Print Page | Close Window

Tanakh vs. NT - Confirmation or Contradiction?

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=21896
Printed Date: 01 October 2014 at 11:19am


Topic: Tanakh vs. NT - Confirmation or Contradiction?
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: Tanakh vs. NT - Confirmation or Contradiction?
Date Posted: 07 October 2011 at 11:28am
One of the many tenets of Christianity is the claim that the New Testament is in perfect agreement with the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible), which is why the Christian canon includes the Jewish holy books.  However, is this actually true?  Are the NT and the so-called "Old Testament" (OT) in actual agreement or are they actually contradictory?  Based on my reading and understanding of both books, I think they actually contradict each other in many places.  There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement.  While there are many examples, I would like to begin this topic with one of the most important: the trinity. 

While the concept of the trinity is not even well-developed in the New Testament itself, there is no doubt that it is completely absent from the Tanakh.  No where is God referred to as three in one in the Jewish Bible.  Yet Christians insist the concept is there.  Where, we may ask?  Let the Christians on this forum try to answer this question. 






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




Replies:
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 07 October 2011 at 5:36pm
If there is a passage in the Old Testament (OT) which states that the doctrine of the Triune God is false, then the OT does indeed contradict the New Testament.
 
Can you provide us with such a passage?


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 7:08am

Yes, Reepicheep,

 
The only Holy Book that claims incorrectly that the Holy Trinity is three gods is the Holy Qur'an.  Neither the Holy Bible nor the Torah and Prophets of Judaism referr to our God as three God's, so there is no contradiction.
 
IslamisPeace, I really have already dealt with this issue in another string, the one about the Holy Bible and its evolution.  Why don't you read about it there?  In answer to your first post, I have to agree with Reepicheep.  There really is no contradiction between the OT and the NT.
 
Allah Bless you, my friends
 
Jack Catholic
 
 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 1:49pm
Reepicheep,
is this a joke? OT does not mentions God as a Trinity because it simply never existed. Those who came up with the idea that God is a Trinity are the ones who need to show that OT God was a Trinity, as challenged on other threads as well.
Hasan


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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 4:27pm
Originally posted by Reepicheep

If there is a passage in the Old Testament (OT) which states that the doctrine of the Triune God is false, then the OT does indeed contradict the New Testament.
 
Can you provide us with such a passage?


Hello Reepicheep.  Thanks for replying.  You asked whether the Tanakh actually explicitly states that "the doctrine of the trinity is false".  The answer, of course, is no.  However, as brother Hasan pointed out, this form of reasoning is fallacious.  Using this argument, I could argue that since the Tanakh also does not explicitly say that "God is not a flying spaghetti monster", that means that it would not be a contradiction to say that God is indeed a flying spaghetti monster.  You would of course disagree with such a statement, and rightfully so, as it would be a ridiculous thing to say. 

What we know is that the Tanakh says that God is "One" and not "three in one".  If the trinity concept was true, the Shema would surely have made some reference to it.  Yet we find no such references even though Christians maintain that the trinity is not contradictory to the Shema.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be that the trinity concept is a new development which contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh.

We can use a specific example from the Tanakh, namely Isaiah 6 to give more support to this:

"1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

   “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
   the whole earth is full of his glory.”" (Isaiah 6:1-3)

In this vision, Isaiah claimed to have actually seen the Lord and yet he does not say he saw the "Lord who is Father, son and Holy Spirit" or the "Lord who is three in one..."  This would have been as best a time as any to mention the trinity concept, yet no such mention is made.

You also referred to the Tanakh as the "Old Testament" which is expected since you are a Christian.  This brings me to my next point.  The Christian claim that a "new covenant" was established and the old one was abolished is simply not supported by the Tanakh/OT because Isaiah 59:21 says:

"21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the LORD."

Notice that the verse explicitly says that the covenant was for all times ("forevermore").  Yet the NT states that the covenant was replaced.  How could both be true?  Would this not be a contradiction?





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



Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 9:12pm
islamispeace wrote: What we know is that the Tanakh says that God is "One" and not "three in one".
 
I agree with you that the bible states that there is only one God.  But I've never come across a bible passage which states that God is not "three in one".  Can you provide us with an example?


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 09 October 2011 at 6:55am
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Christians do not believe that the OT covenant was abolished.  Jesus refers to it as being fulfilled.  Please do not missrepresent us in this way.
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 09 October 2011 at 7:33am

Dear IslamisPeace, Reepicheep, and Hasan,

 

This post is from another string and was addressed to Hasan, but he never dealt with it.  Perhaps here it might be of use to your discussion. I have edited out what does not apply to this string, but I have not edited out all uses of the Hasan’s name.  Please don’t feel overwhelmed with its volume of content.  It was intended to be thorough.  And no, I do not intend to participate in this string beyond being a passive observer and offering a few occasional, brief comments here and there.  The borrowed post begins below:

Let’s look at the possibility of mistaken interpretation in regards to contradiction in the Holy Bible. Remember, you are trying to prove (the Holy Qur’an claims this) that the Holy Bible was originally correct revelation, and that humans have tampered with it changing some of its contents (evolution) resulting in contradiction. I’ll prove four things about some of what you have claimed to be contradiction: 1) that it was actually believed by the church before the writing of the Gospels because Jesus actually taught what you claim to be a contradiction, 2) that the first century Christians believed this teaching, and 3) that the Apostles later wrote it into what is now the Holy Bible. Then 4) I will show that there is no contradiction when the first century interpretations are used.

Let us begin with your (Hasan’s) statement from your (previous) post about the Holy Trinity: “The Bible as we know it today, teaches that God is One, but it does not stay consistant with that, in particular when my Christian friends like you insist that God has a son, a physical son, who is sitting next to him as God?”

The Catholic Church and the Holy Bible do agree that God does not have an equal. Yet you apply this truth to the Holy Trinity, and here I must expose your assumptions that must be true in order for you to successfully make the claim that the Holy Bible contradicts itself. I’ll print your assumptions in red. In order for the Holy Trinity to be a contradiction to the truth you have mentioned, you must assume that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings. We’ll deal with this assumption later in the post.

Your statements continue: “You and those who believe like you say that God's son who is also God, is equal to God. And antother being called "Holy Gost" is also God, who is equal to God. Unfortunately for you again, the Bible contradicts that claim too. Upon studying you will find that the same Bible says that neither the "Son of God" nor the "Holy Ghost" are equal to God instead they are subject to God, and dependent upon God, while God does not depend on anyone as we the beleivers believe.” Here, Hasan, you claim contradiction by making an assumption that dependence implies seperateness and a lesser quality. We’ll deal with this assumption shortly as well.

The Trinity was written about in the letters of St. Paul in the 50’s AD, and lest you think he originated the belief, he spent 3 years before the beginning of his ministry in Jerusalem with Peter and the Apostles getting instruction from them. As he was not condemned by them for inventing any new teaching, we must accept that his teaching was in line with the teaching given by Jesus to the Apostles. Also, the Didache in chapter 7:1 reveals the existence of the belief in the Holy Trinity during the first 30 years after Jesus death. So also did St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was instructed in the faith by St. John the Apostle himself before being appointed a bishop) wrote with reference to it in his Epistle to the Ephesians 1:1 and 18:2. Here is just a tiny bit of evidence that the early church believed in the Holy Trinity before the writing of the Gospels. And the close connection of St. Ignatius through St. John to Jesus himself is proof that the first century Christians did believe in the Holy Trinity. This was not some later doctrine added to the Holy Bible after the original had been penned. How do we know that Jesus taught the Holy Trinity himself? Because all of the Gospels reflect the three persons of the Holy Trinity and their relationship to each other, as well as many of the Epistles in the NT. The Gospels print Jesus exact words by the hand of the Apostles who were there with Jesus (Matthew 3:16, 28:18-19, Mark 12:29, Luke 1:30-35, and John 10:38, 14:9, and 17:10).

And finally we will consider the issue of contradiction which you claim is the characteristic of the Holy Trinity. Your first assumption comes from the Holy Qur’an and is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings. Let’s approach this assumption with comparison. Would it be correct to say that your finger, Hasan, is not you? Yet if we were to disconnect your finger from you, would your finger continue to have life, or would it die? If it would die, than in order for it to have life, it would have to be a part of you. Therefore, if your finger is alive at this very moment, we must admit that it is not separate from you. Let us apply this reality of life to the Holy Trinity. You as a Muslim assume that Jesus is separate from the God we the believers know as Yahweh and Allah and whom you also call Allah. Yet Jesus said as recorded in the Gospels, “The Father and I are one.” When we look at who Jesus is, we can begin to understand what Jesus meant when he said He was one with the Father. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John writes, “In the beginning was the Word (a reference to Genesis Chapters 1 and 2), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” In the same way that the thumb is a part of you, Jesus is part of Allah, so also is the Holy Spirit a part of Allah. Lest you think I am making this up, let us look at the writings of a first century Church Father named Theophilus, bishop of Antioch sometime after the death of St. Ignatius. In 180 A.D. he explained it very clearly in his epistle to a pagan critic named Autolycus (Epistle To Autolycus 2:15) in which he said the Holy Trinity was made up of God (you know Him as Allah), His Word (this is Jesus), and His Wisdom (this is the Holy Spirit). The Word and the Wisdom of Allah are as inseperable from Him as your thumb is from you.

Now that proof has been provided that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not separate beings, we can deal with your second assumption: that dependence implies seperateness and a lesser quality. Would your thumb be dependent on the rest of you for what it does and for sustenance? Of course it would. Just as the thumb is dependent on the rest of you, so also is the Word and Wisdom of Allah dependent on Allah. But do you hold the dependence of the Word and Wisdom of Allah to mean that the Word and Wisdom of Allah are not so important? Of course not. Are you aware of the reaction of the Islamic world to a certain Protestant Pastor who burned a copy of the Holy Qur’an in Florida in recent days? The Qur’an, as I understand it, is believed by Muslims to have come directly from the mouth of Allah through the angel to Muhammad. Is it not precious to you, dear Hasan? Yet is it also not subject to Allah from whom it came? Would it not be seen in the Muslim world that defiance to the Qur’an, the word of Allah, is defiance to Allah himself, dear Hasan? Just as the Qur’an is not of lowly status because it is dependant on Allah, so also are the Word and Wisdom of Allah not of lowly status because they are also dependent on Allah.

So, here now, I have shown that the members of the Holy Trinity are not of differing status just because of dependency, and I have also shown that the members of the Holy Trinity are not separate. As your assumptions about the Holy Trinity do not hold, you now must admit that Christians are correct when they describe the Holy Trinity as ONE fork with three prongs, as ONE triangle with three corners, as ONE man with three roles (employee, parent, spouce), as ONE clover with three petals, and as ONE element (water) with three forms (ice, liquid, gas). You must admit that the Holy Trinity is not in contradiction to the OT sentence: “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God is One God!” You must admit that the Holy Bible did not evolve because there is no contradiction present in it on this topic. You must admit that the Catholic Church is correct in its teaching on the Holy Trinity because Jesus did not lie.

God bless you, Hasan,

Jack Catholic

 
There was another post exchange between Hasan and I elsewhere:
 

You said, "All I am asking is to show me where in the OT God is a Trinity. Where in OT God teaches about Himself to be a Trinity.

Remember, Oneness of God or status of God, as who is He is very important for us to know, it is the first basic knowledge we aught to have about God. So show me where the OT agrees with you on Trinity."

 

My answer:  "Neither the OT nor the NT uses the term "Holy Trinity" to describe Allah, and that is why you do not see it in either.  You are looking for the wrong thing.  The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah.  You know, Hasan, I really do thank you.  Until discussing the Holy Trinity with you, I just accepted it, knowing the first century Church taught it, and Jesus taught the leaders of the first century Church.  But you have challenged me to look deeply into the issue for the first time.  Now I think my understanding of the Holy Trinity is so solid that I will never doubt it.  I thank Allah for this and for using you to help me learn so solidly the truth about Him.  So here is the truth

 

The modern Church says that the Holy Trinity is the Father (Allah in heaven), the Son (Allah’s word become man), and the Holy Spirit (Allah present in us).  The First century Church described the same thing with different words:  the Father (Allah in heaven), the Son (the Word of Allah in flesh), and the Holy Spirit (the Power of Allah).  So with this definition in its two forms, let us look for evidence of the presence of the three persons of the Holy Trinity in both the NT and the OT.  If the three persons are present, then we have found what the term Holy Trinity was created to describe:

 

 

About Allah as Father, the term Father is used to refer to one who is in charge over others, is charged with the duty to provide for those under his charge, and who creates in the lives of those whom are in his charge.  These qualities are not unlike the Islamic concept of Allah.  The issue seems to be with Jesus as Son (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit (the power of God present in us).  So let us look first of all at the Jesus present in the OT.

 

Let us begin with the first verses of John’s Gospel, remembering that the NT refers to Jesus as the Light of the World.  John 1:1-5 says, “The Word Became Flesh 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-5&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26050a - - a ] it.  Notice the reference to the words of Allah referred to as a “him,” and the connection of “him” to being a light to all mankind (which means over all the earth for all time).  Let us look at the words of Allah in the book of Genesis, the very beginning (I have removed the verses that do not pertain to our discussion here).  Notice about the Words of Allah.  All that Allah needed do was speak, and the meaning of those words resulted in action:

 

 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26a - a ] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
   in the image of God he created them;
   male and female he created them.

 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
    29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
 

 

 

So, now, if you were to read the whole of the OT and make a list of all the Words quoted from the mouth of Allah, you would find that the instructions contained therein actually are the very things that Jesus accomplished with the actions of His life.  The exercise of reading the whole OT, listing the quoted words of Allah, and comparing them to the accomplishments in detail of Jesus life and teachings in the NT would be quite an exercise for this string of posts.   But if you are interested, you may do so (remembering as Christians believe that Jesus is not man made God, but rather, as Christians believe, is God made man) and I’m sure that your eyes will see things in a whole new way.  I believe you will see, as I have seen, that indeed Jesus is Allah’s words in action, no more, no less.

 

One More thing, if you study Jesus’ life, you will find that his life is a living example of the number one commandment of Allah, which is in both the OT and NT, which is to love Allah with all our hearts, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 

About the Holy Spirit, Christians recognize the Holy Spirit as the power of Allah present in each of us, including in you, dear Hasan.  All I have to do to show the Holy Spirit as real and as present in the OT to prove my case.  Below is some commentary (followed by the verses quoted) that show the Power of Allah at work amongst His people, the Isrealites:                                                                                                                                

 

OT spirit of God (from Carelinks Ministries on the internet)

 

 David asked God to continue to uphold him with his spirit, i.e. to preserve his life (Ps. 51:12).

 

We have “the breath of the spirit of life” within us (Gen. 7:22 A.V. mg.) given to us by God at birth (Ps. 104:30; Gen. 2:7). This makes Him “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Num. 27:16 cf. Heb. 12:9). Because God is the life force which sustains all creation, His spirit is present everywhere. David recognised that through His spirit God was constantly present with him wherever he went, and through that spirit/power He was able to know every corner of David’s mind and thinking. Thus God’s spirit is the means by which He is present everywhere, although He personally is located in heaven.

 

An understanding of the true God and His very real presence all around us by His spirit can totally change our concept of life. We are surrounded by the spirit, constantly witnessing its actions, which reveal God to us. David found the encouragement of all this absolutely mind-blowing: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Ps. 139:6).

 

 

The expression “Holy Spirit” is present in the Old Testament:

Psalm 51:13 “Cast me not out from your presence, and your holy spirit take not from me,” Isaiah 63: 10,and 11 “But they rebelled, and grieved his holy spirit; Where is he who put his holy spirit in their midst?”  “I will pour out my spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing upon your descendants” (Isaiah 44:3; see also Isaiah 44:5-6).

 

There is a Catholic website that goes into the presence of the Holy Spirit in the OT in great detail:    http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/jub/JUBpizz.html -  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, here we have it.  The Holy Trinity, named by the Catholic Church in the second century, is clearly described in the New Testament, and now I have shown that the elements of the Holy Trinity are clearly in the Old Testament.  Thus, if you know what you are looking for, it is not difficult to see plainly that the Holy Trinity is, throughout the history of Allah’s revelation to mankind, consistant.  There is nothing invented by creative scribes or any other human tampering in regards to the Holy Trinity.  Indeed, only revelations from Allah that do not agree with the truth are those contained in the Holy Qur’an, but perhaps this is just that Muhammad did not really know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did...

 

If you have any other questions about the truth known by Christianity, just ask, my friend Hasan.

 

I pray that Allah will bless you always, drawing you closer to His Love and glory all the time,

 

Jack Catholic,
 
 
Indeed, Allah bless all three of you, IslamisPeace, Reepicheep, and Hasan,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 2:57pm
Salam,
what a great response, it shows you have certainly more patience than me not to mention more knowledge. May Alah bless you.
 
It is funny that those who claim to be Christians are made to believe that God completely forgot to mention that He is made up of a Trinity to all of the OT prophets, the very first, most important thing about Himself?  How someone can it to be right and live with that is beyond my understanding.
Jazakallah,
Hasan


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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by honeto

Salam,
what a great response, it shows you have certainly more patience than me not to mention more knowledge. May Alah bless you.
 
