Print Page | Close Window

Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity

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=17378
Printed Date: 23 April 2014 at 7:59pm


Topic: Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity
Posted By: Jack Catholic
Subject: Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 10:15pm
Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?
 
/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?
 
Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,
 
Jack Catholic



Replies:
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?


 Quran says in Surah 4:171

 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Three": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

 
No Mary, no Jesus, no Holy Spirit, no http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/ - Hindu trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), and no lies!  All forms of trinity or any plurality of GOD Almighty are false and lies!
 
Originally posted by Jack Catholic



/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?
 
Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,
 
Jack Catholic


 Matthew 28:19"... baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This passage is a forgery.

 

“All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats" (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143). http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/mat2819.html - ( - online Source)  

There is no indication that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is one essence, Matthew is not speaking of trinity.

 

 Visit: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=77 - Matthew 28:19 by biblicalunitarian




Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 September 2010 at 9:55pm
Jack,
I find great discrepancies between the 27 and 28 chapters of Matthew. For example in 28:8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him".
People would worship him only if he was God. And God would say so, right?
But when we go back to the 27th chapter we see that there was no such claim, rather a different claim, far different than 28:9.
Let us see:
27:11Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
      "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
If you notice here only thing Jesus is claiming is to be the 'king of Jews'. Jews had many kings, I have never heard of Jews had many Gods?
 
Here is another verse: 37 "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." See nomention of God or anything like that.
43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
 
So again, all of these verses from the 27 chapter give a complete opposite picture, when it comes to be worshipping Jesus in the 28 chapter.
Very interesting, something to ponder on Jack?
 
Hasan


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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 17 September 2010 at 11:43pm
Dear Mansoor_ali,
 
Thanks for sharing this.  I have not heard any of it before.  I'll research it out myself.
 
Thanks again,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 17 September 2010 at 11:51pm
Dear Hasan,
 
I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons.  First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah).  To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law.  The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome.  That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure.  That was really all that Rome was concerned with.  Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death.  The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy.  But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned.  So is the topic of chapter 27.
 
In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them.  That is why they worshipped him.  There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.  Praise be to Allah,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 7:47am

Dear Mansoor_Ali,

I read all of your quotations regarding Matthew 28:19.  Are you aware that every single one of them is written by Protestant Christians?  There are over 3000 different Protestant Christian denominations out there in the world today, most of them no more than 100 years old, the oldest being no older than 500 years old, but all of them trying to prove that the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong.  The issue here is:  Only if the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong can the Protestant Christian Churches justify their existence.  So the branch of Protestantism that agrees with your claim that Matthew 28:19 was inserted later is called Unitarianism, and their main source of evidence comes from a misunderstanding of multiple passages on being baptized into Jesus mentioned in the Holy Bible.  Their interpretation of these passages, being misunderstood, pit them against Matthew 28:19 as contradiction.  The result is a need to either blame the Catholic Church for some alteration of the Holy Bible, or some other weird explanation.  But as always, understood the way that the Apostles meant them, we find that there really is no contradiction, and that history verifies the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.  Read this quote from a Catholic source on the web. 

From Catholic Answers Library (www.catholicanswers.com)

 The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

From another Catholic source called the Didache: 

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.  You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.  Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.  Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

About Baptizing in the name of Jesus verses baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction or opposing sides for an Orthodox Catholic.  Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is simply the wording used to baptize.  But being baptized into the name of Jesus has a whole different meaning all together.  To understand it, we must first recognize the imagery of the Christian New Testament.  The New Testament speaks of the people of God (a “body” of believers) as a body (group) of believers belonging to Jesus the Christ, or, in the exact wording of the New Testament, the “Body of Christ,” with Jesus as its “head.”  So when we see the words:  being baptized into the name of Jesus, what we are seeing is a phrase that tells us that when we are baptized, we belong to the body of believers who in turn belong to Jesus Christ:  called being baptized INTO Christ.  So you see, the two terms are not in contradiction to one another, but are references to two separate aspects of the same thing:  one is the wording used when we are baptized, and the other is what happens to us when we are baptized.  No contradiction, and no need to speculate or imagine that maybe one of the phrases was added at a later date.

I hope this helps you to understand Catholic teaching better.

Incidentally, I did mention Matthew 28:19 as evidence of the Holy Trinity and what it is because it is concise, but there is plenty more evidence in the Holy Bible of its existence and explaining what it is and what it is not.  It certainly is not three separate gods associated with one another, but rather is one God in three separate persons.  I know that the Holy Qur’an deals with the first of these two understandings, and in this the Catholic Church agrees with the Holy Qur’an.  What I want to know is if the Holy Qur’an deals with the second understanding of the Holy Trinity, which is what the Catholic Church (since the lifetime of Jesus) has taught.  Let me know…

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,
 
I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons.  First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah).  To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law.  The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome.  That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure.  That was really all that Rome was concerned with.  Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death.  The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy.  But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned.  So is the topic of chapter 27.
 
In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them.  That is why they worshipped him.  There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.  Praise be to Allah,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic 
Dear Jack,
I do see discrepancy when I see one verse shows that Jesus was worshipping and calling someone God. Then one verse says that Jesus was worshipped, which is only for God. And another verse mentions that Jesus is son of God, when God does not have children, no son or daughter, no mother and no father.
When you just examine that with logic only, and you know those three ideas come from the same book, it becomes very clear that they are certainly not in agreement with each other. At least that's how I see them.
Hasan


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


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic


From another Catholic source called the Didache: 

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.  You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.  Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.  Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

 I am quoting response in the words of brother Abdullah Smith.

The Didache never equates the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; they are distinguished by three separate dips, which denote three separate Persons.

 But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head, into
"the name of Father, and of Son, and of Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1)

The “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are not equal because the candidate is dipped three times, and not once, it should be once if they are equal, but they are not.

The Trinitarian Baptismal is clearly absent from the New Testament.(Acts 2:38,Acts 10:48,Acts 19:5,Acts 22:16,Romans 6:3,Galatians 3:27,James 2:7)

The Father and Holy Spirit are absent from the above texts, so the Baptismal formula is doubtful and erroneous.  The Trinitarian Baptism was not established until the 4th century.

"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries" (Schaff-herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume 1, page 435--1966 edition)

"The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name." (James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 2, page 384 --1958 edition)

The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together." (The Encyclopaedia Britannica  Volume 3, page 365 --1910 edition)

"We gather from Acts 19:4, that John had merely baptized in the name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The apostolic age supplied this , and the normal use during it seems to have been 'into Christ identification Jesus',or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or ' of the Lord Jesus Christ.'" (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, ibid, p. 368)

"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity." (James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, page 241--1906 edition)

"With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.'" (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, page 87--1957 edition)

"In the name of Jesus Christ or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48. The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16... From these passages, and from Paul's words in the 1st Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?), it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ', or that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single--not triple, as was the later creed." (Encyclopaedia Biblica, Volume 1, page 473--1899 edition)

Just because the Didache applies the formula “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” does not make them equal.

Since Matthew 28:19 is a forgery, Didache 7:1 must be a forgery as well.

In fact, the Didache must be rejected because it follows Matthew 28:19.

This Church manual of primitive Christianity, or some section of it, also bears a longer title. "The Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles", which gives us a clue to its nature. It may be a work conceived against the background of Mt. 28:18-20, http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html - [1]

The verse 1 John 5:7 states the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one”, but the Didache never dares to mention this.

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

In contrast, the Didache never equates the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” because he was not speaking of trinity.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, the author Akbarally Meherally states:

Often this particular verse is quoted to support the Nicene Creed of Trinity. It is argued that Jesus himself had said to baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of Trinity stands endorsed by the Scripture and the Christ.

Of course, the ceremony of Baptism does mention the three names and in the same sequence and order as the Trinity, but the most important factor is the status. Where does it say that the three identities are co-equal? It could very well be a sequence for religious hierarchy in faith. In the political arena there could be similar sequence of command, for example; An Emperor, his Minister and his Military Commander. But, the Emperor and his appointee – the Minister, are not equal. The Minister, by the virtue of being so opted, has a better status than the rest of the subjects. He can be considered as a chosen citizen and be so honoured. But, the Emperor would not condone his subjects if they were to call or glorify the chosen citizen as Emperor. (Understanding the Bible through Koranic Messages, p. 52)

The Didache does not mention the trinity, it refers to “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” in the sequence of religious hierarchy.

Jesus did not return during the lifetime of his people. The widespread anticipation ended with sheer disappointment.

At first, the Christian community expected an imminent return of Christ. We are told that during the first century AD, the Christian community looked forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. This hope carried on in the second century. When the second coming failed to occur, the church organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its bishops. (Misha’al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi, What did Jesus Really Say?)

Second Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly after his death or during the late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled promise of an imminent second coming (2 Thes. 2:1-8).(Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, p. 184)

FACTS ABOUT THE DIDACHE:


Jesus is called thy Servant of God, so the Didache denies the godhood of Jesus:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html - (1)

The Didache was not mentioned until the late 2nd century, so it must be http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml - rejected .

The author is anonymous:


Scholars suggest that the Didache reflects a backward church in a remote situation, Syria and Palestine being the most favoured with Egypt also as a possible source. It reflects a situation in which an undisclosed number of scattered rural Christian communities are given advice on a wide variety of practical subjects by an unknown author who uses the pseudonyms of the Twelve Apostles. This may suggest that no Christian leader had sufficient authority to issue these directives under his own name.

The original text is lost:


This work became known for the first time in the Constantinople Manuscripts discovered by Archbishop Bryennios in 1875 and published 1883. It has been dated at 1056 CE. and is kept in Jerusalem.

It was then possible to go back and see that the Didache in Greek was actually to be found (in a somewhat revised form) in Book VII of the 4th century Egyptian Constitutions. In addition there are fragments in Greek (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1782), Coptic, and Ethiopic, and a complete Gregorian version. For the 'Two Ways' section there is (besides the witness of Barnabas 18-20) a Latin version (the Doctrina) the 4th century Apostolic Church Order, and three other manuals of the 4th century or later.

