Print Page | Close Window

From where did the trinity teaching come?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12519
Printed Date: 21 November 2014 at 7:22pm


Topic: From where did the trinity teaching come?
Posted By: robin
Subject: From where did the trinity teaching come?
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 7:05am

Where the trinity idea came from.

a) "Was the idea of the Trinity - that One God exists in three Persons and One Substance - influenced by pre-Christian traditions? It is well known that the New testament offers no such doctrine, and there is no evidence the Jesus of Nazareth regarded himself as a member of the Trinity. The doctrine was developed during the first four Christian centuries, culminating in the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. . . . In Egypt the concept of trinity was of ancient origin, but it flourished especially in the second century AD and afterwards, when the mystery cult of Isis reached its acme of popularity in a Graeco-Egyptian framework which found adherents in many countries of the Roman empire. This religious amalgam exercised a potent influence on early Christian thinkers, particularly in Alexandria"

b) "There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine. Nor does he give his claim to be "Christ" or his participation in the godhead any such prominence as on feels would have been done had he considered it a matter of prime significance."

c) "Professor Studer shows how early apocalyptic vision developed into sophisticated, philosophically orientated theology concerning the mystery of God, the world and humankind."

d) "Christian thought, working with data of the NEW T ESTAMENT AND USING GREEK PHILOSOPHY AS ITS INSTRUMENT, CONSTRUCTED THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY IN UNITY."

e) "The Platonism and Stoic of the pagan philosophers of the Hellenistic Age was used by the early church Fathers of the Church as a welcome aid to the formulation of Christian doctrine ... "

f) "Those wishing to see Jesus as god rather than man could rely on the Gospel according to St John. For this, despite its Hellenism, had concentrated in mystical and allegorical fashion on the divine nature of Jesus, seeing him not as a man but as a personified idea pp.206, 207)."

g) "Now if, when it emerged, the Nicene dogma was inevitable, it was nonetheless new. . . . Equally, it marks a transition from things related to us as they are in themselves, from the relational concepts of God as supreme agent, Creator, Omnipotent Lord of all, to an ontological concept of the divine substance itself."

h) "It may be that the Platonic contribution in this field [Plaestinian-bred Christian religion] has already been absorbed, and digested by the Christian Fathers, but Plato is perenninial."

i) "Plato's Influence - "Although Plato did not hold a dominant place in the philosophy of the Hellenistic Age, he came to the that position in the early centres of the Christian era. Patristic theology took shape largely in the framework of platonic philosophy. Not only Christian thought but also some Jewish (notably Philo) and later Islamic philosophy owed much to him. Plato's emphasis on nonmaterial reality, a deathless soul distinct from the body, the idea of a cosmic religion (beauty of the celestial order), and a just society has been enormously influential."

j) "The Apologists were in the direct line of decent of Christian tradition. With them began a process of accommodation, inevitable in the progress of the Church, between Christianity and the dominant philosophy, a process carried on with greater skill and knowledge by Alexandrian doctors of the third century and issuing finally in the fourth century in the comprehensive Faith of Nicaea and the Christianization of Hellenism rather that the "Hellenization of Christianity.""


The above quotes from the following publications:-

a) From the dust cover of the book 'Triads and Trinity' by John Gwyn Griffiths BA, DD (Wales), MA (Liverpool), D.Phil., D.Litt. (Oxon,) is Professor Emeritus of Classics and Egyptology at the University of Wales, Swansea
b) H.G. Wells' book 'The Outline of History' p.52, 6l
c) The back cover of Basil Studer's book 'Trinity and Incarnation'
d)'Christian Doctrine' by J.S. Whale p.41
e)'Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle' by Jason L. Saunders Ed p.12
f)'The Climax of Rome' by Michael Grant p.21l
g)'The Way to Nicea' by Bernard Lonergan p.136
h)'PLATO and the Christians' by Adam Fox Archdeacon of Westminster (1757) p.27
i) 'Background if Early Christianity' 2nd Ed. by Everett Ferguson p.315
j) 'The Greek Fathers' by James M. Campbell associate professor of Greek & Latin in the Catholic University America pp.23-24 and all being eminent scholars and or orthodox theologians




Replies:
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 7:09am
Man trying to explain GOD and put a label on it!!! 
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by believer

Man trying to explain GOD and put a label on it!!! 
 
 
 
AND FAILING TO DO SO!


Posted By: Mystical
Date Posted: 07 June 2008 at 5:31pm

Jesus apostles believed in one God. They also believed Jesus was God and still they could justify believe in one God. They did NOT claim to believe in 2 Gods ever so the concept of the Trinity is from their understanding that Jesus claimed to be the "Son" and the Holy Spirit whom He sent after His ascent to the "right hand of the Father" is also the same nature (The TRUTH) as God.

Also above I saw calculations that are incorrect in terms of the Trinity. 1+1+1 does indeed = 3 but it is a mistake to use this in reference to the Trinity. Although three DISTINCT Personages God is ONE. You may want to use the 1x1x1=1 for better understanding on this point.
 
Cheers
 


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 08 June 2008 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by Mystical

Jesus apostles believed in one God. They also believed Jesus was God and still they could justify believe in one God. They did NOT claim to believe in 2 Gods ever so the concept of the Trinity is from their understanding that Jesus claimed to be the "Son" and the Holy Spirit whom He sent after His ascent to the "right hand of the Father" is also the same nature (The TRUTH) as God.

Also above I saw calculations that are incorrect in terms of the Trinity. 1+1+1 does indeed = 3 but it is a mistake to use this in reference to the Trinity. Although three DISTINCT Personages God is ONE. You may want to use the 1x1x1=1 for better understanding on this point.
 
Cheers
 
 
The Apostles did not believe the Trinity:-
 
1 Corinthians 8:6
there is actually to us one God the Father. . .
 
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,
 
Ephesians 4:5-6
one faith, one baptism; 6 one God. . .
 
James 2:19
You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite we. . .


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 21 June 2008 at 8:38pm
 
 The christians were misled into Trinity. An explanation (reason) is given here:
 
 In some last chapter of mathew, it is told "Go and preach in the name of the father and the holy spirit and the son..."   By that the christians made three gods or part gods. That teaching was alright. It was necessary to preach in the name of God the father. It was also right to preach in the name of the holy spirit and the son (Jesus) as the source of guidance. There was no harm in mentioning the source.
 
 We Muslims have the Kalimah "There is no God except Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah". That means we believe there is no God except Allah and we believe only in the matters of religion what comes from Muhammad only. If any one else teaches us anything about religion, even about One God, we will not take it unless it is from the prophet Muhammad.
 
 But that does not mean the prophet Muhammad is a God beside Allah. His name is there permanently in our faith (Kalimah). Nobody can separate the name of Muhammad from the name of Allah. But He (Muhammad) is not god. He is only a man and a messenger of Allah.
 
 Similarly, the holy spirit and Jesus were important part of the preaching. They should have been mentioned in all the teachings and preachings of the christians. But they should not have been made into gods.
 
 So the christian preachers made the mistake which Quran mentions as a sin, i.e. to take others as Lords beside Allah. I have checked. The christians not only take Jesus as a Lord beside Allah but they also like to keep the apostles as Lords beside Allah. They give importance to the sayings of the apostles as if those were from God Almighty.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 23 June 2008 at 3:12am
Robin you are polytizing in a section that is for issues regarding islam's position, this needs to be in the interfaith section.
Also, discussions on the trinity are in a few threads, you just need to do a search for it and then continue with one of the threads already formed.


-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 15 July 2008 at 9:28pm
The discussion of the trinity is a really intriguing one, but its completely off the mark to try and say that Jesus never made claims of divinity.

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


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 6:24am
 What is the basis of your claim please? Is it the bible NT? or Bible OT? or Quran? Please elaborate. He was a prophet of God, a true messenger of God. How could he teach that he himself was also a god? I cannot understand it. I hope that taking into account the teachings of Torah and Quran, it would be impossible to say that Jesus claimed anything like being divine (i.e. god).

-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 8:59am
Originally posted by thomasd

The discussion of the trinity is a really intriguing one, but its completely off the mark to try and say that Jesus never made claims of divinity.
 
If Jesus is God why did he say:-
 

To whom was Jesus calling to at:-

Matthew 27:46

“About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"”

Which is literally rendered "this is the God of me, God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall*

 

Who is Jesus referring to at:-

 

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 (Literal Gk. “Father of me”^) and YOUR Father and to my God (Literal Gk. “God of me”^) and YOUR God.’”

^'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall

 

my  poss[essive]. pron[oun]. (attrib.) 1 of or belonging to me. 2 affectionate, patronizing, etc. form of address (my dear boy). 3 in expressions of surprise (my God!; oh my!). 4 colloq. indicating a close relative etc. of the speaker (my Johnny's ill again).  my Lady (or Lord) form of address to certain titled persons. [from *mine1] .”-Oxford Dictionary

 

god  n[oun]. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. … .”-Oxford Dictionary

 

Jesus must have been calling to the Almighty (the Father, his God, see John 20:17, “my God”, (Lit. Gk. "God of me" 'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall) quoting from Ps 22:1 where King David was, showing that God is somone other than himself. No, Jesus cannot be Almighty God if he plainly says in the above texts that he himself has a God! 

We can also add to the above, the following words, where Jesus is speaking from an exulted heavenly postion:-

Revelation 3:12-13

"‘The one that conquers—I* will make him a pillar in the temple of my God**, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I* will write upon him the name*** of my God** and the name of the city of my God**, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God**, and that new name of mine.  Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”

*Jesus Christ

**Which in litrealy rendered "the God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' With Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall
***Jehovah

 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking to or about, as it cannot be himself?

 



Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 9:50am
 
 I feel that robin is writing against Trinity and perhaps against divinity of Jesus. Does any one note it? Please let me know. Thanks.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 I feel that robin is writing against Trinity and perhaps against divinity of Jesus. Does any one note it? Please let me know. Thanks.
 

 

The Trinity is not in the Bible, it is a pagan adoption by apostate christians!

 
 

Divinity can mean several things in the Bible as the word God can mean several things in the Bible?


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 2:58pm
Yes,  Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is not a manifestation of the One True GOD but a lesser god.  Please correct me robin if that is not correct.
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 7:08pm
Yes, Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is not a manifestation of the One True GOD but a lesser god. Please correct me robin if that is not correct.

The Jehovah's Witness missionaries who go door to door, will not debate the Bible with members of any mainline Christian denomination, because the Jehovah's Witness Bible is an abbreviated version that removes every one of Jesus's claims to divinity. More tellingly, the original "prophecy" that branched Jehovah's Witnesses from the rest of Christianity, has been repeatedly revised to correct the date of the world's end and who will get into heaven. God doesn't make mistakes when passing a message.

Originally posted by minuteman

What is the basis of hyour claim please? Is it the bible NT? or Bible OT? or Quran? Please elaborate. He was a prophet of God, a true messenger of God. How could he teach that he himself was also a god? I cannot understand it.I hope that taking into account the teachings of Torah and Quran, it would be impossible to say that Jesus claimed anything like being divine (i.e. god).

I'm basing my claim solely on the Gospel and the words of Jesus himself. Claiming that Jesus was only a prophet, or a good moral teacher is actually the one claim about him that is impossible to make on logical grounds. This is the central argument of Christian apologetics. If Jesus never claimed to be God then there is no theological reason that would prevent all Christians from becoming either Jews or Muslims. It is a truly massive discussion, and one which I can not do justice to one my own, so i will quote from Peter Kreeft. for more references, check out these 2 websites:
http://www.systematicchristianity.org/JesusClaimedToBeEqualToYahweh.htm
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#jesus-III

Originally posted by http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm


The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, He can be trusted to be infallible in everything He said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh—we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught!

When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history.

The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior).

The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.

A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly.

Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack:
His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies;
His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all
His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.

No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.

The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out.

What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!)

Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase.

But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes. Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert.

The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer).

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Chrisitanity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.

The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.



Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation.





Matthew 27:46

“About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"”

Because as Jesus was being crucified, he took the sin and imperfection of the entire world upon himself so that we might be forgiven, and God can not dwell in the presence of imperfection.






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


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 2:42am
 
 Soryy, not proved. The long speech of peterkreeft (?) was also no good. There are many mistakes in it. I will just quote one:
 
 Jesus is either God or he is a liar.
 
 That is not necessary. Suppose that he never claimed to be god. Christians have altered the words of the bible and they are believing that he said so. What will happen then.   He will not be a God and not be any liar.
 
 The problem is we have so many of other prophets. They were niether God nor they were liars. We believe Jesus to be perfect as a prophet of God. That is enough. he need not be a god to be perfect. He being guided by the Perfect God could be perfect. that is enough and good enough.
 
 So Jesus is niether God nor a liar. He is also not imperfect. We need not explore into his perfection. What he taught was good enough and if we could follow and digest what he taught, it would be too much for us to do. Why we are worried about perfection? Are we going to try to be perfect? No. Just see what people are doing to achieve perfection with Jesus as divine and perfect. they are not doing anything at all.
 
 So there is no harm to keep Jesus amongst the line of other messengers of God. That is not any low level. In fact, to be a prophet and messenger of God is to be at highest level of human capacity, capability. Please try to understand that it is enough to keep Jesus as a messenger of God. Always messengers / prophets have been coming to the world. Never God came himself.
 
 Up at the cross also, Kreeft has referred something but no use. Why not Kreeft consider that Jesus was calling God for help? Why not discuss that Jesus had a God? He used to pray to that God.
 
 You see, if you are sure that Jesus in bible NT claimed divinity and claimed being a god and taught people to worship him, if you are sure then you may go ahead with your beliefs as they are. Otherwise,
 
 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,.,,)


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 5:58am
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


Posted By: robin
Date 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:-



Posted By: minuteman
Date 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


Posted By: thomasd
Date 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.

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


Posted By: Salmaan
Date Posted: 20 July 2008 at 4:11am
The fact that Jesus is http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12810 - subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god.


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 11:16am
Originally posted by Salmaan

The fact that Jesus is http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12810 - subservient to a higher authority, both in the heavens and on earth, is sufficent to prove that Jesus is not god.
 
TOTALY TRUE!


Posted By: robin
Date 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.
 


Posted By: thomasd
Date 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.

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


Posted By: robin
Date 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!


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 22 July 2008 at 9:45am
 
 In the post of robin above, robin has admitted that trinity has nothing to do with the early christians teaching. It rather evolved out during 300 or 400 years. So it is not a serious thing in christianity. In other words, robin says, there is no need to believe in Trinity.
 
 Thomasd, did you understand the same thing? Please tell. And then say good-bye to Trinity at least. Thanks.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 1:03am
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 In the post of robin above, robin has admitted that trinity has nothing to do with the early christians teaching. It rather evolved out during 300 or 400 years. So it is not a serious thing in christianity. In other words, robin says, there is no need to believe in Trinity.
 
 Thomasd, did you understand the same thing? Please tell. And then say good-bye to Trinity at least. Thanks.
 
 
Here we agree very much!
 
Futher to the start of this thred here are a few more fcst that show where the trinity came from:-
 

WHY IS THE USE OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE WRONG?

 

First what does the Bible say on this matter at Colossians 2:8:-

 
NWT “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; …”
 

E.S.V.  “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

 

In the above text the uses of Philosophy is condemned, why?  The last clause in the text tells us “not according to Christ,” thus it is not Christian and of “the world” and “human” thinking!   How is this the case?  We will have a very brief look at the most influential philosopher on the early ‘Church Fathers’:-

 

    “Plato's influence extended far beyond the Academy. In his lifetime he was the most celebrated teacher of his day. After his death his ideas were taken up by countless other thinkers. Philo of Alexandria used Plato's ideas to give a philosophical framework to Judaism. Early Christian writers eagerly embraced Plato's thought as the best available instrument for explaining and defending the teachings of the Bible and church tradition. Of the Christian Platonists, St. Augustine of Hippo was the best known and most influential. … Platonism and some elements of Neoplatonism were absorbed and used by Christian teachers and blended with Biblical doctrine.”-Compton’s Interactive Encyclopaedia

 

What was Philosophy to the Greeks?

"Greek philosophy, which began as an attempt to understand the world without recourse to religious myth ended up as a rational theology which attempted to define in detail the relationship between God the soul, and the world. . . . . Greek philosophy was in no way indebted to Greek polytheism. it was rather the case that the religious consciousness of Greece was enhanced by her philosophers.  This process is particularly clear in Plato and Aristotle.  Plato wanted to refine religion, not reject it, and so he combined stringent criticism of the traditional stories about the gods with a reasoned presentation of the divine nature as totally honest and benevolent in word and deed.  Aristotle's extraordinary achievement in theology was to deduce an elevated and monotheistic view of the deity from the nature of the physical world."-'An introduction to Greek philosophy' by J.V. Luce pp.12 and 13

 

The above shows that Philosophy was a way to explain the  Gods or another Greek term for there theology!  So from where did Plato and other Greek philosophers get there ideas?  The following quotes will show this:-

 
A   "No country has affected the development of the Christian religion more than profoundly than has Egypt, or rather-to speak more exactly-no city has affected the development of the Christian religion more profoundly than Alexandria, the Greek-speaking capital of Egypt. . . . The outstanding legacy of Egypt to the Church, the legacy which has coloured all later history, has been scientific Platonizing theology which the catechetical school of Alexandria was beginning to fashion at the second Christian century and which the comprehensive genius of Origen carried to a successful issue in the first half of the third century."-'The Legacy of Egypt' edited by S.R.K. Gleanville's p. 300

 

B.   "Many of the theories of Egyptian religion modified and transformed no doubt, and penetrated into the theology of Christian Europe, and formed, as it were, part of the woof in the web of modern religious thought. Christian theology was largely organised and nurtured in the schools of Alexandria, and Alexandria was not only the meeting place of East and West, it was also the place where the decrepit theology of Egypt was revived by contact with the speculative philosophy of Greece.   The Egyptian, the Greek, and the Jew may here on equal terms, and the result was a theological system in which each has his share.   In Philo we are told, we find Moses Platonising; but the atmosphere in which he did so was that of the old Egyptian faith.  And what was true of the philosophy of Philo was still more true of the philosophy of Alexandrine Christianity.  . . . Perhaps, however the indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity.  The very terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt."-'The Religion of Ancient Egypt' by A.H. Sayce pp.229-30

 

C.  "Plato was initiated into the 'Greater Mysteries' at the age of 49.  The initiation took place in one of the subterranean hall of the Great Pyramid in Egypt.  The ISIAC TABLE formed the alter, before which the Divine Plato stood and received that which was always his, but which the ceremony of the Mysteries enkindled and brought from its dormant state.  With this ascent, after three days in the Great Hall, he was received by the Hierophant of the Pyramid (the Hierophant was seen only by those who had passed the three days, the three degrees, the three dimensions) and given verbally the Highest Esoteric Teachings, each accompanied with Its appropriate Symbol.  After a further three months' sojourn in the halls of the Pyramid, the Initiate Plato was sent into the world to do the work of the Great Order, as Pythagoras and Orpheus had been before him." .  .  .  Those familiar with the fundamental principles of Hermetic Philosophy will recognise in the Mensa Isiaca* the key to Chaldean, Egyptian, and Greek theology.""-'The Secret Teaching of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall p.LVII

*Tablet Of Isis

 

 

The above shows that Pagan Egyptian Theological concepts where use to form the Trinity Doctrines under the influence of Pagan Greek Philosophy.   Thus is the answer to the question that heads this article.



Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 8:28am
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!

I believe in Jesus's equality with God independent of belief in the teaching of the trinity. He was granted the authority of the full measure of Gods' power, and the only human to ever exist without sin.


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


Posted By: Salmaan
Date Posted: 24 July 2008 at 6:00am
Originally posted by thomasd


I believe in Jesus's equality with God independent of belief in the teaching of the trinity.


Where's your evidence from the scriptures to indicate Jesus is ONE with God (other than in purpose)?

Originally posted by thomasd


 He was granted the authority of the full measure of Gods' power


Being GRANTED (given) authority by a higher-authority (God) can hardly be termed as "full measure of Gods' power". Everything Jesus did was in submission to God (the Father). This is clear from the statement of Jesus:

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30)

In the Gospel according to Matthew 7:22, Jesus is quoted as saying:
“Not everyone who says to me,‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the WILL OF MY FATHER in heaven.”


Originally posted by thomasd


[Jesus] the only human to ever exist without sin.


The Bible portrays Jesus as a man who racially insults a Canaanite woman when she comes to him pleading for help.

And He [Jesus] answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."  [Mat 15:26]

Note: Here children implies the children of Israel (Jews) and dog implies Gentiles (non-Jews).

This is clearly a sin, unless you don't consider calling someone a dog as an insult or even a racial slur in this context. Also see Mat 7:6 where gentiles are referred to as dogs and swine!

Of course this is not the only place where Jesus is portrayed as a sinner.
Jesus said anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hell fire (Mat 5:22)
Yet, he himself is guilty of calling others fools (Mat 23:17)

Further he calls the same pharisees: "You snakes! You brood of vipers!" (Mat 23:33)

No doubt the pharisees were guilty of misconduct, however, this is no way for a role-model to conduct himself by the use of derogatory terms in front of his fellow men and disciples.

Jesus is also not a very compassionate man according to the Bible as we note in the Gospel according to Luke (9:59-62) where he doesn't allow a man to bury his dead father and in another instance he refuses to let a man bid farewell to his family.

-- Salmaan


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 25 July 2008 at 11:19pm
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!

I believe in Jesus's equality with God independent of belief in the teaching of the trinity. He was granted the authority of the full measure of Gods' power, and the only human to ever exist without sin.
 
Power was, as you say, "granted" to him by the Almighty, Jesus thus is NOT Almighty, thus not part of an equal trinity!  
 
What you believe about the trinty is not from the Bible, but is the teaching and a "tradition" or man made doctrine, thus of no use in worshiping God:-
 
Matthew 15:6
.And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. . .


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 06 August 2008 at 2:34pm
I John 5:7-8 states the following:
 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 
 
Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 
 
God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.
 
God's Peace,
Patty


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 06 August 2008 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

I John 5:7-8 states the following:
 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 
 
Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 
 
God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.
 
God's Peace,
Patty
 
Hi Patty,
you are right God can do anything.
You said: "Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist. "
Let me say this, what God creates is created, but God is not created. Thus the created (as you agree in this case) the Trinity, is not equal to the Creator, God Almighty even if we assume there is one.
 
Regards,
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 07 August 2008 at 1:01am
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

I John 5:7-8 states the following:
 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 
 
Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 
 
God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.
 
God's Peace,
Patty
 
 

Does 1 John 5:6-8 teach the Trinity doctrine?

 

Please note the bold print and underlining in the following.   In the ‘King James Version’ of the Bible 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

“6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

 

The ‘Good News Bible’ at 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

“6 Jesus Christ is the one who came with the water of his baptism and the blood of his death. He came not only with the water, but with both the water and the blood. And the Spirit himself testifies that this is true, because the Spirit is truth.

7 There are three witnesses:

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony.”

 

The ‘New International Version’ at 1 John 5:6-8, excerpted from ‘Compton's Interactive Bible NIV’ reads thus:-

 

“6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

 

The ‘New Revised Standard Version’ at 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

“6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and the blood.  And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three agree.”

 

            For many centuries 1 John 5:6-8 was used to prove that the trinity was a Bible Doctrine and still is by some churches.    But as noted by the bold type in the above, in these various translations there is a discrepancy in this text, as the K.J.V. has some extra words added (which are underlined), which are omitted by the others, why?

 

I connection with 1 John 5:6-8 we read in ‘THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY COMMENTARY CLARKE’S COMMENTARY NT, VOLUME 6B I THESS. - REVELATION by Adam Clarke. AGES Software Albany, or USA Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997 THE NEW TESTAMENTOF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST THE TEXT CAREFULLY PRINTED FROM THE MOST CORRECT COPIES OF THE PRESENT AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, WITH A COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES; DESIGNED AS A HELP TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SACRED WRITINGS BY ADAM CLARKE, LL.D., F.S.A., etc FOR WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME FOR OUR LEARNING; THAT WE, THROUGH PATIENCE AND COMFORT OF THE SCRIPTURES, MIGHT HAVE HOPE.- ROMANS 15:4 VOLUME VI(B) THESSALONIANS TO THE REVALATION. SAGE Software Albany, Oregon 1996’ from pages 904 - 907

 

            “1 John Ch. 5  "Verse 7. There are three that bear recordÑ The FATHER, who bears testimony to his Son; the WORD or logov, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the HOLY GHOST, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.

 

But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

 

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, AEthiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin. The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following:—

 

“6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc.”

 

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these:—

 

([In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth.])

 

To make the whole more clear, that every reader may see what has been added, I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets.  

 

“6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7.  For there are three that bear record ([in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,]) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc.” Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect without them; and, indeed much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, “that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself.”

 

It may be necessary to inquire how this verse stood in our earliest English Bibles. In COVERDALE’S Bible, printed about 1535, for it bears no date, the seventh verse is put in brackets thus:—

 

And it is the Sprete that beareth wytnes; for the Sprete is the truth. (For there are thre which beare recorde in heaven: the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) And there are thre which beare record in earth: the Sprete, water, and bloude and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.

 

TINDAL was as critical as he was conscientious; and though he admitted the words into the text of the first edition of his New Testament printed in 1526, yet he distinguished them by a different letter, and put them in brackets, as Coverdale has done; and also the words in earth, which stand in 1 John 5:8, without proper authority, and which being excluded make the text the same as in the MSS., etc.

 

Two editions of this version are now before me; one printed in English and Latin, quarto, with the following title:—

 

The New Testament, both in Englyshe and Laten, of Master Erasmus translation-and imprinted by William Powell-the yere of out Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. And the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edw. VI.) moste gratious reygne. 

 

In this edition the text stands thus:—

 

And it is the Spirite that beareth wytnes, because the Spirite is truth (for there are thre whiche beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Worde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) For there are thre which beare recorde, (in earth,) the Spirite, water, and blode, and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.

 

The other printed in London “by William Tylle, 4to; without the Latin of Erasmus in M.CCCCC.XLIX. the thyrde yere of the reigne of our moost dreade Soverayne Lorde Kynge Edwarde the Syxte,” has, with a small variety of spelling, the text in the same order, and the same words included in brackets as above.

 

The English Bible, with the book of Common Prayer, printed by Richard Cardmarden, at Rouen in Normandy, fol. 1566, exhibits the text faithfully, but in the following singular manner:—

 

And it is the Spyryte that beareth witnesse, because the Spyryte is truthe. (for there are three which beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One) And three which beare recorde* (in earth) the Spirite, and water, and bloode; and these three are one.

 

The first English Bible which I have seen, where these distinctions were omitted, is that called The Bishops’ Bible, printed by Jugge, fol. 1568. Since that time, all such distinctions have been generally disregarded. Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the ever blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the proper and essential Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which doctrines I have defended by many, and even new, arguments in the course of this work, I cannot help doubting the authenticity of the text in question; and, for farther particulars, refer to the observations at the end of this chapter.

 

Verse 8. The Spirit, and the water, and the bloodÑ This verse is supposed to mean “the Spirit — in the word confirmed by miracles; the water — in baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and the Holy Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature; and the blood — represented in the Lord’s Supper, and applied to the consciences of believers: and all these harmoniously agree in the same testimony, that Jesus Christ is the Divine, the complete, the only Savior of the world.” — Mr. Wesley’s notes.

 

By the written word, which proceeded from the Holy Spirit, that Spirit is continually witnessing upon earth, that God hath given unto us eternal life.

 

By baptism, which points out our regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and which is still maintained as an initiatory rite in the Christian Church, we have another witness on earth of the truth, certainty, importance, and efficacy of the Christian religion. The same may be said of the blood, represented by the holy eucharist, which continues to show forth the death and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God till he comes. See the note on 1 John 5:6."”

 

 

 

1 John 5:7-8 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published

by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society (Jehovah's Christian Witnesses):-

"7  For there are three witness bearers, 

8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.

 

THE VULGATE (Latin) - Jerome. 

1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant   8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

 

DARBY TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by John Nelson Darby

7 For they that bear witness are three:

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.

 

THE AMERICAN STANDARD NEW TESTAMENT

7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

 

 WEYMOUTH’S THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN SPEECH translated by Richard Francis Weymouth

7 For there are three that give testimony — the Spirit, the water, and the blood;

8 and there is complete agreement between these three.

 

To sum the above up we can do no better than:-

 

"The extra words* in the KJV rendering of this Passage are among the most poorly attested of all the disputed verses in the KJV and Textus Receptus.  The addition is not found in any Greek manuscripts or English translation until the sixteenth century and most scholars agree that it is a forgery."-The Accuracy of the NIV by Kenneth L. Barker p.101

 

*The "extra words in the KJV (King James Version)" that are "a forgery" are found in 1 John Ch. 5 verse 7 are as follows, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

 

 



Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:48am
the trinity explaind by jesus

Lection LXVI

             Iesus Again Teacheth His Disciples
             Concerning The Nature Of God
                      The Two In One

    1. AGAIN Jesus taught them saying, God hath raised up witnesses to the truth in every nation and every age, that all might know the will of the Eternal and do it, and after that, enter into the kingdom, to be rulers and workers with the Eternal,


    2. God is Power, Love and Wisdom, and these three are One. God is Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and these three are One.

    3. God is Justice, Knowledge and Purity, and these three are One. God is Splendour, Compassion and Holiness, and these three are One.

    4. And these four Trinities are One in the hidden Deity, the Perfect, the Infinite, the Onely.

    5. Likewise in every man who is perfected, there are three persons, that of the son, that of the spouse. and that of the father, and these three are one.

    6. So in every woman who is Perfected are there three persons, that of the daughter, that of the bride, and that of the mother and these three are one; and the man and the woman are one, even as God is One

    7. Thus it is with God the Father-Mother, in Whom is neither male nor female and in Whom is both, and each is threefold,  and all are One in the hidden Unity.

    8. Marvel not at this, for as it is above so it is below, and as it is below so it is above, and that which is on earth is so, because it is so in Heaven.

    9. Again I say unto you, I and My Bride are one, even as Maria Magdalena, whom I have chosen and sanctified unto Myself as a type, is one with Me; I and My Church are One. And the Church is the elect of humanity for the salvation of all.

    10. The Church of the first born is the Maria of God. Thus saith the Eternal, She is My Mother and she hath ever conceived Me, and brought Me forth as Her Son in every age and clime. She is My Bride, ever one in Holy Union with Me her Spouse. She is My Daughter, for she hath ever issued and proceeded from Me her Father, rejoicing in Me.

    11. And these two Trinities are One in the Eternal, and are strewn forth in each man and woman who are made perfect, ever being born of God, and rejoicing in light, ever being lifted up and made one with God, ever conceiving and bringing forth God for the salvation of the many.
 
    12. This is the Mystery of the Trinity in Humanity, and moreover in every individual child of man must be accomplished the mystery of God, ever witnessing to the light, suffering for the truth, ascending into Heaven, and sending forth the Spirit of Truth And this is the path of salvation, for the kingdom of God is within.

    13. And one said unto him, Master, when shall the kingdom come? And he answered and said, When that which is without shall be as that which is within, and that which is within shall be as that which is without, and, the male with the female, neither male nor female, but the two in One. They who have ears to hear let them hear
                         there's so much to tell,so much to talk about.
                         all my love ,leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 07 September 2008 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by PattyaMainer

I John 5:7-8 states the following:
<FONT face="Trebuchet MS"> 

<FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=3>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 

 

Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 

 

God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.

 

God's Peace,

Patty

 

Hi Patty,

you are right God can do anything.

You said: "Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist. "

Let me say this, what God creates is created, but God is not created. Thus the created (as you agree in this case) the Trinity, is not equal to the Creator, God Almighty even if we assume there is one.

 

Regards,

Hasan


Yes, you are correct in stating that God can create anything...absolutely. That being said, He can also choose to make each separate entity of the Triune Godhead separate,yet still equal....that is exactly what He did. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three in one, and each is equal to the other.

God's Peace,
PattyaMainer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 08 September 2008 at 12:22pm

What The Bible says as to God being ONE not three:-

 
Deuteronomy 6:4-5
"Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.
 
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,
 
1 Corinthians 8:6
there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
 
 
Ephesians 4:4-6
One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father . . .


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 09 September 2008 at 6:40am
 
 robin, you are quoting complicated sentenses, verses. Why don't you tell us if Jesus is God or not? Be short and smart, in plain words please.
 
 If you do not support Trinity (as I think you do not) then Jesus is not a God. Welcome now !


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 1:16pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 robin, you are quoting complicated sentenses, verses. Why don't you tell us if Jesus is God or not? Be short and smart, in plain words please.
 
 If you do not support Trinity (as I think you do not) then Jesus is not a God. Welcome now !
 
 
It matters not what I say, but what the Bible says!!
 
The above say God is "one" not two or three!
 

“My God” said Jesus.

 

To whom was Jesus calling to at:-

Matthew 27:46

“About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"”

Which is literally rendered "this is the God of me, God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall*

 

Who is Jesus referring to at:-

 

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 (Literal Gk. “Father of me”^) and YOUR Father and to my God (Literal Gk. “God of me”^) and YOUR God.’”

^'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall

 

my  poss[essive]. pron[oun]. (attrib.) 1 of or belonging to me. 2 affectionate, patronizing, etc. form of address (my dear boy). 3 in expressions of surprise (my God!; oh my!). 4 colloq. indicating a close relative etc. of the speaker (my Johnny's ill again).  my Lady (or Lord) form of address to certain titled persons. [from *mine1] .”-Oxford Dictionary

 

god  n[oun]. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. … .”-Oxford Dictionary

 
Jesus must have been calling to the Almighty (the Father, his God, see John 20:17, “my God”, (Lit. Gk. "God of me" 'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall) quoting from Ps 22:1 where King David was, showing that God is somone other than himself. No, Jesus cannot be Almighty God if he plainly says in the above texts that he himself has a God!
 
 
We can also add to the above, the following words, where Jesus is speaking from an exulted heavenly postion:-

Revelation 3:12-13

"‘The one that conquers—I* will make him a pillar in the temple of my God**, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I* will write upon him the name*** of my God** and the name of the city of my God**, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God**, and that new name of mine.  Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”

*Jesus Christ

**Which in litrealy rendered "the God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' With Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall
***Jehovah

 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!



Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 4:46pm
As it has been stated repeatedly here, Robin, the Trinity is the "Triune Godhead", which means three separate entities but all are one which form the trinity.  You choose NOT to believe this.  It takes faith, which you do not seem to possess.
 
However, I would like to hear your response as to how Jehovah Witnesses feel about Black people.  How your "chuch" teaches the Black race will become white, how being black is their punishment for the sins of Ham, how your "church" does not have high ranking Blacks within your religion partly because they do not believe Blacks are intelligent enough, etc. 
 
Please.....now is your chance to explain this prejudice within the Jehovah Witness cult.  (I won't even begin to go into the hate mongering you have for the likes of me, a devout Roman Catholic...let's just get your response on your "church's" feelings and beliefs about the good Black folks for now). 
 
Thanks for your response.
Patty


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by PattyaMainer

I John 5:7-8 states the following:
<FONT face="Trebuchet MS"> 

<FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=3>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 

 

Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 

 

God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.

 

God's Peace,

Patty

 

Hi Patty,

you are right God can do anything.

You said: "Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist. "

Let me say this, what God creates is created, but God is not created. Thus the created (as you agree in this case) the Trinity, is not equal to the Creator, God Almighty even if we assume there is one.

 

Regards,

Hasan


Yes, you are correct in stating that God can create anything...absolutely. That being said, He can also choose to make each separate entity of the Triune Godhead separate,yet still equal....that is exactly what He did. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three in one, and each is equal to the other.

God's Peace,
PattyaMainer
 
 
Patty,
if we assume for a second that you are right about the three being equal, the following Bible quotes will prove us wrong, as Jesus, one of the three of the Triune Godhead according to your belief, is declaring otherwise:
John 14:28......for the Father is greater than I.

 

Hasan




-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 8:14pm
 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

 



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 11 September 2008 at 11:56am
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

 

 
I can repeat this only one more time.  The Trinity is composed of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit....and THESE THREE ARE ONE.  They are three in one.  They have three different and separate entities, but are combined to form ONE trinity.  I could ramble about ice, water, frost, etc., but I will let this topic go by saying you either have faith to believe what is said in the Bible...in the Holy Gospels, or you don't.  I cannot force you to believe or to understand.  It takes great faith, as do many verses in many Bibles.   It takes a great understanding of the history of that day when Jesus walked the earth, and I am woefully inept at explaining this to anyone.  I know what I have thoroughly studied, prayed over, and accept as truth.  Each religion on earth I have studied, but the Lord our Christ has touched me deeply, and I have no doubt that His word is the correct one.  I wanted to deny it, because it takes so much faith and discipline to lead a devout Christian/Catholic life, but in my heart I simply could not turn my back on what I have found to be the words of God.  I wish you all peace in the religion of your choice.  You are all in my heart and in my prayers.
 