It is funny that those who claim to be Christians are made to believe that God completely forgot to mention that He is made up of a Trinity to all of the OT prophets, the very first, most important thing about Himself?  How someone can it to be right and live with that is beyond my understanding.
Jazakallah,
Hasan


Walaikum as-salaam.  Brother, you are much more patient than me, as can be seen in your dealings with Jack and Larry.  Those two make me laugh and cry (with their buffoonery LOL), yet you maintain your composure.  My demeanor depends on who I am dealing with.  As far as I can tell, Reepicheep is not like Jack and Larry, so I have no reason to be "fresh" with him.  I respect people like him but people like Jack and Larry I treat like they deserve to be treated.  But that's just me. 

Anyway, to Reepicheep, I am greatly interested in your view in light of my last post.  I look forward to having a nice discussion, inshaAllah.   


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by Reepicheep

islamispeace wrote: What we know is that the Tanakh says that God is "One" and not "three in one".
 
I agree with you that the bible states that there is only one God.  But I've never come across a bible passage which states that God is not "three in one".  Can you provide us with an example?


As I said, if that is your only argument in support of the trinity concept, then you should equally be content if someone would say that God could be a flying spaghetti monster since the Tanakh does not explicitly deny that he is not.

I argued that whenever the Tanakh speaks about God, not once does it say or even hint that God exists as three persons but is still One.  I would think that the absence of this concept from every single Jewish source, scriptural or not, would serve as conclusive evidence that the trinity was a new concept developed by the early Church to explain the contradictory verses in the NT (Jesus being human at one point and then divine at another etc.). 

Also, you did not answer my question about the covenant.  Why does the NT insist that the covenant is no longer in effect ("fulfilled" as Jack puts it) yet Isaiah said that the covenant would last forever? 


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Christians do not believe that the OT covenant was abolished.  Jesus refers to it as being fulfilled.  Please do not missrepresent us in this way.
 
Jack Catholic


LOL Typical attempts at moving the goal post.  Whether its abolished or "fulfilled" (whatever that means), Christians insist they are no longer bound by the old covenant, which is why you don't practice circumcision or the dietary laws.  Yet Isaiah stated that the covenant would last forever.  He didn't say anything about it being "fulfilled" (again whatever that means).    


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by Jack

Remember, you are trying to prove (the Holy Qur’an claims this) that the Holy Bible was originally correct revelation, and that humans have tampered with it changing some of its contents (evolution) resulting in contradiction.


Actually, in this thread, we are trying to determine whether the Tanakh and the NT are in agreement (as Christians claim) or if that claim is complete nonsense.  We are NOT talking about the Holy Qur'an or whether the Bible has evolved, as those are different topics altogether.  Therefore, I will ignore the parts of your post which deviate from this topic.  What I am looking for is evidence of the trinity concept in the Tanakh.  I don't care about the Church's teachings or the intricacies and mental gymnastics with which it attempts to explain the concept.  So let's see what evidence you can present. 

Originally posted by Jack

My answer:  "Neither the OT nor the NT uses the term "Holy Trinity" to describe Allah, and that is why you do not see it in either.  You are looking for the wrong thing.  The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah.  You know, Hasan, I really do thank you.  Until discussing the Holy Trinity with you, I just accepted it, knowing the first century Church taught it, and Jesus taught the leaders of the first century Church.  But you have challenged me to look deeply into the issue for the first time.  Now I think my understanding of the Holy Trinity is so solid that I will never doubt it.  I thank Allah for this and for using you to help me learn so solidly the truth about Him.


I agree with you here.  But, this is nothing new.  Everyone knows that the word "trinity" is never actually used in either the Tanakh or the NT!  However, this fact actually argues against the authenticity of the concept itself  since it was first mentioned in the writings of men.  The words of men were the first to mention this concept, and not the words of God.  That is saying a lot. 

So far, you have presented no evidence in the form of verses from the Tanakh which mention or even hint at the trinity. 

Originally posted by Jack

OT spirit of God (from Carelinks Ministries on the internet)

 

 David asked God to continue to uphold him with his spirit, i.e. to preserve his life (Ps. 51:12).
 
We have “the breath of the spirit of life” within us (Gen. 7:22 A.V. mg.) given to us by God at birth (Ps. 104:30; Gen. 2:7). This makes Him “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Num. 27:16 cf. Heb. 12:9). Because God is the life force which sustains all creation, His spirit is present everywhere. David recognised that through His spirit God was constantly present with him wherever he went, and through that spirit/power He was able to know every corner of David’s mind and thinking. Thus God’s spirit is the means by which He is present everywhere, although He personally is located in heaven.


OK, but how does this support the concept of the trinity?  This is not a tough question. 

Originally posted by Jack

The expression “Holy Spirit” is present in the Old Testament:

Psalm 51:13 “Cast me not out from your presence, and your holy spirit take not from me,” Isaiah 63: 10,and 11 “But they rebelled, and grieved his holy spirit; Where is he who put his holy spirit in their midst?”  “I will pour out my spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing upon your descendants” (Isaiah 44:3; see also Isaiah 44:5-6).



Yes it is mentioned, but how does this support the concept of the trinity? Angry  You have yet to answer this question!  Also, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Jewish sources state that the "Holy Spirit" was created:

"Although the Holy Spirit is often named instead of God (e.g., in Sifre, Deut. 31 [ed. Friedmann, p. 72]), yet it was conceived as being something distinct. The Spirit was among the ten things that were created on the first day (Ḥag. 12a, b). Though the nature of the Holy Spirit is really nowhere described, the name indicates that it was conceived as a kind of wind that became manifest through noise and light." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=H&search=holy%20spirit - [1]

Yet, Christians insist that all three persons of the trinity are not created!  Why?   

Originally posted by Jack

There is a Catholic website that goes into the presence of the Holy Spirit in the OT in great detail:    http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/jub/JUBpizz.html -
"The Old Testament proclaimed the Father quite clearly, the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son, and gave glimpses of the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit has made claim to citizenship in our midst, and grants us a very clear vision of itself. In fact, it was not prudent, when the divinity of the Father was still not declared, to quite frankly proclaim the Son, and when the divinity of the Son was still not acknowledged, to add the Holy Spirit as a additional package ... to use an expression which is a bit dry ... solely as a way to advance and develop: “from glory to glory, the light of the Trinity shining in most brilliant clarity” (Orationes Theologicae, 5:26).

Originally posted by Jack

So, here we have it.  The Holy Trinity, named by the Catholic Church in the second century, is clearly described in the New Testament, and now I have shown that the elements of the Holy Trinity are clearly in the Old Testament.  Thus, if you know what you are looking for, it is not difficult to see plainly that the Holy Trinity is, throughout the history of Allah’s revelation to mankind, consistant.  There is nothing invented by creative scribes or any other human tampering in regards to the Holy Trinity.  Indeed, only revelations from Allah that do not agree with the truth are those contained in the Holy Qur’an, but perhaps this is just that Muhammad did not really know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did...
 

This is of course typical "Jackian" BS.  And by the way, the Jews never believed in the trinity.  There is no evidence of any such belief among the Jews before the rise of Christianity, and you know it. 

So, here we have it.  No actual evidence presented but a lot mental gymnastics and non sequiturs.  This has been yet another disappointing post by Jack.  You know what?  Since the Christians on this forum have yet to present an actual verse to try to prove the existence of the trinity concept in the Tanakh, I am going to play devil's advocate for a second.  I am going to present a verse from the Tanakh which Christians traditionally interpret as a reference to the trinity and I will leave it at that.  Let's see if this stimulates some discussion.  The verse states:

"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, #fen-NIV-26a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26a - a ] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"(Genesis 1:26)   

Let's see what our Christian buddies can do with this verse.  Is this a cryptic reference to the trinity or is it something more simple? 


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 9:15pm

Dear Hasan,

 
Thank you.  I appreciate your appreciation.  Though I know we have sparred a bit, I do respect you for your self control.  Though we do not agree on everything, yet I also respect your intellect and knowledge.
 
May Allah always bless you now and forever,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 10:10pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Regardless of what you say, the elements of who Allah is in the three persons of the Holy Trinity are there in the OT in the verses I gave you.  You may say that because they are not clear, that they don't serve to be supports to the Holy Trinity.  The Catholic Church teaches and I, after 30 years of study and contemplation, agree with all my heart, that the evidence of the three Persons of the one God, Allah, are present there.  And the term Holy Trinity was devised to describe not what Muhammad claims Christians teach and believe about Allah, but what is in the OT about the Word and Spirit of Allah, and how Jesus explained what was there.  There is a difference between the two, IslamiPeace.  If I believed what Muhammad says I believe as a Christian regarding the Holy Trinity, then I would deserve to be stonned to death.  But the Christian Holy Trinity is not what Muhammad claims it is.
 
God Bless you, IslamisPeace,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Regardless of what you say, the elements of who Allah is in the three persons of the Holy Trinity are there in the OT in the verses I gave you.  You may say that because they are not clear, that they don't serve to be supports to the Holy Trinity.  The Catholic Church teaches and I, after 30 years of study and contemplation, agree with all my heart, that the evidence of the three Persons of the one God, Allah, are present there.  And the term Holy Trinity was devised to describe not what Muhammad claims Christians teach and believe about Allah, but what is in the OT about the Word and Spirit of Allah, and how Jesus explained what was there.  There is a difference between the two, IslamiPeace.  If I believed what Muhammad says I believe as a Christian regarding the Holy Trinity, then I would deserve to be stonned to death.  But the Christian Holy Trinity is not what Muhammad claims it is.
 
God Bless you, IslamisPeace,
 
Jack Catholic


You didn't show anything.  All you did was copy a Catholic apologetic article and pasted it here.  The article failed to prove anything and even admitted itself that the concept is "obscure".  So don't give me your BS.  The trinity is not present in the Tanakh nor was it ever recognized by the Jews.  In order to disprove this, you would have to provide clear verses from the Tanakh which state that God is three in one.  You have failed to do that.        


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 1:12pm
Since there has been no attempts at using Genesis 1:26 to prove that the concept of the trinity in present in the Tanakh, I will present the Christian side of the argument and then attempt to refute that argument.  Here is the verse in question again:

"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, forum_posts.asp?TID=21896#fen-NIV-26a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26a - a ] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"(Genesis 1:26)

Some Christians argue that the use of the "us" implies the trinity.  They also argue that the word used for God is "Elohim" which is the Hebrew word for "God" in the plural.  Hence, they argue that this verse is proof that the trinity concept is present in the Tanakh. 

And now to determine if these claims do in fact constitute as irrefutable evidence of the presence of the trinity.  First, the argument that the verse uses the word "us" implies that God must exist in three persons is a non-sequitur as even if it implies that God must exist in more than one person, there is no indication that the number of persons is specifically three.  Why can we not instead argue that the verse implies that God exists in an infinite number of persons?  The answer is that we cannot, because to presuppose that the word "us" immediately implies multiple persons is a hasty generalization.  The reason for this is that the use of the word "us" may simply be to emphasize God's majesty.  In that case, it would be an example of the "royal pronoun" or "majestic plural".  The Qur'an also uses this style when referring to God (see 22:5 for example).  In order to prove that the royal pronoun was used by the Jews, we would need to present other examples of its use in the Bible.  As it happens, we do have such examples.  In 2 Samuel 16, Absalom (the king of Israel) asks for advice from Ahithophel:

"Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”" 

The fact that Absalom refers to himself as "us" and "we" shows that the royal pronoun was used by the ancient Israelites.  Since it could be used for mere human kings, why not also for the King of the universe?    

Second, what does the use of the word "Elohim" indicate?  Christians argue that it is "obviously" referring to God existing in three persons, but is that truly the case?  If we can show that the word "Elohim" and its derivatives are also used for pagan gods who were never known to exist in multiple persons, would that be sufficient to prove to Christians that there is no proof that "Elohim" was synonymous with a triune God?  As it happens, we can show this using the Bible itself once again:

"Will you not take what your god (e·lo·hei·cha) Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the Lord our God (e·lo·hei·nu) has given us, we will possess." (Judges 11:24)

In this verse, derivatives of "Elohim" are used to refer to a pagan god (Chemosh) as well as the God of Israel.  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, "Chemosh" was a god of the Moabites http://concordances.org/hebrew/3645.htm - [1] .  There is also no evidence that he was believed to exist in multiple persons.  As such, how can Christians insist that the use of "Elohim" to refer to the one true God means that He must be a "triune God"?  The facts simply do not support such a contention.  It is hence nothing more than a baseless assumption and a leap of faith.  And God knows best.


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:16pm
Dear islamisPeace,
 
You wrote, "You didn't show anything.  All you did was copy a Catholic apologetic article and pasted it here.  The article failed to prove anything and even admitted itself that the concept is "obscure"."
 
What a pathetic responseLOL.  Most of the post is my own research into the modern and the first century teaching of the Catholic Church, and into the OT and NT.  Only some of the OT verses, those that explain the Holy Spirit, come from some (more than one) articles.  Are you saying that all I did was copy from an article because you are having trouble admitting that there is other intelligent individuals out there besides what you think you haveLOL?  Are you afraid to admit that maybe others might be right and you might be wrong in some very serious waysLOL.  Incidentally, the article I did qoute (not copy as you pathetically claimLOL) from is not "Catholic"LOL.  Can't you recognize what you are looking atLOL?  Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you don't know what is Catholic and what is notLOL?
 
IslamisPeace, open your eyes, let some of your hot air outLOLLOLLOL, and take a look at reality and truthLOL.  And then get with it, manLOL.
 
What you claim is "obscure" is what I already told you was "veague."  I already told you, and the word "obscure," is your way of saying, "Duhhh, I can't see it.  Where is it again?  I don't get it, duhhhhhh."LOL
 
As I told you, it takes a while to recognize what is right there before your nose.  If you pray to Allah to reveal it to you clearly, He will show it to you.  He did to me and to millions of others world wide for over 2000 years.  Jesus told us that he spoke in parables so that those who didn't really care would remain blind  and those who did would see and remember.  Do you really care, IslamisPeace..., about the truth, I mean?  If you do, be patient, and let Allah lead you to it. 
 
Then you say, "So don't give me your BS."
 
Ah haaaaa!  I've backed you into a cornerLOL.  Thats why you cuss and swear! You say those two letters because you are feeling cornered by the truth and don't know where to go with itLOLLOL.  You are a looser, Sir.  You are showing with your vocabulary that you have lost your cool and can't regain controle or the upper hand.LOL  I feel sorry for your pathetic condition.
 
You said, "The trinity is not present in the Tanakh..."
 
But I have show that it is and where.  Or can't you see it...?LOL
 
You continued, "...nor was it ever recognized by the Jews." 
 
Of course they did not see it.  But Jesus did, and he taught a bunch of uneducated working class men how to see it.  In fact, the articles I referred you to, which you admitted you were too lazy to read, will tell you that the references to the Holy Spirit are made throughout the OT and are connected to fire, water, and moving air or breath.  Amazingly, in the NT, the Apostles recognize the Holy Spirit showing itself in these three ways.  Only in the NT, the Apostles recognize there three appearances of the Holy Spirit for what it is.  They couldn't have known what they new if it wasn't for someone like Jesus who taught them.  I'm surprised that one as intelligent as yourself can't see it.LOL  Hmmmmm, I wonder whyLOL.
 
 
You said, "In order to disprove this, you would have to provide clear verses from the Tanakh which state that God is three in one."
 
Yeah, right.  I'd have to for one with your intelligence and lack of patience to be able to see what is clearly thereLOL.  Open your eyes, blind man.  Allah is the master of being always present, but often not visible to we humans.  It only makes sense that His Holy Spirit would have similar characteristics.  Your ability to see Allah is like a muscle.  You must practice, pray, and exercise your vision in order for it to grow, mature, and get strong.  Obviously, at the moment, it is a weak as a flabby muscle.  Get up off your lazy computer chair and work hard at prayer and trying to learn how to see Allah.  He is there all around you, always has been, but yo will not see him with your eyes.  You will only recognize him with your heart.  In 1 John 4:16, St. John the Apostles wrote, "God is Love."  As it is only by the heart that you see love, as love is not visible to the eyes, one can also say, "where you find love, there you will also find Allah."
 
You ended with, "You have failed to do that."  And you know what, it doesn't matter if I succeeded or failed.  I can see it, and so can many others.  Can you see what is there but not obvious, my friend?
 
Allah's blessings to you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:55pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
You wrote, "Since there has been no attempts at using Genesis 1:26 to prove that the concept of the trinity in present in the Tanakh, I will present the Christian side of the argument and then attempt to refute that argument.  Here is the verse in question again:"
 
Uh ohhh.  There you go, arguing with yourself.LOLLOLLOL
 
It's getting pretty bad, isn't it.LOL

Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2011 at 3:51pm
Originally posted by Jack

What a pathetic responseLOL.  Most of the post is my own research into the modern and the first century teaching of the Catholic Church, and into the OT and NT.  Only some of the OT verses, those that explain the Holy Spirit, come from some (more than one) articles.  Are you saying that all I did was copy from an article because you are having trouble admitting that there is other intelligent individuals out there besides what you think you haveLOL?  Are you afraid to admit that maybe others might be right and you might be wrong in some very serious waysLOL.  Incidentally, the article I did qoute (not copy as you pathetically claimLOL) from is not "Catholic"LOL.  Can't you recognize what you are looking atLOL?  Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you don't know what is Catholic and what is notLOL?