We cannot be sure that the 1056 MS represents the 'original' Didache or even what 'original' means in this context. As with the NT we are dealing with textual variants, but "with a developing tradition, and our various witnesses to the Didache merely afford us glimpses of this tradition at various stages." http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html - ( - online Source)

The Didache never mentions the Gospels, and is totally silent on Jesus’ life.







Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 22 September 2010 at 10:09pm

Dear Mansoor __ Ali

I checked as many of those old books you had quoted from, and I found the same list of quotes on a unitarian web sight.  I need to tell you something about Unitarians.  They are Christians, but the are not Catholic Orthodox Christian.  They are a recently created group of Protestant Christians that believes that there is no such thing as a triune God such as Catholics have always believed for over 2000 years.  I found a few of the authors who wrote some of the books you quoted, and they are as follows:

Tom Harper lives in England and is Anglican

The Anchor Bible Commentary by David Noel Freedman is Prespreterian.

Peake’s commentary on the bible is Anglican

History of Dogma by Adolph Harnack (is a German Protestant who does not believe in miracles and believes that Christianity is based in Greek paganism)

The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau (a Unitarian Protestant who does not believe that there is any such thing as a trinity.)

 

Of the ones I had a chance to look up, not one was Catholic, and some make some pretty wild claims about Jesus that I don’t even think Muhammad would agree with.  Would you mind letting me know if any of the books you quoted from were Catholic.  And what is the evidence that Matthew 28:19 is a fraud?  The only evidence these quotes seem to draw off of is that in five other place in the New Testament the early Christian writers spoke of baptism into Jesus.  Didn’t I explain the difference in meaning between baptizing in the name of Jesus and baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

One other thing about the Holy Trinity in the Bible, I mentioned this verse because it is concise and very clear.  But there are numerous other locations in the Holy Bible where the Holy Spirit is mentioned as Divine, and where Jesus also refers to himself as Divine.

About Surah 4:171, I understand up to the point where it says, “…and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:  This phrase I do not understand. It’s grammer is not very clear to me.  Would you be so kind as to explain it?  Thank you…

About the Holy Trinity, there is absolutely nothing in the ancient church that even suggests that there is any kind of religious hierarchy in faith with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  It would be impossible to imagine that there was any kind of teaching about a hierarchy because it has always been know that they are not separate Gods working together as one, but in truth are one and the same God, just different persons of that God.

I know about Jesus not returning.  It seems that many in their enthusiasm failed to remember that Jesus has said that only the Father would know the day and time of Jesus second coming, which would be the end of the earth.   But this is off topic.  Let’s get back to the topic…

You said the Didache calls Jesus “the Servant of God.”  You see,  Jesus told his apostles not to behave as pagan rulers behave, but rather to be servants to others, and only by being servants can they be called children of God.  The Pope refers to himself as a servant of the people of God, though he is in authority over them.  Christians believe that Jesus came to earth in human form to show us by his example how Allah wants us to behave.  Allah wants us to love one another and obey Him with the action of service.  Does Islam teach that service to Allah is obedience, and that service to neighbor is love of Neighbor?  This phrase in the context of Catholic values does not constitute denying the divinity of Jesus.

You said, “The Didache was not mentioned until the late 2nd century. 

I say, And because of this it was never included in the Holy Bible.  However it has value in that it shows how the Christians of the second century lived out their faith, and it verifies the existence of the beliefs of the early church.  It must not be used as a source of doctrine, however.  How can one reject a document that simply reflects how Christians practiced their faith?  That would be like rejecting history.  The Catholic Church only recognizes the Didache for its historical value.  That’s all.

You also wrote, “The Didache never mentions the Gospels, and is totally silent on Jesus’ life.  This again is very perceptive of you.  It is yet another reason why it was never included in the Holy Bible.  The Didache was considered, but its value was historical about the church after the death of Jesus.  The New Testament was written for the purpose of verifying and summarizing what the church taught and believed about the life of Jesus and his message.  The Didache does not assist in this purpose.  It does, however, show that the Christians up to the second century believed in the Holy Trinity.  This is my point.  It supports this claim.

 

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 23 September 2010 at 9:08pm
Dear Jack,
it might me that Catholics believed in triune God for two thousand years, but that does not mean that they are right. Hindus will win over you on that basis if you mean the length of time proves anything.
God as One is probably the oldest teachings dating back to the Old Testament times, time of Adam (pbuh) to be exact, so Unitarians are not the first one to say that God is one of one. Triune God idea in Catholicism as we know now was never known to any prophets of the Old Testament. And at some point it was a new idea, as you yourself say its only two thousand year old.
Hasan


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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 24 September 2010 at 2:47pm
Dear Hasan,
 
My point to all this is not length of time, accept to say that Catholics did not invent this belief some time after Jesus life and death.  The belief came directly from Jesus himself.  Muhammad says that Jesus was sent by Allah, but if indeed Jesus was "sent by Allah,"  why would Muhammad pick and choose what he would accept of what Jesus said?  This would make him exactly like the Protestant Christians who came so long after Jesus and also pick and choose what they wish to believe of what Jesus had said and taught.
 
As much as I respect Muhammad for trying to spread belief in Allah throughout the world (I'm sure this is what Allah wants), yet I would tend to believe the men Jesus personally chose and trained for over three years to know the truth whenever there is a discrepancy between their teachings and the teachings of someone 600 years later who disagreed with them and hadn't been taught either by Jesus or those who taught faithfully what Jesus taught.  I don't think the length of time that the belief has been held has anything to do with how true the belief is.  But when Protestants come along 1500 years after the death of Jesus and start teaching things Jesus never taught, I have to wonder where they got their ideas.  Same with Muhammad.
 
The Apostles blieved and taught that Allah was tri-une God.  They carried their messages to China, Russia, Europe and North Africa before the last Apostle, John, died in Egypt in 110 AD.  The Apostles were all put to death because they taught belief, love, and obedience to a triune God, accept for John who died of old age.  Why would someone agree to die a horrible, tortuous death for something they knew to be a lie?   There is ample evidence in the Old Testament for the Trinity, though the Jews and the Israelites before them could not see it.  Jesus pointed it out to his Apostles and made numerous references to it himself. The Catholic Church has documented these references in much of its literature since the days of the Apostles.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a resent invention as is the belief amongst Christian Protestants that Jesus is but a prophet or as some dare to say, a lesser God under the authority of Allah.
 
Don't you find some value in the logic of what I'm saying?  Please explain your answer with why.
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 25 September 2010 at 12:04pm

 To Jack Catholic

 I keep aside for a moment whether Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation or not.

 Now i will focus whether Matthew 28:19 is a proof of trinity?

 Let us read the verse in context.

 Matthew 28:18-20 KJV

 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in "#fen-NIV-24212a" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24212a - a ] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 
It is very clear by Jesus that his power had been given to him. Now it is a  common sense that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus Christ) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God.

 So context of verse doesnot support trinity.

 The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together make “one God.” This verse refers to three, but never says they are “one.”For example If 3 persons are sitting together at a same desk it doesnot mean that they are 1 person.

 I quote Misha'al ibn Abdullah:

 
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.


 
So you cannot prove trinity with the help of Matthew 28:19 because context of verse doesnot support such kind of argument.

 

 


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 25 September 2010 at 1:06pm
IMHO I think what is essentially problematic for Muslims and the Koran concerning the trinity is that you have three essences of One entity. The three essences are seperate (but equal). The problem here is the seperate essences (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). If the Father was the Son, there would be no need to say Father + Son, you'd say Son. Similiar with the Holy Spirit. I believe long ago I made a thread concerning this issue concerning the trinity. Basically it would be problematic if I said my house is only composed of walls. It's one house with many compartments. but I simply cannot say my house is simply made up of walls.
 
Regardless whether my house is composed of walls and floors its still one house (made up of a multiplicity of objects in the interior). Although God has no "interior" God is said to have many qualities such as all-powerful, good, etc which comparable to a house could have some relationship.


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 25 September 2010 at 11:26pm
Salam/Peace,
 
One scholar said that's the reason why there is a special discipline/subject named  "theology", because the difficulties to explain "trinity". 3 in 1, 1 in 3, god have son, god have father etc. It is confusing.


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 26 September 2010 at 2:41am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

About Surah 4:171, I understand up to the point where it says, “…and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:  This phrase I do not understand. It’s grammer is not very clear to me.  Would you be so kind as to explain it?  Thank you…



 I quote Ibn Kathir:

 (171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah except the truth. Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three!'' Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One God, hallowed be He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.)

 

Prohibiting the People of the Book From Going to Extremes in Religion

Allah forbids the People of the Scriptures from going to extremes in religion, which is a common trait of theirs, especially among the Christians. The Christians exaggerated over `Isa until they elevated him above the grade that Allah gave him. They elevated him from the rank of prophethood to being a god, whom they worshipped just as they worshipped Allah. They exaggerated even more in the case of those who they claim were his followers, claiming that they were inspired, thus following every word they uttered whether true or false, be it guidance or misguidance, truth or lies. This is why Allah said,

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Do not unduly praise me like the Christians exaggerated over `Isa, son of Maryam. Verily, I am only a servant, so say, `Allah's servant and His Messenger.') This is the wording of Al-Bukhari. Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said that a man once said, "O Muhammad! You are our master and the son of our master, our most righteous person and the son of our most righteous person...'' The Messenger of Allah said,

(O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Shaytan to trick you. I am Muhammad bin `Abdullah, Allah's servant and Messenger. By Allah! I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah has granted me.) Allah's statement,

(nor say of Allah except the truth.) means, do not lie and claim that Allah has a wife or a son, Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. Allah is glorified, praised, and honored in His might, grandure and greatness, and there is no deity worthy of worship nor Lord but Him. Allah said;

(Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) `Isa is only one of Allah's servants and one of His creatures. Allah said to him, `Be', and he was, and He sent him as a Messenger. `Isa was a word from Allah that He bestowed on Maryam, meaning He created him with the word `Be' that He sent with Jibril to Maryam. Jibril blew the life of `Isa into Maryam by Allah's leave, and `Isa came to existence as a result. This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children. This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him. Rather, he came to existence through the word that Allah uttered, `Be,' and he was, through the life that Allah sent with Jibril. Allah said,

(Al-Masih [`Isa], son of Maryam, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam] was a Siddiqah. They both ate food.) And Allah said,

(Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be! ـ and he was.)