God's Peace Always,
Patty


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 12:43am
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Originally posted by minuteman

 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

 

 
I can repeat this only one more time.  The Trinity is composed of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit....and THESE THREE ARE ONE.  They are three in one.  They have three different and separate entities, but are combined to form ONE trinity.  I could ramble about ice, water, frost, etc., but I will let this topic go by saying you either have faith to believe what is said in the Bible...in the Holy Gospels, or you don't.  I cannot force you to believe or to understand.  It takes great faith, as do many verses in many Bibles.   It takes a great understanding of the history of that day when Jesus walked the earth, and I am woefully inept at explaining this to anyone.  I know what I have thoroughly studied, prayed over, and accept as truth.  Each religion on earth I have studied, but the Lord our Christ has touched me deeply, and I have no doubt that His word is the correct one.  I wanted to deny it, because it takes so much faith and discipline to lead a devout Christian/Catholic life, but in my heart I simply could not turn my back on what I have found to be the words of God.  I wish you all peace in the religion of your choice.  You are all in my heart and in my prayers.
 
God's Peace Always,
Patty
 
THE BIBLE SAY NOT TO THE ABOVE!
 
Jesus, The Son, is subordinate to God The Father thus he cannot be part of any trinity as in the trinity they are all equal in power (see A) which the bible does not teach (see B):-
 
 

A     The Doctrine of the Trinity (or Bitarian ideas) has been called 'the central teaching of the church' and being as it appears as Article 1 in the "Articles of Religion" for the Church of England in their book of 'Common Prayer' this seems to be true, it reads as follows:-

"1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passion; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

 

B   

The one having power, or the  “supreme” one over Jesus Christ is Jehovah!

 

N.W.T. 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.

 

Other rendering from e-Sword of 1 Cor. 11:3

 

Good News Bible   But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ.”

 

G.N.T.-WH+  θελω2309 V-PAI-1S  δε1161 CONJ  υμας5209 P-2AP  ειδεναι1492 V-RAN  οτι3754 CONJ  παντος3956 A-GSM  ανδρος435 N-GSM  η3588 T-NSF  κεφαλη2776 N-NSF  ο3588 T-NSM  χριστος5547 N-NSM  εστιν2076 V-PXI-3S  κεφαλη2776 N-NSF  δε1161 CONJ  γυναικος1135 N-GSF  ο3588 T-NSM  ανηρ435 N-NSM  κεφαλη2776 N-NSF  δε1161 CONJ  του3588 T-GSM  χριστου5547 N-GSM  ο3588 T-NSM  θεος2316 N-NSM  

 

God’s Word   However, I want you to realize that Christ has authority over every man, a husband has authority over his wife, and God has authority over Christ.”

 

Hebrew Name Version  But I would have you know that the head of every man is Messiah, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is God.

 

K.J.V.+   But1161 I would2309 have you5209 know,1492 that3754 the3588 head2776 of every3956 man435 is2076 Christ;5547 and1161 the head2776 of the woman1135 is the3588 man;435 and1161 the head2776 of Christ5547 is God.2316.”

 

1912 Weymouth N.T.   I would have you know, however, that of every man, Christ is the Head, that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ's Head.”

 

Contemporary English Version   Now I want you to know that Christ is the head over all men, and a man is the head over a woman. But God is the head over Christ.”

 

 

“HEAD”:-

J. Strong’s Greek  #2776 kefalh  kephalē  kef-al-ay'  Probably from the primary word kaptw kaptō (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), literally or figuratively: - head.

Thayer Definition:

1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.

2) metaphorically anything supreme, chief, prominent

2a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife

2b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church

2c) of things: the corner stone

Part of Speech: noun feminine.   A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing).   Citing in TDNT: 3:673, 429

 
Note from the ‘Peoples N.T.’ on e-Sword; 1 Cor 11:3:-

“For I would have you to know, etc. The order of rank is that Christ is the center, with the Father above and man below him; and in the family the man is first and the woman second. That is nature's order.”

 

Another example:-

N.W.T. 1 Corinthians 15:24   Brackets added.

"Next, the end, when he (Jesus) hands over the kingdom to his God* (Jehovah) and Father* (Jehovah), when he (Jesus) has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. [*See John 20:17]

25 For he (Jesus) must rule as king until (Jehovah) [God] has put all enemies under his (Jesus') feet.

26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.

27 For (Jehovah) [God] “subjected all things under his (Jesus') feet.” But when he (Jehovah) says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one (Jehovah) who subjected all things to him (Jesus).

28 But when all things will have been subjected to him (Jesus), then the Son (Jesus) himself will also subject himself (Jesus) to the One (Jehovah) who subjected all things to him (Jesus), that (Jehovah) God may be all things to everyone.”

 

 

 

In other words, Jesus Christ does as he is told to do by his superior, Jehovah God!



Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 12:52am
Originally posted by Nazarene

the trinity explaind by jesus

Lection LXVI

             Iesus Again Teacheth His Disciples
             Concerning The Nature Of God
                      The Two In One

    1. AGAIN Jesus taught them saying, God hath raised up witnesses to the truth in every nation and every age, that all might know the will of the Eternal and do it, and after that, enter into the kingdom, to be rulers and workers with the Eternal,


    2. God is Power, Love and Wisdom, and these three are One. God is Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and these three are One.

    3. God is Justice, Knowledge and Purity, and these three are One. God is Splendour, Compassion and Holiness, and these three are One.

    4. And these four Trinities are One in the hidden Deity, the Perfect, the Infinite, the Onely.

    5. Likewise in every man who is perfected, there are three persons, that of the son, that of the spouse. and that of the father, and these three are one.

    6. So in every woman who is Perfected are there three persons, that of the daughter, that of the bride, and that of the mother and these three are one; and the man and the woman are one, even as God is One

    7. Thus it is with God the Father-Mother, in Whom is neither male nor female and in Whom is both, and each is threefold,  and all are One in the hidden Unity.

    8. Marvel not at this, for as it is above so it is below, and as it is below so it is above, and that which is on earth is so, because it is so in Heaven.

    9. Again I say unto you, I and My Bride are one, even as Maria Magdalena, whom I have chosen and sanctified unto Myself as a type, is one with Me; I and My Church are One. And the Church is the elect of humanity for the salvation of all.

    10. The Church of the first born is the Maria of God. Thus saith the Eternal, She is My Mother and she hath ever conceived Me, and brought Me forth as Her Son in every age and clime. She is My Bride, ever one in Holy Union with Me her Spouse. She is My Daughter, for she hath ever issued and proceeded from Me her Father, rejoicing in Me.

    11. And these two Trinities are One in the Eternal, and are strewn forth in each man and woman who are made perfect, ever being born of God, and rejoicing in light, ever being lifted up and made one with God, ever conceiving and bringing forth God for the salvation of the many.
 
    12. This is the Mystery of the Trinity in Humanity, and moreover in every individual child of man must be accomplished the mystery of God, ever witnessing to the light, suffering for the truth, ascending into Heaven, and sending forth the Spirit of Truth And this is the path of salvation, for the kingdom of God is within.

    13. And one said unto him, Master, when shall the kingdom come? And he answered and said, When that which is without shall be as that which is within, and that which is within shall be as that which is without, and, the male with the female, neither male nor female, but the two in One. They who have ears to hear let them hear
                         there's so much to tell,so much to talk about.
                         all my love ,leland
 
 
TO ANCIENT PAGAN EGYPT (WHOM GOD HATED) FOR THE TRINITY OF THE CHURCHIES!
 

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge further goes on to say the following about the Egyptian god Thoth and how it parallels Plato's Logos which was later absorbed into the Churches doctrines as Plato received his ideas via the Egyptians:-

"We are now able to sum up the attributes ascribed to Thoth, and to consider how he employed them in connection with the dead. In first place, he was held to be both the heart and the tongue of Ra, that is to say, he was the reason and the mental powers of the god, and also the means by which t their will was translated into speech ; from one aspect he was speech itself, and in later times he may well have represented, as Dr. Birch said, the logoV of Plato. In every legend in which Thoth takes a prominent part we see that it is he who speaks the word that results in the wishes of Ra being carried into effect, and it is evident that when he had once given the word of commend that command could not fail to be carried out by one means or the other."-'The gods of the Egyptians' by E.A. Wallis Budge Vol. 1 p.407

parallel to the above they conceived the nature of the "One Great God" is via the trinity concept as note in the book 'Before Philosophy' by H. Frankfort, Mrs. H. Frankfort, J.A. Wilson, T. Jacobsen page 75:-

"The fluidity of Egyptian concepts and the tendency to synthesize divergent elements have led some Egyptologists to believe that Egyptians were really monotheistic, that all gods were subsumed into a single god. In a moment we shall present a text that would seem to be a prime document for this thesis of essential monotheism, but we wish to preface it by insisting that it is not a matter of a single god but of single nature of observed phenomena in the universe, with the clear possibility of exchange and substitution. With relation to gods and men the Egyptians were monophysites : many men and many gods, but all ultimately one nature.

The text that we mentioned presents an Egyptian trinity : the three gods who were supremely important at one period of history all taken up into a single divinity. The purpose was to enlarge the god Amon by incorporating the other two gods into his being. 'All gods are three - Amon, Re, and Ptah - and they have no second'. Amon in the name of this single being, Re in his head, and Ptah in his body. 'Only he is : Amon and Re (and Ptah), togther three.' [Leyden Amon Hymn, 4:21-26.] Three gods are one, and yet the Egyptians elsewhere insists on the separate identity of each of the three."

Further to quote renowned Egyptian Archaeologist Sir W. M. Flinders Pertie:-

*"God is not Mind, or spirit or Light, but is the cause of Mind, Spirit, and Light No other so-called gods or daimons can be in any measure Good, but God only can be Good, as He is the same as Good. God also is the universal Father as Creator. . . . The gods were seen as stars. . . . As Kosmos is the Second God, so Man is the third living thing after the image of the Kosmos. He has feelings with the Second God, and a conception of the First God. Kosmos is by God and in God. Man is by Kosmos and in Kosmos. In none of these is Logos personified, nor Wisdom mentioned. . . . It seems probable that such works belng to 450-350 B.C., as they have none of the marks of later thought.

**We now enter on the next stage, in the Corp. Herm [Corpus Hermeticum], xiii, v, xiv, and i, where these writings introduce the personification of the Divine Logos, but not that of Divine Wisdom Thus it appears that the Logos literature precedes the Wisdom literature, in which the Logos is also found We will first notice the development of doctrine in these works . . . One of the earliest of this class must be "About the Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm., xiii) . . . it must be earlier than 332 B.C. . . . "Unto this Logos, son, thy adoration and thy worship pay."

The Logos also begins to appear in "The Cup" or rather "Font" (Corp. Herm., v). "With Logos (reason) not with hands did the Demiourgos make the universal Kosmos," "Man did excel by reason of the Logos," "Logos indeed among all men He hath distributed."

"The Secret Sermon" (Corp. Herm., xiv) seems to be of the same date [300 B.C.] or rather later. The Logos is a higher principle apparently, as we read "Rejoice, O Son, for by the Power of God thou art being purified for articulation of the Logos. Gnosis of God hath come to us." "Thy Logos sings through me thy praises." "Send thou oblation . . . acceptable to God . . . but add my son too 'through the Logos.' " The Logos seems in this Sermon to be the divine principle. Here we find a development of the doctrine of Conversion; it is no longer being baptized in the Divine Mind, but it is "the tradition of Re-birth"; . . . "How is the author of Re-birth? The Son of God, the One Man, by God's will." . . . At first sight this might be put down as Christian in source; but we have already seen in the Perfect Sermon, which can only be put to 340 B.C. "The Lord and Maker of all . . . from himself made the Second God, the Visible . . . whom he loved as his Son," and the Logos doctrine is far less developed than in Philon.

These allusions naturally bring next to this the "Shepherd of Men" or Poimandres, the best known Hermetic work (Corp. Herm., i) In that the Logos doctrine is further developed. In the Creation "a Holy Logos descends on that Nature, and upward to the light from Moist, Nature leaped pure fire" ; "Earth and water no one could discern, yet were they moved to hear by reason of the Logos pervading them" ; "The Logos that appeared from Mind is Son of God". . . Here the Logos holds the place afterwards taken by Wisdom or the Spirit. "Holy art Thou who didst by Logos make to consist the things that are"

Advanced as these statements may be, they scarcely reach the level of Philon, in such terms as the Son of God, the One Man, the Logos ; and as Philon thus decisively cuts them off from being necessarily of Christian origin, we need not hesitate at their being two or three centuries earlier . . .

Having now traced the growth of post-Alexandrine documents, we will turn back to summarise the general ideas and beliefs which we find in them, before proceeding to the later developments.

The treatise on "The Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm.,xiii) deals with several problems, which we here divide in to separate paragraphs.

Logos is only used by Man, animals have mere voice. logos is in Mind, and Mind in is God ; Mind also is in Soul, Soul in Form, and Form in Body, The other series of cosmic nature is God, in Mind, in Soul, in Air, in Matter. Kosmos continue for ever, and therefore it must Needs be a God ; it is filled full of Life, and is a Mighty God, image of the mightier God.

The Hymn of Re-birth is to be said in open air, facing south-west at sunset, and facing east at sun-rise. The earth is called on to open, every bolt of the abyss to be drawn (the Egyptian view of the twelve gates of the underworld) and heaven is to open. The praises of the Creator is to be sung by man, by nature, and by all the inner powers of man, The Logos sings through man and praise for God's indwelling. God's Mind shepherds the Logos in Man. The doctrine of the re-birth is to be secret or esoteric.

God the Mind--being light and fire, male and female--brought forth another Mind, God formed of fire and sprit. The second God formed seven rulers of the Kosmos, whose rule is fate.

God the Mind then brought forth heavenly Man, coequal with himself, and thus parallel to the Second God. God loved Man and gave him all his qualities. Man then saw the creations of his Brother the Second God, and they loved Man.

The Hermetic books as a whole seem to hang together, and to belong to one general period, 500-200 B.C., while the Logos only begins to appear in the latter, and Wisdom never appears."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W. M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.*87, **91 -102

"Now we come to the attitude of Philon*, which was by no means a product of his own mind, when he wrote about A.D. 40, but was the statement of a body of thought that had been growing up ever since the mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas. His views were necessarily based upon his national scripture; but, as far as he could, he accepted Greek philosophy. His attitude is best seen by the fact that some of his writings were for Jews who accepted their scripture, and other writings for Greeks who ignored the Jewish scriptures. His position was that of the Egypto-Greek theo-cosm-sophy adopted so far as was practicable compatible with Jewish scripture. His view was that God was incomprehensible, and that man can only recognise his existence, but not know of his personal being. . . in this we see the old Egyptian idea . . . "The Logos in God's likeness by whom the whole Kosmos was fashioned." . . . The Logos is called Dominion, and Name of God, and Reason, and Man-after-his-Likness, and Seeing Israel." . . . Thus far was the way prepared for later developments of doctrine and idea in Christianity."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W.M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.103-106

*Philo the Helenised Jewish Philosopher



Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 6:26pm
Originally posted by robin

Originally posted by Nazarene

the trinity explaind by jesus

Lection LXVI

             Iesus Again Teacheth His Disciples
             Concerning The Nature Of God
                      The Two In One

    1. AGAIN Jesus taught them saying, God hath raised up witnesses to the truth in every nation and every age, that all might know the will of the Eternal and do it, and after that, enter into the kingdom, to be rulers and workers with the Eternal,


    2. God is Power, Love and Wisdom, and these three are One. God is Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and these three are One.

    3. God is Justice, Knowledge and Purity, and these three are One. God is Splendour, Compassion and Holiness, and these three are One.

    4. And these four Trinities are One in the hidden Deity, the Perfect, the Infinite, the Onely.

    5. Likewise in every man who is perfected, there are three persons, that of the son, that of the spouse. and that of the father, and these three are one.

    6. So in every woman who is Perfected are there three persons, that of the daughter, that of the bride, and that of the mother and these three are one; and the man and the woman are one, even as God is One

    7. Thus it is with God the Father-Mother, in Whom is neither male nor female and in Whom is both, and each is threefold,  and all are One in the hidden Unity.

    8. Marvel not at this, for as it is above so it is below, and as it is below so it is above, and that which is on earth is so, because it is so in Heaven.

    9. Again I say unto you, I and My Bride are one, even as Maria Magdalena, whom I have chosen and sanctified unto Myself as a type, is one with Me; I and My Church are One. And the Church is the elect of humanity for the salvation of all.

    10. The Church of the first born is the Maria of God. Thus saith the Eternal, She is My Mother and she hath ever conceived Me, and brought Me forth as Her Son in every age and clime. She is My Bride, ever one in Holy Union with Me her Spouse. She is My Daughter, for she hath ever issued and proceeded from Me her Father, rejoicing in Me.

    11. And these two Trinities are One in the Eternal, and are strewn forth in each man and woman who are made perfect, ever being born of God, and rejoicing in light, ever being lifted up and made one with God, ever conceiving and bringing forth God for the salvation of the many.
 
    12. This is the Mystery of the Trinity in Humanity, and moreover in every individual child of man must be accomplished the mystery of God, ever witnessing to the light, suffering for the truth, ascending into Heaven, and sending forth the Spirit of Truth And this is the path of salvation, for the kingdom of God is within.

    13. And one said unto him, Master, when shall the kingdom come? And he answered and said, When that which is without shall be as that which is within, and that which is within shall be as that which is without, and, the male with the female, neither male nor female, but the two in One. They who have ears to hear let them hear
                         there's so much to tell,so much to talk about.
                         all my love ,leland
 
 
TO ANCIENT PAGAN EGYPT (WHOM GOD HATED) FOR THE TRINITY OF THE CHURCHIES!
 