Riiiight...All I see here is a lot of ranting typical of people with no answers.  The one link you gave me (which is the one I was referring to) was a Catholic website.  You even said so!  Big%20smile  And surprisingly, that website proved my point which was that the trinity concept is not present anywhere in the Tanakh, although the website used the word "obscure" to divert from the truth. 

Originally posted by Jack

IslamisPeace, open your eyes, let some of your hot air outLOLLOLLOL, and take a look at reality and truthLOL.  And then get with it, manLOL.
 
What you claim is "obscure" is what I already told you was "veague."  I already told you, and the word "obscure," is your way of saying, "Duhhh, I can't see it.  Where is it again?  I don't get it, duhhhhhh."LOL
 

What?  Confused  Do you mean "vague" Jackie boy?  Anyway, so what you are saying is that the Tanakh conveniently forgot to mention the trinity in greater detail?  Is that it?  By the way, I didn't use the word "obscure".  That was your "websight" (sic)!  I was merely pointing out that your own source contradicts itself and proves what I have been saying all this time.  You still have not proven that the trinity teaching is present in the Tanakh.  It seems you are getting frustrated, so you are resorting to these hilarious posts which spend more time making you look like a fool rather than responding to my points.  There, there Jack.  It's okay.  I know the truth hurts.

Originally posted by Jack

As I told you, it takes a while to recognize what is right there before your nose.  If you pray to Allah to reveal it to you clearly, He will show it to you.  He did to me and to millions of others world wide for over 2000 years.  Jesus told us that he spoke in parables so that those who didn't really care would remain blind  and those who did would see and remember.  Do you really care, IslamisPeace..., about the truth, I mean?  If you do, be patient, and let Allah lead you to it.


LOLLOLLOL Now this is the typical answer!  The Christians know that the non-Christians who use their heads and their reason will not fall for the pathetic arguments the Church gives for its beliefs.  So they say things like "you should pray" or "give it time".  It is essentially the same as saying "in order to have faith, you need faith"!  You can't answer a simple question like "where in the Tanakh is the trinity mentioned" so you resort to logical fallacies.  As I have said elsewhere, what appears to you to be the "truth" is in fact fantasy.  It is the result of the steady brainwashing that your have undergone in your life which has desensitized you to logic and reason.  That is why you cannot answer my question.  Poor, poor Jack.  Whither hast thou gone?  Come back to reality. 

I ask again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?

Originally posted by Jack

Ah haaaaa!  I've backed you into a cornerLOL.  Thats why you cuss and swear! You say those two letters because you are feeling cornered by the truth and don't know where to go with itLOLLOL.  You are a looser, Sir.  You are showing with your vocabulary that you have lost your cool and can't regain controle or the upper hand.LOL  I feel sorry for your pathetic condition.


Ah haaaaa!  No answer as usual, just more ranting and raving.  I am a "looser" (sic).  Sure, whatever you say.  At least I know how to spell the word correctly!  Tongue 

Again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?  Anyone?  Come on, don't be shy. 

Originally posted by Jack

But I have show that it is and where.  Or can't you see it...?LOL


You have shown nothing!  You pointed to a few verses which mention the "Holy Spirit".  So what?  The "Holy Spirit" is only 1/3 of the trinity, dearest.  Where is the rest of it?  Where was the son in all those verses you mentioned?  Off fishing?

Also, I showed that according to Jews, the Holy Spirit was created.  You had no response to this except to ignore it.  Who's afraid of the truth?  Projection much Jack? 

Is it that I cannot see or that you are seeing things that are not there?  Ponder that for a while, dude...     

And a third time: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?
              
Originally posted by Jack

Of course they did not see it.


Oh how convenient, "they did not see it".  Yeah, that must be it, not the simpler explanation which is that it was never taught to them by the prophets nor by their scripture.  Faulty Christian logic...I love it!  Clap

But wait...are you not now contradicting yourself by saying that the Jews
"did not see it"?  On October 9, you http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21896&PID=159282#159282 - wrote :

"Indeed, only revelations from Allah that do not agree with the truth are those contained in the Holy Qur’an, but perhaps this is just that Muhammad did not really know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did...

At first you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) did not know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did, meaning that trinity was accepted by the Jews.  But now you say that the Jews "did not see it".  Which is it? 

Originally posted by Jack

But Jesus did, and he taught a bunch of uneducated working class men how to see it.


Riiight...and how was that?  By getting high?  LOL  I only say this because I can't imagine how anyone with an ounce of reason can "see" the trinity in the Tanakh.  It seems like they want to see something that is just not there, sort of like a drug addict in a euphoric state.   

Originally posted by Jack

In fact, the articles I referred you to, which you admitted you were too lazy to read, will tell you that the references to the Holy Spirit are made throughout the OT and are connected to fire, water, and moving air or breath.


Oh pardon me Jack for not having the time to read what you were too lazy to explain yourself.  You know I could just give you a bunch of links to read too.  But, I know better.  Even when I do use links, it is only to provide the reference.  Basically, when you give me links to read in response to my question, that just tells me that you are too ignorant to answer it yourself or too lazy.

Originally posted by Jack

Amazingly, in the NT, the Apostles recognize the Holy Spirit showing itself in these three ways.  Only in the NT, the Apostles recognize there three appearances of the Holy Spirit for what it is.  They couldn't have known what they new if it wasn't for someone like Jesus who taught them.  I'm surprised that one as intelligent as yourself can't see it.LOL  Hmmmmm, I wonder whyLOL.
            

And amazingly, you have yet to provide any evidence of the trinity!   You are stuck on the Holy Spirit, but have yet to provide a definitive verse which clearly says that "God is three in one".  I need to laugh...wait for it...wait...wait...LOLLOLLOL...ah there we go...

Let me just show you the sequence of your argument and why it is so foolish and laughable:

Islamispeace: Where in the Tanakh is the trinity mentioned?

Jack: Dah, well the Tanakh mentions the Holy Spirit.  So it mentions the trinity, dah...

Islamispeace: But that doesn't answer the question.  Where does the Tanakh state that God is three in one?  Also, the Holy Spirit, according to Jewish sources, was created whereas the NT states that it is uncreated? 

Jack: Dah, I already explained it to you.  You just can't see.  Pray and be patient, dah, and it will come to you.  Dah...

Islamispeace: Riiight...LOL

/End sequence 

Do you see how st**id your argument is?  And...LOL

Originally posted by Jack

Yeah, right.  I'd have to for one with your intelligence and lack of patience to be able to see what is clearly thereLOL.


Aw, you hurt my feelings!  Cry 

Jack is trying very hard to make it appear as if the trinity is clearly taught in the Tanakh.  But of course, when one wants to see something even if it is not there, one will still see it.  And when one cannot get someone with a little more reason to believe him, he will question the other's "intelligence".  Faulty Christian logic strikes again...I love it!

Originally posted by Jack

Open your eyes, blind man.  Allah is the master of being always present, but often not visible to we humans.  It only makes sense that His Holy Spirit would have similar characteristics.  Your ability to see Allah is like a muscle.  You must practice, pray, and exercise your vision in order for it to grow, mature, and get strong.  Obviously, at the moment, it is a weak as a flabby muscle.  Get up off your lazy computer chair and work hard at prayer and trying to learn how to see Allah.  He is there all around you, always has been, but yo will not see him with your eyes.  You will only recognize him with your heart.  In 1 John 4:16, St. John the Apostles wrote, "God is Love."  As it is only by the heart that you see love, as love is not visible to the eyes, one can also say, "where you find love, there you will also find Allah."
     

Translation: The trinity is there if you believe it is there.  Don't use your reason, which Allah (swt) gave you.  Just believe and you will see it.  Maybe take a little LSD too.  That might help.   

This sounds like Mulder from the X-Files: "I want to believe".   

Originally posted by Jack

You ended with, "You have failed to do that."  And you know what, it doesn't matter if I succeeded or failed.  I can see it, and so can many others.  Can you see what is there but not obvious, my friend?


What you see is a mirage, a result of you closing your mind to reason.  If you are asking me if I will choose blind faith over reason, I say thanks but no thanks.  I will choose reason.  Sorry to disappoint you and your blind brethren. 

Originally posted by Jack

Uh ohhh.  There you go, arguing with yourself.LOLLOLLOL
 
It's getting pretty bad, isn't it.LOL
 

Well, I have to stimulate discussion, don't I?  The silence on the subject is deafening.  It seems to me that no one has any answers.  Even then, I tried to play devil's advocate and presented a verse as "evidence" of the trinity to stimulate discussion.  When no one answered, I presented the Christian side of the argument (which I have heard from Christians before) and then presented my side of the argument.    I considered the other side's claims and tested those claims with the facts.  It's called objectivity, Jack.  Perhaps you should look it up, since I know you have never heard of it.

In any case, do you have anything to say regarding Genesis 1:26 and how Christians try to manipulate the facts in their hopeless campaign to prove that the trinity is present in the Tanakh?     

And finally...

TongueWinkCryBig%20smileLOLEmbarrassedConfusedClap

...all in one!   




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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 17 October 2011 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,

 
Thank you.  I appreciate your appreciation.  Though I know we have sparred a bit, I do respect you for your self control.  Though we do not agree on everything, yet I also respect your intellect and knowledge.
 
May Allah always bless you now and forever,
 
Jack Catholic
Thanks Jack, All Praise is Only for Allah.
Now do you care to show me a verse or two that declare God as a Trinity in the OT. Please only one or two verses will be enough, as you know I hate those pages long explainations. I am not intersted in explaination or commontary rather verses that just say it, plain and simple.
Hasan
 
 


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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 17 October 2011 at 8:04pm

**Again, you really have to scrutinize my posts before posting it, huh? Trying to find the answers islamispeace for a rebuttal? Even if one person like yourself reads it, it has been accomplished! This is just way to easy**

 
Originally posted by islamispeace

There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement. 

If, such is the case the same would hold true with the Quran compared with the Tanakh, correct? Was Allah the God of Moses (Jahweh Elohim) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel? A resounding NO! Allah is lord of the Ka’ba who has no son.  

Why then do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

A)             A)All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of  God to the people of Muhammad’s day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

B)     A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

C)     The Quran makes no distinction between God’s revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur’an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that,

"The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them,"
 
How convenient, right? And what an altered-Ego!
 

What I personally find interesting is that many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

 

a.   Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b.   Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) accepted the Gospel texts

c.   BUKHARI (810-870) accepted the Gospel texts (he gathered some of the earliest 

      tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible

      Sura 3:72,78)

d.   Al-Mas'udi (956) accepted the Gospel texts  

e.   Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina  (1037) accepted the Gospel texts

f.   AL-GHAZZALI (1111) accepted the Gospel texts (probably the greatest Muslim scholar

     he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g.  Ibn-Khaldun (1406) accepted the Gospel texts (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not

     accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

h.  Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us

     Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced.

     … accepted the Gospel texts

i.  Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and  

    early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors    

    and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known    

    and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

 
WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather than the witness of the Quran, the
word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who all believed the 
Bible texts to be truthful, Why do you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas but not 
the Gospel of Jesus?
Kish ''';


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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 18 October 2011 at 9:43pm
Dear IslamiPeace,
 
You wrote, "You still have not proven that the trinity teaching is present in the Tanakh."
 
Ahhhh, Piecie Boy, there you go, trying to twist and turn my words to make make yourself look victorious when in fact you are still as pathetic as you always were.  I never said that I would prove that the "Holy Trinity" teaching was present in the Tanakh.

What I did write, blind man, is the following:  " The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah."  I do not have to prove that the Tanakh teaches the Holy Trinity, I only have to show where the persons of the Holy Trinity are present in the OT (Tanakh) and I did that quite well.  So you loose, poor pathetic excuse for a scholar that you are, sir.  The Catholic Church is right on, because it accepts all of what is in the Holy Bible, NT and OT (Tanakh).  But you personally do not.  I guess truth is not an issue for you, huh?
 
After ranting and raving for another two long paragraphs like a mad man, you posted the same question.  Does beating your head against a brick wall for repetitions ad nauseum feel good to you, cause its making you look like a fool:  "I ask again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?"  Man that's gotta hurt! CryConfusedLOL
 
Then you write, "Again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?  Anyone?  Come on, don't be shy."   Bang, bang, bang CryLOLClap
 
Look above, blind man, at what I said I would do and where the term in question comes from and what its purpose is.  But, oh my, here it comes again:  And a third time: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?"  TongueWant a bandaid for that boo boo on your head?LOLLOLLOLCry Man, I'm laughing so hard at your stubborn st***pidity that it has brought me tears.
 
You wrote that I contradicted myself when you wrote, "At first you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) did not know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did, meaning that trinity was accepted by the Jews.  But now you say that the Jews "did not see it".  Which is it?"
 
Ahhh, there you go interpreting your own stuff into the mouths of others again.  I did not say that the Trintiy was accepted by the Jews.  What a dull headed monkey you are, silly man.  I simply showed that the Jews recognized in the Tanakh the existence of the Holy Spirit.  At least the Jews knew Allah this much, as Christians do.  Muhammad, on the other hand, denied the very existance of the Holy Spirit.  So much for knowing Allah, huh?Wink
You wrote, even after I pointed out verses for both God's Word in action (Jesus) and the very clear mentioning of the Holy Spirit in the OT, "I only say this because I can't imagine how anyone with an ounce of reason can "see" the trinity in the Tanakh.  It seems like they want to see something that is just not there, sort of like a drug addict in a euphoric state."Clap  Congratulations!Clap  You have just exposed your blindness so loudly and clearly.  Read in the Holy Bible what Jesus says about blind men, IslamisPeace.  How can anyone take you seriously now.  Why, I bet you could look right at an elephant and say that it was not there.LOL Can't get any st***pider than that!
 
Oh, yes, correction, you chose not to read the link I provided due to your own laziness.  So you are blind, st***pid, and lazy.Sleepy What a sad combination to have as character traits. Cry
 
You wrote, "You know I could just give you a bunch of links to read too."
 
And you know what, I wish you would.  They would be so much more informative than your ranting, sour, whiny, pathetic posts where you bash your head repeatedly against a proverbial wall and LOL like a raving madman claiming that what is made clear and obvious is not really there.  Then you claim that those who can see what is clearly there are on drugs and halucinating.  You can't get a more pathetic post than that.Big%20smileClapDead
 
Then you post the evidence of your hazy vision once again, "And amazingly, you have yet to provide any evidence of the trinity!"  Ha.... aha....hahaLOL!
 
I know that Allah will bless you anyway,
 
Jack Catholic
 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 12:38pm
Dear Hasan,
 
You asked for a few verses that declare God to be a Trinity.  But Hasan, I already told you in that very long post (made long by the verses I posted, not by explanation) that the elements of the Trinity are clearly there.  The Catholic Church simply decided make a title term to refer to it.  It is the term that Muhammad argues with because he doesn't show in the Qur'an that he truly knows what the term means.
 
The verses you are looking for are in the post I presented.  They are classified into three groups, those that show Allah as a creater/father figure, those that present the words of Allah followed by the action they emit (these words are Jesus before He took on flesh per the Gospel of John chapter 1), and those that speak of the Holy Spirit (or one of the appearances of the Holy Spirit).  All of these are in my post.  If you'd like just a few verses to discuss, feel free to pick some.  But you'll never get a straight answer to your question because there isn't one.
 
Perhaps you need to change your question...
 
Allah's blessings to you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by Jack

Ahhhh, Piecie Boy, there you go, trying to twist and turn my words to make make yourself look victorious when in fact you are still as pathetic as you always were.  I never said that I would prove that the "Holy Trinity" teaching was present in the Tanakh.


Well, then you are wasting everyone's time Jackie boy!  I asked for proof that the teaching of the trinity was present in the Tanakh.  If you are not trying to answer the question, then you are going off on tangents.  As I said, I am not interested in Church propaganda on the specifics of the trinity concept.  I am interested in whether the Tanakh agrees with the NT on the concept of the trinity.  That is the topic of the thread, whether the Tanakh is really in agreement with the NT as Christians claim.  If you can't answer the question then don't waste everyone's time and let someone else try to answer.  So far, my question has yet to be answered by anyone.  Is the trinity concept present in the Tanakh?  If not, why do Christians claim that it is and that there is no disagreement between the Tanakh and NT?  Try to answer the question or step aside, Jackie boy!

Originally posted by Jack

What I did write, blind man, is the following:  " The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah."  I do not have to prove that the Tanakh teaches the Holy Trinity, I only have to show where the persons of the Holy Trinity are present in the OT (Tanakh) and I did that quite well.  So you loose, poor pathetic excuse for a scholar that you are, sir.  The Catholic Church is right on, because it accepts all of what is in the Holy Bible, NT and OT (Tanakh).  But you personally do not.  I guess truth is not an issue for you, huh?


What a typical Catholic answer!  Boring! Sleepy

This is the best the Catholic Church can offer isn't it?  It and you don't "have to prove that the Tanakh teaches the...[t]rinity..." In other words, you accept the foreign concept of the trinity only through blind faith.  Apparently, your idea of "proof" of the false doctrine of the trinity in the Tanakh is that the Tanakh "mentions" the "parts" of the trinity in different places; never mind though that it never mentions them as being part of the trinity!  You also did not respond to the fact that the "Holy Spirit" was believed by the Jews to have been created.  You also did not respond to your own Catholic source which admitted that the person of the "son" was "obscurely" mentioned in the Tanakh.  All of this serves as evidence that the Tanakh never taught or even hinted at the trinity. 