(And she who guarded her chastity, We breathed into her (garment) and We made her and her son [`Isa] a sign for all that exits.) (21:91)

(And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity,) and Allah said concerning the Messiah,

(He [`Isa] was not more than a servant. We granted Our favor to him.)

The Meaning of "His Word and a spirit from Him

`Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said that the Ayah,

(And His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) means, He said,

(Be) and he was. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ahmad bin Sinan Al-Wasiti said that he heard Shadh bin Yahya saying about Allah's statement,

(and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) "`Isa was not the word. Rather, `Isa came to existence because of the word.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said that the Prophet said,

(If anyone testifies that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and that `Isa is Allah's servant and Messenger and His Word which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true and Hell is true, then Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he performed.) In another narration, the Prophet said,

(...through any of the eight doors of Paradise he wishes.) Muslim also recorded it. Therefore, `Ruh from Allah', in the Ayah and the Hadith is similar to Allah's statement,

(And has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; it is all from Him.) meaning, from His creation. `from Him' does not mean that it is a part of Him, as the Christians claim, may Allah's continued curses be upon them. Saying that something is from Allah, such as the spirit of Allah, the she-camel of Allah or the House of Allah, is meant to honor such items. Allah said,

(This is the she-camel of Allah...) and,

(and sanctify My House for those who circumambulate it.) An authentic Hadith states,

(I will enter on my Lord in His Home) All these examples are meant to honor such items when they are attributed to Allah in this manner. Allah said,

(so believe in Allah and His Messengers.) believe that Allah is One and Alone and that He does not have a son or wife. Know and be certain that `Isa is the servant and Messenger of Allah. Allah said after that,

(Say not: "Three!") do not elevate `Isa and his mother to be gods with Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. In Surat Al-Ma'idah (chapter 5), Allah said,

(Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three.'' But there is none who has the right to be worshipped but One God.) Allah said by the end of the same Surah,

(And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me''') and in its beginning,

(Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam.) The Christians, may Allah curse them, have no limit to their disbelief because of their ignorance, so their deviant statements and their misguidance grows. Some of them believe that `Isa is Allah, some believe that he is one in a trinity and some believe that he is the son of Allah. Their beliefs and creeds are numerous and contradict each other, prompting some people to say that if ten Christians meet, they would end up with eleven sects!




Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 28 September 2010 at 5:52am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic



/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 


 Here is reply by BiblicalUnitarian:

 It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” ( http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65 - A study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44 -

 Reply by brother Ibn Anwar

 The volumnuous book What Did Jesus Really Say? provides a good explanation for the verse that does away with the Trinitarian argument that because the verse uses the word name in the singular form to describe three names this means that the three are one like 1 John 5:7. Unfortunately(for Trinitarians), as how What Did Jesus Really Say has illustrated such an argument does not hold much weight:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.(Misha’al ibn Abdullah. What Did Jesus Really Say?(1996). Islamic Assembly of North America. p. 26)

 
Another Reply

 

The word "name" is singular

The Greek word for "name" in this passage is singular and not plural. It does not say, "into the names of," but "into the name of." Because it is singular, the Trinitarian argues that it must refer to one thing. This is absolutely correct. However they also claim that because three persons follow, it also therefore follows that the one thing to which this word refers is one identity which is therefore the one Trinity of three persons, that is, one "God." This is totally incorrect.

Here Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of." In the ancient Jewish world, to do something in someone's name meant to do something under another person's authority, character, reputation, plan and purpose. It implies the idea that a subject of that authority is doing the authority's will for that authority. For example, the phrase "Stop in the name of the Monarchy" does not refer to the King's personal name, his surname nor the King and Queen's personal or surnames together. It refers to the plan and purpose and law of the Monarchy as established by their authority. And now we shall see this is exactly how the term is used at Matthew 28:19. In verse 18, Jesus declares, "all authority in heaven and earth is given to me." He then says, "therefore go." It is a basic tenet of hermeneutics that when one sees the word "therefore" one asks what the word "therefore" is there for. Jesus is expressing a cause and effect statement. Because he has been given all authority, the disciples are therefore to go out and baptize all nations "in the name of." As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). In other words, Jesus has been given the authority to have them do things in the name of his Father, who gave him that authority by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection, with the goal of bringing all nations into subjection to the authority of God. The authority of the Father is given to the Son in the Holy Spirit in which he rose from the dead in the very same way Jesus gives his apostles authority. This is why Peter says in reference to Jesus' resurrection, "God has made this Jesus.... 'Lord.'" The word 'Lord' is a word which indicates authority and Jesus was made Lord in his resurrection. This is the same idea as Matthew 28:18, "all authority... is given to me."( http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Mt28_19.html - Source )



Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 02 October 2010 at 1:03pm
 
Originally posted by Jack Catholic



/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 


 If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 October 2010 at 3:34pm
Jack,
you admit that the concept of God as a triune God is tught by Jesus 2000 years ago. Even if we suppose for a moment that to be correct, even though it is not in my study of the scripture, the problem is that it still is a new concept. The OT extends beyond thousands of years before Jesus, and surprisingly it does not teach anything like that. And that in itself a living proof that this concept of God was never taught before, it was non-existant.
So, if we really are representing logic and truth and not anything else, there is a link between God as One of the OT and God as One of the Final Testament, the Quran. In between you have something different, something inconsistent, if we assume you are right that NT teaches a tiune God.
My belief is that Jesus (peace be upon him) never professed triune God. According to the NT he always acknowledged God (who he is quoted to have called ABBA, or Father above himself.
Hasan
 


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


Posted By: Egwpisteuw
Date Posted: 10 March 2011 at 11:13am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
In the Greek, the phrase  "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is:
 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
 
in which τὸ ὄνομα (to onoma, the name) is in the accusative case and τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father), τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son) and τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (tou hagiou pneumatos, the Holy Spirit) are all in the genitive case.
 
Koine Greek is a very grammatically precise language and the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs as follows:
 
                                                 -----τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father)
τὸ ὄνομα (onoma, name)-----------------τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son)
                                                 -----τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (the Holy Spirit)
 
This is EXACTLY what the Trinity is, One God in three persons. Each member of the Trinity is a distinctive person and is God individually and the combination of the three is also God.
 
This is why Jesus Christ could say:
 
I and the Father are one John 10:30 because Jesus Christ as the Son (Prong 2) is just as much God as is the Father (Prong 1). 
 
This is the true oneness of God, and just as the Jews of Jesus' day did not understand this:
 
http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. http://bible.cc/john/10-32.htm - 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” http://bible.cc/john/10-33.htm - 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” John 10:31-33
 
So Muhammad also did not understand it:
 
They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Surah 5:17
 
This is nothing more than the same unbelief that the Jews of Jesus' day manifested.


-------------
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 13 March 2011 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw



/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
In the Greek, the phrase  "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is:
 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
 
in which τὸ ὄνομα (to onoma, the name) is in the accusative case and τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father), τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son) and τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (tou hagiou pneumatos, the Holy Spirit) are all in the genitive case.
 
Koine Greek is a very grammatically precise language and the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs as follows:
 
                                                 -----τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father)
τὸ ὄνομα (onoma, name)-----------------τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son)
                                                 -----τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (the Holy Spirit)
 
This is EXACTLY what the Trinity is, One God in three persons. Each member of the Trinity is a distinctive person and is God individually and the combination of the three is also God.[/QUOTE]


 To Egwpisteuw

 Let's look at the context.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach b all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 
Note in verse 18 clear statement by Jesus that his power had been GIVEN to him.

 
Common sense dictates that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God.

Originally posted by Egwpisteuw



This is why Jesus Christ could say:
 
I and the Father are one John 10:30 because Jesus Christ as the Son (Prong 2) is just as much God as is the Father (Prong 1). 
 
This is the true oneness of God, and just as the Jews of Jesus' day did not understand this:
 
http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. http://bible.cc/john/10-32.htm - - 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” John 10:31-33


 This verse is  severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:30 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews.In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

 
These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything.

 In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.
 



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 13 March 2011 at 10:07pm
Hi, Mansoor_ali,
 
I haven't posted to you in so long...  How are you?
 
I have been quite buisy with work and family.  But I just now looked up and saw a new post to an old string of postings.  I have some questions for you...
 
You posted: "Common sense dictates that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God.

By posting the above, aren't you agreeing with Egwpisteuw when he posted the comment:  "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately sperate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?
 
Next in your post, you wrote:  "In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

You continued, "These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything."

Finally, you posted, "In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus."
 
Jesus is speaking of two groups in John 10:28-30:  1) a group that includes "any man" suggesting all men who might wishing to pluck the sheep out of Jesus hand, and 2) "I and the Father" as the second group.  Can you show where in John 10:28-30 that the passage states word for word, "My Father, who gave them to me is greater than all of us..."? 
 
Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups identified by the words "any man" and not including either the Father or the one referred to by "I" who is Jesus in the second group?
 
Another logical question...  Why would Jesus say "all" to include himself if the context of the passage is in reference to men plucking out of his hand what is in it, for would Jesus be plucking out of his own hand that which he had gathered in it intending to keep?
 
Just some questions to think about.  And yes, the questions are presented with the intention that they be answered.
 
I hope you are well and that God has blessed you since we last posted to one another,
 
Jack Catholic 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 18 March 2011 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic



By posting the above, aren't you agreeing with Egwpisteuw when he posted the comment:  "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately sperate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?
 


Are you saying that the above analogy represents rightly the concept of trinity?how rightly (three prongs)represent Father,Son,Holy Spirit?even analogy is absolutely wrong.it doesnot represent a concept of trinity accurately.

Trinitarias say that each person in the Trinity is God, remember they say Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God.

