Jack

he message here is that the NT and the OT fit together like a hand in a glove, IslamisPeace.  Using
 your own words and the sources you provided to show how they fit pretty
 much raps up the issue brought up in the first few posts of this 
string.  The NT does not contradict the OT.

This would only be true if you ignore the facts.  Everything you just 
said about what Christians believe regarding the Holy Spirit contradicts
 the Tanakh.  Therefore, it is more like a left hand trying to fit into a
 right-handed glove.  

Originally posted by Jack

So,
 you have used multiple external sources that do not agree with one 
another in explaining the meaning of the OT, and have shown that these 
sources actually contradict one another.  Where they agree, they also agree with Christian sources on the meaning of the OT.

I have no idea where you are getting this from.  The sources I mentioned
 disagree on minor issues such as whether the Shekinah was created or 
not.  However, they agree that the Holy Spirit was created and that it 
is not the same as the Shekinah.  All you have showed is that 
Christianity has incorporated some Jewish concepts and given them its 
own doctrinal twists.  

Originally posted by Jack

But
 then the external Jewish sources you use all unanimously “clarify” that
 they don’t agree with Christianity just in case you might see that they
 do.  Then you, IslamisPeace, 
turn around and say that even you don’t accept these Jewish sources as 
authorities on the subject because they are not Muslim sources.

When did I say this?  I don't regard either Jewish or Christian sources 
as the word of God.  I never said they are not "authoritative on the 
subject".  I am looking at this from the point of view of a non-Muslim 
by comparing the Tanakh and the NT.  You will notice that I have not 
brought the Quran or other Islamic sources into this thread.  The reason
 for this is that it is not the purpose of this thread.  The purpose is 
to analyze the Christian claim that the Tanakh and NT are in agreement. 
 It is not to discuss the validity or truthfulness of those two books.  
Get it?

Originally posted by Jack

 Don’t you see the futility in your arguments, my friend?  I do.

Nope.  All I see is a lot of desperation on your part in trying to 
manipulate the facts and put words into people's mouths to try to 
vindicate your point of view.  You have utterly failed to offer any kind
 of rational rebuttal to the simple facts I have presented about Jewish 
beliefs (which have been supported by direct references from Jewish 
sources).  All you have tried to do is to try to question the 
credibility of these sources (only because they disagree on minor 
issues) and then to misconstrue what they actually state.  Moreover, you
 continue to speak of the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah as one and the 
same even though you have not proven they are one and the same!  In 
fact, the Jewish sources state clearly that the two are not the same!  
So tell me.  Whose arguments are really "futile"?  I think your finger 
is pointing in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by Jack

I
 have just taken to patiently reminding you of the simple truth in this 
matter which you have brought up, that the NT simply does refer to what 
is in the OT, and that the Christian faith refers to what is in each 
testament by the term, Holy Trinity.  It should be this simple.  It is for me, but why not for you, my dear? 

Simple, my dear.  It is because none of what you have said is actually 
true!  I think you are simply lying to yourself.  You have decided to 
accept what you have been told and have shunned any objective analysis. 

The NT does not "simply...refer to what is in the OT".  It refers to 
certain concepts and then adds its own ideas, thus transforming the "OT"
 concepts into entirely different concepts.  Case in point: the Holy 
Spirit.  No where does the Tanakh refer to the Holy Spirit as being the 
same as the Shekinah, yet as you stated, the NT makes them the same.  

Originally posted by Jack

About
 my accusations that you put your own words into the quotes, if you are 
telling the truth now, I must say that you certainly did not make any 
effort to print the quotes so that they appeared as evidence rather than
 direct argument with my assertions to you.

I gave you the links again so you could compare what I posted and what 
the links say.  Don't be lazy.  You made the accusations and I 
challenged you back them up.  I really could care less what you think, 
but given our truce, I think it is important for you to think before you
 make outrageous accusations and not support them with any solid 
evidence and then not admit that you were mistaken. 

And what do you mean by "if you are telling the truth now..."?  Have you
 not looked at the links?  Why don't you put your money where your mouth
 is?  You made accusations against me.  I am challenging you to back 
them up or apologize.  It's very simple.  If you don't do either, do not
 whine and open melodramatic threads like your "An Invitation to Share" 
thread when I put you in your place.  Like I said before, I am giving 
you a fair warning!  