Originally posted by Jack

Look above, blind man, at what I said I would do and where the term in question comes from and what its purpose is.  But, oh my, here it comes again:  And a third time: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?"  TongueWant a bandaid for that boo boo on your head?LOLLOLLOLCry Man, I'm laughing so hard at your stubborn st***pidity that it has brought me tears.
    

I love it how you are trying to save face and avoid embarrassment by using the emoticons!  It truly is very entertaining!  Bravo, Jack!  Encore!  Encore!  ClapClapClap

My simple question still remains unanswered.  I don't have to ask it again because I already did above!  So, don't worry.  Wink

Originally posted by Jack

Ahhh, there you go interpreting your own stuff into the mouths of others again.  I did not say that the Trintiy was accepted by the Jews.  What a dull headed monkey you are, silly man.  I simply showed that the Jews recognized in the Tanakh the existence of the Holy Spirit.  At least the Jews knew Allah this much, as Christians do.  Muhammad, on the other hand, denied the very existance of the Holy Spirit.  So much for knowing Allah, huh?Wink


No, no, no Sasquatch.  You said clearly that the Jews and Christians understood Allah (swt).  Don't blame me for your lack of clarity. 

Even if the Jews did recognize the existence of the Holy Spirit, which I never questioned, you have yet to respond to the fact that they also recognized that the Holy Spirit was created!  You Christians deviated from this belief and decided that the Holy Spirit had always existed.  Thank you  for providing more evidence of the contradictions between Jewish beliefs and Christian ones! 

Originally posted by Jack

Congratulations!Clap  You have just exposed your blindness so loudly and clearly.  Read in the Holy Bible what Jesus says about blind men, IslamisPeace.  How can anyone take you seriously now.  Why, I bet you could look right at an elephant and say that it was not there.LOL Can't get any st***pider than that!


Sure, sure Jackie!  Whatever you say!  It is becoming obvious that you will never answer my question or make an actual response to my points but will instead resort to these entertaining posts filled with insults!  I love it!  Keep it coming!  To here you say that I am "st**id" is music to my ears!  It would be like hearing George Bush say that I am "st**id"! 

Originally posted by Jack

Oh, yes, correction, you chose not to read the link I provided due to your own laziness.  So you are blind, st***pid, and lazy.Sleepy What a sad combination to have as character traits. Cry
 

Keep it coming!  I love it!  You are exposing yourself as the hypocrite and simpleton that you are!  As I said, I am not going to read a bunch of links since you are too lazy to do the work yourself and answer the question.  I asked a question, I expect an answer not a link!  Its very simple. 

Originally posted by Jack

And you know what, I wish you would.  They would be so much more informative than your ranting, sour, whiny, pathetic posts where you bash your head repeatedly against a proverbial wall and LOL like a raving madman claiming that what is made clear and obvious is not really there.  Then you claim that those who can see what is clearly there are on drugs and halucinating.  You can't get a more pathetic post than that.Big%20smileClapDead
 

LOL Oh the hilarity!  I know better than to give a bunch of links as my "answer" to a question.  That is the sign of a person who really isn't interested in discussion.  Why would I give you links to read when I can answer the question myself?  At most, the links that I would give would be when I referenced someone else's work which is how it is done in the academic world.  I know that means nothing to you, but it does to me. 

Originally posted by Jack

Then you post the evidence of your hazy vision once again, "And amazingly, you have yet to provide any evidence of the trinity!"  Ha.... aha....hahaLOL!


And you have yet to answer the question.  Here is the sequence again for your entertainment:

Islamispeace: Where in the Tanakh is the trinity mentioned?

Jack: Dah, well the Tanakh mentions the Holy Spirit.  So it mentions the trinity, dah...

Islamispeace: But that doesn't answer the question.  Where does the Tanakh state that God is three in one?  Also, the Holy Spirit, according to Jewish sources, was created whereas the NT states that it is uncreated? 

Jack: Dah, I already explained it to you.  You just can't see.  Pray and be patient, dah, and it will come to you.  Dah...

Islamispeace: Riiight...LOL

/End sequence

Come back to earth Jack! 

Originally posted by Jack

I know that Allah will bless you anyway,


Alhamdulillah, He has blessed me and I am thankful!  He has blessed me with faith and reason.  He had blessed me with knowledge and intelligence.  He has blessed me with the tools to expose false and fraudulent beliefs.  He has blessed me with the tools to expose ignoramuses such as yourself!  I am indeed blessed and I am thankful!  May He bless you too with all of these soon!  Ameen! Big%20smile


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by Kish

**Again, you really have to scrutinize my posts before posting it, huh? Trying to find the answers islamispeace for a rebuttal? Even if one person like yourself reads it, it has been accomplished! This is just way to easy**

 
Originally posted by islamispeace

There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement. 

If, such is the case the same would hold true with the Quran compared with the Tanakh, correct? Was Allah the God of Moses (Jahweh Elohim) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel? A resounding NO! Allah is lord of the Ka’ba who has no son.  

Why then do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

A)             A)All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of  God to the people of Muhammad’s day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

B)     A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

C)     The Quran makes no distinction between God’s revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur’an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that,

"The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them,"
 
How convenient, right? And what an altered-Ego!
 

What I personally find interesting is that many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

 

a.   Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b.   Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) accepted the Gospel texts

c.   BUKHARI (810-870) accepted the Gospel texts (he gathered some of the earliest 

      tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible

      Sura 3:72,78)

d.   Al-Mas'udi (956) accepted the Gospel texts  

e.   Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina  (1037) accepted the Gospel texts

f.   AL-GHAZZALI (1111) accepted the Gospel texts (probably the greatest Muslim scholar

     he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g.  Ibn-Khaldun (1406) accepted the Gospel texts (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not

     accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

h.  Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us

     Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced.

     … accepted the Gospel texts

i.  Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and  

    early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors    

    and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known    

    and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

 
WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather than the witness of the Quran, the
word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who all believed the 
Bible texts to be truthful, Why do you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas but not 
the Gospel of Jesus?
Kish ''';


What a pathetic response Kish!  This one takes the cake!  You are even worse than Jack.  At least he tried to stay on topic.  No where did you attempt to answer the question.  Instead, you tried to weasel your way out by doing what you do best...diverting to unrelated issues.  And you did so with more plagiarized material written by people who are just as dumb and as academically unqualified as you!  Care to answer the question, Kish?  The topic is not the Qur'an.  The topic is whether the Tanakh and NT are in agreement or are actually contradictory. 


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 2:24pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
All of your garbage postings are an attempt to get to this:  "Is the trinity concept present in the Tanakh?  If not, why do Christians claim that it is and that there is no disagreement between the Tanakh and NT?"
 
Is the concept of the Trinity concept present in the Tanakh?  I answered your question multiple times with this answer:  The elements of the Holy Trinity are present in the Tanakh:  Allah as Creator (Father), Allah's Word in action (St John says that Jesus is Allah's active word become flesh), and Allah's Holy Spirit.  I said that the Holy Trinity is a term designed to summarize what is already in both the Tanakh and the NT.  I then posted samples of Allah's Word in action (which you conveniently ignore, refusing to respond to it) and of Allah's Holy Spirit present and in action, even changing people's lives, all from the Tanakh.  Now, I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are looking for.  Even kindergarteners know that you get what you get and you don't through a fit.  If you claim that this is not the answer to your question, then... too bad...  get over it.  It is evidence enough for Christian belief.
 
About the Holy Spirit, you said, "Even if the Jews did recognize the existence of the Holy Spirit, ... they also recognized that the Holy Spirit was created!"
 
I researched out Jewish beliefs about the Holy Spirit, and Jews call the Holy Spirit "Shekhinah," which means "a minifestation of the divine presence."  I don't see anything here that even resembles a created Spirit.  Where did you say you got you rediculous data again?  Mine is embeded in
Rabbinic Literature and throughout the Talmud.  If you are interested, you can get a thorough and cited explanation of all this on the web page http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm
 
Your assertions are flailing, my friend.  You are making assertions that don't fit the evidence.  Christianity is solid with the Tanakh and with Jewish belief.  Islam... is not. Maybe you must question the teachings by which you profess your loyalty.  Just a suggestion. 
 
Allah bless,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 October 2011 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by Jack

Is the concept of the Trinity concept present in the Tanakh?  I answered your question multiple times with this answer:  The elements of the Holy Trinity are present in the Tanakh:


That does not answer my question nor did you prove that these "elements" point to a triune God.  That is your own interpretation which you have not supported.  

Originally posted by Jack

I said that the Holy Trinity is a term designed to summarize what is already in both the Tanakh and the NT.


Yet it is never explained in the Tanakh and not even in the NT!   

Originally posted by Jack

I then posted samples of Allah's Word in action (which you conveniently ignore, refusing to respond to it) and of Allah's Holy Spirit present and in action, even changing people's lives, all from the Tanakh.


All you showed was a circular argument using mostly passages from the Gospel of John and Church tradition.  You attempted to use Genesis in your defense but you showed nothing from Genesis which even remotely resembles "Allah's Word in action".  I have ignored your pathetic attempts to use mostly the NT in an effort to answer the question because it is irrelevant.  The fact is there is nothing in the Tanakh which supports your view. 

Originally posted by Jack

Now, I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are looking for.
 

It isn't because you are using Church tradition and teachings to garble the passages from the Tanakh.  The question was whether the trinity is present in the Tanakh, not whether the Church believes it is there.  The answer to the latter question is of course 'yes', but what I want is the proof for it.  You have not provided that proof as of yet, only the Church's interpretation of those verses. 

Originally posted by Jack

Even kindergarteners know that you get what you get and you don't through a fit.  If you claim that this is not the answer to your question, then... too bad...  get over it.  It is evidence enough for Christian belief.
 

Exactly!  Christians rely on blind faith and deliberate manipulations!  Thank you for proving this quite succinctly!

Originally posted by Jack

I researched out Jewish beliefs about the Holy Spirit, and Jews call the Holy Spirit "Shekhinah," which means "a minifestation of the divine presence."  I don't see anything here that even resembles a created Spirit.
 

I provided a reference from a Jewish source that states clearly that the Holy Spirit was created.  Are you telling me that the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is not a "Jewish" source?  Come on, Jack.  Seriously?

Here is what it states:

"Although the Holy Spirit is often named instead of God (e.g., in Sifre, Deut. 31 [ed. Friedmann, p. 72]), yet it was conceived as being something distinct. The Spirit was among the ten things that were created on the first day (Ḥag. 12a, b)" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7833-holy-spirit - [1] .

Notice the reference "Hag. 12a, b".  Do you what that it is from?  The Talmud!  So I searched the Talmud and here is what I found:

"Rab Judah further said that Rab said: Ten14 things were created the first day, and they are as follows: heaven and earth, Tohu [chaos], Bohu [desolation],15 light and darkness,
wind and water, the measure of day and the measure of night.16 Heaven and earth, for it is written: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.17 Tohu and Bohu, for it is written: And the earth was Tohu and Bohu.18 Light and darkness: darkness, for it is written: And darkness was upon the face of the
deep;18 light, for it is written: And God said, Let there be light.19 Wind and water, for it is written: And the wind20 of God hovered over the face of the waters.21 The measure of day and the measure of night, for it is written: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.22 It is taught: Tohu is a green line that encompasses the whole world, out of which darkness proceeds, for it is said: He made darkness His hiding-place round about Him.23 Bohu, this means the slimy24 stones that are sunk in the deep, out of which the waters proceed, for it is said: And he shall stretch over it the line of confusion [Tohu] and the plummet of emptiness [Bohu]25" http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Chagigah.pdf - [2 - pg. 41] .


Notice it says that the "...wind of God hovered..."  This is an obvious reference to Genesis 1:2 which is traditionally translated as "...Spirit of God hovered..."  Why is "wind" used in the Talmud?  Footnote #20 (after the phrase "and the wind") states the following:

"E.V. ‘spirit’." http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Chagigah.pdf - [3 - p. 43] .

As you can see, the Jews believed that the "Spirit" was synonymous with "wind".  This is confirmed by the Jewish Encyclopedia as well:

"Though the nature of the Holy Spirit is really nowhere described, the name indicates that it was conceived as a kind of wind that became manifest through noise and light." [Ibid.]


I am not responsible for your own ignorance and shabby research.  The Talmud clearly states that the Holy Spirit was indeed created.  I have used authentic Jewish sources to prove my case.  Let's see your "source":

Originally posted by Jack

If you are interested, you can get a thorough and cited explanation of all this on the web page http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm


Oooh, "Yahoo! Answers"!  Yeah, that's a great source for authentic Jewish teachings!  You might as well use Wikipedia!  The ***** called "kismet" also made a false claim.  He/she claimed that:

"The holy spirit is called shechina in Hebrew."

WRONG!  The "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew is "Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh".  See the Jewish Encyclopedia for reference.  The word "Shekinah" is associated with the Holy Spirit but it is not the word for "Holy Spirit".  Now if you are still not convinced that the Jews believed that the Holy Spirit was created, I have some more information for you.  In Berakoth 52, the Talmud states:

"BETH SHAMMAI SAY, WHO CREATED etc. Raba said: All are agreed that the word bara http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_12 - 12   refers to the past. Where they differ is with respect to the word bore. http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_13 - 13   Beth Shammai maintain that bore means 'who will create in the future', while Beth Hillel hold that bore can also refer to the past. R. Joseph cited in objection [to Beth Shammai] the verses, I form the light and create [bore] darkness, http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_14 - 14   He formeth the mountains and createth [bore] the wind, http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_15 - 15   He that created [bore] the heavens and stretched them forth. http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_16 - 16   Rather, said R. Joseph: Both sides are agreed that both bara and bore can refer to the past. Where they differ is as to whether ma'or [light] or me'- ore [lights] should be said. Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there is only one light in the fire, while Beth Hillel are of the opinion that there are several. http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html#52b_17 - 17   It has been taught to the same effect: Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: There are several illuminations in the light" http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html - [4] .
      

Keep in mind that "wind" is synonymous with the "Spirit" as I showed above.  The phrase "...and createth [bore] the wind..." is taken from Amos 4:13 which states:

"He who forms the mountains, who creates the wind, and who reveals his thoughts to mankind, who turns dawn to darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth—the LORD God Almighty is his name. " (NIV)


Do you know the Hebrew word used for "wind".  It is "ru'ach" which means "spirit".  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary (a Christian source by the way):

"ruach: breath, wind, spiritOriginal Word: ר֫וּחַ
Transliteration: ruach
Phonetic Spelling: (roo'-akh)
Short Definition: spirit

Definition
breath, wind, spirit" http://concordances.org/hebrew/7307.htm - [5] .
 

Now let's go to Genesis 1, which was referred to in the Talmud quote above:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2, NIV)

Do you know what Hebrew words are used here for "...and the Spirit of God..."?  They are "ve·ru·ach elohim" http://biblos.com/genesis/1-2.htm - [6] . 

But wait, here is one more piece of evidence.  One of the few places where the phrase "Holy Spirit" is actually used in the Tanakh is Psalm 51:11 which states:

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

I am sure you know where I am going with this?  What words are used for "Holy Spirit"?  Yes, the words used are "ve·ru·ach ka·de·she·cha" http://biblos.com/psalms/51-11.htm - [7] .   

The same word is used for "wind" and "Spirit".  Therefore, they are synonymous.  With all this evidence taken together, it should be clear that the Spirit/Wind is clearly referred to as being created. 

Originally posted by Jack

Your assertions are flailing, my friend.  You are making assertions that don't fit the evidence.  Christianity is solid with the Tanakh and with Jewish belief.  Islam... is not. Maybe you must question the teachings by which you profess your loyalty.  Just a suggestion.
 

This is clearly false in light of the above evidence, my friend.  Will you admit that you were in error?  I am giving you another chance to show that you are capable of objectivity.  If you do, I promise I will show you more respect.  One of my pet peeves is with people who refuse to look at the evidence and instead pretend that nothing has been proven even though the evidence is solid.  That is what irritates me most about you which is why I don't take you seriously when debating with you.  But, I am willing to let bygones be bygones.  However, it all depends on how you respond to the above evidence.  The Holy Spirit was created, according to the Jews and all Jewish sources.  Your "Yahoo! Answers" source gave false information and cannot be accepted as a valid source anyway since it is no more credible than an article from Wikipedia.  It also failed to realize that the Talmud (the same source it selectively uses) clearly states that the "Holy Spirit" was created.  I await your reply...


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 October 2011 at 7:50pm
So Jack, are you still pondering as to how to respond to my last post or are you giving me the silent treatment?  If you are trying to quietly move away from this thread, give me some hint so I can move on to listing more evidence of how the NT contradicts the Tanakh.  I am not going to push you to make a response if you don't want to.  Just let me know and I will leave you alone.  

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



Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 29 October 2011 at 7:08am
islamispeace wrote:  move on to listing more evidence of how the NT contradicts the Tanakh.
 
Just to clarify your english: you still haven't provided us with an example of a contradiction, so it is obviously incorrect of you to claim that you will provide us with "more" examples.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 October 2011 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,








 

You asked for a few verses that declare God to be a Trinity.  But Hasan, I already told you in that very long post (made long by the verses I posted, not by explanation) that the elements of the Trinity are clearly there.  The Catholic Church simply decided make a title term to refer to it.  It is the term that Muhammad argues with because he doesn't show in the Qur'an that he truly knows what the term means.