Are you telling me that each separate prong is fork?so its mean prong 1 is a fork.prong 2 is a fork.and prong 3 is a fork. we donot say that.we say that these 3 prongs make up a fork.we do not say that each specific prong of the fork is the fork!

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Next in your post, you wrote:  "In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."You continued, "These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything."Finally, you posted, "In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus."

 

Jesus is speaking of two groups in John 10:28-30:  1) a group that includes "any man" suggesting all men who might wishing to pluck the sheep out of Jesus hand, and 2) "I and the Father" as the second group.  Can you show where in John 10:28-30 that the passage states word for word, "My Father, who gave them to me is greater than all of us..."? 

 

Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups identified by the words "any man" and not including either the Father or the one referred to by "I" who is Jesus in the second group?

 

Another logical question...  Why would Jesus say "all" to include himself if the context of the passage is in reference to men plucking out of his hand what is in it, for would Jesus be plucking out of his own hand that which he had gathered in it intending to keep?

 

Just some questions to think about.  And yes, the questions are presented with the intention that they be answered.

 

I hope you are well and that God has blessed you since we last posted to one another,

 

Jack Catholic 



I don’t understand why you Christians quote this verse,because what does this verse prove? Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father, so why do you quote it?Are you quoting it to try and show that Jesus is equal to the Father? Well that isn’t true, since the Gospel of John shows the opposite, in fact if we quote one verse back we read:

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

This is verse 29, it comes right before verse 30, and in verse 29 Jesus says the Father is greater than ALL, this obviously includes Jesus since he is not the Father. So therefore how to you try and assume that this verse shows equality between Jesus and the Father is beyond me, just a verse before it Jesus says the Father is greater than everyone!

In fact this is not the first time that Jesus says the Father is greater than him, he does it again later:

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: my Father is greater than I[(John 14:28)

So here we once again have Jesus claiming the Father is greater than him, so how is Jesus equal to the Father when Jesus says the contrary? Now you have come up with a way of trying to explain this verse off,you say that Jesus was talking as a man here, that as a man the Father is greater than him,you try and say that the Father meant he is greater than Jesus in rank and authority and not in essence.

However so what did Jesus mean in John 10 when Jesus said the Father is greater than ALL? Jesus placed himself in the category of ALL people, so therefore your will not work for John 10:29. It must be said though that the Christian response does not work for John chapter 14:28 neither, because the Christian argues from silence and is arguing something they have yet to prove. Christians cannot prove that Jesus has 2 natures, they can never get a single quote from the lips of Jesus saying I am man and Divine, that I have 2 natures and I gave one up and took on the man nature, this is non-existent, so therefore the response is from silence provided with no proof or a solid basis.

1-The fact is the Bible shows that the Father is greater than Jesus in essence, the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.

2-The Father gives Jesus everything from miracle to doctrine.

3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus.

For all these arguments the Christian will say as man Jesus is not all-knowing, as man Jesus receives things from the Father, however so I will kindly ask the Christian bring this proof from the words of Jesus, they shall never be able to do it, this doctrine is an invention and not something to be found from Jesus.

So therefore in conclusion, John 10:30 proves nothing in support of the divinity of Jesus, it does not show equality, since Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than him, so therefore Jesus is not equal with the Father.






Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 18 March 2011 at 4:57pm

 To Jack Catholic

 Note:The following passage is taken by biblical unitarian.

 Does John 10 :30 prove divinity of Jesus Christ?

 1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”

2. Christ uses the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them one can see that “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.

3. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

Buzzard, pp. 135 and 136

Farley, pp. 60 and 61

Morgridge, pp. 39-42

 
 Recommended:

  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_the_trinity_logically_coherent_in_light_of_biblical_teachings_ - Is the trinity logically coherent in light of Biblical teachings?



Posted By: Egwpisteuw
Date Posted: 19 March 2011 at 5:00am
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.”
Nonsense. You obviously neglected to keep reading:
 
http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. http://bible.cc/john/10-32.htm - 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” http://bible.cc/john/10-33.htm - 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” John 10:31-33
 
The Jews who were 1.) physically present; 2.) contemporaries of Jesus; 3.)of the same cultural and linguistic milieu as Jesus; took Jesus' statement in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" to mean that he was declaring himself to be God.
 
Jesus declared His Deity in John 10:30. To deny it is ludicrous.
 
 


-------------
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us


Posted By: AgnesDei
Date Posted: 20 March 2011 at 5:39am
There are many verses in the Holy Gospels where Jesus emphasized that He is also God.  Here is just one example, there are many others:
 
The Gospel of John 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
 
Peace be with you!


-------------
"When wicked tongues insult and hate you all because of me, blessed, blessed are you." By Jesus, the Christ


Posted By: AgnesDei
Date Posted: 20 March 2011 at 7:23am
I would like to emphasize just one more belief.  I have noticed many responses from individuals stating their belief that there is no Holy Trinity because there has always just been ONE GOD. 
If you take a moment to absorb what is being written by non-Muslims, we are saying the same thing.  I fully, with all my heart, know there is just ONE GOD.  Where we seem to begin our infamous disconnect is that in that ONE GOD are 3 separate entities.  (Father -God, Son-Jesus, Holy Ghost-Spirit), and these three combine to make up ONE GOD, which is the God of Moses and Abraham.   So I hope that this will settle the one God versus three Gods, which we do not believe in and never have.  I am saddened to see that so many well-intended Muslims still hold the notion that non-Muslims believe in polytheism.  That is false. 
 
God's Peace to you!!


-------------
"When wicked tongues insult and hate you all because of me, blessed, blessed are you." By Jesus, the Christ


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 21 March 2011 at 3:25am
Originally posted by AgnesDei

There are many verses in the Holy Gospels where Jesus emphasized that He is also God.  Here is just one example, there are many others:
 
The Gospel of John 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
 
Peace be with you!
 
None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself . Stop Adding Words To Verse That Are Not There . Doesn't Your Bible Speak Against Those Who Add Words To God Scriptures ? By Doing This Your Saying Your God Makes Mistakes !  
The seed of woman < Genesis 3 ; 15 > The caption of Savation < Job 5 ; 13 - 14 > Wonderful < Isaiah 9 ; 6 ; Judge 13 ; 8 > I am that I am < Ex odus 3 ; 14 > The mighty God < Isaiah 9 ; 6 > Emmanuel < Isaiah 7; 14 > The Rose of Sharon lilly of the valley < Song of Solomon 2 ; 1 > Theprince of pace < Isaiah 9- 6 > The Mediator < 1Timothy 2 ; 5 > The helper < Hebrew 13 ; 6> The Rewarder of Faith < Hebrew11 ; 6 > The Branch < Zachariah 6 ; 12 > A Man of sorrows < Isaiah 53 ; 3 > The Bringer of Good Tidings < Isaiah 41 ; 27 > The Chief Cornerstone < Isaiah 28 ; 16 > The Redeemer < Job 19 ; 25 >

This is only a small list of the different names that are Attributed to The Messiah Yashua Without Even His Name Being Mentioned . I Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE . HowEver , You Have Christian Will Undoubtedly Tell You That These Verse Are In Fact Speaking About The Messiah Yashua < NOT >
I Again Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE ..



-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: Egwpisteuw
Date Posted: 22 March 2011 at 5:15am
Originally posted by IssaEl999

None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself.
Nonsense. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming here. Jesus is saying in John 14:9 exactly what John said in John 1:18:
 
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
 
Jesus is "the only begotten God" the member of the Trinity who explains the Father. This is what Jesus means in John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father."


-------------
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 22 March 2011 at 6:40pm
 
 
 

Dear Mansoor_ali (and also IssaEl999),

 
(Wonderful backup support, Egwpisteuw and AgnesDei!)

I asked if you weren't agreeing with Egwpisteuw when you posted the comment:  "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately separate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?

 

Rather than answer my question, you asked another, “Are you telling me that each separate prong is fork?  We do not say that each specific prong of the fork is the fork!

Your comment about not believing that each prong of the fork is the fork is more evidence of your belief being identical to the Catholic teachings.  The fork is not a perfect representation of “trinity.”  It is accurate only in that it clearly shows one fork having three prongs. One cannot say that each prong is a fork, though one can truly say that each of the three persons of the Holy Trinity are indeed fully God.  Another analogy can be used to show what is lacking in the fork analogy, but it also has its flaws.  One man can be three persons: a father, a son, and a grandfather all at the same time, each person having a different function, yet each being the same man.  Another analogy with strengths where the fork and man analogy are week, but also having its own mix of weeknesses is that of water which when it is cold is solid ice, when warm is water, and when hot is steam.  Water in all three forms appears and acts different as if not in any way the same material, yet atomically all three are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen – the same in substance.  Doesn’t the Holy Qur’an say that nature reflects something of the truth of the God who created it?  

The verses in discussion here are the following:  "In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One." 

In this passage, you assert that

Here are some questions which you didn’t answer:

 

Can you show where in John 10:28-30 that the passage states word for word, "My Father, who gave them to me is greater than all of us..."? 

 

To this question, you did not respond.  This means that you cannot show that the verse does indeed clearly state that all includes Jesus with the word, “us.”  You simply say that it does:  “All includes everyone even Jesus."  Since you can’t prove that the word “all” clearly includes Jesus, then it is clear that your inclusion of Jesus in the meaning of the word, “all,” is simply your own private addition to the meaning of the verses of scripture.  Further proof of this is in your answer to my next question:

 

Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups which is identified by the words "any man?"

 

The fact here is that you did not answer this question.  The reason is because you cannot answer it without admitting that the word “all” only refers  to “all men” not including Jesus, as he is connected to the group that is one with God and not with the group that is identified by the words, “all men.”  Grammar itself proves that your argument is based on your own private misunderstanding.  Or is it a misunderstanding taught you by others who themselves do not understand the meaning of the Holy Bible?

 

Another logical question I had asked...  Why would Jesus say "all" to include himself if the context of the passage is in reference to men plucking out of his hand what he had himself gathered to put in it intending to keep?