Originally posted by Jack

You also did not explain that numbers in parenthesis are actually links and not numbered “points”.  I’ve never seen such a link in my life.

Wow.  You have never seen people use numbers to refer to their 
references?  Then you obviously don't read many journals or other 
scholarly material.  In general, when people cite material from outside 
sources, they assign numbers to each source.  I have always used this 
system with some variations.  I didn't see you complain before.  
Generally, when I cite a website, I assign it a number with a link.  If 
it is a paper source, I provide the name of the author, the title of the
 work and page numbers.  Even then, I color code everything.  Every time
 I quote a source, I post it in blue.  That should tell you that I
 am not writing my own words. This isn't rocket science, Jack.  If you 
were not smart enough to realize the significance of the numbers, then 
you need to blame yourself, not me.    

Originally posted by Jack

I don’t apologize for challenging your quotes, or even for challenging you for that matter.  But
 I will admit that I was mistaken in what I perceived to be the truth, 
which was that you were writing your own words into the quotes and 
calling them “quotes”.  I see now that this was not the case, and I thank you for clearing this up.

So you don't apologize for your own silliness.  Alright, I can accept 
that.  I also accept your eventual admission that you were mistaken.  
Good.  We can move on.  But be careful in the future.  Fair warning!  

By the way, you did not respond to the verses mentioning the lying spirit, the evil spirit and the "Destroyer".