 

The verses you are looking for are in the post I presented.  They are classified into three groups, those that show Allah as a creater/father figure, those that present the words of Allah followed by the action they emit (these words are Jesus before He took on flesh per the Gospel of John chapter 1), and those that speak of the Holy Spirit (or one of the appearances of the Holy Spirit).  All of these are in my post.  If you'd like just a few verses to discuss, feel free to pick some.  But you'll never get a straight answer to your question because there isn't one.

 

Perhaps you need to change your question...

 

Allah's blessings to you,

 

Jack Catholic

Jack,
I don't mean to be be rude, but who are you trying to kid here, yourself or me and many more who have asked you to simply show the verses that describe God as a three in one, a Trinity. I know the verses already that say God is One. I know of the verses that say you should not make images or statues of God or any living thing. If God was three in one, as you say, God will tell us that. Where did in the OT God says, I am a three in one God. Basic knowledge about God is fundamental, and if God has not mentioned such a thing about Him in the OT, then you have no proof to your claim. It is that clear, why would you try to change that?
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: 29 October 2011 at 9:07pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Oh, are you waiting?  I'm soooo sorry.CryLOL Don't get too irritated...Wink
 
Blessings,
 
Jack CatholicWink


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 29 October 2011 at 9:44pm
Dear Hasan,
 
I'm not kidding.  If you'd have asked me a year ago where in the OT one might find the evidense of the Holy Trinity, I would have drawn a blank, then answered, "I honestly don't know, but Jesus spoke of God's three persons and I trust him." This much I knew.
 
But in my discussions with you, I've looked and seen that even before the time of the Maccabees in Jewish history, the presence of the Holy Spirit was there in the lives of Israel.  The Catholic Church has always known it, the Talmud reflects it.  The OT is very clear about the "Presence of God," even giving it a name different from "Yahweh," the tetragram of Allah's very name.  And that wierd first chapter of John's Gospel is actually pointing to the presence of Jesus even before the beginnings of the earth and everything in it.  Jesus has always been, as has been the Holy Spirit, in the OT and throughout time.  I am over 40 years old, and I couldn't see it for all my life, but now I can.  Hey, if I couldn't see it for this long in my life, I couldn't expect you to see it in a discussion where your full attention is focused on trying to prove that the Holy Bible has been tampered with and is now so badly altered that it doesn't resemble it's orriginal writting even closely. 
 
And no, I don't consider your last post to be rude.  I do see your exasperation, though.  You have carefully worded your questions to emit an answer from me that you believe to be telling to what you believe is true, and that answer you are not getting from me.  You might have gotten it a year ago.  But not know.  Thanks to your challanges, I see, my brother.  I finally see with both eyes open what Jesus knew and taught, but what Muhammad didn't/couldn't believe about Allah.  Allah defys human imagination and logic.  Yet everything about Allah speaks of love, about how much Allah loves us and longs for us to be with him always.  I understand now (not just know and believe in faith) how Allah doesn't wait till we die to take us to Him, but he actually is intimately with us, inside us, by His Holy Spirit night and day working to transform our lives and hearts to turn towards him.  Allah sent his words to take on human flesh and be called Jesus, a name which means "God with us," and in so doing touch our minds and hearts such that our lives would be changed.  God wants more than slave-like obedience from his believers, the obedience that Muhammad commands his followers to give Allah.  Allah truly wants our hearts to be so in love with him that his is at every moment of every 24 hour day in every act we make and every breath we take.  He wants us to give our lives to him, not just in name, or as a martyr in death, but to die to our selfishness and live every moment as an act, and expression of total love, generosity, and devotion to Him.  It is so very clear when we see Allah as a Holy Trinity that Allah loves each and every one of us with all His might.
 
No, Hasan, I can't give you the answer you are trying to get me to give you, because the answer would not be accurate, and the conclusion would be even more inacurate.  I must out of love for Allah who gave the life of His very son for me speak the truth.   The truth is that if you are looking for a simple verse that says, "Allah is three in one," you will not find it, though you look with a nit pick.  Indeed Allah is said to be One God and not many, and so He is.  And yes, Allah does not want us to make any statues of what we believe is God and worship it as if it itself were God.  Yet it would be foolish to deny what Jesus and indeed all Judaism since the time of the the Diaspora came to realize, and that was that Allah dearly loves his believers/followers and would be present with them no matter what, that his word in actions was and expression of love for them and his presence was as well.
 
Allah's blessings,
 
jack Catholic
 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 29 October 2011 at 11:24pm
Dear Kish,
 
Awesome response!  Did you check out IslamisnotPeace's non-answer?  Get a load of this one:
 
What a pathetic response Kish!  This one takes the cake!  You are even worse than Jack.  At least he tried to stay on topic.  No where did you attempt to answer the question. LOL
 
 
But Kish, you certainly did.  The title is the NT vs. Tanakh (or vise versa), and you simply showed that the Holy Bible (OT and NT) was accepted as authentic by Muslims from as far back as the first century or so after Muhammad.  You certainly did answer the question, and you showed that it was a man many hundreds of years later who bothered to read the Holy Bible who noticed the discrepencies that Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time noticed right away about Muhammad's claims.  Yup!  You just hit the nail on the head!LOL  Throughout history, very few people have chosen to be Muslim, but have had it forced on them because anyone who knows the Jewish and Christian scriptures well knows that Muhammad got much of it wrong, and one must question the truth of his claims that an angel of God really spoke to him with God's own words.Big%20smile  That is why there is this desperate bias on these boards to try to trip up Christians and Jews on their knowledge and claims about the teachings of the Holy Bible.  It's all about making people believe that the Holy Bible is corrupted, which it is not.  People like us drive IslamisnotPeace up the wall, because we don't let up, and we keep giving solid unarguable answers.  He just can't quite seem to get a grip on the issue enough to trip us up.  That's also why he gave you a non-answer rather than address the things you said...Big%20smile
 
Nice going, Kish.  Keep up the great work!  IslamisnotPeace,  eat your heart out!!!WinkBig%20smileLOL
 
Blessings on you both,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 7:46am
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Here's what you've been waiting for.  I've had to cut out your "entertainment fluff and summarized your few week points below in bold type.  There were a few lines of yours that I posted to show how week your "intelligent posts" really are.  They have doctors who can treat people with your kind of logic.  Well, here is my long awaited response.  Have fun with it.LOL
 
You claimed:
 
1.  The Talmud identifies the Holy Spirit using words that show it to be synonymous with wind, then you say that it claims that like the wind, the Holy Spirit was created.
 
2.  The elements of the Holy Trinity are unclear, unexplained, and confusing.  Catholic interpretation garbles and manipulates the Tanakh to say there is a Holy Trinity where there isn’t.
 
3.  You challenged my explanation on the term Shekinah by telling me that my sources of information are not authoritative and yours are:  the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud.  Then you made the following claim (in your own words):  “The "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew is "Rua ha-odesh".  See the Jewish Encyclopedia for reference.  The word "Shekinah" is associated with the Holy Spirit but it is not the word for "Holy Spirit".”
 

Here, IslamisPeace, is a summary of the ridiculously pointless arguments you are making to what I am saying.

Jack:  The elements of the Holy Trinity are present in the Tanakh:

Isla:  You didn’t you prove that these "elements" point to a triune God. 

Jack:  I said that the Holy Trinity is a term designed to summarize what is already in both the Tanakh and the NT.

Isla:  Yet it is never explained in the Tanakh and not even in the NT!  (IslamisPeace, it is so not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the Holy Trinity for the Holy Trinity to be present in the Tanakh.  This sudden requirement of yours is a pathetically irrelevant attempt to make me look like the buffoon that you keep proving yourself to be.LOL  For next I will quote you giving the exact question of our discussion which is on topic...)   The question was whether the trinity is present in the Tanakh. (see?)  You have not provided that proof as of yet, only the Church's interpretation of those verses.  (I have, but you refuse to acknowledge it, as your words that follow clearly show)  I have ignored your pathetic attempts... to answer the question.  (And this, my open-eyed, intelligent discussion buddy, is how you deal with evidence you don’t want to hear.)

Jack:  I researched out Jewish beliefs about the Holy Spirit and found that Jews call the Holy Spirit "Shekhinah," which means "a manifestation of the divine presence."  I don't see anything in this definition that even resembles a created Spirit.

 
Isla:  I provided a reference from a Jewish source that states clearly that the Holy Spirit was created.  Are you telling me that the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is not a "Jewish" source?  Come on, Jack.  Seriously? (Did I say that the Jewish Encyclopedia was not a “Jewish” source?Confused  Grabbing at smoke again, are we, IslamisnotPeace?Big%20smile)

Now, IslamisPeace, I am going to give you a thorough response.  I’ll use the Tanakh and the NT to show that the two are not in conflict as the title of this string of posts suggests:  Tanakh vs. NT.  I’ll also bring in quotes from your precious Talmud, which you are so quick to make appear to contradict me – it does not, as I have so clearly shown from its own pages before.

Your first assertion: 

The Talmud identifies the Holy Spirit using words that show it to be synonymous with wind.  This means that, like the wind, the Holy Spirit was created.

So, IslmisPeace, you are saying that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the wind per the first chapters of Genesis and throughout the Tanakh.  And since the wind is created, so also is the Holy Spirit.  Next, you say my assertion of Shekinah being the Holy Spirit in Judaism is therefore false.  You suggest that most of my evidence comes from the Catholic Church and the NT and is therefore inadmissible evidence in this discussion.  (even though the discussion is about comparing the NT to the OT [Tanakh])  Let’s look a little more closely at the Tanakh to see if you are so correct as you imagine yourself to be.  You will see that what I am saying about the Holy Spirit, and indeed about the Holy Trinity, is not my own interpretation.  You will find that Jewish and Christian beliefs fit “hand in glove” – it is you and your Muslim beliefs that just...don’t fit.

The early scribes (later called rabbis) added Shekinah in biblical verses where the verb shakhan is used in relation to God. Shakhan literally means "to dwell" or "to live with", or even "to pitch one's tent." The word Shekinah means the God-Who-Dwells-Within.   The Israelites began to realize this quality of God primarily after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in 587 BC, especially as it proffered hope to a people lost in bitter exile. To console an Israel in Diaspora, the comforting, forgiving and loyal presence of the Shekinah emerged in their awareness. The Talmud, which is the Jewish Authority you claim contradicts my assertions, IslamisnotPeace, says: "They were exiled to Babylon, the Shekinah with them. They were exiled to Egypt, the Shekinah with them." The Tanakh says in Lamentations 1, 5, "Her children are gone into captivity," and immediately after (1,6), "From Zion her splendor is departed." The use of "splendor" is also one of the ways to describe the Shekinah. Other terms referring to the Shekinah are "the glory" and "radiance". The shekinah was present in the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night that led the Israelites through the Sinai wilderness.

The Shekinah eventually became an interchangeable term with the Holy Spirit in Judaism, which was eventually carried into Christianity through Jesus to his Apostles.  The Shekinah is often pictured as a bird or dove.  In Chrisianity the Holy Spirit is seen as the Advocate, Guide and Comforter (John 14:16-26, and Acts 9:31). This is a logical extension of the similar rolls played by the Shekinah in the Babylonian Captivity and the Slavery in Egypt.  There is an even more direct connection to the Hebrew tradition of the Shekinah as St.Paul. the former Pharisee, stresses the indwelling nature of the Holy Spirit throughout his famous passage in Romans 8:8:  “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you.”  There goes your Muslim accusation from another string that St. Paul hijacked the Christian faith.  You see, St. Paul was simply referencing what was already a present understanding of God in Judaism which had been realized by the Jewish believers more than 500 years before. 

The wind you referenced from the first chapters of Genesis was not the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit was definitely present in that wind.  This is why one can say that the Holy Spirit was over the waters during that day of creation and be right on about it.  About the wind not being the Holy Spirit, 1 Kings 19:11 reveals to us that though synonymous at times, yet the wind and the Holy Spirit are not the same things:  1 Kings 19:11 11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.”  From this passage we see that the wind, though not being the Holy Spirit, can contain the presence of the Holy Spirit, or Shekinah.

 

Though not the same thing (wind and Holy Spirit) yet the fact that they are synonymous is recognized by Jesus when he uses wind to refer to a quality of God’s Holy Spirit (indwelling presence) in John 3:8 where he is speaking to Nicodemus, “The wind (referencing the Holy Spirit) blows where it chooses...”  The meaning implied by this statement is that the Holy Spirit will serve all peoples, not just Christians or Jews.  St. Paul and Jesus were right in sync when St. Paul spoke of the same thing using different verbiage in Galatians 3;28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male and female;  for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  This has always meant, as context will tell you, that as we all have the Shakinah in us through Jesus, we are all as one as the Shakinah (Holy Spirit) which unites us is one.

In reference to the Holy Trinity, it is well established that both Paul and John frequently equated Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit as seen in the Romans 8 passages and in the Paraclete passages of John (chapters 14-16).

In conclusion on this point, I’ll present a little summary of all the appearances of the Holy Spirit (Shekinah) in the Tanakh.  The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the burning bush with Moses, in the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of smoke by day that protected the Israelites from Pharoh, then guided them through the desert.  The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the cloud that rested on the summit of Mt.Sinai when the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and the Shekinah was present in the cloud that occupied the Holy of Holies in the Meeting tent built by the Israelites under Moses to house the Ark of the Covenant.  The Talmud teaches that the Shekinah is everywhere.  Observing Jews have a saying that the Shekinah (Holy Spirit) descends on each Friday at sunset to transform each Jewish home during the Sabbath.

Your second point:

The elements of the Holy Trinity are unclear, unexplained, and confusing.  Catholic interpretation garbles and manipulates the Tanakh to say there is a Holy Spirit where there isn’t.

I have just shown the contrary using your precious Talmud and the Tanakh.  And I have shown how what was present in the Tanakh is exactly what Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John were talking about in the NT.  Doesn’t leave much wiggle room for you, now, does it, IslamisnotPeace?

 

Your third point:

3.  You challenged my explanation on the term Shekinah by telling me that my sources of information are not authoritative and yours are:  the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud.  Then you made the following claim (in your own words):  “The "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew is "Rua ha-odesh".  See the Jewish Encyclopedia for reference.  The word "Shekinah" is associated with the Holy Spirit but it is not the word for "Holy Spirit".”

Your whole assertion that my sources are poor sources and your sources are better because they are Jewish is a pathetic joke and shows how you derive your logic, IslamisPeace. LOL For my sources quoted the same Talmud as you did.   Then, when I looked into the Talmud, what did I see?  That the article I accessed quoted properly and did not interpret and assume as you did when you quoted it.  You have been known to deceive, Islamisnotpeace.  You have posted data even from the Tanakh to me on another string and left important parts out, then come back later to say that the part I posted (Gen 9:3) was known to you and that you were just waiting to see if I would find it.  In that string, Gen 9:3 revealed word for word how wrong you truly were.  You are as wrong in this string.  I might also add that your “sources” are not the authorities you claim them to be, as there are two Talmuds, not one, the lesser used one being older, and being from the same faith community as Jesus, and also being not in full agreement with the teachings of the Talmud which you claim is the authority in Judaism.  There are also 4 major sects of Judaism, only one holding to your version of the Talmud as a religious authority.  So much for your disqualifying me for speaking about Jewish belief because I am Catholic.  You, brother, are Muslim, not Jewish, and so you are about as qualified as I to speak about Judaism, if not less so.  You have shown your bias (in your comments), which is to discredit both the Torah and the Holy Bible so as to claim that the only real truth is the “pure and unaltered” Qur'an.  I, on the other hand, simply intend to show that indeed the Jews and the Tanakh are both correct and that Jesus, also a Jew, simply shed some light onto what the Jews already knew so that they and all of humanity would know the full truth about Allah.  So don’t point your crooked finger at me and call me biased and unqualified.  You are the verbalist who keeps getting things wrong due to random interpretation and unsupported surmizings.  You have about as much of an imagination as, say, Muhammad. 

To repeat my last concluding discourse (your pathetic and revealing response will follow), “Now, I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are looking for.  Even kindergarteners know that you get what you get and you don't through a fit.  If you claim that this is not the answer to your question, then... too bad...  get over it.” LOL

 

IslamisPeace responded:  “It isn't (the answer I was looking for) because you are using Church tradition and teachings (aw, too bad old friendLOL) to garble the passages from the Tanakh.... Christians rely on blind faith and deliberate manipulations!  I am not responsible for your own ignorance and shabby research.” 

Isla. continued:  “I have used authentic Jewish sources to prove my case.  

 
IslamisPeace, this response just takes the cake – my emotion faces inserted at appropriate places: 
 
“(Your assertions are) clearly false in light of my (IslamisnotPeace’s) evidence, my friend.  Will you admit that you were in error?  I am giving you another chance to show that you are capable of objectivity.  If you do, I promise I will show you more respect. LOL One of my pet peeves is with people who refuse to look at the evidence and instead pretend that nothing has been proven even though the evidence is solid. ConfusedLOL That is what irritates me most about youCry which is why I don't take you seriously when debating with you. Cry But, I am willing to let bygones be bygones. Tongue However, it all depends on how you respond to the above evidence.WinkLOLLOLLOL
 

Then you reassert your imagined solid points:

“The Holy Spirit was created, according to the Jews and all Jewish sources.”
 

