Print Page | Close Window

Challenge to Trinitarians.

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=13263
Printed Date: 16 September 2014 at 6:35pm


Topic: Challenge to Trinitarians.
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Subject: Challenge to Trinitarians.
Date Posted: 28 September 2008 at 8:36am

 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God




Replies:
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 3:25pm

 I think no body is interested to accept my challenge?



Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 02 October 2008 at 10:33am
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 I think no body is interested to accept my challenge?

where's a 10 year old kid when you need one, LOLLOL.

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


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 05 October 2008 at 5:15pm

 

Let us look at the following verses from the Bible:

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 4:8-10)"

There are some logical problems with the trinitarian in these verses:

1-  Notice how satan told Jesus "if you will bow down and worship me."  It is crystal clear that satan knew Jesus as a Messenger from GOD Almighty, and not GOD Almighty Himself.  Otherwise, he wouldn't dare to tell his Creator that.

2-  Notice Jesus' response to satan: "Away from me satan! For it is written 'Worship the LORD your God, and serve Him only".   Jesus here was clearly directing satan to GOD Almighty; a being other than Jesus.   Jesus did not tell satan "worship me".




Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 06 October 2008 at 4:00am
Asalam Alaikum,
 
You do realize this has been "debated" so often on this board that for most of us its like, oh not again.. lol Smile
 
The Christians on here I respect alot. Some have been here along time. And you know, they hold their views.. and I respect them cause they are nice and actually care about things. I wish we could all worry more about the people who have run amock-- wasting their lives away.
 
Really search down and read the old threads. Its been on about  a dozen times if not more.
 
Nothing personal...
 
Hayfa 


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


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 25 October 2008 at 7:37am
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God

 
NON ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!
 
PASSAGES CAN BE MISINTREPTED TO SAY THE ABOVE BUT OTHERS TEXTS SOON SHOW WHAT A FALSE IDEA THE TRINITY IS!


Posted By: Daley
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 2:25pm
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God



I accept your challenge. This is the verse where Jesus claimed, or rather, admitted that he was God.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believe." (John 20:28-29)

Thomas called Jesus ho karious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord  OF ME and the God OF ME. So Thomas was calling Jesus his God, and  Jesus blessed Thomas' profession of faith. He acknowledges Thomas' belief, and says that those who don't see and yet believe this are likewise blessed. So Jesus was expressing approval of what Thomas said.

If Jesus was not God, then what Thomas said here was blasphemy, and Jesus would have rebuked him for it, but he didn't, he agreed with Thomas. What's more, the texts says that Thomas said "to him," that is, to Jesus. He didn't call Jesus "my Lord," then look up to heaven and call the Father "my God," no, Thomas said "to him," to Jesus, "my Lord and my God," so both terms are applied to Jesus. Jesus is therefore, not only the Lord, but also the God of Thomas.

There are other places where Jesus claimed to be God, but I'll await a response to this first. I'd really like it if you could email on me email address at daleyveneita@live.com. But if you want others on this site to benefit from the discussion, so be it, post here. Thanks.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 8:54am
Originally posted by Daley

Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God



I accept your challenge. This is the verse where Jesus claimed, or rather, admitted that he was God.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believe." (John 20:28-29)

Thomas called Jesus ho karious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord  OF ME and the God OF ME. So Thomas was calling Jesus his God, and  Jesus blessed Thomas' profession of faith. He acknowledges Thomas' belief, and says that those who don't see and yet believe this are likewise blessed. So Jesus was expressing approval of what Thomas said.

If Jesus was not God, then what Thomas said here was blasphemy, and Jesus would have rebuked him for it, but he didn't, he agreed with Thomas. What's more, the texts says that Thomas said "to him," that is, to Jesus. He didn't call Jesus "my Lord," then look up to heaven and call the Father "my God," no, Thomas said "to him," to Jesus, "my Lord and my God," so both terms are applied to Jesus. Jesus is therefore, not only the Lord, but also the God of Thomas.

There are other places where Jesus claimed to be God, but I'll await a response to this first. I'd really like it if you could email on me email address at daleyveneita@live.com. But if you want others on this site to benefit from the discussion, so be it, post here. Thanks.
All added much later...we don't really know what the original New Testament contained.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 2:43pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Daley

Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God



I accept your challenge. This is the verse where Jesus claimed, or rather, admitted that he was God.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believe." (John 20:28-29)

Thomas called Jesus ho karious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord  OF ME and the God OF ME. So Thomas was calling Jesus his God, and  Jesus blessed Thomas' profession of faith. He acknowledges Thomas' belief, and says that those who don't see and yet believe this are likewise blessed. So Jesus was expressing approval of what Thomas said.