Edited by islamispeace - 08 December 2011 at 4:00pm

Author	Message
islamispeace Islam Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1417	Posted: 08 December 2011 at 3:58pm
	*Originally posted by Jack* So the title of the string says that we are going to compare the OT (Tanakh) with the NT to see if they contradict. We seem to be discussing mostly the OT. Are you telling me now that we should not be quoting from the NT at all? Because I barely quote anything from the NT in any of our discussions? What are your standards for comparison, IslamisPeace? Do we really have comparison if we do not quote from both testaments? No, I said that you cannot use the NT to explain the Tanakh. We are definitely trying to compare the two. That is the point of this thread. But what you are trying to do is to use the NT to explain the Tanakh, instead of using the Tanakh to explain the Tanakh. Do you see the difference? *Originally posted by Jack* I have told you that the Trinity is not a doctrine, but is a term that refers to what is already in the OT and NT. It doesn’t refer to anything more than what is already in the Holy Bible. When a book speaks of leaves rustling in the wind, apples dropping to the ground, and the color of bark in the sunlight, it would be incorrect to say that the existence of apple trees is not supported by the story because the story does not mention apple trees, yet this is the same reasoning you are using with the OT. Jesus simply spoke of what was already present in the OT and did give some indication that this was all the same God, and the Christians who were taught by Him gave this a name, the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is not some foreign concept or teaching. It is just a name for what is already and clearly in both the OT and NT. Then I think it is safe to say that the trinity as it is understood by Christians is not present in the Tanakh. *Originally posted by Jack* Your whole argument, IslamisPeace, is about the meaning of the OT according to modern Jewish sources, while telling me to stop quoting the NT. Of course! Why would I be interested in the NT's "commentary" on the Tanakh? If you want to use the NT to explain Christian doctrine, that is fine. But you cannot use it to explain Jewish doctrine. You primarily use the NT to explain the inconsistencies between the two books, something which does not explain why the Tanakh flat-out contradicts the NT in many places nor does it explain the inconsistencies. It just shows how Christians have tried to justify their theology. *Originally posted by Jack* Then you turn around and make it clear that your Jewish sources don’t agree with one another. They disagree with each other on minor points, just as Christians disagree with each other on minor points. Every religion has its internal disagreements. But the point you are missing is that all Jewish sources agree unanimously on the major points which we have been discussing, namely that the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Shekinah and that at least the former is definitely created. *Originally posted by Jack* I, on the other hand, am simply comparing NT with OT and reflecting on how that comparison has affected Christian belief. Nope. What you are primarily doing is using Christian sources and teachings to explain the Tanakh, when you should be using Jewish sources. I, on the other hand, have used Jewish sources to explain the Tanakh and have found that the Tanakh contradicts the NT in many places. Therefore, I conclude that the two are not in agreement. You have not been able to refute this conclusion. *Originally posted by Jack* Yes, I did use the Answer.Yahoo page to begin with, as you can see that the answer given by a poster on the page was so full of biblical references that one almost could not follow what he was trying to say. And I showed that that poster's conclusions contradict authentic Jewish sources. The poster made a blanket statement (that the "Holy Spirit is called Shechinah in Hebrew"), something which I showed was completely false. I backed up my claims with academic sources. You will also notice that the poster references Wikipedia. Besides the fact that Wikipedia is NOT an academic source, no where in the actual article is it claimed that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Shekinah, except for a vague reference to a Yiddish song which doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit ("Will I, shekinah, to you come")[1]. Therefore, that claim was made-up by the poster and is not supported by the evidence. *Originally posted by Jack* He did a very fine job in answering a question, and without trying he showed very concisely how OT and NT do not contradict. I disagree. I think he simply manipulated the facts due to bad research and came to a false conclusion as a result. One thing is for sure. He is definitely not a Jewish scholar nor has he actually studied Jewish sources. *Originally posted by Jack* And this is how I used it: I simply looked at it, took the biblical references contained in it, and ran with those biblical references. I did not use the web page address as a source, as the Holy Bible did just fine as a source of its own accord. I did not use my own interpretation of the Holy Bible, nor did I use the Yahoo author’s interpretation, but simply used biblical context to establish the meaning of the verses referenced. But as I showed, those "biblical references" do not prove that the Holy Spirit is the Shekinah. Instead, I showed using actual reliable sources which quote the Bible, the Talmud and scholarly Jewish sources in detail which show that the two are not the same. *Originally posted by Jack* First, in reference to Ruach Elohim and Ruach HaKodesh, you said that your sources said they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for Allah, yet these Jewish sources claim that the two terms are “conceptually distinct”. Then here is what you said in your own words about your Jewish sources, Right, which shows that at most, the Holy Spirit and Shekinah are "similar" but not the same. That was the issue, wasn't it? You have been claiming they are the same. I said that they are not. The Jewish sources support my claim. *Originally posted by Jack* This doesn’t bode well for the credibility of the Talmud. Why not? All it would prove is that the Talmud is not divinely inspired. I never said it was. However, the Talmud is an authoritative source for traditional Jewish teachings. We are not concerned with whether it is divinely ordained as Jews claim. We are concerned with ascertaining what Jews believe. Therefore, the Talmud needs to be consulted. And as I showed, upon consulting the Talmud, we find no evidence that the Holy Spirit and Shekinah are the same except for certain similarities which can be explained as either due to copyist errors or man-made contradictions. *Originally posted by Jack* Second, you have said regarding the Shekhinah’s being created, Wrong, I said this with regard to the Holy Spirit. You keep confusing the two. Whether the Shekinah was created or not is not clear. But what is clear is that the Holy Spirit was definitely created. *Originally posted by Jack* In this verse of Amos 4, the wind is mentioned, not the Breath of Allah, nor His Spirit, nor His mind. Thus, all this verse says is that the wind is created. Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are not included in the verse. So it is incorrect to say that Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are created. So this verse is evidence that the wind is created, but not that the Shekhinah is created. That's because this verse is not concerned with the Shekinah but with the Holy Spirit. The Talmud states clearly that this verse shows that the Holy Spirit was created. The Shekinah may also have been created, as Maimonides claimed. This may or may not be true and it is true that other Jewish scholars disagreed with him. But what is true is that the Holy Spirit is created. The Talmud states this clearly. *Originally posted by Jack* This also does not bode well for the credibility of the Talmud. Not at all. Minor disagreements do not negate its credibility as a source of authentic Jewish teachings. *Originally posted by Jack* Then about your extra Jewish sources, you also have admitted that they do not get correct their assumptions about what Christianity teaches. Here is what I wrote, followed by your honest response: “Your Jewish sources keep referring to the Holy Trinity as three separate gods, but the Holy Trinity is not three separate gods, so your sources are arguing against a concept of Allah that Christians would argue against as well.” Your honest response was, “The website "Turn to Torah" did, which I admit is wrong.” So this does not bode well for the credibility of your extra-Jewish sources, either. Why? We are not concerned with their understanding of Christian doctrine. We are concerned with their understanding of their own religion. Just as the fact that your knowledge of Jewish teachings is weak does not mean you cannot be a credible source for understanding Christian teachings, websites like "Turn to Torah" do not lose their credibility as reliable sources on Jewish teachings, just because there was an error in its understanding of the trinity. The point is that "Turn to Torah" is a Jewish website which supports my contention that the Holy Spirit is created. Therefore, the Holy Spirit in the Tanakh is not the same as the one in the NT. Hence the two contradict each other. *Originally posted by Jack* I have to commend you, IslamisPeace, for finally bringing official Catholic teaching from official Catholic sources into this discussion. There is nothing to "commend" here. If the issue were Catholic teachings, then an objective researcher would utilize authentic Catholic sources. In the same way, if the issue were Jewish teachings (which it is here), then the objective researcher would utilize authentic Jewish sources, which I have done. *Originally posted by Jack* As you are trying to prove the teaching of the Holy Trinity wrong, Actually, no. The issue here is not whether the trinity concept is "wrong". That is a separate issue altogether. The issue here is whether the Tanakh supports the NT's teaching of the concept. The evidence so far shows that the Tanakh does not support the NT. *Originally posted by Jack* The word was used by the Catholic Church officially for the first time to refer to the Holy Trinity back in the 3^rd or 4^th century, so that is the definition I will use. In Christian theology, it refers to a mask. This is probably part of the reason why Muhammad and Judaism can’t seem to get it correct that the Christian faith does not recognize the Holy Trinity as three connected gods, but rather as one God. That is also why I chose to refer to the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity in our discussion as aspects of the same God. Do you understand now, my friend, IslamisPeace? Maybe not. Let’s look at what you wrote (I’ll explain in green and in parenthesis throughout): The meaning of the word "person" with regard to the trinity is not the issue here, nor is the issue "Turn to Torah" and its incorrect understanding of the trinity, nor is it your incorrect claim regarding the prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) understanding of the trinity (this is a separate issue which needs to be discussed in a separate thread). The issue is whether the NT and Tanakh agree or disagree on the teaching of the trinity (although we have been specifically discussing the Holy Spirit and how Judaism and Christianity understand the term). As such, I have shown that they do not agree, despite Christian insistence that they do. *Originally posted by Jack* You say that the Holy Spirit is created. First of all, you never showed where the OT said word for word that the Shekinah “is created.” For like the 10th time, that is because the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah are not the same thing. As I have shown several times already, Jewish sources state that the Holy Spirit is created and is also distinct from the Shekinah. It is also true that some Jewish scholars, like Maimonides, did regard the Shekinah as also being created, although others disagreed. *Originally posted by Jack* You simply said that its meaning included the word, “wind,” and that the wind was created. But Shekinah means so much more than “wind.” Shekinah does not mean "wind". You need to get your facts straight because you continue to confuse the Shekinah with the Holy Spirit. They are not the same thing. The Holy Spirit was conceived as a type of wind (see the Jewish Encyclopedia) whereas the Shekinah is represented by light. Light and wind are not the same. *Originally posted by Jack* Even in point 3, you say that Shekinah is another name for Allah and refers to His “presence.” “Presence” is not an object to be created. Rather, it is a condition. So if Allah is present in your house right now, IslamisPeace, can you say that Allah’s presence is an object that was “created” for you? It just does not make any sense to say that Allah’s presence is a created thing. So, no, the OT does not say that the Shekinah is created. Yes, that is the Shekinah and not the Holy Spirit. However, you need to remember that the Shekinah is a light and light was created. That is probably why Maimonides believed that the Shekinah was created as well. One thing is for sure though. The Holy Spirit was definitely created and it is represented by wind. *Originally posted by Jack* You haven’t shown that it did, nor where it did, nor does it make any sense to say that it was created. Rather, you have shown a bunch of Jewish sources that don’t agree with one another where only some claim the Shekinah was created, and others disagree. I showed that famous Jewish scholars like Maimonides did believe it was created. With regard to the Holy Spirit, the Talmud is crystal clear that it was created. You are confusing the Shekinah with the Holy Spirit. *Originally posted by Jack* Your second point against the Catholic understanding of the Holy Spirit is null and void due to disagreement of your sources. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. As I said, the Jewish sources agree that the Holy Spirit is created. The Catholic Church teaches that it was not created. Therefore, the Catholic understanding contradicts the Jewish understanding and is therefore "null and void". Disagreements do not negate the authority of Jewish sources to explain Jewish scripture. If anything, the very fact that the Church is a Gentile institution, its understanding of Jewish scripture is irrelevant to begin with. *Originally posted by Jack* If we look in the NT in the following verses (Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:67, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:48, Acts 4:31, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:9, and Acts 13:52), we see that the believers who do great work for Allah are able to do so because they are “filled with the Holy Spirit.” In other words, they are filled with the “presence” of Allah, and isn’t the Shekinah simply the “presence” of Allah, as you have shown that the Jews believe? That's exactly the point! The NT applies the Shekinah's characteristics to the Holy Spirit. That's why it is wrong! For you see, people are not "full of the Holy Spirit", according to Jewish sources. No where in the Tanakh or in the Talmud is it stated that a person is "full of the Holy Spirit". Instead, the Holy Spirit simply "rests" on a person, like the Shekinah also rests. This is one of the places where the two are similar in character. They both "rest" on a person. Therefore, when the NT states that people are "full of the Holy Spirit", it is contradicting the Jewish understanding. *Originally posted by Jack* In terms of the Shekhinah, the OT and NT does not contradict. This, my friend, IslamisPeace, is what I have been saying throughout. It is what the Catholic Church has always taught since the beginning. As this is a Jewish description from the OT, then it only makes sense that on all accounts you are right about the OT and Jewish belief, but are wrong about the Catholic Church and the NT by claiming they are in disagreement with the OT. They are in full agreement, and nearly so with Jews it seems (accept that Jews claim they are not, though their theology seems to be in full agreement). Yes, I agree. However, they contradict in terms of the Holy Spirit. Whereas the Tanakh regards them as two separate concepts, the NT regards them as one and the same. *Originally posted by Jack* By all indications, it seems that the Shekhinah is what the NT refers to when it speaks of the Holy Spirit. So though you say that the Shekhinah is not the Holy Spirit of the Old Testament (Ruach Elohim, Ruach Hakodesh), it is definately the Holy Spirit of the NT. I have to say that in terms of the Shekhinah and the NT, there is no (what are your exact words?) opposition with what the Tanakh states. I agree. However, since the NT equates the Holy Spirit with the Shekinah, it contradicts the Tanakh. The two are not the same. I acknowledge that the Tanakh and the NT generally agree on the nature of the Shekinah. However, they disagree on the nature of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the NT contradicts the Tanakh which is the central point of this thread. *Originally posted by Jack* You had said that Elohim is the royal “we” name for God, and HaKodesh means “of God” and refers to Allah’s Divine Wisdom. When did I say this? "HaKodesh" means "Holy" as in "Holy Spirit" and not "of God" nor does it refer to "Divine Wisdom". *Originally posted by Jack* Therefore we can be sure that if the terms Elohim or HaKodesh accompany the term Ruach, that the meaning of Ruach is not “wind,” but rather one of the other three meanings: spirit, breath, or mind, and that these are referenced to Allah himself. Every Jewish source contradicts you on this matter. The "Holy Spirit" was created as a kind of wind (Jewish Encyclopedia). Since wind was created (Amos 4:13), the rabbis taught that the Holy Spirit too was created. I think one verse in the Tanakh closes the case that the Holy Spirit is not the Shekinah. You referred to this verse previously and upon closer inspection, I think it seals the deal: "Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). Notice how the verse mentions both "presence" (which refers to the Shekinah) and "Holy Spirit" and treats them as separate. This verse proves conclusively that the two are not the same. *Originally posted by Jack* So everything here, though choppy, is exactly what Christians believe about the Holy Spirit, IslamisPeace. I disagree. I think there are small similarities but also major differences. Christians erroneously apply many false characteristics to the Holy Spirit. *Originally posted by Jack* How can one say that the Catholic concept of the Holy Spirit is not the same. Because they are not. *Originally posted by Jack* The Jews believe that the Holy Spirit is Allah interacting with Humanity through His Spirit, and this is what Catholics believe. Jews say that this is not the same for them, but when they describe the details of their beliefs, it matches Catholic theology exactly. No, they believe that it is a "means" for Allah to interact with humanity. This is what Turn to Torah states: "The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a means of Hashem interacting with humanity" [2]. Turn to Torah also states that it is created. Catholics don't believe that. Therefore, there is a contradiction. *Originally posted by Jack* Thus, Christians recognize the Holy Spirit to be the transforming presence (Shekhinah) and wisdom (Ruach HaKodesh/Elohim) of Allah. And hence, Christianity contradicts the Tanakh and Talmud, the two most authoritative Jewish sources. *Originally posted by Jack* he message here is that the NT and the OT fit together like a hand in a glove, IslamisPeace. Using your own words