 

This third question I had asked you also failed to answer.  Is it because in the answering, your position might appear to clearly be private inaccurate interpretation?

 

In your response, you wrote, “Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father, so why do you quote it?Are you quoting it to try and show that Jesus is equal to the Father?”

Then you answer the question yourself, “Well that isn’t true, since the Gospel of John shows the opposite.

 

I’m going to stop quoting you here because when you say “...that isn’t true,...” because it is not necessary.  You are absolutely correct.  I am a Trinitarian, a Catholic.  I have never been taught that Jesus IS the same person as the Father.  In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that the Father and the Son are separate persons, though simultaneously they are one and the same God.  This is exactly the same as the prongs of the fork, three separate prongs, but only one fork.  You see, we are back to the original example proposed by our Christian brother Egwpisteuw.  You are trying to say we are wrong when actually you are agreeing with us.


Then, after agreeing with the Catholic Trinitarian teaching which has existed for over 2000 years since before the death of Jesus on the cross, you start to draw some other conclusions.  You assert:

1-The fact is the Bible shows that the Father is greater than Jesus in essence, the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.

Now here you have started with a correct statement, that the Father is greater than Jesus, but then you make an assertion that is totally your own private interpretation:  “the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.”  Where in John 10 do you find this assertion?  I do not accept your private interpretation as truth. 


2-The Father gives Jesus everything from miracle to doctrine.

You are absolutely correct here, as this is both what the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church teaches.  John writes that Jesus comes forth from the Father, (not a creation) as does his doctrine and his miracles.  You are in agreement with the Catholic Faith here.

 

3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus.

I think here you are taking something that is in the bible and misunderstanding it.  Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.  Jesus is not a man’s own personal word, but God’s word.  One might translate this into a modern idiom by saying that Jesus is God’s Word in action.  Jesus’ begging the father to save him from suffering is actually nothing more than Jesus teaching us by his example how we should be handling the threat of suffering.  He in other occasions taught us to imitate him.  Wouldn’t you advise another believer who was facing suffering to be honest with Allah in prayer and plead to be saved from the suffering to come, yet finish with the statement:  “Yet not my will but your will be done?”  Don’t Muslims claim that we must submit to the will of Allah?  Didn’t Jesus teach us by his example and words how to submit to the will of Allah?  Jesus’ words and actions do not show him to be powerless in the face of life and death, as you mistakenly interpret into the passages of the Holy Bible, but rather simply constitute a teaching which I think both Muhammad and all Christians can agree with:  that we must submit willingly to the will of God (Allah), which in this case is to die a slow, horrible, suffering death on a cross.

 

After considering the truth of the Christian faith which you show above that you recognize, adding to it a few minor misunderstandings that you seem to have, you then drawn a mistaken conclusion: 

 

“So therefore in conclusion, John 10:30 proves nothing in support of the divinity of Jesus, it does not show equality, since Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than him, so therefore Jesus is not equal with the Father.”

 

About Biblical Unitarians, I do not accept their teachings as valid.  Biblical Unitarianism was invented by personal surmizings 1600+ years after the death of Jesus on the cross.  Unitarians do not even believe in any need to use the Holy Bible in their versions of the truth about God, nor do they agree with one another about what the real truth is.

 

So don’t bother to tell me any of their opinions which one or two of them might call a doctrine.  I’m not interested in their religious musings or fabricated assertions.

 
You also had said in another previous post in this thread, "If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form."
 
My response is simply this:  If you are speaking of three seperate names, then it is poor grammer to write the word name in the singular.  Sorry, but this assertion just does not make gramatical sense.  It is a poor argument to use in formulating ones personal personal religious beliefs...
 
So what about the Holy Qur'an and evidence that it is truly speaking of the Holy Trinity as Catholics have understood it for over 2000 years since Jesus taught it to us?  Can you show quotes that are from the Holy Qur'an and not some other Islamic volume?
 
Asalam Alaekum


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 23 March 2011 at 4:31am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

 
 
 

Dear Mansoor_ali (and also IssaEl999),

 
(Wonderful backup support, Egwpisteuw and AgnesDei!)

I asked if you weren't agreeing with Egwpisteuw when you posted the comment:  "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately separate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?

 

Rather than answer my question, you asked another, “Are you telling me that each separate prong is fork?  We do not say that each specific prong of the fork is the fork!

Your comment about not believing that each prong of the fork is the fork is more evidence of your belief being identical to the Catholic teachings.  The fork is not a perfect representation of “trinity.”  It is accurate only in that it clearly shows one fork having three prongs. One cannot say that each prong is a fork, though one can truly say that each of the three persons of the Holy Trinity are indeed fully God.  Another analogy can be used to show what is lacking in the fork analogy, but it also has its flaws.  One man can be three persons: a father, a son, and a grandfather all at the same time, each person having a different function, yet each being the same man.  Another analogy with strengths where the fork and man analogy are week, but also having its own mix of weeknesses is that of water which when it is cold is solid ice, when warm is water, and when hot is steam.  Water in all three forms appears and acts different as if not in any way the same material, yet atomically all three are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen – the same in substance.  Doesn’t the Holy Qur’an say that nature reflects something of the truth of the God who created it?  

The verses in discussion here are the following:  "In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One." 

In this passage, you assert that

Here are some questions which you didn’t answer:

 

Can you show where in John 10:28-30 that the passage states word for word, "My Father, who gave them to me is greater than all of us..."? 

 

To this question, you did not respond.  This means that you cannot show that the verse does indeed clearly state that all includes Jesus with the word, “us.”  You simply say that it does:  “All includes everyone even Jesus."  Since you can’t prove that the word “all” clearly includes Jesus, then it is clear that your inclusion of Jesus in the meaning of the word, “all,” is simply your own private addition to the meaning of the verses of scripture.  Further proof of this is in your answer to my next question:

 

Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups which is identified by the words "any man?"

 

The fact here is that you did not answer this question.  The reason is because you cannot answer it without admitting that the word “all” only refers  to “all men” not including Jesus, as he is connected to the group that is one with God and not with the group that is identified by the words, “all men.”  Grammar itself proves that your argument is based on your own private misunderstanding.  Or is it a misunderstanding taught you by others who themselves do not understand the meaning of the Holy Bible?

 

Another logical question I had asked...  Why would Jesus say "all" to include himself if the context of the passage is in reference to men plucking out of his hand what he had himself gathered to put in it intending to keep?

 

This third question I had asked you also failed to answer.  Is it because in the answering, your position might appear to clearly be private inaccurate interpretation?

 

In your response, you wrote, “Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father, so why do you quote it?Are you quoting it to try and show that Jesus is equal to the Father?”

Then you answer the question yourself, “Well that isn’t true, since the Gospel of John shows the opposite.

 

I’m going to stop quoting you here because when you say “...that isn’t true,...” because it is not necessary.  You are absolutely correct.  I am a Trinitarian, a Catholic.  I have never been taught that Jesus IS the same person as the Father.  In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that the Father and the Son are separate persons, though simultaneously they are one and the same God.  This is exactly the same as the prongs of the fork, three separate prongs, but only one fork.  You see, we are back to the original example proposed by our Christian brother Egwpisteuw.  You are trying to say we are wrong when actually you are agreeing with us.


Then, after agreeing with the Catholic Trinitarian teaching which has existed for over 2000 years since before the death of Jesus on the cross, you start to draw some other conclusions.  You assert:

1-The fact is the Bible shows that the Father is greater than Jesus in essence, the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.

Now here you have started with a correct statement, that the Father is greater than Jesus, but then you make an assertion that is totally your own private interpretation:  “the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.”  Where in John 10 do you find this assertion?  I do not accept your private interpretation as truth. 


2-The Father gives Jesus everything from miracle to doctrine.

You are absolutely correct here, as this is both what the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church teaches.  John writes that Jesus comes forth from the Father, (not a creation) as does his doctrine and his miracles.  You are in agreement with the Catholic Faith here.

 

3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus.

I think here you are taking something that is in the bible and misunderstanding it.  Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.  Jesus is not a man’s own personal word, but God’s word.  One might translate this into a modern idiom by saying that Jesus is God’s Word in action.  Jesus’ begging the father to save him from suffering is actually nothing more than Jesus teaching us by his example how we should be handling the threat of suffering.  He in other occasions taught us to imitate him.  Wouldn’t you advise another believer who was facing suffering to be honest with Allah in prayer and plead to be saved from the suffering to come, yet finish with the statement:  “Yet not my will but your will be done?”  Don’t Muslims claim that we must submit to the will of Allah?  Didn’t Jesus teach us by his example and words how to submit to the will of Allah?  Jesus’ words and actions do not show him to be powerless in the face of life and death, as you mistakenly interpret into the passages of the Holy Bible, but rather simply constitute a teaching which I think both Muhammad and all Christians can agree with:  that we must submit willingly to the will of God (Allah), which in this case is to die a slow, horrible, suffering death on a cross.

 

After considering the truth of the Christian faith which you show above that you recognize, adding to it a few minor misunderstandings that you seem to have, you then drawn a mistaken conclusion: 

 

“So therefore in conclusion, John 10:30 proves nothing in support of the divinity of Jesus, it does not show equality, since Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than him, so therefore Jesus is not equal with the Father.”

 

About Biblical Unitarians, I do not accept their teachings as valid.  Biblical Unitarianism was invented by personal surmizings 1600+ years after the death of Jesus on the cross.  Unitarians do not even believe in any need to use the Holy Bible in their versions of the truth about God, nor do they agree with one another about what the real truth is.

 

So don’t bother to tell me any of their opinions which one or two of them might call a doctrine.  I’m not interested in their religious musings or fabricated assertions.

 
You also had said in another previous post in this thread, "If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form."
 
My response is simply this:  If you are speaking of three seperate names, then it is poor grammer to write the word name in the singular.  Sorry, but this assertion just does not make gramatical sense.  It is a poor argument to use in formulating ones personal personal religious beliefs...
 
So what about the Holy Qur'an and evidence that it is truly speaking of the Holy Trinity as Catholics have understood it for over 2000 years since Jesus taught it to us?  Can you show quotes that are from the Holy Qur'an and not some other Islamic volume?
 