If Jesus was not God, then what Thomas said here was blasphemy, and Jesus would have rebuked him for it, but he didn't, he agreed with Thomas. What's more, the texts says that Thomas said "to him," that is, to Jesus. He didn't call Jesus "my Lord," then look up to heaven and call the Father "my God," no, Thomas said "to him," to Jesus, "my Lord and my God," so both terms are applied to Jesus. Jesus is therefore, not only the Lord, but also the God of Thomas.

There are other places where Jesus claimed to be God, but I'll await a response to this first. I'd really like it if you could email on me email address at daleyveneita@live.com. But if you want others on this site to benefit from the discussion, so be it, post here. Thanks.


Daley, you only answered one of the three challenges.  I agree that the Bible does refer to Jesus (pbuh) as God in some places, but it also refers to him as human in others as well.  It never explains these inconsistencies by saying that he was "fully human and fully divine", which is the third challenge that brother Mansoor Ali stated.  You didn't answer challenges 2 and 3.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Daley
Date Posted: 25 December 2012 at 2:36pm

[/QUOTE]
All added much later...we don't really know what the original New Testament contained.[/QUOTE]

John 20:28-29 appears in every known manuscript we have of John's gospel, so we actually have no textual evidence  that this was an insertion as you claim. If you believe this document of John differs from the original manuscript, you have to give evidence that the original didn't contain this passage by citing an earlier manuscript which doesn't contain these words. Since you can't do that, your claim is an empty assertion without proof. You simply can't deal with the evidence, so you call it an insertion added later, but you give no proof to back up this claim. It appears in the Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and many others. But it also appears in very early quotes by the church fathers.

They are ways of telling when an insertion has been made, give evidence that one was made here or stop making unsupported claims.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 26 December 2012 at 2:25am
Originally posted by Daley


All added much later...we don't really know what the original New Testament contained.[/QUOTE]

John 20:28-29 appears in every known manuscript we have of John's gospel, so we actually have no textual evidence  that this was an insertion as you claim. If you believe this document of John differs from the original manuscript, you have to give evidence that the original didn't contain this passage by citing an earlier manuscript which doesn't contain these words. Since you can't do that, your claim is an empty assertion without proof. You simply can't deal with the evidence, so you call it an insertion added later, but you give no proof to back up this claim. It appears in the Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and many others. But it also appears in very early quotes by the church fathers.

They are ways of telling when an insertion has been made, give evidence that one was made here or stop making unsupported claims.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry Daley i didn't mean to upset you.
 
Everybody knows that the New Testament has 'made up' verses so falsehood has been mixed up with the truth that Jesus (pbuh) brought.
 
With regard to the Gospel of John everybody including laymen and scholars agree that it is very different from all the other Gospels. All of a sudden John maked Jesus (pbuh) into a God, the son of God or a sacrificial lamb.
 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white -

Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL

John's gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John's gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John's gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke.... Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John's gospel he doesn't. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover.

So here's the scene in John's gospel: on the day leading up to Passover, and Passover will commence at 6 o'clock with the evening meal, on the day leading up to that Passover meal is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the temple to get their lamb for the passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time. And in John's gospel that's the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John's gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for passover. John's gospel is forcing us, dramatically at least, through the storytelling mode, to think of Jesus as a passover lamb. Jesus doesn't eat a passover meal, Jesus is the passover meal, at least within the Christian mind in the way that John tells the story.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.html

Can you see the conspiracy working here? Can you see the handiwork of satan? Can you see man adding to Devine revelation?



Posted By: Daley
Date Posted: 01 January 2013 at 3:03pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by Daley


Sorry Daley i didn't mean to upset you.
 
Everybody knows that the New Testament has 'made up' verses so falsehood has been mixed up with the truth that Jesus (pbuh) brought.
 
With regard to the Gospel of John everybody including laymen and scholars agree that it is very different from all the other Gospels. All of a sudden John maked Jesus (pbuh) into a God, the son of God or a sacrificial lamb.
 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white - - L. Michael White:

Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL

John's gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John's gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John's gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke.... Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John's gospel he doesn't. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover.

So here's the scene in John's gospel: on the day leading up to Passover, and Passover will commence at 6 o'clock with the evening meal, on the day leading up to that Passover meal is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the temple to get their lamb for the passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time. And in John's gospel that's the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John's gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for passover. John's gospel is forcing us, dramatically at least, through the storytelling mode, to think of Jesus as a passover lamb. Jesus doesn't eat a passover meal, Jesus is the passover meal, at least within the Christian mind in the way that John tells the story.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.html

Can you see the conspiracy working here? Can you see the handiwork of satan? Can you see man adding to Devine revelation?



First of all, even if you could prove John wrong about when Jesus died, that doesn't make him wrong about what Thomas said. All historical documents include some error, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Berossus, Thucydides, etc. You still haven't shown any proof of tampering with the text of John 20:28-29. All you have done is try to divert attention to some other area in John's gospel which you think you can better argue on.

Second, your argument is not valid.