My response:  All Jewish sources?  Yeah, and all posters on Islamicity Forums think you are just the coolest, most intelligent, and fascinating poster on the boards.LOL

 

Allah’s Blessings, Isla,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by Reepicheep

islamispeace wrote:  move on to listing more evidence of how the NT contradicts the Tanakh.
 
Just to clarify your english: you still haven't provided us with an example of a contradiction, so it is obviously incorrect of you to claim that you will provide us with "more" examples.


Well, if you haven't been paying attention to this thread, then I can understand your comment.  However, if you are paying attention, then you will that I have shown a few contradictions already regarding the covenant and the status of the Holy Spirit.  Regarding the latter, Christians insist that the Holy Spirit is uncreated.  But, the Tanakh and Jewish tradition maintain that the Holy Spirit was actually created on the first day.  See my rebuttal to Jack above for the evidence. 

Regarding the trinity, I have already pointed out to you that to say that since the Tanakh never explicitly denies that God is a trinity then it would not be a contradiction to say that He is, is logically absurd.   


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 8:37pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Oh, are you waiting?  I'm soooo sorry.CryLOL Don't get too irritated...Wink
 
Blessings,
 
Jack CatholicWink


Actually, I am quite exhilarated at your silence!  It shows me that you have been stupefied and vexed by the evidence.  But, instead of admitting your error and trying to learn the truth, you let your arrogance get the best of you.  It seems that I have brought out the real Jack, as can be seen by your recent posts.  You have resorted to clownish behavior instead of actual discussion.  I love it! 

Your silence on the issue of the Holy Spirit being created is made even more noticeable by your attempt to bring Kish's (who is taking an intellectual beating on another thread already) red herring post back into the mix.  There was no point of responding to that post because it was completely unrelated to the thread (plus it was plagiarized as per Kish's usual tactic).  But the fact that he tried shows that this thread is causing much discomfort for the Christians on this forum.  None of you can seem to respond to the evidence.  I think Kish actually feels that the issue of the trinity is at least plausible since he considers it to be a foreign concept which was not taught by Jesus or the disciples.  But of course, the rest of the topic (the Tanakh contradicting the NT) is uncomfortable for him as a Christian. 

Anyway, the Holy Spirit was created according to the Tanakh and Jewish tradition.  Therefore, this constitutes a contradiction between the Tanakh and the NT.        


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



Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 31 October 2011 at 8:28am
islamispeace wrote:  I have already pointed out to you that to say that since the Tanakh never explicitly denies that God is a trinity then it would not be a contradiction to say that He is, is logically absurd.
 
Why do you think this is a both a contradiction and logically absurd?  It is obviously neither.
 
Prove to me using symbolic logic that there is a falsehood here.  Show me, using the laws of logic, where the contradiction is.
 
 
 

 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 31 October 2011 at 11:17am
Jack,
thanks for your reply. Holy spirit, as mentioned in the Bible and Quran is not God. Has it been God, it would not be under God's commands, nor it would be evil at times as the Bible says which simply shows the tranformation of understanding the difference between angels and Satan, both beings spirits.
Anyone or anything that is under God's command or to His service is not God.
What is thought to be God the Holy Ghost/Spirit is in fact angels or spirits that God has created for different tasks. And we will see that throughout the Bible this Spirit beings has been sent down for different tasks.
For example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+10:6&version=NIV - 1 Samuel 10:6
The Spirit of the LORD will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person.
Now in the following verse we see a very different role of "Spirit" it also proves that it is certainly not God the Holy Ghost, yet it clearly says, "Spirit from God" rather another spirit being, Satan, a Jinn:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+11:6&version=NIV - 1 Samuel 11:6
When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he burned with anger.
 
We follow it up to the next one:
 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+19:9&version=NIV - 1 Samuel 19:9
But an evil spirit from the LORD came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the lyre,
 
Jack you be the judge, with fairness and explain.
 
Now let us see how Quran clears up the confussion:
 
5:110  Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity.
 
For a Muslim there is no problem understanding this, when God says "He will strenthened....with holy spirit" it means what it means that God has power over holy spirit, and God will give that, because God can, thus holy spirit is under God's command and anyone under God's command is not God, simple as that.
 
 
16:102  Say, the holy spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
 
34:40 One Day He will gather them all together, and say to the angels, "Was it you that these men used to worship?"
41 They will say, "Glory to Thee! our (tie) is with Thee - as Protector - not with them. Nay, but they worshipped Jinn: most of them believed in them."
 
So, Jack it is our choice, but to worship that is subject to Allah or under His command that is not God, whether in OT, NT or Final Testament times. God is always One, none else equals Him, thus none else is worthy of worship, but Only Him.
 
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: 31 October 2011 at 11:35am
Dear Isla,
 
Your two posts dated Oct. 30, one at 8:27 and one at 8:38, both show the quality of your posts.  They contain absolutely no evidence whatsoever, just like your assertions on this string.  Look at the two posting times for you last two posts:  8:27 and 8:38.  You just wrote stuff and took no time to use that marvelouse logic and intellect you claim to have.  No, both were thoughtless posts.  They are irritating as well.  I know that you can do better than this Isla (I'm cutting off the -m and the rest of your pen name "is Peace" because your posts are designed to inflame and irritate, not bring peace and understanding, and your rational is that you are "only treating others as they deserve."  You have said as much on multiple occasions.  If you want me to call you "IslamisPeace" in full, than you had better earn the reputation of bringing peace to those you address, and start behaving with the love that the God you claim to believe in and obey posesses.  Else, Isla is all you will get from me.
 
 
You said to Reepicheep, "Well, if you haven't been paying attention to this thread, then I can understand your comment." 
 
You see there?  You are way out of line.  Because indeed he has been paying attention.  Don't think he is alone in noticing the quality of your "evidence."  You have used dictionaries to claim that words in the Tanakh don't count as evidence when the Talmud indeed says they do.  You have posted verses from the Tanakh and claimed they meant things they didn't say, while claiming other verses didn't really mean what they clearly did say.  He is right in that you have presented no evidence of contradiction.  I am not defending Reepicheep.  I am simply letting you know that he is not alone in what he see out of you.  Your are loosing this debate badly, Isla.
 
 
 
You (Isla) posted, "However, if you are paying attention, then you will that I have shown a few contradictions already regarding the covenant and the status of the Holy Spirit."  Yeah, rightLOL.
 
 
You (Isla) said, "Regarding the latter, Christians insist that the Holy Spirit is uncreated.  But, the Tanakh and Jewish tradition maintain that the Holy Spirit was actually created on the first day."  Yeah,right.LOL  Then you said, "See my rebuttal to Jack above for the evidence." Oh, help me...LOLLOLLOL You are funnier than Bozo! 

 
Then you posted (Isla), "Actually, I am quite exhilarated at your silence!"  It's the calm before the storm, my friend.
 
Then you typed, "It shows me that you have been stupefied and vexed by the evidence."  LOLLOLLOL  Somebody stop me from this.LOL I can't stop.  Oh Isla, you are sooooo funy!LOLLOLLOL 
 
Isla:  "But, instead of admitting your error and trying to learn the truth, you let your arrogance get the best of you."  What ever you sayBig%20smile.
 
Isla:  "You have resorted to clownish behavior instead of actual discussion.  I love it!"  Yup!  I took my ques from you!
 

Isla:  "Your silence on the issue of the Holy Spirit being created is made even more noticeable by your attempt to bring Kish's (who is taking an intellectual beating on another thread already) red herring post back into the mix."
 
Isla, what you consider silence because of being, what did you call it, "vexed" is actuall the sound of study and thinking, something you regularly fail to do.  Oh, and then you say that you are the logical one, which tells a lot about what you think is logic, too. Just look at how you fired off two posts in just 10 minutes on an issue where you consider logic and evidence to be so critical.  Nobody takes you seriously, Isla.  But you do ask questions that one doesn't encounter in normal daily life, and this has value for those of us who care to search out the truth.  I've learned a lot about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity by working through these questions.
 
 
Isla:  "There was no point of responding to that post because it was completely unrelated to the thread (plus it was plagiarized as per Kish's usual tactic)."
 
And this, Isla, is how you go about avioding posts that conain question or evidence that you are afraid to deal with.  Kish's post dealt with exactly what your post is supposed to be about.  His evidence cut through to the heart of the matter, which is that while you are trying to prove that the Holy Bible (Tanakh plus NT) is in contradition and therefore a badly altered text, those personal friends of Muhammad who knew of the Holy Bible  dissagree with you.  That alone should end this discussion.  You have brushed the issue aside because you know the posistion it puts you in and you are hoping that we will follow you away from this evidence.  No such luck, big boy.  I challange you to address Kish and his evidence with a real and researched response.  No more of this pamsy behavior of yours.  Cowboy up, big guy!
 
 
Dr. Isla the phsycologist speaks:  "But the fact that he tried shows that this thread is causing much discomfort for the Christians on this forum.  None of you can seem to respond to the evidence.  I think Kish actually feels that the issue of the trinity is at least plausible since he considers it to be a foreign concept which was not taught by Jesus or the disciples.  But of course, the rest of the topic (the Tanakh contradicting the NT) is uncomfortable for him as a Christian." Yeah, rightLOLLOLLOL.  More Isla hot airLOL.
 
Allah's blessings, Isla,
 
Jack Catholic 
 


 


Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 01 November 2011 at 8:38am
Jack catholic wrote:  You have used dictionaries to claim...
 
You make an interesting observation.  I agree totally.
 
For words which appear in English language translations of the Bible, muslim posters within this forum claim the right to "pick and choose" definitions from the dictionary which support their claim, whether or not their interpretation makes sense or is supported by other evidence.  At the moment, I am involved in discussions here which hinge on what the words chosen, contradiction, gospel, and judgement mean. 
 
Well, let me try this technique using a verse from the Koran and see what I come up with:
 
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).   Surah 2:7
 
The dictionary defines seal as "a marine carnivore of the suborder Pinnipedia".  So, using this definition, an alternate translation of Surah 2:7 is:
 
Allah hath set a marine carnivore on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). Surah 2:7
 
Is my translation valid?  Probably not.  But it seems that muslims in this forum do the exact same thing every day in their postings.  Kind of hard to hold serious discussions with people like that.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 November 2011 at 11:23am
Jack and Reepicheep,
care to address my post above, the real issue?
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: 03 November 2011 at 9:40pm

Dear Hasan,

 

I have posted plenty of Multi-source evidence that the Holy Spirit is truly the presence and power of Allah in a post that as of this writing has not cleared being posted on the forum.  Your reason for asserting that the Holy Spirit is not Allah is that it is under Allah’s command.  But you and I have already gone over this perspective.  Remember?  I might say that my thumb, tongue, foot, or even eye are mine, yet if I disconnect them from “me,” then they will cease to exist.  This means that in order for them to exist, they must be more than separate possessions.  They are, in fact, “me,” as long as they are connected.  And yet, they are also under my command.  My “presence” is, in fact, not a thing, but is “me.”  My presence cannot be any other thing accept “me” in a particular place.  Yet my presence is also under my command.  It is a part of me, while simultaneously under my command.  Therefore, since Judaism recognizes the Holy Spirit as the “presence of God,” they must also admit that the Holy Spirit is Allah in a particular time and place while being simultaneously under Allah’s command.  The Jews of Jesus’ time did not claim that the Holy Spirit was a separate being, since it was not a question for them.  But when Jesus’s Apostles pointed out what Jesus said that it truly was, the Jews realized that they had better do something to end the flow of Jewish believers into Christianity.  That is why there is some discussion in the Talmud about the Holy Spirit being a created being. That issue is only a discussion recorded in the Talmud, but is not a proclamation. Yet there is a great deal more evidence in both the Tanakh and in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the Presence and Power of Allah. 

As far as 1 Sam 10:6 is concerned, the verse simply gives credence to Christian teaching about the Holy Spirit.  One of the things the Holy Spirit does is change those whose life it enters.  This means the Holy Spirit, the presence of Allah, changes lives.  This is what Jesus taught.

 

As far as 1 Sam 11:6 is concerned, there is something called righteous anger, not the evil kind based in selfishness, which give a man the energy and focus to do something out of the ordinary with the goal of correcting a wrong.  In this case, God’s Holy Spirit came upon Saul, who responded to the situation in a God inspired way.  The issue was that Israel was disconnected.  So if one of the tribes was in trouble, the others might not come to its aid.  Saul cut up his oxen and sent one piece to each of the tribes to show them what would happen to Israel if they did not stand together.  They would be divided to death, just as his oxen had been.  Israel responded.  This was according to the will of God.  The  Holy Spirit filled Saul with the desire to correct a wrong according to the will of God.  This is not evidence of a separate and inferior being, but of Allah coming over a man and conforming the man to His very will.  This does not disprove the Holy Trinity.  Sorry.

I see you have posted a verse, 1 Sam 19:9, which has caused me to question all that I’ve always known about Allah and what he does and why.  Allah sends his Holy Spirit  to change people’s lives.  I never thought that Allah would send an evil spirit.  Yet there it is.  I’ve had to search out what the Church says about this.  I certainly have no response on my own.

You posted 1 Sam 19:9

But an evil spirit from the LORD came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the lyre,

But let us look at other verses regarding Saul and spirits sent by Allah.

1 Sam 16:14

14 Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil #fen-NIV-7610d - d ]'>[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%2015-17&version=NIV#fen-NIV-7610d -

 

I’ll explain this now in light of all three verses.  I’m sure that you already know what my response will be.  But since you asked me, I’ll go ahead and answer.  Allah was with King Saul, and Allah’s presence gave him strength and courage to function as a king should.  But eventually Saul chose to disobey Allah, and in so doing, Saul rejected Allah.  Allah, in turn, rejected Saul and sent Samuel to anoint another person to be the future king of Israel.   That is where 1 Sam 16:14 comes in.  It tells us that the Spirit of the Lord (the presence of Allah) left Saul, and an evil spirit came to fill in the empty place where the “Spirit of the Lord” once resided.  Allah created this spirit that was evil, as Allah created all things.  The Holy Bible tells us that Allah did not create spirits to be evil, but that some spirits chose to reject Allah and so became evil.  The spirit that came to Saul after the Holy Spirit left him took on the roll of being a tormentor to Saul.  This was Saul’s punishment for rejecting Allah.  That the spirit tormented Saul, Saul and others saw it to be evil, as Allah’s Holy Spirit never tormented Saul.  Now, I’d like to point out one more thing from 1 Sam 16:14:  the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord, and the evil spirit is called a spirit from the Lord.  The significance of the term “Spirit of the Lord” means that the Spirit is the Lord’s very spirit, or “presence,” whereas the spirit “from means that the spirit simply comes from the Lord in some way, most likely in that Allah created it, though it has since become evil.  The following verse, 1 Sam 18:12, verifies that the Spirit of the Lord is actually the presence of the Lord:

1 Sam 18:12

12 Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with David but had departed from Saul.  

Notice that verse14 of 1 Sam 16 says:  “...the Spirit of the Lord had departed...” and 1 Sam 18:12 says, “...the Lord...had departed from Saul.”  The wording and language is identical between the two verses, and indicates that the Spirit of the Lord (Allah) is identical to “the Lord (Allah).”  You see, the verse you shared actually verifies what Christians and Jews believe. 

Now let’s look at the verses from the Holy Qur’an which you have posted.  If you replace the words, “holy spirit” with the words, “Presence of Allah,” those verses will still mean the same thing.  The meaning about God’s participation as those verses relate will not be changed.  If Muhammad truly understood the teachings of Jesus, He would have responded to the call of Allah by becoming Christian, not by starting a new religion that would eventually come to persecute Christians and Jews. 

Saying that the Holy Spirit is Allah is not saying that there are more than one Allah, just that Allah has manifested himself in more than one person.  No matter how many persons He has manifested himself as, He is the same Allah that is only one Allah.

Allah’s blessings,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 03 November 2011 at 9:51pm
Dear Reepicheep,
 
Well said.  So you have noticed the same thing, too, huh?
 
Patience, my friend.  You seem to have a lot of it.  We'll use patience with some of these shinanegans (excuse my Irish idioms).  I'm sure Isla will come around as soon as he has exausted all of his creativity with language.
 
By the way, have you noticed he has about used up his creative terminology that tries to put his opposition down to a subservient class of poster in relation to himself?  I'm starting to see him repeat his verbage, and it no longer shocks me.  It's getting as old as dust.
 
Keep up your intelligent observations.  Great work!
 
May God bless you always,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by Jack

Here's what you've been waiting for.  I've had to cut out your "entertainment fluff and summarized your few week points below in bold type.  There were a few lines of yours that I posted to show how week your "intelligent posts" really are.  They have doctors who can treat people with your kind of logic.  Well, here is my long awaited response.  Have fun with it.LOL


Well, if your continued poor spelling (weak vs. week Wink) is any indication, then I am going to have lots of fun!  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Jack

(IslamisPeace, it is so not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the Holy Trinity for the Holy Trinity to be present in the Tanakh.  This sudden requirement of yours is a pathetically irrelevant attempt to make me look like the buffoon that you keep proving yourself to be.LOL


Oh how convenient!  It is "not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the [trinity]..."  Blah, blah, blah.  Who says it is "not necessary"?  This sounds like Christian special pleading again.  You realize that since the trinity is not thoroughly explained in the Tanakh, it strengthens the argument that the trinity is a new concept.  To try to weasel your way out of this difficultly, you make the pathetic excuse that "it is not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the [trinity]".  Again, who says?  You and the Church?  Clap

Originally posted by Jack

I have ignored your pathetic attempts... to answer the question.  (And this, my open-eyed, intelligent discussion buddy, is how you deal with evidence you don’t want to hear.)