Asalam Alaekum
 
 
Jack Catholic , I Mean No Disrespect Here And A Few Here Says My Post Are Long LOL . First And For Most It Was The Catholic Church , Were The Ones Who Created /  Inserted The Trinity In The First Place Overstand . No One Here Is Side Steping Anything Here , What You Doing Is Adding / Making Up Thing , Suggeating The Verses Your Useing Is Saying This Or That , When It Doesn't . Here The Trick SOME Of The Christian Play .
 
If you ask any Christian who are these Verse pertaining to they would Answer ( WithOut A Doubt In Their Minds ) . that these Verse are Speaking of The Messiah Yashua , Also Take A LQQk At The Many Titles Which Are Attributed To Him . < Biblical Names Attributed To The Messiah Yashua >

The seed of woman < Genesis 3 ; 15 > The caption of Savation < Job 5 ; 13 - 14 > Wonderful < Isaiah 9 ; 6 ; Judge 13 ; 8 > I am that I am < Ex odus 3 ; 14 > The mighty God < Isaiah 9 ; 6 > Emmanuel < Isaiah 7; 14 > The Rose of Sharon lilly of the valley < Song of Solomon 2 ; 1 > Theprince of pace < Isaiah 9- 6 > The Mediator < 1Timothy 2 ; 5 > The helper < Hebrew 13 ; 6> The Rewarder of Faith < Hebrew11 ; 6 > The Branch < Zachariah 6 ; 12 > A Man of sorrows < Isaiah 53 ; 3 > The Bringer of Good Tidings < Isaiah 41 ; 27 > The Chief Cornerstone < Isaiah 28 ; 16 > The Redeemer < Job 19 ; 25 >
 
This is only a small list of the different names that are Attributed to The Messiah Yashua Without Even His Name Being Mentioned . I Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE . HowEver , You Have Christian Will Undoubtedly Tell You That These Verse Are In Fact Speaking About The Messiah Yashua I Again Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE ..
 
According To The Book Of Revelation It Speaks Against These Thing . Check It Out Ok
 
Al Injil ( The Evangel , Revelation ) 22 Chapters Of The Prophet / Messiah Jesus 22 ; 18 - 19 [ Revealed 96 A.D. } , And I Quote ; For Surely I Bear Witness To All Who Hear The Words Of This Prophecy In This Scroll . If Anyone Adds Unto These Things , So Allah Will Add Unto Him The Plagues Of The Things Written In This Book , And If Anyone Takes Away From The Words Of The Scroll Of This Prophecy , Allah Will Drop His Share From The Scroll Of Life And From The Holy City , And From What Is Written In This Scroll .

Now Back To The Point Here , Can You Expain What These Are Saying .
 
John 14 ; 2 >> In My Father House Are Many Mansions .>>> Jesus Said In My Father's House , He [ Didsn't Say In My House ] Would It Have Made Sense To Say In My House [ If He Was God ? ]
Luke 2; 49 >> That I Must Be About My Father's Business '>> If Jesus Was God Why Did He Say I Must Be Of My Fathers Business , He Indicated . [ The Distinction Between Him And His Father .
Mark 15 ; 34 >> Jesus cried out with a loud voice My God , My God Why have thou Forsaken Me . <<< If Jesus was God who could he be praying to if he is the only God , and to cry is a human Weakness
 
Mathew 4; 1 >>Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil << If Jesus was God how could the devil Possibly be able to tempt him without him knowing >> And What Could The Devil Possibly Offer The Creator Of Everything .
 
Luke 14 ; 26 >> If anyman come to me , and hate not his Father And Mother And Wife And Chrildren And Brethren And Sister , Yea And His Own Life Also , He Cannot Be My Disciple . <<< If Jesus was God and he so loved the world why would you have to hate your family And even yourself , when it say in Leviticus 19 ; 1 That Hatred Is A Sin
 
Bottom Line Here This .
 
There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .
 
Like I Said Above The Catholic Church  Created /  Inserted The Trinity . I Have Been Explaing This In -Part In The Above Post's . I Say In Part Because A Few Here Say My Post Are To Long , LOLLOL But Everyone Here Know That Just Another Excues To Side Step It . Right Jack Catholic LOLLOL 
 
 

 
 


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 23 March 2011 at 8:21am
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

Originally posted by IssaEl999

None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself.
Nonsense. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming here. Jesus is saying in John 14:9 exactly what John said in John 1:18:
 
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
 
Jesus is "the only begotten God" the member of the Trinity who explains the Father. This is what Jesus means in John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
 
 
 
Egwpisteuw The More I Read Your Post I See You Know Nothing About Your Bible  /  Why You Make Up Thing , That Are Not In Your Bible , You Also Make Claim That ( No One Has Seen God At Any Time '' Yes '' )
 
Your Wromg Again , According To El's Holy Torah Second Scroll Of The Law To The Israelites Exodus  Revealed In The Year 1512 B.C.E. In Aramic LOL  Chapter 33 ;  11 , And I Quote ; And A ( Yahuwa ) < Dawbar > '' Spoke '' To Moses < Fawbeem > '' Face '' To < Fawbeem > '' Face '' , As A < Eesh > '' Male '' Living Being  < Dawbar > '' Speaks '' To His < Rayah > Friend . And He Returned Again To The Camp ; But His < Sharath > '' Servant '' Of The People Joshua , The Son Of Nun '' To Resprout  '' , A Young Boy Did Not Depart The Midst Of The < Ohel > '' Tabernacle '' .
 
Another Trick SOME Christian Use . John 14 ; 9 , And I Quote ; Jesus Said Unto Him , Have I Been So Long ( Time ) With You , And Yet Hast Thou Not Known Me , Philip ? He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen The Father ; And How Sayest Thou Then , Show Us The Father ?
 
The Above Verse Is Written In Red , And Some Christian Minister / Pastors / Teacher Etc Say It Mean The Blood Of Christ / Jesus Is Talking LOLThis Is Another Trick To Make Christian Believe It Saying Something It Not . Meaning In The Above Post Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Is -Not Calling Himself God ) . Being Christians Are Not Allow To Question Their Christian Minister / Pastors / Teacher Etc Because Of Being Call The Devil / Satan Etc And Kick Out Of Their House Of Worship And Only Believe / Accept What They're Told ,
 
 
No Man's Body Can Contain God  . Now If You Mean That He Has The Essence Of His Father In Him , Then All Men Are God's Sons And Daughters , Read Genesis 2 ; 7  When God Breathe Into Man The Breath Of Life ;  '' And The Lord God Formed Man From The Dust Of The Ground , And Breathed Into His Nostrile The Breath Of Life ; And Man Became A Living Soul ,
 
However , Getting Back To The Point , Whether He Incarnated Or Came Himself , There Still Wouldn't Be Any Need For Him To Pray Or Ask For Assistance From Anyway If He Was God , The Creator . Can't You See That ? Not Only Would He Not Need To Pray , He Would Have No Desire To Eat Meat ( Luke 24 ; 41 ) , Beg That Death Passes Him ( Matthew 26 ; 39 ) . Feared And Run For His Life ( John 18 ; 3 ) Which Means That '' God '' Has To Run From His Creations  . It Seems Like You Totally Ignored All Of These Scriptures And Found One That Sound Good To You , And Built A Whole Doctrine From It .
 
Another Quality That Yashu'a Didn't Not Possess According To Roman 13 ; 1 And 2Corinthian 1 ; 23 Is The Power To Assign The Souls The Positions In The Hereafter . According To The Author Of These 2 Books Which Was Paul , Only The Heavenly Father Possess Such Power . Exalting Yashu'a Beyond The Truth Is Shown To Be A Form Of Idolatry .
 
Once Again In Matthew 7 ; 21 , Yashu'a Tells People To Do The Will Of The Father Matthew 7 ; 21 And I Quote ;  Not Every One That Saith Unto Me , Lord , Lord , Shall Enter Into The Kingdom Of Heaven , But He That Doeth The Will Of My Father  Which Is Heaven .
 
In Both Luke 4 ; 8 And Matthew 4 ; 10 , We Come Across An Incident That Clearly Contradicts The Concept Of Yashu'a Claiming Absolute Divinity . According To These Two References , Matthew 27 ; 46 And Mark 15 ; 34 . Yashu'a Was Put On The Cross Left To Die . Then According To Those Who Believe The Crucifixion Story , At That Time Yashu'a Cried In A Loud Voice . Matthew 27 ; 46 , And I Quote ; And About The Ninth Hour Yashu'a Cried With A Loud Voice , Saying , Eli , Eli , Lama SabacthanI ? That Is To Say , My God . My God , Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me ?
 
Now Read Mark 15 ; 34 , And I Quote ; And At The Ninth Hour Yashu'a Cried With A Loud Voice , Saying Eloi , Eloi . Lama Sabachthani ? Which Is Being Interpreted . My God . My God , Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me ?
 
If Yashu'a Was God He Would Not Have To Say Any Of These Things In The First Place . How Could You Possibly Forsake Your Ownself ? If He Was God Or Eli As It Is Used In This Quote , He Would Not Need Consent From Anyone . Overstand .  This Could Not Possibly Be The Words Of A Person Who Saw Himself As The Controller Of All Life And Death Because He Cried Out
'' My God ''  ... It Simply Isn't Logical . Yashu'a Never Encouraged  Anyone To Worship Him .  Instead , He Taught Others To Worship His Father  As I Have Just Shown You By Using The Scriptures .
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: Egwpisteuw
Date Posted: 26 March 2011 at 8:13am
Originally posted by IssaEl999

None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself.
 
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

Nonsense. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming here. Jesus is saying in John 14:9 exactly what John said in John 1:18:
 
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
 
Jesus is "the only begotten God" the member of the Trinity who explains the Father. This is what Jesus means in John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
 
Originally posted by IssaEl999

Your Wromg Again , According To El's Holy Torah Second Scroll Of The Law To The Israelites Exodus  Revealed In The Year 1512 B.C.E. In Aramic LOL  Chapter 33 ;  11 , And I Quote ; And A ( Yahuwa ) < Dawbar > '' Spoke '' To Moses < Fawbeem > '' Face '' To < Fawbeem > '' Face '' , As A < Eesh > '' Male '' Living Being  < Dawbar > '' Speaks '' To His < Rayah > Friend .
 