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge further goes on to say the following about the Egyptian god Thoth and how it parallels Plato's Logos which was later absorbed into the Churches doctrines as Plato received his ideas via the Egyptians:-

"We are now able to sum up the attributes ascribed to Thoth, and to consider how he employed them in connection with the dead. In first place, he was held to be both the heart and the tongue of Ra, that is to say, he was the reason and the mental powers of the god, and also the means by which t their will was translated into speech ; from one aspect he was speech itself, and in later times he may well have represented, as Dr. Birch said, the logoV of Plato. In every legend in which Thoth takes a prominent part we see that it is he who speaks the word that results in the wishes of Ra being carried into effect, and it is evident that when he had once given the word of commend that command could not fail to be carried out by one means or the other."-'The gods of the Egyptians' by E.A. Wallis Budge Vol. 1 p.407

parallel to the above they conceived the nature of the "One Great God" is via the trinity concept as note in the book 'Before Philosophy' by H. Frankfort, Mrs. H. Frankfort, J.A. Wilson, T. Jacobsen page 75:-

"The fluidity of Egyptian concepts and the tendency to synthesize divergent elements have led some Egyptologists to believe that Egyptians were really monotheistic, that all gods were subsumed into a single god. In a moment we shall present a text that would seem to be a prime document for this thesis of essential monotheism, but we wish to preface it by insisting that it is not a matter of a single god but of single nature of observed phenomena in the universe, with the clear possibility of exchange and substitution. With relation to gods and men the Egyptians were monophysites : many men and many gods, but all ultimately one nature.

The text that we mentioned presents an Egyptian trinity : the three gods who were supremely important at one period of history all taken up into a single divinity. The purpose was to enlarge the god Amon by incorporating the other two gods into his being. 'All gods are three - Amon, Re, and Ptah - and they have no second'. Amon in the name of this single being, Re in his head, and Ptah in his body. 'Only he is : Amon and Re (and Ptah), togther three.' [Leyden Amon Hymn, 4:21-26.] Three gods are one, and yet the Egyptians elsewhere insists on the separate identity of each of the three."

Further to quote renowned Egyptian Archaeologist Sir W. M. Flinders Pertie:-

*"God is not Mind, or spirit or Light, but is the cause of Mind, Spirit, and Light No other so-called gods or daimons can be in any measure Good, but God only can be Good, as He is the same as Good. God also is the universal Father as Creator. . . . The gods were seen as stars. . . . As Kosmos is the Second God, so Man is the third living thing after the image of the Kosmos. He has feelings with the Second God, and a conception of the First God. Kosmos is by God and in God. Man is by Kosmos and in Kosmos. In none of these is Logos personified, nor Wisdom mentioned. . . . It seems probable that such works belng to 450-350 B.C., as they have none of the marks of later thought.

**We now enter on the next stage, in the Corp. Herm [Corpus Hermeticum], xiii, v, xiv, and i, where these writings introduce the personification of the Divine Logos, but not that of Divine Wisdom Thus it appears that the Logos literature precedes the Wisdom literature, in which the Logos is also found We will first notice the development of doctrine in these works . . . One of the earliest of this class must be "About the Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm., xiii) . . . it must be earlier than 332 B.C. . . . "Unto this Logos, son, thy adoration and thy worship pay."

The Logos also begins to appear in "The Cup" or rather "Font" (Corp. Herm., v). "With Logos (reason) not with hands did the Demiourgos make the universal Kosmos," "Man did excel by reason of the Logos," "Logos indeed among all men He hath distributed."

"The Secret Sermon" (Corp. Herm., xiv) seems to be of the same date [300 B.C.] or rather later. The Logos is a higher principle apparently, as we read "Rejoice, O Son, for by the Power of God thou art being purified for articulation of the Logos. Gnosis of God hath come to us." "Thy Logos sings through me thy praises." "Send thou oblation . . . acceptable to God . . . but add my son too 'through the Logos.' " The Logos seems in this Sermon to be the divine principle. Here we find a development of the doctrine of Conversion; it is no longer being baptized in the Divine Mind, but it is "the tradition of Re-birth"; . . . "How is the author of Re-birth? The Son of God, the One Man, by God's will." . . . At first sight this might be put down as Christian in source; but we have already seen in the Perfect Sermon, which can only be put to 340 B.C. "The Lord and Maker of all . . . from himself made the Second God, the Visible . . . whom he loved as his Son," and the Logos doctrine is far less developed than in Philon.

These allusions naturally bring next to this the "Shepherd of Men" or Poimandres, the best known Hermetic work (Corp. Herm., i) In that the Logos doctrine is further developed. In the Creation "a Holy Logos descends on that Nature, and upward to the light from Moist, Nature leaped pure fire" ; "Earth and water no one could discern, yet were they moved to hear by reason of the Logos pervading them" ; "The Logos that appeared from Mind is Son of God". . . Here the Logos holds the place afterwards taken by Wisdom or the Spirit. "Holy art Thou who didst by Logos make to consist the things that are"

Advanced as these statements may be, they scarcely reach the level of Philon, in such terms as the Son of God, the One Man, the Logos ; and as Philon thus decisively cuts them off from being necessarily of Christian origin, we need not hesitate at their being two or three centuries earlier . . .

Having now traced the growth of post-Alexandrine documents, we will turn back to summarise the general ideas and beliefs which we find in them, before proceeding to the later developments.

The treatise on "The Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm.,xiii) deals with several problems, which we here divide in to separate paragraphs.

Logos is only used by Man, animals have mere voice. logos is in Mind, and Mind in is God ; Mind also is in Soul, Soul in Form, and Form in Body, The other series of cosmic nature is God, in Mind, in Soul, in Air, in Matter. Kosmos continue for ever, and therefore it must Needs be a God ; it is filled full of Life, and is a Mighty God, image of the mightier God.

The Hymn of Re-birth is to be said in open air, facing south-west at sunset, and facing east at sun-rise. The earth is called on to open, every bolt of the abyss to be drawn (the Egyptian view of the twelve gates of the underworld) and heaven is to open. The praises of the Creator is to be sung by man, by nature, and by all the inner powers of man, The Logos sings through man and praise for God's indwelling. God's Mind shepherds the Logos in Man. The doctrine of the re-birth is to be secret or esoteric.

God the Mind--being light and fire, male and female--brought forth another Mind, God formed of fire and sprit. The second God formed seven rulers of the Kosmos, whose rule is fate.

God the Mind then brought forth heavenly Man, coequal with himself, and thus parallel to the Second God. God loved Man and gave him all his qualities. Man then saw the creations of his Brother the Second God, and they loved Man.

The Hermetic books as a whole seem to hang together, and to belong to one general period, 500-200 B.C., while the Logos only begins to appear in the latter, and Wisdom never appears."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W. M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.*87, **91 -102

"Now we come to the attitude of Philon*, which was by no means a product of his own mind, when he wrote about A.D. 40, but was the statement of a body of thought that had been growing up ever since the mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas. His views were necessarily based upon his national scripture; but, as far as he could, he accepted Greek philosophy. His attitude is best seen by the fact that some of his writings were for Jews who accepted their scripture, and other writings for Greeks who ignored the Jewish scriptures. His position was that of the Egypto-Greek theo-cosm-sophy adopted so far as was practicable compatible with Jewish scripture. His view was that God was incomprehensible, and that man can only recognise his existence, but not know of his personal being. . . in this we see the old Egyptian idea . . . "The Logos in God's likeness by whom the whole Kosmos was fashioned." . . . The Logos is called Dominion, and Name of God, and Reason, and Man-after-his-Likness, and Seeing Israel." . . . Thus far was the way prepared for later developments of doctrine and idea in Christianity."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W.M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.103-106

*Philo the Helenised Jewish Philosopher

this was'nt posted as a history lesson. simply a teaching of jesus. robin you seem to have great knowledge. please don't get lost within yourself.  jesus has another teaching that's not from egypt but buddist ( tibet.)
 
   he who knows eveything but dose not know himself knows nothing.
 
your right though. there wes a conection between jesus' people the essenes and egypt. a group lived there. thats where joseph and mary sought safety with the brothers and sisters there. also there was a town in northeast egypt named "Babylon" at the time of christ. this could clairify the verse 1 peter 5:13 - " She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends her greetings". 
 
 
peace.
 


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 10:06am
Originally posted by Nazarene

this was'nt posted as a history lesson. simply a teaching of jesus. robin you seem to have great knowledge. please don't get lost within yourself.  jesus has another teaching that's not from egypt but buddist ( tibet.)
 
   he who knows eveything but dose not know himself knows nothing.
 
your right though. there wes a conection between jesus' people the essenes and egypt. a group lived there. thats where joseph and mary sought safety with the brothers and sisters there. also there was a town in northeast egypt named "Babylon" at the time of christ. this could clairify the verse 1 peter 5:13 - " She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends her greetings". 
 
 
peace.
 
 
The point is that the trinity is not of Biblical, it is pagan, and is thus a polution of demonic doctrines of Biblical teaching as God Is One!


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:02pm
Patty,
I am still waiting your response to Jesus' admittance of God (Father) being greater than him while you  believe the three are equal in power.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by robin

Originally posted by Nazarene

this was'nt posted as a history lesson. simply a teaching of jesus. robin you seem to have great knowledge. please don't get lost within yourself.  jesus has another teaching that's not from egypt but buddist ( tibet.)
 
   he who knows eveything but dose not know himself knows nothing.
 
your right though. there wes a conection between jesus' people the essenes and egypt. a group lived there. thats where joseph and mary sought safety with the brothers and sisters there. also there was a town in northeast egypt named "Babylon" at the time of christ. this could clairify the verse 1 peter 5:13 - " She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends her greetings". 
 
 
peace.
 
 
The point is that the trinity is not of Biblical, it is pagan, and is thus a polution of demonic doctrines of Biblical teaching as God Is One!
so is the sacrificing of animals ( blood sacrifice  a polution of demonic doctrines) . yet thousands are sacrificed each year the ( Eid Al-Adhha) i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing. sacrifice more of the wealth you have gained to give to the poor. honor abraham with life! not death. honor the life spared by god with life!!

-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 12:59am
[/QUOTE]
 i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing.[/QUOTE]
 
NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by honeto

Patty,
I am still waiting your response to Jesus' admittance of God (Father) being greater than him while you  believe the three are equal in power.
Hasan
 
Sorry for the delay, honeto.  I don't always have the ability to access this site.  Here is my answer for which you have been waiting:
 
JOH 10:24 The Jews therefore gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
JOH 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me.
JOH 10:26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
JOH 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
JOH 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.
JOH 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
JOH 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

I hope this answers your question somewhat.  Have a beautiful day!

God's Peace,

Patty
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 3:42pm
Originally posted by robin

 i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing.[/QUOTE]
 
NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!
[/QUOTE] are blood sacrifices a polution of demonic doctrines or not? i don't understand your reply above

-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 9:41am
Originally posted by Nazarene

Originally posted by robin

 i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing.
 
NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!
[/QUOTE] are blood sacrifices a polution of demonic doctrines or not? i don't understand your reply above [/QUOTE]
 
Today there is no need for blood sacrifices.
 
Satan & his Demons have always copied true religion, as the cannot produce anything new or clean!


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 9:49am
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

John Ch. 1:1-2 talks of Jesus in his heavenly postion next the God Almighty Jehovah and he is called:-
 
John 1:1-2
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
 
A subordinate divine (heavenly) being next to the Almighty God!
 
 


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 5:10am
Originally posted by robin

Originally posted by minuteman

 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

John Ch. 1:1-2 talks of Jesus in his heavenly postion next the God Almighty Jehovah and he is called:-
 
John 1:1-2
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
 
A subordinate divine (heavenly) being next to the Almighty God!
 
"A" God, Robin?????  Absolutely incorrect in all Bibles, except perhaps whatever you're reading from!!
 
Here is what the true Bibles say:
 
 

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - New American Standard Bible http://www.lockman.org/ - (©1995)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://gwt.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - GOD'S WORD® Translation http://www.godsword.org/ - (©1995)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://kingjbible.com/john/1.htm - King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://kjv.us/john/1.htm - American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm - American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://basicenglishbible.com/john/1.htm - Bible in Basic English
From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

http://drb.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://darbybible.com/john/1.htm - Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://erv.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://websterbible.com/john/1.htm - Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://weymouthbible.com/john/1.htm - Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://worldebible.com/john/1.htm - World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://yltbible.com/john/1.htm - Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/john/1.htm - Geneva Study Bible

In {1} the {a} beginning {b} was {c} the Word, and the Word was {d} with God, and the {e} Word was God.

(1) The Son of God is of one and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature with the Father.

(a) From the beginning, as the evangelist says in 1Jo 1:1; it is as though he said that the Word did not begin to have his being when God began to make all that was made: for the Word was even then when all things that were made began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.

(b) Had his being.

(c) This word the points out to us a peculiar and choice thing above all others, and puts a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the laws of God, which are also called the word of God.

(d) This word with points out that there is a distinction of persons here.

(e) This word Word is the first in order in the sentence, and is the subject of the sentence, and this word God is the latter in order, and is the predicate of the sentence.

http://pnt.biblecommenter.com/john/1.htm - People's New Testament

1:1-3 The Beginning of Christ's Ministry

SUMMARY OF JOHN 1:

The Word Made Flesh. The Witness of John. John's Disciples Pointed to Christ. The Lord Calls His First Disciples. An Israelite Indeed.

In the beginning was the Word, etc. The first fourteen verses are introductory. In order to set at rest all controversy the Divine nature of Jesus, John glances, in the first three verses, back to the beginning, recorded in Genesis, and affirms: (1) That he who was afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began; (2) that he was present with God; (3) that he was divine; (4) that he was the Word; (5) that by or through him were all things made that were made (Joh 1:3). The first chapter of Genesis helps us to understand its meaning. God said, Let there be light (Ge 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Ge 1:6), Let the earth bring forth (Ge 1:11), etc. and it was done. God exhibits his creative power through the Word, and manifests his will through the Word. There are mysteries belonging to the divine nature and to the relation between the Son and the Father that we have to wait for eternity to solve. They are too deep for human solution, but this is clear: that God creates and speaks to man through the Word. As we clothe our thoughts in words, so God reveals his will by the Word, and when the Word is clothed in flesh, as the Teacher of men, we recognize it as Jesus Christ.

Patty

 

 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 26 September 2008 at 8:57am

 Response to PattyaMainer

 Others might disagree with you PattyaMainer regarding John 1:1

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61 - http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61 (Part 1)

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=247 - http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=247 (Part 2)

 


 
 


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 26 September 2008 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Originally posted by robin

[QUOTE=minuteman] 
 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:
 
 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 Do we understand that Jesus is not God or Jesus is not Almighty God. What is the opinion (short reply) of the YW's (Ya Huwa's witnesses). As you know, there is only one God. We cannot have an Almighty God and a less mighty God.

John Ch. 1:1-2 talks of Jesus in his heavenly postion next the God Almighty Jehovah and he is called:-
 
John 1:1-2
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
 
A subordinate divine (heavenly) being next to the Almighty God!
 
"A" God, Robin?????  Absolutely incorrect in all Bibles, except perhaps whatever you're reading from!!
 
Here is what the true Bibles say:
 
 [Quote]
 
 
Yes "a god" NOT "The God" or The Almighty!
 

The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"



Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 3:58pm
Robin, your "bible" quotes are from JW scripts going back only 100-150 years.  Hardly worth noting.  Thanks, but I'll stay with the longstanding, scholarly, historically correct bibles from the days shortly after Our Lord walked this earth. 
 

Is Christ God?



1. "Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp
 
Have a good day,
Patty


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 2:59pm

 Response to PattyaMainer

 PattyaMainer said:

 ...But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."

 My Response:
 John 10:30 does not prove any divinity of Christ. http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=102 - Here is response by your own christian brothers.

 PattyaMainer said:
 Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9)

 My Response:
 Here is response by brother http://www.shabirally.com/ - - Shabir Ally regarding John 14:9

 In John 14:9 Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”  This is often misunderstood to mean that Jesus is God.  But Jesus clearly said that no one has seen God at any time (John 5:37).  Those who say that Jesus is God, are disagreeing with what Jesus himself said.  If Jesus was God why would he say to the people looking at him that they never saw God?  And why would the author of the 1st Letter of John in the Bible, writing some seventy years after Jesus was taken up, say that no one had ever seen God (1John 4:12) although he knew that multitudes had already seen Jesus?  The meaning of John 14:9 is not that Jesus is God, but that by knowing Jesus, one gets to know God, since Jesus teaches about God.  This meaning is confirmed by John 1:18 where the writer says that no one had ever seen God, but Jesus had made God known to the people.  In the 17th Chapter of the same Gospel, Jesus declared that eternal life means knowing that the Father whom Jesus worshipped is the only true God and that Jesus is the Messiah who was sent by God. (Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No!)

 
PattyaMainer said:
 Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15).

 My Response:
 It simply proves that Jesus was GIVEN power and authority,he did not own it.

 As we all know, God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or
any authority, rather it is given to him from God.


Jhn 13:3  Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

John 17:6-8: 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that ALL THINGS whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me

So as we can see, Jesus GIVEN everything he had! This all included miracle, doctrine etc. Basically Jesus did not do anything of his own, he never performed a miracle by his own power, he was given the miracle. He never taught anything of his own, rather he was taught by God and spoke what God told him to speak.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn007.html#16 - - Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me

Jhn 12:49  For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Jhn 8:26  I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

Jhn 14:24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So everything Jesus had was from God, from the Gospel to his miracles. God needs no one to give him power, God needs no one to tell him what to do, therefore Jesus is not God.

 PattyaMainer said:
 Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18).

 My Response:
 Already addressed http://biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=94 - here .

 PattyaMainer said:
 Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6).

 My Response:
 Same click http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127 - here and see the response.

 PattyaMainer said:

  These seem to contradict the other verses.

  How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is.

 My Response:

 Here is my CHALLENGE to you:
 Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God?

 PattyaMainer said:

 Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

 My Response:

 Matthew 3 (King James Version)

17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

THE MEANING OF THE SON OF GOD

 Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son%5Fof%5FGod

 In the Tanakh

In the Tanakh, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:

  • The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language - Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "The Sons of God", describes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels - angels , demigods or immensely powerful human beings. See Genesis 6:2-4. Many Bible scholars believe that this is a reference to pre-Biblical near-eastern mythology.
  • It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).
  • The phrases "sons of God" and "children of God" are applied to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1), the Jewish people, and also to all members of the human race.

In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh - Tanakh the term does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godliness&action=edit - In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism - Judaism the term "son of God" is rarely used in the sense of " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah - messiah ."

Taken from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=son+of+God - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=son+of+God

 son of God

One entry found for son of God.

<> < name="hdwd" value="son of God" ="">< name="listword" value="son of God" ="">< name="book" value="Dictionary" ="">

Main Entry: son of God
1 often capitalized S : a superhuman or divine being (as an angel)
2 capitalized S : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/messiah+ -
So note, the term son of God does not mean God. As you can see, Jews had already been using this term, and they never took it to mean God now did they?