Well done, Jack.  You can't even quote me correctly so that you can try to make a straw man argument.  If you will closely read what I actually wrote, I said "I have ignored your pathetic attempts to use mostly the NT in an effort to answer the question because it is irrelevant."  The topic is whether the Tanakh agrees with the NT.  In order to prove that both are in agreement regarding the trinity, you would have to show verses from the Tanakh (not the NT) which point conclusively to a triune God.  Thus far, you have failed to that. 

Originally posted by Jack

Jack:  I researched out Jewish beliefs about the Holy Spirit and found that Jews call the Holy Spirit "Shekhinah," which means "a manifestation of the divine presence."  I don't see anything in this definition that even resembles a created Spirit.


LOL Oh please.  The only "research" you did was to to find a "Yahoo! Answers" page in which a Christian tried to play Rabbi (not exactly a Jewish source) and selectively quoted from the Talmud (as Christians typically do). 

Your ignorance on the subject is shocking.  The Jews do not call the Holy Spirit "Shekinah".  That just is not true.  Even though I have already provided the evidence from authentic Jewish sources, here is some more evidence for your reading pleasure.

According to the Jewish website "Turn to Torah":

"There are two different “spirits” referred to in the scriptures that you list. The first is the Ruach Elohim (רוח אלוהים) or Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש). The second is the Shekinah" http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html - [1] .

Here, we see that there is a clear distinction between the two.  The first "spirit" is "Ruach HaKodesh" which is literally translated as the "Holy Spirit".  The second is the "Shekinah".  Continuing with its discussion of the two "spirits", "Turn to Torah" observes:

"Ruach (רוּחַ) can mean wind, spirit, breath, or mind. The point that you are missing here is that the Ruach Elohim (רוח אלוהים) or Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש) is a creation. Since the three gods of the trinity are supposedly co-eternal, then the Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh cannot be part of the trinity. The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a wind" [Ibid].

Here, we learn from a Jewish source that the "Ruach HaKodesh" was created.  As such, it cannot be the same "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the NT.  Interestingly enough, the early Church father Origen also believed that the "Holy Spirit" was created.  Origen wrote in his "Commentary on John":

"We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ" ("The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Richardson & Pick, p. 328).

So, it appears that some early Christians did not believe that the Holy Spirit was uncreated.  Yet, they still tried to justify the trinitarian view!  Shocked

Anyway, I digress.  Let's get back to "Turn to Torah" and its explanation of the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah.  It states:

"It [Ruach HaKodesh] is often manifested through noise and light.
Ezekiel 3:12: And a wind (רוּחַ) lifted me up, and I heard behind me the sound of a great uproar: "Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place."

The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a means of Hashem interacting with humanity.

Job 33:4: The spirit of God (רֽוּחַ־אֵל) made me, and the breath of the Almighty keeps me alive.

This is a reference back to Genesis 2:7: And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Are missionaries saying that the Christian holy spirit is now the creator and not God the father?

The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is not part of a trinity" [Ibid].   

All of this confirms what I claimed before, which is that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with "wind".  And since Amos 4:13 stated that God "bore the wind", it can be deduced that the wind/spirit was created.  Moving on to the "Shekinah", "Turn to Torah" states:

"Now let’s look at the second spirit – the Shekinah (שכינה).

Numbers 11:26: Now two men remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad, and the spirit (הָרוּחַ) rested upon them. They were among those written, but they did not go out to the tent, but prophesied in the camp.

Judges 3:10: And the spirit of the Lord (רֽוּחַ־יהוה) came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and the Lord delivered into his hands Cushan-rishathaim the king of Aram; and his hand prevailed upon Cushan-rishathaim.

I Samuel 10:6: And the spirit of the Lord (רוּחַ יהוה) will pass over you, and you will prophesy with them, and you will be turned into another man.

The Shekinah (שכינה) is one aspect of Hashem but is NOT a separate god or person. The Shekinah (שכינה) is another Name for Hashem. This Name refers to a presence of Hashem and the spirit that gives prophecy. The Shekinah is not a third part of a trinity" [Ibid.].

So, the Shekinah refers to the "presence" of God.  It is an "attribute" and not a separate person (as in the trinity).  To further confirm this definition, let us look at what the Encyclopedia Judaica states.  Under the heading of "Shekinah", it states:

"SHEKHINAH (Heb. שְׁכִינָה; lit. "dwelling," "resting"), or Divine Presence, refers most often in rabbinic literature to the numinous immanence of God in the world. The Shekhinah is God viewed in spatio-temporal terms as a presence, particularly in a this-worldly context: when He sanctifies a place, an object, an individual, or a whole people – a revelation of the holy in the midst of the profane. Sometimes, however, it is used simply as an alternative way of referring to God himself...The term, though seemingly hypostatized in certain passages, must be viewed purely figuratively and not as representing a separable aspect of God or as being in any sense a part of the Godhead. The latter notion is totally alien to the strict monotheism of rabbinic Judaism for which the unity of the divine Essence is a basic premise. The references to Shekhinah which are open to misinterpretation, e.g., those which talk of God placing His Shekhinah in the midst of Israel (cf. Sif. Num. 94), or where the Shekhinah is pictured as talking to God (Mid. Prov. to 22:28), are the product of homiletic license" http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 - [3] .

We can see here that the apparent similarities between the two are not always clear.  What is more interesting is that some Jewish sages believed that the Shekinah was a created light (as opposed to the Holy Spirit which was synonymous with wind)!  Mentioning the great medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides, the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

"Maimonides accepts Saadiah's view that the Shekhinah is a created light, identified with glory. He too associates the Shekhinah with prophecy, explaining that it is the Shekhinah which appears to the prophet in his vision (Guide of the Perplexed, 1:21)" [Ibid.]    

Also, the Encyclopedia Judaica expounds on the difference between "Holy Spirit" and "Shekinah".  Under the heading of "Holy Spirit", it states:

"There are a number of texts in which the two terms Ru'aḥ ha-Kodesh and http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 - *Shekhinah are found interchanged in different versions (cf. Pes. 117b; Shab. 30b; and TJ, Suk. 5:1, 55a; see also http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587519970 - Tosef. , Sot. 13:3f.; Sot. 48b; Sanh. 11a). This interchange may be due to the fact that though Ru'aḥ ha-Kodesh and Shekhinah are conceptually distinct, they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God. G.F. Moore, however, considers the exchange of terms to be mainly the result of copyists' errors (Judaism, 1 (1927), 437)" http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX2587517118&&docId=GALE%7CCX2587517118&docType=GALE&role= - [4] .

All of this serves as conclusive evidence of the created nature of the Holy Spirit and its distinctness from the Shekinah.  The similarities between the two may be due to "copyist errors" (op. cit. Encyclopedia Judiaca), whereas the differences prove that they are actually separate concepts.    

Originally posted by Jack

(Did I say that the Jewish Encyclopedia was not a “Jewish” source?Confused  Grabbing at smoke again, are we, IslamisnotPeace?Big%20smile)

You asked the question "[w]here did you say you got you rediculous (sic) data again?" while claiming that your information was straight from Jewish sources (rabbinical literature and the Talmud) when it was actually based on a "Yahoo! Answers" page in which a Christian attempted to prove the samething you are trying to prove.  On the other hand, I utilized an actual Jewish source (which also quotes from the Talmud) which states the exact opposite of what you are claiming. 

Originally posted by Jack

So, IslmisPeace, you are saying that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the wind per the first chapters of Genesis and throughout the Tanakh.
 

I am not saying that.  Jewish sources say that, as I showed.  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Jack

The early scribes (later called rabbis) added Shekinah in biblical verses where the verb shakhan is used in relation to God. Shakhan literally means "to dwell" or "to live with", or even "to pitch one's tent." The word Shekinah means the God-Who-Dwells-Within.

Not quite.  The word "Shekinah" actually just means "dwelling" or "resting" [Encyclopedia Judaica].  It does not mean "the God who dwells within".   

But I just noticed something, Jack.  The above statement is clearly not your own words.  They are just too sophisticated for you.  So I did a Google search and found that your "research" is actually just shamefully copied from a random website with Christian undertones.  The very fact that you simply refuse to use Jewish sources to gain an understanding of this subject belies your bias.  Your statement "[t]he early scribes (later called rabbis)..." is directly copied from the internet, probably from one of the following websites:

http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/ - http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060622173735AA0XJ7X - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060622173735AA0XJ7X

Am I right?  Come clean, Jack!  LOL

Now don't think that I am not going to respond to this plagiarized material.  I just wanted to embarrass you and expose you as the biased, shabby researcher that you are.  Anyway, let's continue...

Originally posted by Jack

The Shekinah eventually became an interchangeable term with the Holy Spirit in Judaism, which was eventually carried into Christianity through Jesus to his Apostles.

You (and your copied source) have yet to prove this.  On the other hand, I have shown above that the two concepts are not interchangeable.  So far, you have made only baseless, unproven statements.  Well done! 

The Shekinah is often pictured as a bird or dove.

Wrong!  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud actually equates the Shekinah with light (see the Encyclopedia Judaica reference as well) while the Holy Spirit was sometimes equated with a dove:

"...the Shekinah appeared as physical light; so that Targ. to Num. vi. 2 says, "Yhwh shall cause His Shekinah to shine for thee."  A Gentile asked the patriarch Gamaliel (c. 100): "Thou sayest that wherever ten are gathered together the Shekinah appears; how many are there?" Gamaliel answered: "As the sun, which is but one of the countless servants of God, giveth light to all the world, so in a much greater degree doth the Shekinah" (Sanh. 39a). [...]

The Shekinah tinkled like a bell (Soṭah 9b), while the Holy Spirit also manifested itself to human senses in light and sound. The Holy Spirit had the form of a dove, and the Shekinah had wings" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah - [5] .

Once again, Jewish sources contradict your claim.

There is an even more direct connection to the Hebrew tradition of the Shekinah as St.Paul. the former Pharisee, stresses the indwelling nature of the Holy Spirit throughout his famous passage in Romans 8:8:  “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you.”  There goes your Muslim accusation from another string that St. Paul hijacked the Christian faith.  You see, St. Paul was simply referencing what was already a present understanding of God in Judaism which had been realized by the Jewish believers more than 500 years before.

First of all, the verse is Romans 8:9, not verse 8.  Second of all, Paul contradicts the Jewish sources which show that the Shekinah is not the same as the Holy Spirit, since the latter was created.  And as "Turn to Torah" observed, each represents a different "spirit".  In fact, there are multiple "spirits" mentioned in the Tanakh.  According to the Jewish website http://whatjewsbelieve.org/index.html - "What Jews Believe" :

"There are more than just three manifestations of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is of course, the Spirit of God, as we read in Genesis 1:2:

And The Spirit Of God (Ruach Elohm) moved over the face of the waters

But there is also an Evil Spirit of God, as we read in I Samuel 16:23:

And it came to pass, when The Evil Spirit Of God (Ruach Elohm Raah) was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

There is also a Lying Spirit Of God in I Kings 22:23:

Now therefore, behold, the Eternal hath put a lying spirit (Ruach Sheker) in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Eternal hath spoken evil concerning thee.

In Exodus 12:23, we are told that God will smite the Egyptians. But later in the same verse, we see that it is the Destroyer who smites the Egyptians.

For the Eternal will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Eternal will pass over the door, and will not suffer the Destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

One could then say that the Destroyer should be seen as a Person in God, just as the Spirit Of God is seen as a Person in God. To this we could add that the Lying Spirit Of God should be seen as a Person in God, and the Evil Spirit Of God should be seen as a Person in God. This would mean that instead of the Trinity in the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, one should have the Father, the son, the Holy Spirit, the Lying Spirit, and the Evil Spirit, as well as the Destroyer. Should we add to this the Burning Bush?" http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html - [6] .  

Again, we see how the NT contradicts the Tanakh.  Clearly, Paul was not representing actual Jewish teachings.  

Originally posted by Jack

The wind you referenced from the first chapters of Genesis was not the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit was definitely present in that wind.  This is why one can say that the Holy Spirit was over the waters during that day of creation and be right on about it.  About the wind not being the Holy Spirit, 1 Kings 19:11 reveals to us that though synonymous at times, yet the wind and the Holy Spirit are not the same things:  1 Kings 19:11 11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.”  From this passage we see that the wind, though not being the Holy Spirit, can contain the presence of the Holy Spirit, or Shekinah.

This is a non-sequitur for several reasons.  First of all, 1 Kings 19:11 mentions an earthquake (as you showed) as well as a fire following the wind.  Therefore, this "wind" is not the same as the "wind/spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1.  1 Kings 19:11 simply speaks of a different kind of wind.  Remember what the Jewish Encyclopedia stated:

"Though the nature of the Holy Spirit is really nowhere described, the name indicates that it was conceived as a kind of wind that became manifest through noise and light" [Ibid.].

The "wind" mentioned in 1 Kings 19:11 shows no such characteristics (noise and light).  Just as the Tanakh mentions different types of "spirits of God", it also mentions different types of "wind". 

Originally posted by Jack

Though not the same thing (wind and Holy Spirit) yet the fact that they are synonymous is recognized by Jesus when he uses wind to refer to a quality of God’s Holy Spirit (indwelling presence) in John 3:8 where he is speaking to Nicodemus, “The wind (referencing the Holy Spirit) blows where it chooses...”  The meaning implied by this statement is that the Holy Spirit will serve all peoples, not just Christians or Jews.
  

The reason for this is that linguistically, the Greek word for "spirit" is the same as the Greek word for "wind", as it is with Hebrew.  According to the NIV:

"The Greek for Spirit is the same as that for wind" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26129d - [7, fn. d] .

The difference is that both the Tanakh (Amos 4:13) and the Talmud (Hag. 12a, b) say that the wind, no matter what type, is created.  This includes the "wind/spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1.  Therefore, the Tanakh contradicts the NT.

Originally posted by Jack

St. Paul and Jesus were right in sync when St. Paul spoke of the same thing using different verbiage in Galatians 3;28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male and female;  for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  This has always meant, as context will tell you, that as we all have the Shakinah in us through Jesus, we are all as one as the Shakinah (Holy Spirit) which unites us is one.
  

Again, the Shekinah is not the same as the Holy Spirit.  Your continued use of non-sequiturs does nothing to change the facts.  Moreover, Galatians 3 makes no mention of the Shekinah, only of the "Spirit", which is of course associated with the "Holy Spirit" which Jewish belief stated was created.

Originally posted by Jack

In conclusion on this point, I’ll present a little summary of all the appearances of the Holy Spirit (Shekinah) in the Tanakh.
 

You can repeat your false claim that they are one and the same, but the above sources I quoted show clearly that they are not the same. 

Originally posted by Jack

The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the burning bush with Moses, in the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of smoke by day that protected the Israelites from Pharoh, then guided them through the desert.  The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the cloud that rested on the summit of Mt.Sinai when the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and the Shekinah was present in the cloud that occupied the Holy of Holies in the Meeting tent built by the Israelites under Moses to house the Ark of the Covenant.  The Talmud teaches that the Shekinah is everywhere.
  

Yes, and it is not the same as the Holy Spirit.  The Talmud does say that the Shekinah is everywhere [Baba Bathra 25a], that it was present in the Burning Bush etc.  It does not, however, say that it is the same as the Holy Spirit. 

Originally posted by Jack

Observing Jews have a saying that the Shekinah (Holy Spirit) descends on each Friday at sunset to transform each Jewish home during the Sabbath.
  

Observant Jews do not believe they are the same thing, as I showed above.    

Originally posted by Jack

I have just shown the contrary using your precious Talmud and the Tanakh.  And I have shown how what was present in the Tanakh is exactly what Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John were talking about in the NT.  Doesn’t leave much wiggle room for you, now, does it, IslamisnotPeace?

LOL Yeah, sure.  I have refuted all of your claims.

Originally posted by Jack

Your whole assertion that my sources are poor sources and your sources are better because they are Jewish is a pathetic joke and shows how you derive your logic, IslamisPeace. LOL For my sources quoted the same Talmud as you did.
   

Except that your "sources" used selective quotations to come to a baseless conclusion.  Every Jewish source contradicts that conclusion.  My sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, refer to the Talmud to prove that Jews believed the Holy Spirit to be created.  How then, can it be the same as the Shekinah, which is just a fancy word for "God's presence"?

Now, since you like "Yahoo! Answers" so much, I thought I would give you a dose of your own medicine.  In response to the question "In Judaism is the Shekinah the Holy Spirit?", a Jewish poster refuted the claim of a Christian poster by stating:

"No- it refers to when G-d chooses to make [a] portion of himself moe (sic) easily discenable (sic) in a place and thus people say "here is G-d". This is easily seen in the Hebbrew (sic) as shekhina is a compond (sic) word made up of "SheKhan Yiheh" "that here he is" It is not a separate bing (sic) or part of G-d; just G-d letting himself be felt in a place" http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgFt4INw6S_73cEfqbhkwrtJBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20101110104109AAuouot - [8] .

So here, a Jew directly refutes the Christian lies about the Holy Spirit and Shekinah being one and the same.   