The uniform impression conveyed by the synoptic Gospels is that the Crucifixion took place on Friday of Holy Week. If it were not for John 19:14, the point would never have come up for debate. But John 19:14 says (according to NASB): "Now it was the day of preparation [paraskeue] for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your king!’" The NIV suggests a somewhat less difficult handling of the apparent discrepancy: "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour." This latter translation takes note of two very important matters of usage. First, the word paraskeue had already by the first century A.D., become a technical term for "Friday," since every Friday was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In Modern Greek the word for "Friday" is paraskeue.

Second, the Greek term tou pascha (lit., "of the Passover") is taken to be equivalent to the Passover Week. This refers to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Heb. massot) that immediately followed the initial slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month Abib, which by Hebrew reckoning would mean the commencement of the fifteenth day, right after sunset. The week of masso-t, coming right after on the heels of Passover itself (during which masso-t were actually eaten, along with the lamb, bitter herbs, etc.) very naturally came to be known as Passover Week (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., 12:1041), extending from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Abib, inclusively. (Arndt and Gingrich [Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 638-639] state: "This [i.e., Passover] was followed immediately by the Fast of Unleavened Bread … on the 15th to the 21st. Popular usage merged the two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for practical purposes.") It was unnecessary to insert a specific term for "week" (such as sa-bua) for it to be understood as such. Therefore, that which might be translated literally as "the preparation of the Passover" must in this context be rendered "Friday of Passover Week."

It turns out, therefore, that John affirms just as clearly as the Synoptics that Christ was crucified on Friday and that His sacrificial death represented an antitypical fulfillment of the Passover ordinance itself, which was instituted by God in the days of the Exodus as a means of making Calvary available by faith to the ancient people of God even before the coming of Christ.

Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is referred to as the Passover Lamb for believers: "Purge out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ, our Lamb was sacrificed for us." The statement of E. C. Hoskyns on John 19:14 is very appropriate here: "The hour of the double sacrifice is drawing near. It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and the Lamb of God is likewise sentenced to death" (The Fourth Gospel [London: Farber and Farber, 1940], ad. loc.). It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs referred to here are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes-a rite Jesus had already observed with His disciples the night before ("Maundy Thursday")- but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. (For the household observance on the evening of the fourteenth of Abib, cf. Exod. 12:6; for the public sacrifice on the altar, cf. Exod. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:4-8; 2 Chron. 30:15-19; 35:11-16. These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.)

Thus it turns out that there has been a simple misunderstanding of the phrase paraskeue tou pascha that has occasioned such perplexity that even Guthrie (New Bible Commentary, p. 964) deduced an original error, for which he had no solution to offer. The various ingenious explanations offered by others, that Christ held His personal Passover a night early, knowing that He would be crucified before the evening of the fourteenth; that Christ and His movement held to a different calendar, reckoning the fourteenth to be a day earlier than the calendar of the official Jerusalem priesthood; or that He was following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran-all these theories are quite improbable and altogether unnecessary. There is no contradiction whatever between John and the Synoptics as to the day on which Christ died — it was Friday. (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982], pp. 375-376)

Third, I would like you to know that Paul wrote before Mattkhew, Mark and Luke, and he speaks of Jesus as our passover in 1 Corinthians 15. So John  was not evolving the synoptic gospels into a new theology on Jesus, because this idea of Jesus being the lamb of God was around before. Just because Matthew didn't mention the exact terminologies associated with passover regarding Jesus doesn't prove he didn't believe it. He himself understood that Jesus had to die for us in Matt 20:28 and other passages. So did Mark and Luke. So they all believed he would die for us in replacement of animal sacrifices. So they all agree on Jesus role here. You have no point.



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 02 January 2013 at 11:25pm
Originally posted by Daley



Thus it turns out that there has been a simple misunderstanding of the phrase paraskeue tou pascha that has occasioned such perplexity....


Christianity in a nutshell...


Posted By: Empiricist
Date Posted: 21 January 2013 at 1:12pm
Remember what Jesus says when people want to stone a woman- let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
In this argument about the writings of John etc. I do not see how this makes Christian faith wrong in the eyes of Muslims.  The Quran has a history of revisions and different versions, many writers, etc. and it took centuries to come up with a few versions that exist today.  There are 4 slightly different versions today used in different parts of the world.   So Muslims cannot say that their book is perfect and reflects the exact words of Muhammed.  So if it is so critical, then Christianity and Islam are both wrong.  There is no God.  It is all man made.  That is the logical conclusion of your challenge.
 
So what is more constructive is to discern the message, not pick it apart from a legal standpoint and try to cast doubt and negative judgement on it. That will not solve anything.
 
Anyway it is not a difficult concept.  There is God, who went into Jesus so we could see an example of perfection, and there is the holy spirit that is available for all of us.  The holy spirit comes from God also.  These three elements make up the trinity, which is a way to view these three important elements.  Maybe there is another that could be added too?  Prayer?  Worship?  Does it matter?
 
Ref- The Quran Dilemma.



Print Page | Close Window