Secondly, Jesus was sent to these very same Jews, so hence when Jesus called himself the son of God, he was defintly referring to the same definition the Jews had, which is that the son of God does not mean God, and that it just means someone special or someone in power.



 

 


 



 

 



 
 
 

 
 



Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 25 October 2008 at 7:42am
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Robin, your "bible" quotes are from JW scripts going back only 100-150 years.  Hardly worth noting.  Thanks, but I'll stay with the longstanding, scholarly, historically correct bibles from the days shortly after Our Lord walked this earth. 
 

Is Christ God?



1. "Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp
 
Have a good day,
Patty
 

“ONE” thing, as in harmony or unity, or person as one being?

 

John 10:30 . . .I and the Father are one.”

 

Example of the followers of Jesus being “one” with him and the God.

 

John 17:20-26 . . .“I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. 22 Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me. 24 Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world. 25 Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth. 26 And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

 

1 John 1:3    that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to YOU, that YOU too may be having a sharing with us. Furthermore, this sharing of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

1 John 3:24   Moreover, he who observes his commandments remains in union with him, and he in union with such one; and by this we gain the knowledge that he is remaining in union with us, owing to the spirit which he gave us.

 

 

In the above we see that “one” refers to a unity and not as suggested by some as one person as not only are Jesus and Jehovah said to be “one” but also Jesus disciples are INCLUDED in that “one” as John 17:20 say “those putting faith in me” so the oneness spoken of included all Jesus faithful followers and not just him and his Father.

 



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 October 2008 at 5:12pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Robin, your "bible" quotes are from JW scripts going back only 100-150 years.  Hardly worth noting.  Thanks, but I'll stay with the longstanding, scholarly, historically correct bibles from the days shortly after Our Lord walked this earth. 
 

Is Christ God?



1. "Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp
 
Have a good day,
Patty
 
Patty,
your explaination of Christian doctrine is a classical example of confused and opposite statments.
 
At first you do admit Christ being inferior to God (you call the Father) when you say and quote, "for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28)."
In a classic flip at the end you say,"not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God). "
A Christian phenomenon only themselves can understand and believe, and a Christian dilema only we Muslims can see.
 
I hope you see what I mean, and not take it as an offence. You cannot be equal, if you are inferior or someone is greater than you!
 
See the thing is that one cannot go to far with "God having a son" before we get tangled into other objections beside the one above.
This again is for understanding and no offence is meant:
cow is born to cow,  duck is born to duck, cat is born to  cat, if we assume for a second (God to have an off spring) God is born to God!
So, yes if cat and (son) cat is same, then God and son God is same.
 
I would like to hear what yuo have to say.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 20 November 2008 at 6:23pm
hey everyone, I know I dropped out of this discussion  a while back, but I finally managed to find what are likely the roots of the belief in the trinity, and its definitely from the Jewish religion, not pagan or greek as some in this thread have claimed.

this page: http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm

has a lot of discussion and references. (don't mind the atrocious color scheme!)


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


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 21 November 2008 at 6:17am
Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Robin, your "bible" quotes are from JW scripts going back only 100-150 years.  Hardly worth noting.  Thanks, but I'll stay with the longstanding, scholarly, historically correct bibles from the days shortly after Our Lord walked this earth. 
 

Is Christ God?



1. "Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp
 
Have a good day,
Patty
 
Patty,
your explaination of Christian doctrine is a classical example of confused and opposite statments.
 
At first you do admit Christ being inferior to God (you call the Father) when you say and quote, "for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28)."
In a classic flip at the end you say,"not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God). "
A Christian phenomenon only themselves can understand and believe, and a Christian dilema only we Muslims can see.
 
I hope you see what I mean, and not take it as an offence. You cannot be equal, if you are inferior or someone is greater than you!
 
See the thing is that one cannot go to far with "God having a son" before we get tangled into other objections beside the one above.
This again is for understanding and no offence is meant:
cow is born to cow,  duck is born to duck, cat is born to  cat, if we assume for a second (God to have an off spring) God is born to God!
So, yes if cat and (son) cat is same, then God and son God is same.
 
I would like to hear what yuo have to say.
Hasan
 
Hello Hasan,
 
I do not take offence from you, not ever. I must say I am somewhat puzzled as to why you care what I believe or what I have to say......since you obviously disagree so heartily with my beliefs. lolol
 
That being said, I will try again to explain my Catholic Christian point of view.
 
You need to read this very carefully:
 
"So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father."
 
Okay, so what does this mean?  It refers to God the Father sending Jesus as His son to earth in human form, and it is his human form that is inferior to God the father.  Not Jesus Christ Himself, but the human form he took on while he ministered to the multitudes while he was on earth for some 33 years. 
 
Hasan, it takes a LOT of study of the Scriptures and the Holy Gospels to find the truth....to finally see it and embrace it.  I am so inept at trying to show this to you.  But more than anything it takes great faith to know that our precious God loves us and knows we are struggling to do His will in our lives.  He will help us,  if we allow him, to see the Truth.  I have great faith, if nothing else, that He loves even me (and I know I am not worthy of it because I have sinned greatly in my life).  What I love about God is that, unlike people, He not only forgives our sins...he also forgets them. 
 
I hope this explains that one aspect of the Holy Trinity.  We have a little hymn we sing and I love the one line which goes,
 
"praise the Holy Trinity, UNIDIVIDED UNITY,......
 
Peace to you, Hasan,
Patty


-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 22 November 2008 at 6:50pm
Patty,
thanks for your effort to clear things up. I have very basic funtamental difference of view on trinity.
I do not believe Christ himself taught Trinity. As it is absent from any previous prophets' teachings and beliefs. I have asked this question to present form of those who Jesus is said to be, a jew. All previous scriptures lack this very important point or part about God claimed by Christians?
God does not change in Godhead. God was and is One,  and that's what seams to be universal teachings of all the previous scriptures. This doctrine in my humble opinion if, can only be derived from NT which by the way due to its not so authentic history is I am reluctant to rely upon. It proves to be a new doctrine in terms of describing God, thus I completely disagree with it.
 
In your description above: Jesus Christ the man you say is inferior to God. Isn't it the human form that is given the name Jesus Chirst to begin with. In other words you are saying that out of three parts of God in Godhead, one is called God, the other Jesus Christ, and the third, the Holy Ghost?
 
Also, are you saying that Jesus Christ was not God when he was walking upon this earth according to your belief? I want to get this clear from you Patty before I procede. 
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 22 November 2008 at 9:03pm
Originally posted by honeto

Patty,
thanks for your effort to clear things up. I have very basic funtamental difference of view on trinity.
I do not believe Christ himself taught Trinity. As it is absent from any previous prophets' teachings and beliefs. I have asked this question to present form of those who Jesus is said to be, a jew. All previous scriptures lack this very important point or part about God claimed by Christians?
God does not change in Godhead. God was and is One,  and that's what seams to be universal teachings of all the previous scriptures. This doctrine in my humble opinion if, can only be derived from NT which by the way due to its not so authentic history is I am reluctant to rely upon. It proves to be a new doctrine in terms of describing God, thus I completely disagree with it.
 
In your description above: Jesus Christ the man you say is inferior to God. Isn't it the human form that is given the name Jesus Chirst to begin with. In other words you are saying that out of three parts of God in Godhead, one is called God, the other Jesus Christ, and the third, the Holy Ghost?
 
Also, are you saying that Jesus Christ was not God when he was walking upon this earth according to your belief? I want to get this clear from you Patty before I procede. 
 
Hasan
 
My Dear Hasan,
 
I will answer you tomorrow as best I can.  It is now midnight here in Maine, and I cannot hold my eyes open any longer.  I just don't want you to think I am avoiding the question.  Okay?  See you tomorrow.
 
God bless,
Patty


-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 23 November 2008 at 10:00am
Originally posted by honeto

Patty,
I have very basic funtamental difference of view on trinity.
I do not believe Christ himself taught Trinity. As it is absent from any previous prophets' teachings and beliefs. I have asked this question to present form of those who Jesus is said to be, a jew. All previous scriptures lack this very important point or part about God claimed by Christians?
God does not change in Godhead. God was and is One,  and that's what seams to be universal teachings of all the previous scriptures. This doctrine in my humble opinion if, can only be derived from NT which by the way due to its not so authentic history is I am reluctant to rely upon. It proves to be a new doctrine in terms of describing God, thus I completely disagree with it.
 
Hasan
 
I know we differ in many thinks Hasan, but you are dead right in the above and you say just as The bible teaches.  The Bible disagrees with it as well!
 
Deuteronomy 6:4
"Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
 
Jesus never taught anything than what is above; "God is one"!


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 23 November 2008 at 6:27pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Originally posted by honeto

Patty,
thanks for your effort to clear things up. I have very basic funtamental difference of view on trinity.
I do not believe Christ himself taught Trinity. As it is absent from any previous prophets' teachings and beliefs. I have asked this question to present form of those who Jesus is said to be, a jew. All previous scriptures lack this very important point or part about God claimed by Christians?
God does not change in Godhead. God was and is One,  and that's what seams to be universal teachings of all the previous scriptures. This doctrine in my humble opinion if, can only be derived from NT which by the way due to its not so authentic history is I am reluctant to rely upon. It proves to be a new doctrine in terms of describing God, thus I completely disagree with it.
 
In your description above: Jesus Christ the man you say is inferior to God. Isn't it the human form that is given the name Jesus Chirst to begin with. In other words you are saying that out of three parts of God in Godhead, one is called God, the other Jesus Christ, and the third, the Holy Ghost?
 
Also, are you saying that Jesus Christ was not God when he was walking upon this earth according to your belief? I want to get this clear from you Patty before I procede. 
 
Hasan
 
My Dear Hasan,
 
I will answer you tomorrow as best I can.  It is now midnight here in Maine, and I cannot hold my eyes open any longer.  I just don't want you to think I am avoiding the question.  Okay?  See you tomorrow.
 
God bless,
Patty
 

Trinity: Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: “The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).” Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term “trinity” is formed from “tri,” three, and “nity,” unity. Triunity is a better term than “trinity” because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one. Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means “the substance, the underlying reality, or essence.”

The doctrine of the trinity is truly beyond human comprehension or the limits of our finite minds, but it is nevertheless a vital truth of the Bible. It is a doctrine that is closely connected to other key doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In fact, our salvation is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead who coexists as three distinct Persons all of whom are involved in our salvation in all its aspects, past, present, and future. It encompasses everything we know and practice as Christians—our sanctification, our fellowship, our prayer life, our Bible study, or our corporate worship. That this is true and a precious truth for us to rest in is evident in Paul’s closing benediction in http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 2 Corinthians 13:14 and in Peter’s salutation and doxology in http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 1 Peter 1:1-5 .

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 2 Cor. 13:14 . The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 1 Peter 1:1-5 . Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

In I John there is this statement:
 
In Heaven there are three who bear record, God the Father, The Word, the Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.
 
Hasan, I am sure you have heard/read this before, but when St. Phillip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus turned to him and said, Phillip, as much as you know me and still you have to ask....you have seen me, you have also seen the Father.....and Jesus also said, "the Father and I are ONE."  I am paraphrasing here.
 
So it boils down to a matter of faith and belief....belief in the Holy Bible.  I have studied the Latin Vulgate and it specifically states much about the trinity.  No "trinity" the word is not used....but the meaning is there.  As you are most likely aware the Latin Vulgate is the earliest bible.  I have studied, and am a personal friend of a Jesuit priest who is a biblical scholar.  He has written books on Flavius Josephus and the Jewish Antiquities.  Josephus wrote about Jesus' crucifixion just 30 years after Jesus' death.  Although Josephus was a Jew, he believed (or so he stated) that Jesus was the messiah.
 
I hope this is some help to you, or at least food for thought.  Please know that I believe with all my heart that all people who steadfastly and wholeheartedly attempt to do God's will shall one day see Him face to face in heaven.....the beatific vision.  You will surely be one of those, Hasan.
 
God Bless,
Patty


-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 24 November 2008 at 12:43pm

Patty,

one question for you, were the Jews or the people of the OT were expecting a Messiah to come or were they expecting God to come on earth? And if they were expecting God to come on earth can you referance it please.
I want to know what is your understanding, as I know the asnwer of many of them.
 
By the way 30 years is a lot of gap when it is a matter of word for word.
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 24 November 2008 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by honeto

Patty,

one question for you, were the Jews or the people of the OT were expecting a Messiah to come or were they expecting God to come on earth? And if they were expecting God to come on earth can you referance it please.
I want to know what is your understanding, as I know the asnwer of many of them.
 
By the way 30 years is a lot of gap when it is a matter of word for word.
 
Hasan
 
Oh, Hasan, Josephus was alive before the Crucifixion....what I meant was he did not write about it until 30 years later.  He was most certainly alive at the time of Jesus though.
 
I have known many Jews (and Muslims).  The Jewish people of the OT were told a Messiah would come to redeem them, to save them from their sins.  They were not expecting God to come down from Heaven.  They are still looking for the Messiah....the Chosen One.   Except for the Jews who have converted to Christianity that is.
 
Patty


-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 25 November 2008 at 11:30am
Actually Patty,

The Jewish interpretation of the Messianic Prophecies is that he will be a military leader who will free them from Oppression. It is Christianity that added the redemption from sin.

Here is a quote from a Jewish Website....

The Tanakh gives several specifications as to who the messiah will be. He will be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader.



Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 4:42am
Originally posted by Angela

Actually Patty,

The Jewish interpretation of the Messianic Prophecies is that he will be a military leader who will free them from Oppression. It is Christianity that added the redemption from sin.

Here is a quote from a Jewish Website....

The Tanakh gives several specifications as to who the messiah will be. He will be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader.

 
The only person that suited the above description was MUHAMMAD Salallahualaihiwassalam.
 
He was a great man with all the qualities of a leader.
A loving husband, a devoted father, a doting grandfather, a good neighbour, a trustworthy friend, a wise teacher, a just judge, a humble and pious servant of God, a wonderful stateman, a brave warrior and many other traits of a human being.
 
I doubt there is a man that can ever be like him.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 11:02am
However,

Muhammed (pbuh) did not claim to be the Messiah and actually recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that he would return.

Its not that Jesus is not the Messiah. Its how people interpret the prophecy of the Messiah (or Annointed one).

The interpretations as to the purpose that Jesus played and who he was brought to vary. No matter which of the two faiths you believe, he was sent to be a messanger to the Jews. They rejected him and persecuted him, not heading his message. This is that beautiful thing that Muslims and Christians have in common. We both recognize the message and grace of Jesus.

My own faith rejects the Trinity. However, we still recognize him as the Son of God. But, prophet, son of god or not... he is the Messiah... He will return...


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 11:03am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi

Salallahualaihiwassalam.
 

He was a great man with all the qualities of a leader.

A loving husband, a devoted father, a doting grandfather, a good neighbour, a trustworthy friend, a wise teacher, a just judge, a humble and pious servant of God, a wonderful stateman, a brave warrior and many other traits of a human being.

 

I doubt there is a man that can ever be like him.


You would be surprised about the similarities between Muhammed (pbuh) and Brother Joseph.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Angela

However,

Muhammed (pbuh) did not claim to be the Messiah and actually recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that he would return.

Its not that Jesus is not the Messiah. Its how people interpret the prophecy of the Messiah (or Annointed one).

The interpretations as to the purpose that Jesus played and who he was brought to vary. No matter which of the two faiths you believe, he was sent to be a messanger to the Jews. They rejected him and persecuted him, not heading his message. This is that beautiful thing that Muslims and Christians have in common. We both recognize the message and grace of Jesus.

My own faith rejects the Trinity. However, we still recognize him as the Son of God. But, prophet, son of god or not... he is the Messiah... He will return...
 
 Then you must follow Muhammad(The last Prophet) because he is prophecised by Jesus Christ himself.
 
 The Bible's Last Prophet
  http://islamicweb.com/index.asp?folder=bible - http://islamicweb.com/index.asp?folder=bible
 
 


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by Angela

However,

Muhammed (pbuh) did not claim to be the Messiah and actually recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that he would return.

Its not that Jesus is not the Messiah. Its how people interpret the prophecy of the Messiah (or Annointed one).

The interpretations as to the purpose that Jesus played and who he was brought to vary. No matter which of the two faiths you believe, he was sent to be a messanger to the Jews. They rejected him and persecuted him, not heading his message. This is that beautiful thing that Muslims and Christians have in common. We both recognize the message and grace of Jesus.

My own faith rejects the Trinity. However, we still recognize him as the Son of God. But, prophet, son of god or not... he is the Messiah... He will return...
 
There are many verses in the OT where the Jews describe the Messiah as Jesus, and did believe it was he.  Many Jews became Christians.  Right now I am just too weary to discuss or post the verses.....verses from the Jewish books as well.  Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I am very busy.
 
More later.
 
Patty


-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 26 November 2008 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by PattyaMainer

Originally posted by honeto

Patty,

one question for you, were the Jews or the people of the OT were expecting a Messiah to come or were they expecting God to come on earth? And if they were expecting God to come on earth can you referance it please.
I want to know what is your understanding, as I know the asnwer of many of them.
 
By the way 30 years is a lot of gap when it is a matter of word for word.
 
Hasan
 
Oh, Hasan, Josephus was alive before the Crucifixion....what I meant was he did not write about it until 30 years later.  He was most certainly alive at the time of Jesus though.
 
I have known many Jews (and Muslims).  The Jewish people of the OT were told a Messiah would come to redeem them, to save them from their sins.  They were not expecting God to come down from Heaven.  They are still looking for the Messiah....the Chosen One.   Except for the Jews who have converted to Christianity that is.
 
Patty
 
Thanks Patty,
for clearing the facts that a Messiah was expected, not God.
And we, in Islam believe that too, that Jesus son of virgin Mary was the Messiah, and not God. Those we now call Jews reject him as such. For us, in Islam he is what he truly was, the Messiah, a prophet and servent of God.
The Blessed Quran 61:6
"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
 
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 28 November 2008 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by Angela

However,

Muhammed (pbuh) did not claim to be the Messiah and actually recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that he would return.

Its not that Jesus is not the Messiah. Its how people interpret the prophecy of the Messiah (or Annointed one).

The interpretations as to the purpose that Jesus played and who he was brought to vary. No matter which of the two faiths you believe, he was sent to be a messanger to the Jews. They rejected him and persecuted him, not heading his message. This is that beautiful thing that Muslims and Christians have in common. We both recognize the message and grace of Jesus.

My own faith rejects the Trinity. However, we still recognize him as the Son of God. But, prophet, son of god or not... he is the Messiah... He will return...
 