IssaEl999 you suffer from the same disease as many Muslims, you throw in "everything but the kitchen sink" in your posts. Please make you points briefly and succintly with the goal of clarification not obfuscation.
 
First, the Torah was revealed in Hebrew not Aramaic--closely related languages but different nonetheless.
 
Second in John 1:18, the word for seen in the Greek is ὁράω (horao) which can mean not only
 
1. to see with the eyes
 
but also
 
2. to see with the mind (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
 
That it is this second meaning that is in view in John 1:18 is clear from the use of the word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) in the second part of the verse. ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) means to declare, unfold, explain, draw out, it was specifically used in Greek "of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc."

Thus John 1:18 means that No man has ever perceived, understood, or come to know God expect through the Only Begotten God, who is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, The Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus John 14:9 makes perfect sense:
 
Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

The word for seen here is also ὁράω (horao). Thus again one perceives, understands, comes to know the Father through the Son, Jesus Christ.



-------------
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 27 March 2011 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

Originally posted by IssaEl999

None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself.
 
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

Nonsense. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming here. Jesus is saying in John 14:9 exactly what John said in John 1:18:
 
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
 
Jesus is "the only begotten God" the member of the Trinity who explains the Father. This is what Jesus means in John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
 
Originally posted by IssaEl999

Your Wromg Again , According To El's Holy Torah Second Scroll Of The Law To The Israelites Exodus  Revealed In The Year 1512 B.C.E. In Aramic LOL  Chapter 33 ;  11 , And I Quote ; And A ( Yahuwa ) < Dawbar > '' Spoke '' To Moses < Fawbeem > '' Face '' To < Fawbeem > '' Face '' , As A < Eesh > '' Male '' Living Being  < Dawbar > '' Speaks '' To His < Rayah > Friend .
 
IssaEl999 you suffer from the same disease as many Muslims, you throw in "everything but the kitchen sink" in your posts. Please make you points briefly and succintly with the goal of clarification not obfuscation.
 
First, the Torah was revealed in Hebrew not Aramaic--closely related languages but different nonetheless.
 
Second in John 1:18, the word for seen in the Greek is ὁράω (horao) which can mean not only
 
1. to see with the eyes
 
but also
 
2. to see with the mind (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
 
That it is this second meaning that is in view in John 1:18 is clear from the use of the word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) in the second part of the verse. ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) means to declare, unfold, explain, draw out, it was specifically used in Greek "of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc."

Thus John 1:18 means that No man has ever perceived, understood, or come to know God expect through the Only Begotten God, who is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, The Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus John 14:9 makes perfect sense:
 
Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

The word for seen here is also ὁράω (horao). Thus again one perceives, understands, comes to know the Father through the Son, Jesus Christ.

 
 
You Know People Like Yourself Are So Funny , If You Took Half The Time To Really Research / Study The Language And It's History And Not His -Story You'll Be Better Off . Trying To Compare Me To Anyone Here Is A Very Big Mistake . Now I Want To  Go Get Your By -Bill And Read / Compare What's Written Below . And Try Again And Clean Up That Stillyness You Post Above . Ok Also Take It To You Teacher , Minister , Pastors , Socalled Religious Scholar / So-called Theologian And Ask Them To Explain What Written Below If You Dare Ok .
 
It Is A Scientific Fact That Archeologists Have Found Tablets Dated Thousands Of Years Before Your Actual Adam < Aramic  > , A Name Merely Meaning Of The '' Dark Browish Red Ground '' And Eve ( Hawwah ) < Aramic > Which Means '' Life Or Living '' The Earliest Known Documents In Cuneiform Were Recorded In Sumerian . The Language Of The Inhabitants Of Southern Mesopotamia And Chaldea . These Documents Were Tablets Known As ; The Atra - Hasis , The Enuma Elish , And The Gilgames Epics . Tablets Of The Descent Of Ishtar To The Underworld , Tablets Of Nergal And Arishkegal  , Tablets Of Adapa , Tablets Of Etana , The Akkadian Tablets And Many More , Cuneiform Was Used As Script As Well A Spoken Language By The Eloheem , And Later From This Language Came The Language Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) And Aramic / Phoenician ( Hebrew ) .
 
The Enuma Elish '' Means '' When On High , '' The Enuma Elish , Which Is The Babylonian Story Of Creation , Is Named After The First Two Words Of The Narrative Of The Babylonian Book '' Enuchus . ''  These Tablets Were Recorded Way Before Aramic / Phoenician ( Hebrew ) Or Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Even Existed . The Ashuric Language Spelled Asshur Stemmed From Asshu , A Son Of Shem Who Was The Son Of Noah , Just Like Aram ( Genesis 10 ; 21 - 23 ) . Aramic / Phoencian ( Hebrew ) Genesis 10 ; 22  , Asshuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Genesis 10 ; 22 , Asshur Son Of Shem And Faatin / Aram Son Of Shem And Fattin .
 
Aramic Comes From A Man Named Aram , The 5Th Son Of Shem As Mentioned In Genesis 10 ; 22 . Aramic ( Hebrew ) Was The Language Of The Aramaeans , The Descendants Of Aram .
 
Ancestral Lineage Of Aram ; Aram Son Of Genesis 10 ; 22 ... Shem Sons Of Genesis 5 ; 32 ... Noah Son Of Genesis 5 ; 32 .... Lamech Son Of Genesis 5 ; 28 - 29 .....Methusael Son Of Genesis 5 ; 25 ..... Enoch Son Of Genesis 5 ; 21 .... Jared Son Of Genesis 5 ; 18 ..... Mahalaleel Son Of Genesis 5 ; 15 ..... Kenan Son Of Genesis 5 ; 12 ..... Enosh Son Of Genesis 5 ; 9 ..... Seth Son Of Genesis 5 ; 6 ..... Adam Son Of Genesis 5 ; 3 .....
 
The Country Aram Settled In Was Then Called '' Aram , '' Number 23 ; 7 . The Fact . The Language Was Named After Aram Himself , Proves That He Was A Leader , A Chief , Or A Mighty Man In His Tribe . When A Dialect Evolved , It Usually Was Named After The Most Powerful , Or Outsanding Member Of The Tribe , Or Clan , In This Case It Was Aram . The Name Of The Country Of Aram Appears In The Hebrew Scriptures Psalm 60 ; 1 As Aramnaharaim Meaning '' Aram Of The Two Rivers , '' It Was Called This Because It Was Located Between The Tigris ( Idiglat ) And Euphrates ( Firattu ) Rivers . Where The Atumiy ( Watusies ) Lived . Aram Was Also Called Pdan , Or Paddan - Aram Genesis 28 ; 2 , Meaning '' The Plain ( Flatlands ) '' Of Aram In Genesis 25 ; 20 , And Comes From The Word Paddan < Aramic > Which Means  '' A Plateau . '' In The Aramic ( Hebrew ) . It Appears In The Feminine Form As Padana Which Means '' A Plateau , '' All Of The Syrians Are Arameans , Meaning '' The People Are Called Aramaeans '' And They Are Also The Assyrian Nation, But Speaking A Different Dialect . Don't Confuse The Aramaeans , Or Syrians Of The Past With The People Who Reside In These Areas Called Iraq And Syria Today . The Aramic ( Hebrew ) Language Evoled Into Different Dialects And Is Labeled As Ancient , Official , Middle , Late , Eastern And Modern Aramic ( Hebrew ) . However , Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Was A Late Dialect Of Aramic ( Hebrew ) , Written In A Number Of Flowing Scripts .
 
You Might Ask . Is Aramic ( Hebrew ) And Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) The Same Language ? What Is Called The Aramic ( Hebrew ) Tongue Is Translated As The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Tongue ; And Because These Languages Were The Most Ancient , And They Sounded Similar , They Were Sometimes Thought To Be The Same Language . You Can See That The Languages Aramic ( Hebrew ) And Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Came From Accadian Also Spelled Akkadian , One Of The Languages Of Sumer Was Also A Form Of Cuneiform . In Aramic ( Hebrew ) Accad , In The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) , Acaadi Comes From Genesis 10 ; 10 , The Accadian ( Akkadian ) Language , Written In Cuneiform , Was A Semitic Tongue Related To Hebrew , Arabic , And Aramic . The Oldest Accadian ( Akkadian ) Cuneiform Inscriptions Date From The Old Accadian Or Early Accadian Period During The Inscriptions Of The Great Ruler Sargon ( 2334 - 2279 B.C.E. Isaiah 20 ; 11 ) . Excerpts From The Bible Were Extracted From These Tablets Which Help To Prove That The Bible ( Wasn't Divinely Sent By Some All Powerful Loving Deity Who Lives Up In Heaven ) .
 
Also The Torah Couldn't Originally Have Been Recorded In Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Or Aramic ( Hebrew ) If The First Time The Languages Were Mentioned Were In Genesis 10 ; 22 . The Gilgamesh Epic Pre-Date The Bible . The Gilgamesh Epic , Is Considered One Of The Greatest Stories Of The Accadian Language . Gilgamesh , Is Said To Be The Fifth King Of Uruk ( Around 2600 B.C.E. ) A City In Mesopotamia In Genesis 10 ; 10 As Erech ( Uruk ) . The Tablets Themselves Are Not Named ; Just The Story On The Tablets . Epic Means '' Stories Or Fables '' . Theologians Call These Writings '' The Gilgamesh Epic '' . Which Is Really The Muniyr Tablets Or Tablets Of Light . Also Known As The Illumination Tablets , Because It Focuses On A King Whose Name Was Gilgamesh ( Iz Dubar ) ; The Name Gilgamesh Is From Cuneiform Or Chaldean , The Great Rules Of The Two Rivers Tigris ( Idglat ) And Euphrates ( Furattau ) Who Was 2 / 3 Eloheem And 1 / 3 Human .
 