and the sources you provided to show how they fit pretty much raps up the issue brought up in the first few posts of this string. The NT does not contradict the OT. This would only be true if you ignore the facts. Everything you just said about what Christians believe regarding the Holy Spirit contradicts the Tanakh. Therefore, it is more like a left hand trying to fit into a right-handed glove. *Originally posted by Jack* So, you have used multiple external sources that do not agree with one another in explaining the meaning of the OT, and have shown that these sources actually contradict one another. Where they agree, they also agree with Christian sources on the meaning of the OT. I have no idea where you are getting this from. The sources I mentioned disagree on minor issues such as whether the Shekinah was created or not. However, they agree that the Holy Spirit was created and that it is not the same as the Shekinah. All you have showed is that Christianity has incorporated some Jewish concepts and given them its own doctrinal twists. *Originally posted by Jack* But then the external Jewish sources you use all unanimously “clarify” that they don’t agree with Christianity just in case you might see that they do. Then you, IslamisPeace, turn around and say that even you don’t accept these Jewish sources as authorities on the subject because they are not Muslim sources. When did I say this? I don't regard either Jewish or Christian sources as the word of God. I never said they are not "authoritative on the subject". I am looking at this from the point of view of a non-Muslim by comparing the Tanakh and the NT. You will notice that I have not brought the Quran or other Islamic sources into this thread. The reason for this is that it is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to analyze the Christian claim that the Tanakh and NT are in agreement. It is not to discuss the validity or truthfulness of those two books. Get it? *Originally posted by Jack* Don’t you see the futility in your arguments, my friend? I do. Nope. All I see is a lot of desperation on your part in trying to manipulate the facts and put words into people's mouths to try to vindicate your point of view. You have utterly failed to offer any kind of rational rebuttal to the simple facts I have presented about Jewish beliefs (which have been supported by direct references from Jewish sources). All you have tried to do is to try to question the credibility of these sources (only because they disagree on minor issues) and then to misconstrue what they actually state. Moreover, you continue to speak of the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah as one and the same even though you have not proven they are one and the same! In fact, the Jewish sources state clearly that the two are not the same! So tell me. Whose arguments are really "futile"? I think your finger is pointing in the wrong direction. *Originally posted by Jack* I have just taken to patiently reminding you of the simple truth in this matter which you have brought up, that the NT simply does refer to what is in the OT, and that the Christian faith refers to what is in each testament by the term, Holy Trinity. It should be this simple. It is for me, but why not for you, my dear? Simple, my dear. It is because none of what you have said is actually true! I think you are simply lying to yourself. You have decided to accept what you have been told and have shunned any objective analysis. The NT does not "simply...refer to what is in the OT". It refers to certain concepts and then adds its own ideas, thus transforming the "OT" concepts into entirely different concepts. Case in point: the Holy Spirit. No where does the Tanakh refer to the Holy Spirit as being the same as the Shekinah, yet as you stated, the NT makes them the same. *Originally posted by Jack* About my accusations that you put your own words into the quotes, if you are telling the truth now, I must say that you certainly did not make any effort to print the quotes so that they appeared as evidence rather than direct argument with my assertions to you. I gave you the links again so you could compare what I posted and what the links say. Don't be lazy. You made the accusations and I challenged you back them up. I really could care less what you think, but given our truce, I think it is important for you to think before you make outrageous accusations and not support them with any solid evidence and then not admit that you were mistaken. And what do you mean by "if you are telling the truth now..."? Have you not looked at the links? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? You made accusations against me. I am challenging you to back them up or apologize. It's very simple. If you don't do either, do not whine and open melodramatic threads like your "An Invitation to Share" thread when I put you in your place. Like I said before, I am giving you a fair warning! *Originally posted by Jack* You also did not explain that numbers in parenthesis are actually links and not numbered “points”. I’ve never seen such a link in my life. Wow. You have never seen people use numbers to refer to their references? Then you obviously don't read many journals or other scholarly material. In general, when people cite material from outside sources, they assign numbers to each source. I have always used this system with some variations. I didn't see you complain before. Generally, when I cite a website, I assign it a number with a link. If it is a paper source, I provide the name of the author, the title of the work and page numbers. Even then, I color code everything. Every time I quote a source, I post it in blue. That should tell you that I am not writing my own words. This isn't rocket science, Jack. If you were not smart enough to realize the significance of the numbers, then you need to blame yourself, not me. *Originally posted by Jack* I don’t apologize for challenging your quotes, or even for challenging you for that matter. But I will admit that I was mistaken in what I perceived to be the truth, which was that you were writing your own words into the quotes and calling them “quotes”. I see now that this was not the case, and I thank you for clearing this up. So you don't apologize for your own silliness. Alright, I can accept that. I also accept your eventual admission that you were mistaken. Good. We can move on. But be careful in the future. Fair warning! By the way, you did not respond to the verses mentioning the lying spirit, the evil spirit and the "Destroyer". Edited by islamispeace - 08 December 2011 at 4:00pm
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
	IP Logged