The Messiah was the Last Prophet sent by Allah as a perfect example of a human being. In him - Muhammad Rasulullah, we can find all the best quality of a man, that even Jesus cannot excel.
 
Indeed Jesus will return, that we both concede. However whether he return as a Jew or as a Christian or as a Muslim, only time will tell.
 
His coming to this world again, will be the point of reunion for all the Abrahamic faiths. The return of Isa alaihissalam will lead us all to worship the One Creator of The whole Universe, that created all faiths including you and me.
 
Salam.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 28 November 2008 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by Angela

I doubt there is a man that can ever be like him.


You would be surprised about the similarities between Muhammed (pbuh) and Brother Joseph. [/QUOTE]
 
Perhaps you can enlighten us Angela.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 December 2008 at 3:02am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi

 
The Messiah was the Last Prophet sent by Allah as a perfect example of a human being. In him - Muhammad Rasulullah, we can find all the best quality of a man, that even Jesus cannot excel.
 
Indeed Jesus will return, that we both concede. However whether he return as a Jew or as a Christian or as a Muslim, only time will tell.
 
His coming to this world again, will be the point of reunion for all the Abrahamic faiths. The return of Isa alaihissalam will lead us all to worship the One Creator of The whole Universe, that created all faiths including you and me.
 
Salam.


You know, I looked for this and looked for this and only found Sunni websites that said that the Messiah is Jesus and not Muhammed.

Such as

http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/jesus.html - http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/jesus.html
http://www.islam-101.org/ - http://www.islam-101.org/
http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23 - http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23

The Messiah will return, thus the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is not the Messiah.  Given Muslim belief, the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)'s task is complete.  He said so himself in his last sermon.  That is why Muslims believe no further Prophets will be sent.  However, Jesus Christ is not finished.  In the last days, he must return and do battle with the Anti-Christ.  Therefore, he is the Messiah and not the Last Prophet.

I have found this on many many many Muslim websites written by Muslim Scholars.

Even your Quran contradicts you Nur....perhaps you need to study harder.

003.045
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
SHAKIR: When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).

إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ (3:45)


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 December 2008 at 3:18am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi

 
Perhaps you can enlighten us Angela.


1. Both were visited by an angel.  (The Angels were witnesses by their companions.)
2. Both were given visions.
3. Both were told that the true religion had been lost.
4. Both were to restore the one true religion.
5. Both revealed a book by the hand of God.  (While the Quran is a direct narrative, the Book of Mormon was written by previous Prophets, preserved by God and translated by the power of God through Joseph.  The Book of Moses was a direct revelation as were the Doctrine and Covenants.  Given all things, Joseph brough forth 4 books.)
6. Both had minimal education or were illiterate.  (Muhammed ~pbuh~ was illiterate, Joseph had the equivalent of a 3rd grade education.)
7. Both claimed the Bible was altered and corrupted and unreliable.
8. Both were persecuted.  (Joseph sealed his revelations with his blood.)
9. Both were good fathers and husbands.  (Both had children die and both were adoptive parents.)
10. Both were kind, generous, hard working and humble.  (There are many tales for both of these men helping members of their community and giving selflessly to the more unfortunate.)
11. Both were businessmen.
12. Both had a strong wife who was one of their first believers and their strength.
13. Both performed miracles by the power of God.  (Joseph healed the sick and raised a man from the dead (Brother Fordham).  Muhammed ~pbuh~ split the moon)
14. Both were visited or saw Prophets from the past.  (For Joseph, a few of these manifestations were witnessed)
15. Both banned the imbibing of wine and intoxicants, established strict dietary laws and restored a focus on chastity and marriage.
16. Both were forced to flee their homes due to their beliefs and lead followers in battle against persecutors.
17.  Both have claim of previous prophecies foretelling their arrival.


There are more similarities when I break it down further.

Both men were seen playing with children often and working hard on their neighbors homes and land, etc.   But these are the major ones I could think of...


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 December 2008 at 3:41pm
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi

Originally posted by Angela

However,

Muhammed (pbuh) did not claim to be the Messiah and actually recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that he would return.

Its not that Jesus is not the Messiah. Its how people interpret the prophecy of the Messiah (or Annointed one).

The interpretations as to the purpose that Jesus played and who he was brought to vary. No matter which of the two faiths you believe, he was sent to be a messanger to the Jews. They rejected him and persecuted him, not heading his message. This is that beautiful thing that Muslims and Christians have in common. We both recognize the message and grace of Jesus.

My own faith rejects the Trinity. However, we still recognize him as the Son of God. But, prophet, son of god or not... he is the Messiah... He will return...
 
The Messiah was the Last Prophet sent by Allah as a perfect example of a human being. In him - Muhammad Rasulullah, we can find all the best quality of a man, that even Jesus cannot excel.
 
Indeed Jesus will return, that we both concede. However whether he return as a Jew or as a Christian or as a Muslim, only time will tell.
 
His coming to this world again, will be the point of reunion for all the Abrahamic faiths. The return of Isa alaihissalam will lead us all to worship the One Creator of The whole Universe, that created all faiths including you and me.
 
Salam.
 
 
Brother Nur,
that's a new one for me to hear that our Prophet (pbuh) being refered as the Messiah!!
I have never heard of this, is there anything to support that?
However, in my understanding messiah is just another word to describe a prophet or a messanger or a guide God sent. I think all the prophets were 'appointed' and were the messiahs for their people as they healed their hearts and souls, or not?
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 02 December 2008 at 6:07am
The word messiah is very specific...  It means the annointed one.

The Messiah must fulfill certain criteria.

He must be a direct descendant of King David.  (Dawood)

He must be born of a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14)

He must be of the Tribe of Judah.  (His mother must be Jewish. Genesis 49:10)

Now, the Jews make this specific to these..

1.   Must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)

2.   Must be a direct descendent of both King David and King Solomon (l Chronicles 17:11; Psalm 89:29-38; Jeremiah   33:17; ll Samuel 7:12-16; l Chronicles 22:10 and ll Chronicles 7:18)

3.   Must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel (Isaiah 27:12-13 & 11:12)

4.   Must rebuild the Jewish Temple (the 3rd Temple) (Micah 4:1)

5.   Must bring in “world peace” (Isaiah 2:4; 11:6 & Micah 4:3)

            6.   Must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve the One God of
                        Israel
(Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 40:5; and Zephaniah 3:9)


There is a very big difference between Christian belief and Jewish belief as to the Messiah.

According to the Jews, Jesus does not meet the requirements for Messiah.  Messiah and Prophet are two different statuses in Judaism.

Islam and Christianity acknowledge two facts about Jesus that the Jews do not. 

1. He was born of a Virgin.
2. He was the Messiah.

This is according to the Quran and the New Testament of the Bible.

Prophethood is a completely different calling.  Not to diminish the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in any way.

I would like to state for Nur's sake that I hope she does not think that I have anything but love and respect for the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)

The people of the Middle East in the 7th Century were lost and divided.  Christians were fractured and fighting for the soul of Christ's followers.  The Jews were in diaspora and unable to return home and rebuild their temple.  The Pagans were wicked and lost, worshiping clay statues and sacrificing their daughters.

Muhammed (pbuh) was sent to bring his people back to God.  To bring them away from their pagan ways and to act as a moral and spiritual anchorhead of which they could learn and copy.

However, his job was not to combat the Dajjal, gather the lost tribes of Israel and rebuild the 3rd Temple.  That has yet to be done.  Jesus will return by the word of God in both the Bible and the words of Muhammed (pbuh).  If I remember its in the Hadith he prophesizes the return of Christ and not in the Quran itself. 

One can ignore the Trinitarian teachings (which I personally do not believe) when looking at Jesus's status as the Messiah.  Its right there, black and white.... 

If you are Muslim, you believe the Quran to be perfect and infallible.  Thus, the argument should really end with Ayah 3:45.


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 02 December 2008 at 12:20pm
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -

Angela, file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 02 December 2008 at 1:03pm
And that is you belief and I respect it. I do not believe the infallibility of Prophets. Its not in my belief system. I was just answering a question by Nur.

I would never expect a believing Muslim to suddenly change their mind about Muhammed (pbuh) being the Last Prophet.


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 02 December 2008 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by Angela

And that is you belief and I respect it. I do not believe the infallibility of Prophets. Its not in my belief system. I was just answering a question by Nur.

I would never expect a believing Muslim to suddenly change their mind about Muhammed (pbuh) being the Last Prophet.
 
Angela,
 
I totally respect your belief system too, as I do everyone here.  I have read that this is how you view "God", whom Mormons refer to as "Heavenly Father."  Can you elaborate and explain if this is your belief as a devout Mormon.  Thank you!
 

MORMON HENOTHEISM

Mormon theology belongs to the third category, the particular subset of polytheism called henotheism, while authentic Christian theology (like Judaism) is monotheistic. Mormons generally despise being called polytheists or henotheists, and claim to be monotheists on the grounds that they worship only one god ("Heavenly Father") and condemn the worship of other gods (in this world). But make no mistake, Mormons do believe in "plural gods" (just as they prefer the term "plural marriage" to "polygamy," Mormons prefer the term "plural gods" to "polytheism").

The god Mormons worship with adoration is usually called "Heavenly Father," their version of God the Father. "Heavenly Father" is, according to Mormon theology, the maker and supreme god of this world (not to be confused with the way the term is used in 2Cor. 4:3-4). Other worlds have their own supreme gods, each worshipped with adoration by the faithful people of his own world. Moreover, the supreme god of each world is believed to have once been a human man in some other world, who worshipped his own "Heavenly Father" (and so on in infinite regress). It would be impossible to number the gods Mormons believe may exist in various worlds: "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "Plurality of Gods").

Recall the limitations of polytheists' gods mentioned above. They are usually composed of and limited by natural things like time, matter, and space, and are not therefore -properly speaking- "supernatural." This is certainly true of the gods Mormons believe in ("Heavenly Father," his superiors, peers, and subordinates). For example, Mormons believe that "Heavenly Father" has a resurrected material body, i.e. that he is at least partially composed of matter that existed before him. This further requires spatial limitation, for although Mormons profess that his influence is far-reaching, they believe he can only be in one place at one time. The world "Heavenly Father" has made was not created by his word from nothing, but organized out of pre-existing material (like a carpenter makes a chair out of wood). When Mormons use words like "eternal," "almighty," and "creator" to describe God, they do not mean the same thing Jews, Christians, and Muslims mean by those words.



-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 04 December 2008 at 2:14am

Angela: I do not believe the infallibility of Prophets. Its not in my belief system.

I did not talk about infallibility of Prophets in my last post. Regardless of infallibility of Mohammad s.a.w.a. or other prophets, he is the last prophet as stated by Quran. Hence, any claim of new prophethood after him is not the truth.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 04 December 2008 at 2:24pm
Patty,

That goes very much into the Milk before Meat Category.

This thread is about the Trinity...which of course we do not believe in.

It is very much boiled down to this... we are to only concern ourselves with what pertains to our Eternal Salvation.

God, the Father, Heavenly Father, Allah, YHWH, Elohim, is the God of this World. No one else matters, no one else can be worshipped.

If you want references.... You can look http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=topics&last=Exaltation&help=&to=checked&search=Man+Potential+Become+Like+Heavenly+Father&it=scriptures&hw=checked&st=checked&bt=1%20 - here.


Posted By: OneWay
Date Posted: 28 January 2009 at 8:47am
 
 
The Bible dosn't mention the word bible.  Does the Koran mention the word Koran?
 
The bible says Jesus is God, The Holy spirit is God, and God the Father is God, but there is only One God. 
 
Therefore we can not comprehend God. 
 
John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:14  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
 
John 15:26  "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
 
Luke 12:11  "When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say;
Luke 12:12  for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

According to the bible God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all have the same attributes.  Thus the term Trinity.  You dont have to accept the word trinity, you have to except what the bible says about God!
 


Posted By: OneWay
Date Posted: 28 January 2009 at 10:43am
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=59082&FID=10 - myahya
 
 
You beleive the Koran to be 100% accurate.
 
          The Koran claims that it was written by the perfect, immutable God who created the universe and knows all things.  On the contrary, the Koran has a number of historical, theological, and other errors that contradict reality.  

 

 In the Koran, Abraham lived in a land ruled by King Nimrod.  In the story (Sura 21:58-69), Abraham destroys the idols of his people, and as a result, is thrown into a fire by Nimrod.  However, Nimrod (Sargon I?) was the great grandson of Noah and the founder of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-11), but Abraham was nine generations separated from Noah (Genesis 11:10-27) and came from Ur of the Chaldees.  How could Nimrod (a man who had been dead for many years) throw Abraham (a man who had not even been born yet) into a fire?!  Of course, the error stems from the fact that Muhammad got this story from a Jewish legend (i.e. Midrash Rabbah) rather than a revelation from God. 

 

 

Abraham and the Ka’bah

 

            According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:

 

“…there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.”

-Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62.

 
The name of Abraham's father was not Azar, as the Koran states in Sura 6:74, but Terah (Genesis 11:26). The Koran further teaches that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8,9), whereas Moses himself said he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10).
 
In several places the Koran associates Haman with a Pharaoh of Moses' time (Sura 28:6-7, 38; 40:24, 36), but from the Bible book of Esther (3:1-10), we know that Haman was a servant of Ahasuerus I, the 5th century BC Medo-Persian king (known to us all as Xerxes) who lost the battle of Marathon. So Haman was really born a thousand years afterMoses!
 
 
In Sura 20:85-88, 95, we are told that it was a Samaritan that deceived the Israelites into making the golden calf after the exodus out of Egypt.  However, there was no such thing as a Samaritan until the city of Samaria was founded several centuries after the events in Exodus, and the separate people called Samaritans (the implied definition in the Koran) did not exist until even later when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  This is yet another embarrassing time compression found in the Koran.
 
  In Sura 19:7 we read:

 “(It was said unto him): O Zachariah!  Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).”

            -Sura 19:7

 

This translation (by an orthodox Muslim) and other translations quite clearly state that there was no one named John before John the Baptist. In reality, this claim is absolutely silly!  There were Johns long before John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, King John Hyrcanus, John the Essene, John Maccabeus, etc.).  Modern Muslims have seen the obvious historical error, and so they have tried to say that the Arabic text doesn’t actually say what it says. 

 
 In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph. 
 
Why did Mohammed mistakenly think  that Mary was the third member of the Christian trinity.  The third member is The Holy Spirit, not Marry.
 
(The Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the theory the old Testament has been changed)


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 29 January 2009 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by OneWay

 
 
The Bible dosn't mention the word bible.  Does the Koran mention the word Koran?
 
 Yes it does.Read section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Etymology_and_meaning - Etymology and meaning under wikipedia.
 
Originally posted by OneWay

The bible says Jesus is God, The Holy spirit is God, and God the Father is God, but there is only One God. 
 
Therefore we can not comprehend God. 
 
John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:14  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
 
 Bible doesnot say that.Here is response to John 1:1
  http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61 - http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61
 
Originally posted by OneWay

John 15:26  "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
 
 Luke 12:11  "When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say;
Luke 12:12  for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
 
 These verses are talking about Prophet Muhammad.Here is detailed response:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

Originally posted by OneWay

According to the bible God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all have the same attributes.  Thus the term Trinity.  You dont have to accept the word trinity, you have to except what the bible says about God!
 
  http://www.usislam.org/69ecum.htm - The ecumenical councils of Church, and how Jesus was made part of the trinity.   Read what happened in the first 7 council.  Many Christians do not know about the important facts in this article.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 29 January 2009 at 2:28pm
Originally posted by OneWay

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=59082&FID=10 - myahya
 
 
You beleive the Koran to be 100% accurate.
 
          The Koran claims that it was written by the perfect, immutable God who created the universe and knows all things.  On the contrary, the Koran has a number of historical, theological, and other errors that contradict reality.  

 

 In the Koran, Abraham lived in a land ruled by King Nimrod.  In the story (Sura 21:58-69), Abraham destroys the idols of his people, and as a result, is thrown into a fire by Nimrod.  However, Nimrod (Sargon I?) was the great grandson of Noah and the founder of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-11), but Abraham was nine generations separated from Noah (Genesis 11:10-27) and came from Ur of the Chaldees.  How could Nimrod (a man who had been dead for many years) throw Abraham (a man who had not even been born yet) into a fire?!  Of course, the error stems from the fact that Muhammad got this story from a Jewish legend (i.e. Midrash Rabbah) rather than a revelation from God.

 
 Difference between the Quran and Bible only prove Islam's truthfulness and divinity:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm
 

 
Originally posted by OneWay

 
 Abraham and the Ka’bah

 

            According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:

 

“…there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.”

-Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62..

 
  Ka'bah as a place of worship in the history:
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html
 
  Ka'bah in the Bible:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm
 
Originally posted by OneWay

The name of Abraham's father was not Azar, as the Koran states in
Sura 6:74, but Terah (Genesis 11:26). The Koran further teaches that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8,9), whereas Moses himself said he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10)
 
 
 Difference between the Quran and Bible only prove Islam's truthfulness and divinity:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm
 
Originally posted by OneWay

In several places the Koran associates Haman with a Pharaoh of
Moses' time (Sura 28:6-7, 38; 40:24, 36), but from the Bible book of Esther (3:1-10), we know that Haman was a servant of Ahasuerus I, the 5th century BC Medo-Persian king (known to us all as Xerxes) who lost the battle of Marathon. So Haman was really born a thousand years afterMoses!
 
 
 Is the Qur'anic account of Haman appropriated from the Hebrew Bible and Jewish mythology? A critical examination of the Biblical account coupled with an investigation into the ancient Egyptian historical records, paying special attention to the hieroglyphic evidence, concludes with a re-evaluation against Orientalist suppositions in favour of the Qur'an.
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html#1 - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html#1
 
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 20:85-88, 95, we are told that it was a Samaritan that deceived the Israelites into making the golden calf after the exodus out of Egypt.  However, there was no such thing as a Samaritan until the city of Samaria was founded several centuries after the events in Exodus, and the separate people called Samaritans (the implied definition in the Koran) did not exist until even later when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  This is yet another embarrassing time compression found in the Koran.
 
 
 Who are the Samaritans and what does recent historical analyses and scientific investigation into their origins tell us about their role in ancient history? Is the Qur'anic mention of al-Samiri (sometimes translated as "the Samaritan") during the time of Moses consistent with modern investigations into the ancestral origins of the Samaritan sect? A critical discussion of the evidence provided by II Kings 17 in light of the extant archaeological evidence calls into question the veracity of the biblical account.
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html
 
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 19:7 we read:

 “(It was said unto him): O Zachariah!  Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).”