They Also Give More Accurate Accounts Of These Events Concerning The Creation , Thus , The Story On The Tablet Of Gilgamesh , Parallels With The Story Of Noah And The Food . Noah's Real Name Was Utnafishtim And He Was Also Called Ziu Sudra And Kumarbi . In Aramic ( Hebrew ) The Name No - Akh Means '' To Rest Down Upon ( Genesis 8 ; 4 ) Describing What The Ark Itself Did , And If You Read It In The Original Language , It Tells You That It Not Only Floated , But It Also Flew , Or Lifted Up Off Of The Water ; The Word Is Naw - Saw '' To Lift , Bear Up , Lift Up '' When It Landed , And Not The Person Noah , But A Craft , So How Could That Be His Name Before This Yahuwa ( Genesis 7 ; 9 ) Called Him At The Age Of 600 In Genesis 7 ; 6 To Build A Tay - Baw , '' Ark Or Craft , Or A Vessel '' , In Genesis 6 ; 14 , Another Epic  Written In Cuneiform Script Is Called The Enuma Elish Which Is The Babylonian Creation Epic , The Story Has Similarities To The Biblical Story Of Creation
 
By The Way Trinity Is Fakeeeeeeee .


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 28 March 2011 at 5:22am
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.”

http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm -
Originally posted by Egwpisteuw



Nonsense. You obviously neglected to keep reading:
 
http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - - 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” http://bible.cc/john/10-33.htm -
 
Jesus declared His Deity in John 10:30. To deny it is ludicrous.
 
 


 
 "...You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
John 10:31-33

 You remind me one of the articles written by Brother Sami.

 Brother Sami:

 The Jewish Accusations

 One common argument that Christians raise is that certain Jews accused him of committing blasphemy, making himself equal to God, and claiming to be God, and for this they wanted to stone him. As a result of this Christians therefore claim that since the Jews accused him of making such statements, then Jesus must have made these claims.


 Indeed such logic is very faulty and shows the sheer desperation of some Christians, for instance would a judge hold a defendant guilty simply based on someone else's accusation? Of course not! Just because someone accuses you of something does not mean the accusation is true, this is common sense, yet Christians want us to throw out or common sense and simply accept the Jewish accusation.

 
What makes this more interesting is that Christians are very inconsistent, yes, some Jews accused him of blasphemy, but the Jews have accused Jesus of much worst, and we can find these accusations within the Talmud, for instance we read:

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a ****** of an adulteress."

MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)


R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).]


And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ?Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.' But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)

 
So notice, certain Jews also accused Jesus of being a ****** child, the son of Mary who committed adultery, and on top of that they claim that Jesus practiced magic! Why do Christians not accept these accusations? If Christians want to be consistent then they should also accept this filthy accusations about Jesus, but off course they wont, because Christians lack consistency and an honest method of argumentation, they will only pick and choose which Jewish accusations suit them.

 
So with that said let us now quote the Jewish accusations against Jesus, the ones the Christians like to use, and the ones the Christians like to agree with, and they are as follows:

 
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:29-33)

So does this Jewish accusation hold any weight? Well as in any other case, whenever a witness makes a claim, the first thing you do is check if the witness is even competent enough to be trusted. So are these certain Jews even to be trusted in the first place? Well, let us let Jesus answer that question:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

 
So Jesus calls his accusers LIARS, and the son of the devil, who is the father of liars! What else does Jesus say about his accusers:

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:6-9)

So according to Jesus his accusers are hypocrites, they do not follow their Torah, rather they throw it away, and use their own man made traditions. So it is quite clear that these accusers are not competent enough to be trusted, nor is their speech to be taken as evidence, let us summarize what we know about these accusers so far:

-They are Liars

-They are hypocrites

-They are the sons of the devil

-They are murderers

-They do not follow God's commands, rather they throw it away

-They follow their own man made traditions in the place of God's commands

Wow! And these are the people whom the Christians want us to believe?! I don't think so. Now having said all of this, why don't we go to what the BELIEVERS said about Jesus? The People who actually believed in Jesus, and were not against him, why don't go to what they said? I advise all readers to go and read the following links, which shows what the BELIEVERS were saying about Jesus:

http://muslim-responses.com/Son_of_God_and_Messiah/Son_of_God_and_Messiah_ -

http://muslim-responses.com/Just_a_Prophet/Just_a_Prophet_ -

http://muslim-responses.com/Was_Jesus_God_according_to_Mary/Was_Jesus_God_according_to_Mary_ - Now with all of that said, why don't we look at what Jesus said in response to the accusations? You have to feel sorry for Jesus, these Christians who claim to love him do not even allow the man to speak and defend himself! They just listen to the accusations of liars, and then simply conclude the accusations are true, and send this innocent man Jesus to hang on the tree! Thank God that these Christians are not judges in real courts, or we would all be doomed, they would not even bother to hear you case, and listen to your defence!

So let us see Jesus' defence, what he said in response to the accusations, and this is his defence:

 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  (John 10:32-36)

So this is Jesus' defence, as you can notice Jesus does not accept their accusation, rather he rejects their accusation, notice what he says:

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  

So Jesus rejects their accusation, rather he tells them I CALL MYSELF THE SON OF GOD, and as anyone knows, the term son of God does not make you God, rather it made you a servant of God. If you also notice, Jesus uses some irony with them, he tells these Jews that they are called gods, yet I call myself the son of God and you claim I am blaspheming and making myself God?! So this is what we have here:

Pharisee: You Jesus made blasphemy!

Jesus: Why?

Pharisee: You make yourself to be God

Jesus: I call myself the Son of God, yet you are called gods.

Pharisee: stoneeeeeee him!

This is not the only place where Jesus defends himself, there was another time where Jesus was forced to defend himself, and his defence was the following:

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:40)

Here Jesus defends himself again, and notice what he says, you want to kill me, A MAN who has told you the truth, the truth I HAVE HEARD FROM GOD! So Jesus does two things, he tells them that he is a man, and he makes sure to distinguish and separate himself from God!

More interestingly the word for man that is used here is ANTHROPOS in the Greek, this specific word is used to distinguish man from God, basically when someone is called ANTHROPHOS, it is meant to separate him from the divine, and to let everyone know that this person is neither divine, nor is he God! So the word that Jesus uses is a specific word that is specifically meant to allow the people to know that Jesus is not divine, rather he is separate from the divine, and separate from God!

So far we have seen that the accusers are not competent witnesses, and we have also seen that Jesus REJECTED their accusations. So let us now see the real reason as to why these certain Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, was it really for blasphemy, or was it for other reasons? Well let us let Jesus speak for himself:

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. (John 7:7)

So Jesus gives the reasons as to why the people hate him, and as you can notice, it is not because he claims to be God, rather it is because he exposes their evils! If anyone has read the four Gospels, then one will see that Jesus time and time again exposed the Pharisees. Jesus exposed the Pharisees for their corruption, hypocrisy, and by doing so he essentially became a major threat against them. The Pharisees had money, power, and were in control of their people, yet Jesus' preaching was a major threat to them, and had the potential to destroy them, hence they had to get rid of Jesus. Now what better way to get of Jesus? Well, you accuse the man of false crimes, and for the Jews blasphemy was one of the worst crimes, it was even much much worst for a man to claim he was God, and then double that with accusing this man of being a false Messiah! In fact if we read the book of Acts, we will see that the Pharisees precisely did this! We read:

Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. (Acts 6:11-14)

As you can see, these certain Jews started stirring up the people against the apostles, making false accusations against the apostles that they were preaching that Jesus would destroy their place, and change the laws of Moses. Notice how these Jews also brought FALSE WITNESSES who basically made things up!

So essentially these Jews did the same thing with Jesus, they set up false lies against him, they did so because he was a major threat to him, and they had to get rid of this threat, and the only way to get rid of this threat was by producing false claims against the man, thankfully Allah saved Jesus from their plans and saved him from the cross!

So to summarize what we have:

-Certain Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, making himself God

-These Jews are not even competent to be trusted

-Jesus rejected their accusations

-Jesus said that the reason why they hated him was because he exposed their evils, not because he claimed to be God

-Jesus was a threat against the Pharisees, hence they began to create lies against Jesus, so they could use these lies as an excuse to murder him

-We have evidence that these Jews did create lies, and falsehoods against apostles of Jesus.

So in conclusion the Jewish accusations mean nothing, rather the Jewish accusations serve as arguments against the divinity of Jesus as he rejected their claims, so I advise Christians to get better arguments.

And Allah Knows Best!

 
 
 

 



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 March 2011 at 3:48pm
Jack,
in a conversation between you and Mansoor you wrote the following:
"
(Mansoor writes) "Common sense dictates that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God.

(Jack writes response) By posting the above, aren't you agreeing with Egwpisteuw when he posted the comment:  "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately sperate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?"
 
You are serious I imagine supporting the fork example, I hope you re not.
I do not know where a fork fits or a spoon in an example, but someone has to hold and use that fork? by itself a fork is of no use. God on the other hand is not like a fork, of no use unless someone use it? I don't think so. So I would suggest to come up with a bit more comparable example. And Mansoor has said somthing that is very clear that there is a big differance between the one who gives and the one who is given. They are not the same. God is the only one that gives, and that is what the point is. Jesus (pbuh) was given, life and whatever he had, including the power to heal, or to give life to birds of clay, by the power of God. This he acknoweldged, which is a proof for those who needed it. Even though for those of us God fearing believers who will never equate anyone equal to God could not imagine such a blasphamy to creep into our minds or hearts, it was made clear to all that whatever powers he is given, note given, is given by God. The God is the only "Giver". What Chrsitians take as "holy ghost" is not God, in fact it is angel(s) under God's command. And as we know it is also given (whatever), given by God as clearly mentioned.
And that solves the mystry for Christians, if they make that clear and truthful distinction between the only Giver, Jusus and holy ghost on the recieving end make sense and solves that puzzle and mystry that they refer to as a "Mystry of Faith".
Hasan  


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



Print Page | Close Window