honeto Senior Member Joined: 20 March 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2340	Posted: 22 December 2011 at 1:00pm
	Jack, I only bring up the verse that says " an evil spirit from God" becaues it appears exactly like that in the Bible, that's it. Hasan (on vacation in Mexico) Edited by honeto - 22 December 2011 at 1:00pm
	39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
	IP Logged

Bowman Newbie Joined: 22 December 2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20	Posted: 22 December 2011 at 7:25pm
	*Originally posted by islamispeace* One of the many tenets of Christianity is the claim that the New Testament is in perfect agreement with the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible), which is why the Christian canon includes the Jewish holy books. However, is this actually true? Are the NT and the so-called "Old Testament" (OT) in actual agreement or are they actually contradictory? Based on my reading and understanding of both books, I think they actually contradict each other in many places. There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement. While there are many examples, I would like to begin this topic with one of the most important: the trinity. While the concept of the trinity is not even well-developed in the New Testament itself, there is no doubt that it is completely absent from the Tanakh. No where is God referred to as three in one in the Jewish Bible. Yet Christians insist the concept is there. Where, we may ask? Let the Christians on this forum try to answer this question. Hi brother, The Trinity is not three, but one. The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false. We worship one Triune God. The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation. Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus.
	Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
	IP Logged

islamispeace Islam Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1417	Posted: 25 December 2011 at 11:58am
	While we wait for Jack to offer his rebuttal, here is some more evidence of the contradictions between the Tanakh and New Testament. In his "Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed", Augustine wrote: "God is Almighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be deceived, cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, cannot deny Himself. How many things that He cannot do, and yet is Almighty! Yea therefore is Almighty, because He cannot do these things. For if He could die, He were not Almighty; if to lie, if to be deceived, if to do unjustly, were possible for Him, He were not Almighty: because if this were in Him, He should not be worthy to be Almighty" [1]. So here, Augustine declared that God could not die. Muslims, Jews and Christian agree on this point. Augustine continues and states: "In the name of the judge there is a mark of the times, when He suffered under Pontius Pilate: when He suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried. Who? What? For whom? Who? God's Only Son, our Lord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? For ungodly and sinners. Great condescension, great grace! What shall I render unto the Lord for all that He has bestowed on me?" [Ibid.]. So here, Augustine declares that Christ, the "son", died on the cross. Earlier, Augustine had declared that the son was also God: "For this reason we believe also in His Son, that is to say, God the Father Almighty's, His Only Son, our Lord. When you hear of the Only Son of God, acknowledge Him God" [Ibid.]. Of course, this is a contradiction but Augustine offers an explanation: "Whatever He would, He did: because He was in such wise Man that, unseen, He was God; God assuming, Man assumed; One Christ, God and Man" [Ibid.]. So, Jesus was apparently both God and man. And since God does not die, obviously the part of Jesus that died on the cross was man, not God. This is what we are interested for the purpose of this thread. Does Jesus' human sacrifice on the cross fulfill the laws of the Tanakh? I think not. Here are some verses from the Tanakh, which I feel show the contradictions between it and the NT: "⁶ For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" [Hosea 6:6]. ^"31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods" [Deuteronomy 12:31]. In the Tanakh, God declares that He is willing to forgive without any sacrifices or offerings. This is also seen in the example of the people of Jonah (pbuh): "Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. ⁹ Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” ¹⁰ When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" [Jonah 3:8-10]. And as Deut. 12:31 declares, God forbid human sacrifices. What else would Jesus' death on the cross be if not a human sacrifice? After all, it was Jesus the "man" that died on the cross, not Jesus the "God".
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 25 December 2011 at 11:44pm
	I find it fascinating that that that the starting point for this entire thread is the belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Are there really that many people out there that believe this?"
	IP Logged