            -Sura 19:7

 

This translation (by an orthodox Muslim) and other translations quite clearly state that there was no one named John before John the Baptist. In reality, this claim is absolutely silly!  There were Johns long before John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, King John Hyrcanus, John the Essene, John Maccabeus, etc.).  Modern Muslims have seen the obvious historical error, and so they have tried to say that the Arabic text doesn’t actually say what it says.

  

 
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html - And No One Had The Name Yahya (= John?) Before: A Linguistic & Exegetical Enquiry Into Qur'an 19:7
 
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph.
 
 
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html - Mary, Sister Of Aaron?
  
Originally posted by OneWay

Why did Mohammed mistakenly think  that Mary was the third member of the Christian trinity.  The third member is The Holy Spirit, not Marry.
 
 
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html - Mary & Tri-unity
 
Originally posted by OneWay

(The Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the theory the old Testament has been changed)
 
 OneWay point outs “Errors” from the Quran but haven’t even solved 20% of the errors found in the Bible at http://www.1001errors.com/ -


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 03 February 2009 at 8:35am

OneWay:

You beleive the Koran to be 100% accurate.

I believe so.

The Koran claims that it was written by the perfect, immutable God who created the universe and knows all things. 

Without a doubt.

 In the Koran, Abraham lived in a land ruled by King Nimrod.  In the story (Sura 21:58-69), Abraham destroys the idols of his people, and as a result, is thrown into a fire by Nimrod.  However, Nimrod (Sargon I?) was the great grandson of Noah and the founder of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-11), but Abraham was nine generations separated from Noah (Genesis 11:10-27) and came from Ur of the Chaldees.  How could Nimrod (a man who had been dead for many years) throw Abraham (a man who had not even been born yet) into a fire?!  Of course, the error stems from the fact that Muhammad got this story from a Jewish legend (i.e. Midrash Rabbah) rather than a revelation from God. 

First of all, there is no such a name (Nimrod) in Quran. Second, let us assume that the name of the king of Abraham’s time be Nimrod. How do you say this must be the grandson of Noah?

Abraham and the Ka’bah

            According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:

“…there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.”

-Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62.

What you brought did not prove that Abraham and Ishmael were never been to Mecca, did it?

The name of Abraham's father was not Azar, as the Koran states in Sura 6:74, but Terah (Genesis 11:26).

How do you know that Quran meant that Azar was Abraham’s biological father? On the other hand, in Quran sometimes the word “Ab” is also used for uncle. It is not always used for the father.

The Koran further teaches that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8,9), whereas Moses himself said he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10).

Quran says that Pharaoh's family took Moses (as) from water and his wife told him to not kill Moses (as) and adopt him as their child. What Quran says makes sense because Pharaoh used to kill every male infant and nothing would change his mind unless at least Pharaoh (himself) could benefit from it. He wouldn’t leave the baby alive only because his daughter wanted so. His wife, however, was the only one who could effectively influence Pharaoh from one side (because of being his wife) and convince Pharaoh to adopt the child for himself and stop killing him from the other side.

In several places the Koran associates Haman with a Pharaoh of Moses' time (Sura 28:6-7, 38; 40:24, 36), but from the Bible book of Esther (3:1-10), we know that Haman was a servant of Ahasuerus I, the 5th century BC Medo-Persian king (known to us all as Xerxes) who lost the battle of Marathon. So Haman was really born a thousand years afterMoses!

How do you know the name Haman mentioned in the Quran is the same person mentioned in the Old Testament?  

In Sura 20:85-88, 95, we are told that it was a Samaritan that deceived the Israelites into making the golden calf after the exodus out of <st1:country-region>Egypt</st1:country-region>.  However, there was no such thing as a Samaritan until the city of Samaria was founded several centuries after the events in Exodus, and the separate people called Samaritans (the implied definition in the Koran) did not exist until even later when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  This is yet another embarrassing time compression found in the Koran.

What a superficial judgment.  In the Quran it is written that the name of the person was Samiri. Where does it say he was Samaritan? This was the name and does not prove that the person must have been Samaritan. In fact he was among the same society (Bani Israel).

Let me tell you what is embarrassing. In the Old Testament it is written that Haroon (as) was the one who made the Golden Calf for them, while we know that he was a prophet. What a ridiculous shameful accusation against the prophet of God it is. Even this single nonsensical accusation against a prophet is enough to convince me that the Old Testament is corrupted. Even if it is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If Dead Sea Scrolls are claming the same on this issue, be sure that they are all corrupted as well. Such a corruption falls in the same line of attempts in history to degrade the prophets.

  In Sura 19:7 we read:

 “(It was said unto him): O Zachariah!  Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).”

            -Sura 19:7

 This translation (by an orthodox Muslim) and other translations quite clearly state that there was no one named John before John the Baptist. In reality, this claim is absolutely silly!  There were Johns long before John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, King John Hyrcanus, John the Essene, John Maccabeus, etc.).  Modern Muslims have seen the obvious historical error, and so they have tried to say that the Arabic text doesn’t actually say what it says. 

The son of Zachariah was named “Yahya” and the Quran says that there was no one named “Yahya” before. The silly thing is that someone has changed/translated the name “Yahya” to “John the Baptist” and then we see arguments that there had been the name "John" before the son of Zachariah. May be there had been “John” or “Yochanan” or any name before the son of Zachariah. But the name “Yahya” never was on any individual before him.

 In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph. 

It is not mentioned in the Quran that Mary is the sister of Moses (as) not even Haroon (as). Thus, do not add anything to the Quran please. In Quran the verse says that her society called her “O, Sister of Haroon”. This is the way her society called her at that moment and the Quran is reporting it. It does not prove the Quran stating that Mary must have been the sister of the prophet Haroon (as), does it?


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 03 February 2009 at 9:55am
I have read from a Jewish theologian that the reason Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah is that when the Messiah comes "Peace shall reign on earth." And that did not happen.
 
Jesus came to correct the people who had gone astray. Of course some rejected this message because who wants to be told they are doing wrong.. lol
 
Jewish folks, like Muslim folk, reject that Jesus was the "son of God" that is so ingrained in Christianity these days.  But at the time the coming of the Messiah shall signal many things and did not happen.  Then some rejected cause they did not "like the message" of being told to clean up their acts..lol
 
Nur, Are you getting the words "prophet" and "messiah" mixed up? Heck I get all this stuff mixed up.. lol.. I have never heard Prophet Mohammed be called a Messiah before your post.
   


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 6:05pm
"In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph.  It is not mentioned in
 
the Quran that Mary is the sister of Moses (as) not even Haroon (as). Thus, do not add anything to the Quran please. In Quran the verse says that her society called her “O, Sister of Haroon”. This is the way her society called her at that moment and the Quran is reporting it. It does not prove the Quran stating that Mary must have been the sister of the prophet Haroon (as), does it?"
 
Mary was from the tribe of Aaron, that is why she was called thus. I believe Biblically this is also correct, therefore making it pretty much impossible for Jesus to be the seed of David. But I digress....


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Honzo
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:44pm
Originally posted by OneWay

member_profile.asp?PF=59082&FID=10 -           The Koran claims that it was written by the perfect, immutable God who created the universe and knows all things.  On the contrary, the Koran has a number of historical, theological, and other errors that contradict reality.  

 

 In the Koran, Abraham lived in a land ruled by King Nimrod.  In the story (Sura 21:58-69), Abraham destroys the idols of his people, and as a result, is thrown into a fire by Nimrod.  However, Nimrod (Sargon I?) was the great grandson of Noah and the founder of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-11), but Abraham was nine generations separated from Noah (Genesis 11:10-27) and came from Ur of the Chaldees.  How could Nimrod (a man who had been dead for many years) throw Abraham (a man who had not even been born yet) into a fire?!  Of course, the error stems from the fact that Muhammad got this story from a Jewish legend (i.e. Midrash Rabbah) rather than a revelation from God.

 


 Difference between the Quran and Bible only prove Islam's truthfulness and divinity:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm -  

 
Originally posted by OneWay

 
 Abraham and the Ka’bah

 

            According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:

 

“…there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.”

-Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62..

 

  Ka'bah as a place of worship in the history:
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html -  
  Ka'bah in the Bible:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm -  
Originally posted by OneWay

The name of Abraham's father was not Azar, as the Koran states in
Sura 6:74, but Terah (Genesis 11:26). The Koran further teaches that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8,9), whereas Moses himself said he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10)
 
 
 Difference between the Quran and Bible only prove Islam's truthfulness and divinity:
  http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm -  
Originally posted by OneWay

In several places the Koran associates Haman with a Pharaoh of
Moses' time (Sura 28:6-7, 38; 40:24, 36), but from the Bible book of Esther (3:1-10), we know that Haman was a servant of Ahasuerus I, the 5th century BC Medo-Persian king (known to us all as Xerxes) who lost the battle of Marathon. So Haman was really born a thousand years afterMoses!
 
 
 Is the Qur'anic account of Haman appropriated from the Hebrew Bible and Jewish mythology? A critical examination of the Biblical account coupled with an investigation into the ancient Egyptian historical records, paying special attention to the hieroglyphic evidence, concludes with a re-evaluation against Orientalist suppositions in favour of the Qur'an.
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html#1 -  
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 20:85-88, 95, we are told that it was a Samaritan that deceived the Israelites into making the golden calf after the exodus out of Egypt.  However, there was no such thing as a Samaritan until the city of Samaria was founded several centuries after the events in Exodus, and the separate people called Samaritans (the implied definition in the Koran) did not exist until even later when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  This is yet another embarrassing time compression found in the Koran.
 
 
 Who are the Samaritans and what does recent historical analyses and scientific investigation into their origins tell us about their role in ancient history? Is the Qur'anic mention of al-Samiri (sometimes translated as "the Samaritan") during the time of Moses consistent with modern investigations into the ancestral origins of the Samaritan sect? A critical discussion of the evidence provided by II Kings 17 in light of the extant archaeological evidence calls into question the veracity of the biblical account.
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html -  
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 19:7 we read:

 “(It was said unto him): O Zachariah!  Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).”

            -Sura 19:7

 

This translation (by an orthodox Muslim) and other translations quite clearly state that there was no one named John before John the Baptist. In reality, this claim is absolutely silly!  There were Johns long before John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, King John Hyrcanus, John the Essene, John Maccabeus, etc.).  Modern Muslims have seen the obvious historical error, and so they have tried to say that the Arabic text doesn’t actually say what it says.




  
 
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html -  
Originally posted by OneWay

In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph.
 
 
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html -   
Originally posted by OneWay

Why did Mohammed mistakenly think  that Mary was the third member of the Christian trinity.  The third member is The Holy Spirit, not Marry.
 
 
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html - Mary & Tri-unity
 
Originally posted by OneWay

(The Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the theory the old Testament has been changed)
 
 OneWay point outs “Errors” from the Quran but haven’t even solved 20% of the errors found in the Bible at http://www.1001errors.com/ - - www.1001errors.com .


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


Excellent Response


-------------
The femininity of the crescent, the masculinity of the cross. (Max Ernst, Men shall know nothing of this.)


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 06 February 2009 at 11:09pm
Mary was from the tribe of Aaron, that is why she was called thus. I believe Biblically this is also correct, therefore making it pretty much impossible for Jesus to be the seed of David. But I digress....

This may be why her society called her so. Of course there must have been a reason for it. I have also read that Bani Israel used to make a form of connection between a person and one of thier prophets at the time of calling the name of that person to show and highlight thier respect (that they already had)  towards that person. But regardless of its reason, I wanted to point out that it can never show there is a time mistake or error in Quran.


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 12 February 2009 at 1:40am
Originally posted by myahya

Mary was from the tribe of Aaron, that is why she was called thus. I believe Biblically this is also correct, therefore making it pretty much impossible for Jesus to be the seed of David. But I digress....

This may be why her society called her so. Of course there must have been a reason for it. I have also read that Bani Israel used to make a form of connection between a person and one of thier prophets at the time of calling the name of that person to show and highlight thier respect (that they already had)  towards that person. But regardless of its reason, I wanted to point out that it can never show there is a time mistake or error in Quran.
 

Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."READ Matthew. 1:1-16; Luke 1:32



Posted By: owen.grandison
Date Posted: 07 March 2009 at 6:55am
Everybody has heard of osiris and horus, which is the greek terminology of the correct name Asaru and Haru.  They both sit in the seat of Re which is similar to the seat of Anu.  Asaru is the right eye and his son Haru is the left eye, now Asaru was the most high until his son becomes old and wise enough to sit in that position that his father was in so the Haru becomes the most high.  You see you must always remember that the seat of Re is just that, a seat so somebody who is ready can occupy that position, just like for example the presidency of the U.S.A.

Asaru and Haru are not from this planet Asar and Haru are from Sirius but they incarnated here on earth and became the highest beings on Ptah (earth) they were the terrestrial representation of Re (Anu) so they decided to teach the Ptahites who are Tamareans (Ancient Africans) Tamare is an older name of Egypt.  Since they were teaching the Ptahites they created the earthly Order of Re, so basically they were representing Anu (the heavenly one) but the ancient tamareans say Re.  Remember Anu also is a title and a seat the Anu we are talking about now is the ninth Anu.

So Asaru and Haru brought that practice down to earth and created the order so the Ptahites could gain and grow more knowledge by living in the image and likeness of Re (Anu).  The people that was in the order were also known as the people of the sun, because the sun is the all seeing eye it sees all dimensions and Asaru represents the all seeing eye because he created that order on earth and he realised that the sun is the life giver.  Everything natural grows towards the sun; the sun is the source of all life.

Pygmies are Ptahites Pygmy is a teerm given to the Ptahites by the Europeans because they wer short, Pigmy is a mocking term.  Ptah is another name for earth.  So because Asaru and Haru taught and became close to them they were also known as Ptahites, because they were ruling Ptah, which means earth, and they became known as Ptahite kings.

Osiris comes from the Sirius Star Copnstellation you can see it in the Greek terminology of the correct name Asaru.  Now it has become common knowledge (i hope) that the jesus story comes from out of Egypt.  Look at this simple example below:

Asaru   HEAVENLY FATHER

Haru     THE SON

Aset     THE MOTHER

Khonsu  THE HOLY GHOST

THIS IS TAKING YOU BACK TO EGYPT THE ORIGINAL QUADITY, AND THE CHURCHES ONLY RESPECT THE TRINITY NOT GIVING REVERENCE TO THE WOMAN, JESUS HAS TOM COME THROUGH A WOMAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS MISSION.




Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 3:54am
assalam alaikum
 
this is from encata online 

Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person.

The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ (see http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562497/Christology.html - Christology ). In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated; using terminology still employed by Christian theologians, the doctrine taught the coequality of the persons of the Godhead. In the West, the 4th-century theologian St. Augustine's influential work De Trinitate (On the Trinity, 400-16) compared the three-in-oneness of God with analogous structures in the human mind and suggested that the Holy Spirit may be understood as the mutual love between Father and Son (although this second point seems difficult to reconcile with the belief that the Spirit is a distinct, coequal member of the Trinity). The stress on equality, however, was never understood as detracting from a certain primacy of the Father—from whom the other two persons derive, even if they do so eternally. For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.

The doctrine of the Trinity may be understood on different levels. On one level, it is a means of construing the word God in Christian discourse. God is not a uniquely Christian word, and it needs specific definition in Christian theology. This need for a specifically Christian definition is already apparent in the New Testament, where Paul says, “there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'—yet for us there is one God, the Father ..., and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). These words constitute the beginning of a process of clarification and definition, of which the end product is the doctrine of the Trinity. At another level, the doctrine may be seen as a transcript of Christian experience: The God of the Hebrew tradition had become known in a new way, first in the person of Christ, and then in the Spirit that moved in the church. On a third, speculative level of understanding, the doctrine reveals the dynamism of the Christian conception of God—involving notions of a source, a coming forth, and a return (primordial, expressive, and unitive Being). In this sense, the Christian doctrine has parallels both in philosophy (the 19th-century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Absolute) and in other religions (the Trimurti of Hinduism).

    

Trimurti, in Hinduism, the divine trinity of the great gods Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. Brahma is seen as the originator of the cosmos, Vishnu as its preserver, and Shiva as its destroyer.

peace
leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: PattyaMainer
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 4:22am

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian religion -- the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm - truth that in the unity of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Godhead there are Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons , the Father, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit , these Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm - Athanasian Creed : "the Father is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , and yet there are not three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Gods but one http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God ." In this Trinity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son is begotten of the Father by an http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm - eternal generation, and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit proceeds by an http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm - eternal procession from the Father and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son . Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm - omnipotent . This, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church teaches, is the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation regarding http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm - God's nature which http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son of God , came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - man as the foundation of her whole http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm - dogmatic system.

In http://www.newadvent.org/bible - Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm - Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God [the Father], His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm - Word and His Wisdom ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm - To Autolycus II.15 ). The term may, of course, have been in use before his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm - time . Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm - Tertullian ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm - On Pudicity 21 ). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm - Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04478a.htm - creed in which it appears is that of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm - Origen's pupil, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07015a.htm - Gregory Thaumaturgus . In his http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0601.htm - Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm - created , nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , nor the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son without the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit : and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm - dogma so http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm - mysterious presupposes a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - Divine revelation . When the fact of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation , understood in its full sense as the speech of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - man , is no longer admitted, the rejection of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine follows as a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm - necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm - Liberal http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm - Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church , is not contained in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testament , but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm - Arian and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm - Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm - necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by http://www.newadvent.org/bible - Holy Scripture . Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12738a.htm - religion to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

Proof of doctrine from Scripture

New Testament

The evidence from the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm - Gospels culminates in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm - baptismal commission of http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs20 - Matthew 28:20 . It is manifest from the narratives of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm - Evangelists that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ only made the great http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm - truth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - known to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Twelve step by step.

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Eternal Son of God . When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit , in His place. Finally after His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm - resurrection , He revealed the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm - baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , and of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Ghost " ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs18 - Matthew 28:18 ). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - "the Son" are distinct http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person co-ordinate with the Father and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , and excludes altogether the supposition that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles understood the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit not as a distinct http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person , but as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Godhead of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons and their unity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - nature . Among the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm - Jews and in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm - Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God . He who had a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm - right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm - supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons are that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - One Omnipotent God in whom the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - believed . Indeed the unity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm - Hebrew and of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian religion , and is affirmed in such countless passages of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testaments , that any explanation inconsistent with this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm - supernatural appearance at the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm - baptism of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ is often cited as an explicit http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation of Trinitarian http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine , given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm - Evangelists , it is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm - true , see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons . Yet, apart from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ's subsequent teaching, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm - dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Mystic Dove , and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messias .

Besides these passages there are many others in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm - Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons in particular and clearly express the separate http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person it will not be http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm - necessary to give special citations: those which declare that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - God the Son , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01179a.htm - affirm thereby also the separate http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality of the Father. The Divinity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm - Synoptists . As this point is treated elsewhere (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ ), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm - Synoptists , in which http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ bears http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm - witness to His Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - nature .

  • He declares that He will come to be the judge of all http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - men ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat025.htm#vrs31 - Matthew 25:31 ). In http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm - Jewish http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm - theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messianic , prerogative.
  • In the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11460a.htm - parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm - Prophets , one and all, are represented as the servants ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat021.htm#vrs33 - Matthew 21:33 sqq. ).
  • He is the Lord of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm - Angels , who execute His command ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat024.htm#vrs24 - Matthew 24:31 ).
  • He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messias -- a step long since taken by all the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles -- but explicitly as the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son of God : and He declares the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - knowledge due to a special http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation from the Father ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#vrs16 - Matthew 16:16-17 ).
  • Finally, before http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03143b.htm - Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messias , but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son of God . He is instantly declared by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12407b.htm - high priest to be guilty of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm - blasphemy , an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messias ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm#vrs66 - Luke 22:66-71 ).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm - St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm - Synoptists . He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh020.htm#vrs31 - John 20:31 ). In the prologue he identifies Him with the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm - Word , the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm - eternity exists with http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , Who is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh001.htm#vrs1 - John 1:1-18 ). The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm - immanence of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son in the Father and of the Father in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son is declared in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - believe , that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs10 - 14:10 ), and in other passages no less explicit ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs7 - 14:7 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs15 - 16:15 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh017.htm#vrs21 - 17:21 ). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son also does in like manner" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh005.htm#vrs19 - 5:19 , cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh010.htm#vrs38 - 10:38 ); and to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son no less than to the Father belongs the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm - Divine attribute of conferring http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm - life on whom He will ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh005.htm#vrs21 - 5:21 ). In http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh010.htm#vrs29 - 10:29 , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ expressly teaches His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm - unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son as by the Father.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm - Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs28 - 14:28 ). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son declares His dependence on the Father ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh005.htm#vrs19 - 5:19 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh008.htm#vrs28 - 8:28 ). In point of fact the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm - Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - nature , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son should be less than the Father. No argument against http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm - dogma , namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm - Divine Nature and perfections flow to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son . (On the essential difference between http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm - St. John's http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine as to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm - Logos http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm - Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm - LOGOS .)

In regard to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Third Person of the Blessed Trinity , the passages which can be cited from the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm - Synoptists as attesting His distinct http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality are few. The words of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06330a.htm - Gabriel ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk001.htm#vrs35 - Luke 1:35 ), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old Testament , to signify http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine . For the same reason it is dubious whether http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ's warning to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm - Pharisees as regards http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm - blasphemy against the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat012.htm#vrs31 - Matthew 12:31 ) can be brought forward as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm - proof . But in http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk012.htm#vrs12 - Luke 12:12 , "The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat010.htm#vrs20 - Matthew 10:20 , and http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk024.htm#vrs49 - Luke 24:49 ), His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs19 - Matthew 28:19 , postulate the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm - existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm - 14 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh015.htm - 15 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm - 16 ). We have in these chapters the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm - necessary preparation for the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm - baptismal commission. In them the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles are instructed not only as the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit , but as to His office towards the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church . His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs13 - 16:13 ) to bring back their http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm - minds the teaching of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs26 - 14:26 ), to convince the world of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm - sin ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs8 - 16:8 ). It is evident that, were the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit not a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs16 - 14:16 ). Again, were He not a Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person it could not have been expedient for the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ should leave them, and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11469a.htm - Paraclete take His place ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs7 - 16:7 ). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit from the Father and from the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh015.htm#vrs26 - 15:26 ; cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs16 - 14:16 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs26 - 14:26 ). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs17 - 14:17-18 ), while the presence of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son is the presence of the Father ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm#vrs23 - 14:23 ).

In the remaining http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - belief of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm - Apostolic Church in the three Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons . In certain texts the coordination of Father, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit leaves no possible http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm - doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co013.htm#vrs13 - 2 Corinthians 13:13 , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm - St. Paul writes: "The grace of our http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Lord Jesus Christ , and the charity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , and the communication of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostle is speaking of three distinct http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons . Moreover, since the names http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person . So also, in http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#vrs4 - 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 : "There are diversities of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm - graces , but the same http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit ; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , who worketh all [of them] in all [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons ]." (Cf. also http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eph004.htm#vrs4 - Ephesians 4:4-6 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1pe001.htm#vrs2 - 1 Peter 1:2-3 )

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons , the teaching of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testament regarding http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm - Doxology in reference to Him. The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm - Doxology , "To Him be http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm - glory for ever and ever" (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1ch016.htm#vrs38 - 1 Chronicles 16:38 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1ch029.htm#vrs11 - 29:11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa103.htm#vrs31 - Psalm 103:31 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa028.htm#vrs2 - 28:2 ), is an expression of praise offered to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God alone. In the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testament we find it addressed not alone to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God the Father , but to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus Christ ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti004.htm#vrs18 - 2 Timothy 4:18 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs18 - 2 Peter 3:18 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev001.htm#vrs6 - Revelation 1:6 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb013.htm#vrs20 - Hebrews 13:20-21 ), and to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God the Father and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ in conjunction ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev005.htm#vrs13 - Revelations 5:13 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev007.htm#vrs10 - 7:10 ).

Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07176a.htm - Hebrew http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01146a.htm - Adonai , just as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God (Theos) represents http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm - Elohim . The two are equally Divine names (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co008.htm#vrs4 - 1 Corinthians 8:4 ). In the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God the Father , and Kyrios of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son (see, for example, http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#vrs5 - 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 ); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co003.htm#vrs5 - 1 Corinthians 3:5 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htm#vrs17 - 7:17 ) or Theos of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ . The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles from time to time apply to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ passages of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co010.htm#vrs9 - 1 Corinthians 10:9 ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/num021.htm#vrs7 - Numbers 21:7 ), http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb001.htm#vrs10 - Hebrews 1:10-12 ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa101.htm#vrs26 - Psalm 101:26-28 ); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act009.htm#vrs31 - Acts 9:31 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co005.htm#vrs11 - 2 Corinthians 5:11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eph005.htm#vrs21 - Ephesians 5:21 ), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God the Father and of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act002.htm#vrs21 - Acts 2:21 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act009.htm#vrs14 - 9:14 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom010.htm#vrs13 - Romans 10:13 ). The profession that " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom010.htm#vrs9 - Romans 10:9 ; Kyrios Iesous, http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#vrs3 - 1 Corinthians 12:3 ) is the acknowledgment of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm - St. Paul affirms that in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ dwells the plenitude of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Godhead ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm#vrs9 - Colossians 2:9 ), that before His http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm - Incarnation He possessed the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm - essential nature of God ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/phi002.htm#vrs6 - Philippians 2:6 ), that He "is over all things, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm - blessed for ever" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom009.htm#vrs5 - Romans 9:5 ) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05509a.htm - Epistles .

The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine as to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church's http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10326a.htm - ministers : "As they were ministering to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Lord and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05789c.htm - fasting , the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm - Saul and Barnabas . . ." ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act013.htm#vrs2 - Acts 13:2 ). He directs the missionary journey of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles : "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act016.htm#vrs7 - Acts 16:7 ; cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act005.htm#vrs3 - Acts 5:3 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28 - 15:28 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom015.htm#vrs30 - Romans 15:30 ). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm - Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.

  • He possesses omniscience and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - reveals to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm - mysteries http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - known only to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co002.htm#vrs10 - 1 Corinthians 2:10 );
  • it is He who distributes http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm - charismata ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#vrs11 - 1 Corinthians 12:11 );
  • He is the giver of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm - supernatural life ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co003.htm#vrs8 - 2 Corinthians 3:8 );
  • He dwells in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church and in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm - souls of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm - individual men, as in His temple ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom008.htm#vrs9 - Romans 8:9-11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co003.htm#vrs16 - 1 Corinthians 3:16 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co006.htm#vrs19 - 6:19 ).
  • The work of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm - justification and sanctification is attributed to Him ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co006.htm#vrs11 - 1 Corinthians 6:11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom015.htm#vrs16 - Romans 15:16 ), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Christ ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co001.htm#vrs2 - 1 Corinthians 1:2 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gal002.htm#vrs17 - Galatians 2:17 ).

To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine are all expressly taught in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm - New Testament . The Divinity of the Three http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm - essence is not merely postulated by the strict http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm - monotheism of men nurtured in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm - religion of Israel , to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm - baptismal commission of http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs19 - Matthew 28:19 , and, in regard to the Father and the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son , expressly asserted in http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh010.htm#vrs38 - John 10:38 . That the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit from the Father http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm - and Son is taught in the discourse of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm - Lord reported by St. John ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh014.htm - 14-17 ) (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - HOLY GHOST ).

Old Testament

The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - believed that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm - Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - known even to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11548a.htm - Patriarchs . They regarded it as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm - certain that the Divine messenger of http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen016.htm#vrs7 - Genesis 16:7 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen016.htm#vrs18 - 16:18 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen021.htm#vrs17 - 21:17 , http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen031.htm#vrs11 - 31:11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo003.htm#vrs2 - Exodus 3:2 , was http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - God the Son ; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm - Justin , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm - Dialogue with Trypho 60 ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - Irenaeus , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103420.htm - Against Heresies IV.20.7-11 ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm - Tertullian , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm - Against Praxeas 15-16 ; Theophilus, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm - To Autolycus II.22 ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm - Novatian , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm - On the Trinity 18, 25, etc. ). They held that, when the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm - inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - Irenaeus , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103230.htm - Against Heresies II.30.9 ; Theophilus, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm - To Autolycus II.15 ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm - Hippolytus , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm - Against Noetus 10 ) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm - St. Paul , of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb001.htm#vrs3 - Hebrews 1:3 ; cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis007.htm#vrs25 - Wisdom 7:25-26 ), but of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Holy Spirit . But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm - Gregory Nazianzen , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htm - Fifth Theological Oration 31 ; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm - Against Eunomius II.22 ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592b.htm - Cyril of Alexandria , "In Joan.", xii, 20.)

Some of these, however, admitted that a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - knowledge of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm - mystery was granted to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm - Prophets and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm - saints of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592b.htm - Cyril of Alexandria , "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation in some of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm - prophecies . The names http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05404a.htm - Emmanuel ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa007.htm#vrs14 - Isaiah 7:14 ) and God the Mighty ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa009.htm#vrs6 - Isaiah 9:6 ) affirmed of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Messias make mention of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm - Jews to recognize that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm - Saviour to come was to be none other than http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God Himself. The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm - Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm - angel of great counsel."

A still higher stage of preparation is found in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In http://www.newadvent.org/bible/pro008.htm - Proverbs 8 , Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm - mind a real http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/pro008.htm#vrs22 - verses 22, 23 ). Similar teaching occurs in http://www.newadvent.org/bible/sir024.htm - Ecclesiasticus 24 , in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm - Angels . This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person . The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - nature of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - personality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , but that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm - Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/sir024.htm#vrs8 - Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13 ).

In the http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis000.htm - Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm - Jehovah : "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm - glory of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - almighty God . . .the brightness of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm - eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God's majesty, and the image of his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm - goodness " ( http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis007.htm#vrs25 - Wisdom 7:25-26 . Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb001.htm#vrs3 - Hebrews 1:3 ). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm - creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm - Judaism this exalted http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm - doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - knowledge of a second http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - personality in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Godhead , constitutes a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm - revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm - Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person . Mention is often made of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit of the Lord , but there is nothing to show that the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God considered in His working, whether in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm - universe or in the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm - soul of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - man . The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - Godhead is above all declared by http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10596a.htm - Moses , and the twofold http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm - personality (of Father and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son ) is strenuously asserted by the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm - Prophets . The Trinity is made http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).



-------------
"FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY."


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 11:43pm

 

http://answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm - Answering John 1:1

 The biggest trinitarian-lie in mistranslation!

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NiceaTrinity - Exposing the false trinity - A youtube channel by brother Brahim.  

The Trinity Audio Debate!

( http://answering-christianity.com/sami_trinity_debate_2.mp3 - click here )

Listen to brother Sami Zaatari destroy Sam Shamoun's arguments!

WARNING!!  Sam Shamoun kept throwing foul insults!  Viewer's discretion is advised.

Another Trinity Audio Debate!

( http://answering-christianity.com/sami_trinity_debate_1.mp3 - click here )

Listen to brother Sami Zaatari debate a Christian preacher!

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rattler_gone_mad.htm - foul insults!

The Shamoun-Winn Trinity Debate!

pulsar.gif%20%282171%20bytes%29 http://answering-christianity.com/shamoun-winn_trinity_debate.htm - Sam Shamoun VS Craig Winn on what trinity really means! pulsar.gif%20%282171%20bytes%29

See how the two trinitarian-stooges proved that trinity is no more than a big lie!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/early_christians.htm - The early Christians rejected Trinity.   Early Christians had major problems and disagreements about who truly Jesus was and whether or not he got crucified or not.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_had_no_will.htm - Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New Testament. How could he be our Creator?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity.htm - Answering Trinity- A full proof from the Bible that Jesus is not GOD.

http://answering-christianity.com/umar_hassan/trinity.htm - The Hidden Truth: Trinity.

 


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 11 April 2009 at 7:37am
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 

http://answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm - Answering John 1:1

 The biggest trinitarian-lie in mistranslation!

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NiceaTrinity - Exposing the false trinity - A youtube channel by brother Brahim.  

The Trinity Audio Debate!

( http://answering-christianity.com/sami_trinity_debate_2.mp3 - click here )

Listen to brother Sami Zaatari destroy Sam Shamoun's arguments!

WARNING!!  Sam Shamoun kept throwing foul insults!  Viewer's discretion is advised.

Another Trinity Audio Debate!

( http://answering-christianity.com/sami_trinity_debate_1.mp3 - click here )

Listen to brother Sami Zaatari debate a Christian preacher!

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rattler_gone_mad.htm - Debate review with Christian preacher: preacher goes mad!   Warning the preacher gave many foul insults!

The Shamoun-Winn Trinity Debate!

pulsar.gif%20%282171%20bytes%29 http://answering-christianity.com/shamoun-winn_trinity_debate.htm - Sam Shamoun VS Craig Winn on what trinity really means! pulsar.gif%20%282171%20bytes%29

See how the two trinitarian-stooges proved that trinity is no more than a big lie!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/early_christians.htm - The early Christians rejected Trinity.   Early Christians had major problems and disagreements about who truly Jesus was and whether or not he got crucified or not.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_had_no_will.htm - Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New Testament. How could he be our Creator?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity.htm - Answering Trinity- A full proof from the Bible that Jesus is not GOD.

http://answering-christianity.com/umar_hassan/trinity.htm - The Hidden Truth: Trinity.

 
 
So it is well established that Jesus etc. worshiped only ONE God; who was this God according to the Prophet Jesus?
 

GOD’S NAME MADE KNOWN!

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION

[YHWH] = added for understanding.

 

God the father Said:

Exo. 9:13, 16  “Then the LORD (Heb. YHWH)  said to Moses … 16  But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”

 

Rom 9:17  “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name [YHWH] might be proclaimed in all the earth."

 

Ezk. 36:23  “And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD (Heb. YHWH), declares the Lord GOD (YHWH), when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.”

 

Ezk. 39:7  "And my holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not let my holy name be profaned anymore.  And the nations shall know that I am the LORD (Heb. YHWH), the Holy One in Israel.”

 

Mal 1:11  “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD (Heb. YHWH) of hosts.”

 

Mal 1:14  “Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord (Heb. YHWH) what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD (Heb. YHWH) of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.”

 

Jesus said:-

John 17:6  "I have manifested* your name [YHWH]  to the people whom you gave me out of the world. …”  

*“manifest  —adj. clear or obvious to the eye or mind. —v. 1 show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts etc. 2 show plainly to the eye or mind. 3 be evidence of; prove. 4 refl. (of a thing) reveal itself. 5 (of a ghost) appear. —n. cargo or passenger list.  manifestation n. manifestly adv. [Latin manifestus]”-Oxford Dictionary

 

John 17:11-12  “… Holy Father, keep them in your name [YHWH], which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.   12  While I was with them, I kept them in your name [YHWH], which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

 

John 17:26  I made known* to them your name [YHWH], and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

 

John 12:28  Father, glorify your name [YHWH]."

The Father then said.  “Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it [YHWH], and I will glorify it [YHWH] again."”

 

Strong's Gk. No. 2424 Iesous {ee-ay-sooce'}  of Hebrew origin 03091; TDNT - 3:284,360; n pr m.  AV - Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1; 975 Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation" …”

 

"Jehovah  ...  the Lord God.  XVI   (Tindale, Exod. vi 3, 1530).  alt. of the sacred Tetragrammaton vuvh JHVH of the Hebrews, the ineffable name of the Almighty, produced by the insertion of the vowel - points repr. the vowels ' (a), o, a of Adonai as a direction to substitute this for the ineffable name (as is done by Jerome in Exod. vi 3). It is held that the orig. name was Jahve(h), Yahwe(h)."-The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.'

 

Where the phrase "in the name of The LORD (Heb. YHWH. Latin JHVH)" (O.T.) appears in the King James Version (& others) of the Bible (See Psalm 83:18).

 

                                O.T.

Duet 18:5; 18:7; 18:22; 21:5

1 Sam 17:45; 20:42

2 Sam 6:18

1 Kings 18:32; 22:16

2 Kings 2:24

1 Chron 16:2; 21:19

2 Chron 18:15; 33:18

Ps 118:10; 118:11; 118:12; 118:26; 124:8; 129:8

Isa 50:10

Jer 11:21; 26:9; 26:16; 26:20;  44:16

Mic 4:5:    

Zeph 3:12;   
Zec 13:3

 

The questions are:

 
1. What is "the name of the Lord" in the O.T. and then in the N.T.?
 
2. WHY HAS That "name" been LEFT OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES?

 

E.S.V. Deut. 12:32

"Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do.  You shall not add to it or take from it.”

 

E.S.V. Rev 22:18-19

I WARN everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (Gk. “bibiou”): if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (Gk. “biblio”),  and if anyone takes away from the words of the book (Gk.”bibliou”)of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (Gk. “biblio”).”



Print Page | Close Window