islamispeace Islam Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1417	Posted: 29 December 2011 at 8:48pm
	*Originally posted by Bowman* Hi brother, The Trinity is not three, but one. The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false. We worship one Triune God. The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation. Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus. Bowman, I never said Christians worship three gods. Also, trinitarian theolgy states that God is "three in One". So, I think that you are the one who actually doesn't understand the concept, even though you claim to. Most of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims, with no proof whatsover. Moreover, the topic of the thread is not the Quran or Islamic teachings and the alleged "false" statements about the trinity. The topic is whether New Testament agrees with the Tanakh, as Christians claim, or if it actually contradicts it. In this thread, I have given a multitude of proofs to support the latter claim. You stated that the "triune God first revealed Himself in Genesis..." but you offered no proof for such a brash statement. I would love to see what evidence you can bring. I have asking for it but so far, no one has brought any clear evidence of the trinity concept being present in the Tanakh.
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
	IP Logged

Bowman Newbie Joined: 22 December 2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20	Posted: 30 December 2011 at 7:29am
	*Originally posted by islamispeace* *Originally posted by Bowman* Hi brother, The Trinity is not three, but one. The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false. We worship one Triune God. The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation. Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus. Bowman, I never said Christians worship three gods. Also, trinitarian theolgy states that God is "three in One". So, I think that you are the one who actually doesn't understand the concept, even though you claim to. Most of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims, with no proof whatsover. Moreover, the topic of the thread is not the Quran or Islamic teachings and the alleged "false" statements about the trinity. The topic is whether New Testament agrees with the Tanakh, as Christians claim, or if it actually contradicts it. In this thread, I have given a multitude of proofs to support the latter claim. You stated that the "triune God first revealed Himself in Genesis..." but you offered no proof for such a brash statement. I would love to see what evidence you can bring. I have asking for it but so far, no one has brought any clear evidence of the trinity concept being present in the Tanakh. Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible... · Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2) · Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural) · Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…” (Gen 18.3) · *“They* answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument) · Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19) · God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33) · According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19. One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12). Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22). Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24) · Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’**
	Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
	IP Logged

islamispeace Islam Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1417	Posted: 31 December 2011 at 3:05pm
	*Originally posted by Bowman* Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible... · Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2) · Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural) · Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…” (Gen 18.3) · *“They* answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument) · Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19) · God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33) · According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19. One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12). Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22). Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24) · Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’** Your appeal to these verses is refuted by two important verses that you have overlooked from one of the same chapter, namely Genesis 19:1-2, which state: "¹ The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. ² “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning”" (Gen. 19:1-2). Notice how Lot (pbuh) treats these angels (and they are angels as verse 1 states clearly) the same way that Abraham (pbuh), even calling them "lords" and referring to himself as their "servant". Therefore, in light of Genesis 19:1-2, it is clear that at least two of the men were angels and not "God the son" and "God the Holy Spirit". Hence, there is no reference to the trinity in these verses.
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
	IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

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

Topic: Tanakh vs. NT - Confirmation or Contradiction?
	<< Prev Page of 17 Next >>