Originally posted by Jack

I might also add that your “sources” are not the authorities you claim them to be, as there are two Talmuds, not one, the lesser used one being older, and being from the same faith community as Jesus, and also being not in full agreement with the teachings of the Talmud which you claim is the authority in Judaism.

LOL Now I have heard everything!  You quote from the same Talmud, but when faced with other passages from that Talmud, you try to use special pleading once again by saying that it is not as authoritative.  You quoted from the same Talmud, you dunce!  How dense can you be?  By the way, what does the "older" Talmud say that contradicts the Babylonian Talmud? Do tell.

Originally posted by Jack

You, brother, are Muslim, not Jewish, and so you are about as qualified as I to speak about Judaism, if not less so.
 

When did I say I am "qualified" speak about Judaism?  I have only stated the facts as Jewish sources mention them.  You, on the other hand, have repeatedly used Christian sources to "verify" your biased views.  You have been the one to repeatedly make unproven assertions using websites maintained by non-Jews, whereas I have made assertions based on material taken directly from Jewish sources. 

Originally posted by Jack

To repeat my last concluding discourse (your pathetic and revealing response will follow), “Now, I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are looking for.  Even kindergarteners know that you get what you get and you don't through a fit.  If you claim that this is not the answer to your question, then... too bad...  get over it.” LOL

All reasonable people will see that you are a dunce who cannot use objective reasoning and research to ascertain the facts.  Your reference to kindergarteners is apt since you basically think like one!  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Jack

IslamisPeace responded:  “It isn't (the answer I was looking for) because you are using Church tradition and teachings (aw, too bad old friendLOL) to garble the passages from the Tanakh.... Christians rely on blind faith and deliberate manipulations!  I am not responsible for your own ignorance and shabby research.” 

So you admit it!  You cannot "prove" that the Tanakh and NT are in agreement without referring to Church propaganda, whereas I have used actual Jewish sources which show conclusively that the Church's understanding of the Tanakh is pathetically erroneous.  Hence, the conclusion is that the Tanakh contradicts the NT.  There, there Jack.  Don't weep for your refuted Church propaganda.  Cry

Originally posted by Jack

My response:  All Jewish sources?  Yeah, and all posters on Islamicity Forums think you are just the coolest, most intelligent, and fascinating poster on the boards.LOL

So far, all Jewish sources mentioned have confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.  Let me list them for convenience:

1.  Jewish Encyclopedia

2.  Turn to Torah

3.  Babylonian Talmud

Now, if you could kindly list the Jewish sources which do not believe that the Holy Spirit was created, we can move on.  Which Jewish sources state that the Holy Spirit was not created? Wink

I also showed that some Jewish scholars (Saadiah, Maimonides etc.) even believed that the Shekinah was also created [Encyclopedia Judaica]! 

Oh where will you go from here Jack?  You are dead meat!  Dead 



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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by Reepicheep

Jack catholic wrote:  You have used dictionaries to claim...
 
You make an interesting observation.  I agree totally.
 
For words which appear in English language translations of the Bible, muslim posters within this forum claim the right to "pick and choose" definitions from the dictionary which support their claim, whether or not their interpretation makes sense or is supported by other evidence.  At the moment, I am involved in discussions here which hinge on what the words chosen, contradiction, gospel, and judgement mean. 
 
Well, let me try this technique using a verse from the Koran and see what I come up with:
 
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).   Surah 2:7
 
The dictionary defines seal as "a marine carnivore of the suborder Pinnipedia".  So, using this definition, an alternate translation of Surah 2:7 is:
 
Allah hath set a marine carnivore on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). Surah 2:7
 
Is my translation valid?  Probably not.  But it seems that muslims in this forum do the exact same thing every day in their postings.  Kind of hard to hold serious discussions with people like that.


Reepicheep, you have made a severely illogical statement here.  First of all, I have used one dictionary, Strong's Concordance (which is actually a Christian source).  Second of all, I used a dictionary because no one here is an expert on ancient Hebrew.  Third, the references from Strong's Concordance are supported by references from the Tanakh and the Talmud.  Neither you nor Jack every responded to those references.  That tells me a lot. 

Regarding your false analogy of translating the English word "seal" as "marine carnivore", how is this the same as what I have written?  I am quite perplexed by this example.  Perhaps you can clarify the point of this analogy.  The Arabic word used in Surah 2:7 is "khatama" which means "Has set a seal".  How is replacing "seal" with "marine carnivore" the same as showing that in Hebrew, "wind" and "spirit" are synonymous? 


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Reepicheep,
 
Well said.  So you have noticed the same thing, too, huh?
 
Patience, my friend.  You seem to have a lot of it.  We'll use patience with some of these shinanegans (excuse my Irish idioms).  I'm sure Isla will come around as soon as he has exausted all of his creativity with language.
 
By the way, have you noticed he has about used up his creative terminology that tries to put his opposition down to a subservient class of poster in relation to himself?  I'm starting to see him repeat his verbage, and it no longer shocks me.  It's getting as old as dust.
 
Keep up your intelligent observations.  Great work!
 
May God bless you always,
 
Jack Catholic


LOL I always love to see you try to support your fellow Christians, just like a true papa bear would!  It's actually quite adorable.  Your childish claims about me aside, I say let the facts speak for themselves.  Your Christian propaganda has already gotten very old and tiring.  Sleepy     


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 November 2011 at 3:32pm
Dear Isla,
 
You wrote, "Your Christian propaganda has already gotten very old and tiring."
 
Oh, boo hoo CryLOLLOL 
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 November 2011 at 3:45pm
Dear Isla,
 
You said (my response in green), "Reepicheep, you have made a severely illogical statement here.  First of all, I have used one dictionary, Strong's Concordance (which is actually a Christian source).  Second of all, I used a dictionary because no one here is an expert on ancient Hebrew.  So why do you use ancient Hebrew then?  Third, the references from Strong's Concordance are supported by references from the Tanakh and the Talmud.  Neither you nor Jack every responded to those references.  That tells me a lot." Really!Shocked

Regarding your false analogy (I thought it pretty accurate myself) of translating the English word "seal" as "marine carnivore", how is this the same as what I have written?  I am quite perplexed by this example. Figures.  Perhaps you can clarify the point of this analogy.  Seems pretty clear to me.  The Arabic word used in Surah 2:7 is "khatama" which means "Has set a seal".  How is replacing "seal" with "marine carnivore" the same as showing that in Hebrew, "wind" and "spirit" are synonymous?  He explained this, Isla.  How is it that I understood and you did not.  I thought you were supposed to be the all-wise and intelligent, the great understander...ConfusedLOL
Hey, blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 November 2011 at 3:43pm
Jack,
your explanation of the quotes from the Bible regarding "evil spirit from God" are poor. Is that the reason you used a small font, almost unreadable.
1 Samuel 19:9
"But an evil spirit from the LORD came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the lyre,"

Can you? probably you cannot explain it because you have only used excuses in answer. "because in another verse" and so on. I am talking about this verse, explain it if you can, otherwise don't drag it my friend, it makes you look pitiful.
Hasan

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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 November 2011 at 11:53am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Isla,
 
You said (my response in green), "Reepicheep, you have made a severely illogical statement here.  First of all, I have used one dictionary, Strong's Concordance (which is actually a Christian source).  Second of all, I used a dictionary because no one here is an expert on ancient Hebrew.  So why do you use ancient Hebrew then?  Third, the references from Strong's Concordance are supported by references from the Tanakh and the Talmud.  Neither you nor Jack every responded to those references.  That tells me a lot." Really!Shocked

Regarding your false analogy (I thought it pretty accurate myself) of translating the English word "seal" as "marine carnivore", how is this the same as what I have written?  I am quite perplexed by this example. Figures.  Perhaps you can clarify the point of this analogy.  Seems pretty clear to me.  The Arabic word used in Surah 2:7 is "khatama" which means "Has set a seal".  How is replacing "seal" with "marine carnivore" the same as showing that in Hebrew, "wind" and "spirit" are synonymous?  He explained this, Isla.  How is it that I understood and you did not.  I thought you were supposed to be the all-wise and intelligent, the great understander...ConfusedLOL
Hey, blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Jack, are you now serving as Reepicheep's spokesman?  LOL Let the man answer!  I explained why I felt his analogy was illogical.  I know it made sense to you since you live in the Bizarro World where everything that is illogical is actually logical, but I live in the Real World.  Big%20smile   


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 10 November 2011 at 1:29pm

Dear Isla,

 

I just chose to add my comments and send the whole post back to you.  My comments are in green.  Have fun with it!

 

Originally posted by Jack

I had said, “IslamisPeace, it is so not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the Holy Trinity for the Holy Trinity to be present in the Tanakh.  This sudden requirement of yours is a pathetically irrelevant attempt to make me look like the buffoon that you keep proving yourself to be.



Isla said, “Oh how convenient!  It is "not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the [trinity]..."  Blah, blah, blah.  Who says it is "not necessary"?  This sounds like Christian special pleading again.  You realize that since the trinity is not thoroughly explained in the Tanakh, it strengthens the argument that the trinity is a new concept.  To try to weasel your way out of this difficultly, you make the pathetic excuse that "it is not necessary for the Tanakh to explain the [trinity]".  Again, who says?  You and the Church? 

It is not necessary for the OT to explain the Holy Spirit for the HS to be present there.  Does the wind have to explain itself for you to know that it is there?  Of course not!  So, who says that the OT needs to explain the Holy Spirit in order for the Holy Spirit to be present there?  You and all Islam?

Originally posted by Jack

I quoted you as saying, “I have ignored your pathetic attempts... to answer the question.”  (And this, my open-eyed, intelligent discussion buddy, is how you deal with evidence you don’t want to hear.)



Well done, Jack.  You can't even quote me correctly so that you can try to make a straw man argument.  If you will closely read what I actually wrote, I said "I have ignored your pathetic attempts to use mostly the NT in an effort to answer the question because it is irrelevant." 
Don’t be goofy, pen friend.  Your original post challenged all to compare the NT to the OT.  Now you are saying that I used the NT too much because I referred to 3 places in the NT.  You are too funny!  LOLLOLLOLI can’t breath!!! LOL Somebody call 911! CryLOLLOL

Isla, you said, “The topic is whether the Tanakh agrees with the NT.  In order to prove that both are in agreement regarding the trinity, you would have to show verses from the Tanakh (not the NT) which point conclusively to a triune God.  Thus far, you have failed to that.” 

No, I do not have to show verses that point conclusively to the Holy Spirit.  Your demand is about as pathetic as saying that you will not accept a glass of water as water until the glass says very clearly that it is full of water.  LOLI have established the parameters that must be met from the NT.  It clearly identifies the Holy Trinity.  Then I produced verses from the OT that identified what the NT indicated were the persons of the Holy Trinity.  All you have done here is to refer to the Holy Trinity as three gods, which it is not, and claim that the OT does not explain the Holy Trinity.  Your demands are irrelevant.  St. John and all the other Apostles in the NT explained what the Holy Trinity was, and using this explanation, I have shown it to be present in the OT.  Case closed.  But here you have produced 13 long pages trying to refute it using a Jewish Encyclopedia (an excelent religious authority I’m sure) and the Talmud which I have shown to clearly be biased and for other reasons to be unacceptable as an authority in this discussion (yet you can’t make your case without it).  Then you have indicated that I cannot use the NT in our discussion because it is biased Christian propaganda (even though this string is supposed to be about comparing the OT and the NT).  You remind me of a little boy I used to play with 40 years ago who said, “At my house, I am the boss.  At your house, I am the guest, so I am the boss.”  It’s all goofy. 

Originally posted by Jack

Jack:  I researched out Jewish beliefs about the Holy Spirit and found that Jews call the Holy Spirit "Shekhinah," which means "a manifestation of the divine presence."  I don't see anything in this definition that even resembles a created Spirit.



Isla whined, “ Oh please.  The only "research" you did was to to find a "Yahoo! Answers" page in which a Christian tried to play Rabbi (not exactly a Jewish source) and selectively quoted from the Talmud (as Christians typically do).” 
Oh, really!  Kind of like a Muslim trying to play Rabbi LOL(not exactly a Jewish source) selectively quoting from the Talmud (not exactly a solid authority of Judaism on two counts, as I have so clearly shown).  So what is the name of the “Yahoo! Answers” page that I quoted?  If you are going to accuse me of something, then back up your assertions.  Such logic you have, Isla. LOL I’m sure you can do better than this.  At least I hope you can... Wink

Isla continued to whine, “Your ignorance on the subject is shocking.  The Jews do not call the Holy Spirit "Shekinah".  That just is not true.” 
I have shown otherwise using the same Jewish Talmud that you are selectively quoting.  Even though I have already provided the evidence from authentic Jewish sources, (you mean like a dictionary and an encyclopedia?  LOLGive me a break!  Your whole argument is pathetic grasping) here is some more evidence for your reading pleasure.

According to the Jewish website "Turn to Torah" (
yes, let’s look at this data from the Jewish Website):

"There are two different “spirits” referred to in the scriptures that you list. (I’m sorry, but who “listed” what?  Did you leave this background information out of your quote for a reason?  Are you selectively quoting again?) The first is the Ruach Elohim (רוח אלוהים) or Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש). The second is the Shekinah" http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html - . (O.K.  I’m following the part you’ve posted so far.)

Here, we see that there is a clear distinction between the two.  The first "spirit" is "Ruach HaKodesh" which is literally translated as the "Holy Spirit".  The second is the "Shekinah". (
I notice you have not discussed the Shekinah.  Are you trying to avoid it, again? Tongue You’ll find that I already have showed through Talmudic references that Shakinah is the Holy Spirit consisting of the presence and power of Allah.  This is the Spirit I am speaking of.  Are you trying to avoid it, Isla?LOL) Continuing with its discussion of the two "spirits" (so the website discusses two terms referring to the Holy Spirit, but you are only here discussing one, and not the one that I was discussing.  Very telling about you and your position, my Isla.), "Turn to Torah" observes:

"Ruach (רוּחַ) can mean wind, spirit, breath, or mind. The point that you are missing here is that the Ruach Elohim (רוח אלוהים) or Ruach HaKodesh (Isla, how does the author of “Turn to Torah" know what point I am missing here? Confused Are you sure that some of this “quote" is not your own wording?  Come on, now, and come clean my slightly soiled squireEmbarrassed) (רוח הקודש) is a creation. Since the three gods of the trinity (I’m sorry, Isla, but Catholics do not believe in three gods.  We believe that God is One.  What gods exactly are YOU speaking of and from whence do they come?) are supposedly co-eternal, then the Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh cannot be part of the trinity. The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a wind" [Ibid].  So your quote says that Ruach Elohim/HaKodesh can mean wind, or spirit, or breath, or mind.  Then it says decisively that the two terms are “wind”.  What happened to the other three possible meanings?  Is your quote contradicting itself...?Wink

 

Here are some reasons why I seriously doubt your presentation of this quote is anything but deceptive.  Where on the website does this quote come from?  You don’t site anything that would it make it possible for your readers to go back and check it for themselves.   Why does the quote refer to the quotes that I listed?  I didn’t list any quotes on that website.  Then the quote speaks of, “The point that I am missing here...”  Really!  How does the web site know the point that I am missing, Isla?  And why would the website be commenting on the Ruach Elohim or the Ruach Hakodesh being part of the trinity of three gods when I never told the website that I was including them in the Holy Trinity, or that I believe that the Holy Trinity is three gods.  I believe that this whole quote from the website is distorted or possible fabricated by you and that you truly must be desperate!  My gosh, Isla, what a miserable position you must be in to have to invent stuff like this just to win a discussion and save face for Islam.  I feel so bad for you.CrySmile

Here, we learn from a Jewish source that the "Ruach HaKodesh" was created.  As such, it cannot be the same "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the NT.  Interestingly enough, the early Church father Origen also believed that the "Holy Spirit" was created.  Origen wrote in his "Commentary on John":

"We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ" ("The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Richardson & Pick, p. 328). (Very good, Isla.  Here, now, is a Muslim playing Catholic quoting an early church father who is not speaking ex-cathedra, and when the quote is presented in the absence of context.  Who taught you how to document your work, Isla.  LOLYou must have not graduated from high school with more than a D+ in Language arts and Writing.  Because this quote is not ex-cathedra, it holds no weight in Catholic Belief.  This is a very week quote and means nothing to Catholicism in this issue.  Nice try, though.). 

Isla wrote, “So, it appears that some early Christians did not believe that the Holy Spirit was uncreated.  Yet, they still tried to justify the trinitarian view! 

Dearest Isla, I do not think you know of that of what you speak.  What does it mean, “not uncreated?”  Can you explain this expression a little better?”

Anyway, I digress.  (No kidding!)Let's get back to "Turn to Torah" and its explanation of the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah.  It states:

"It [Ruach HaKodesh] is often manifested through noise and light.
Ezekiel 3:12: And a wind (
רוּחַ) lifted me up, and I heard behind me the sound of a great uproar: "Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place." (I don’t see noise or light in this OT verse... Yet when the Holy Spirit descended on the heads of Mary and the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, there was a great wind and roar that engulfed the room, and the Holy Spirit, like tongues of fire [this must be the “light” settled onto their heads, so Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh must be the “spirit, mind, or breath” of God, neither created, which is the Holy Spirit of Christian esteem.Big%20smile)

The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a means of Hashem interacting with humanity.

In fact, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is Allah interacting with humanity, yes.  Your Jewish source, or at least that which doesn’t seem to be you your own words, seems to agree with Catholicism, my confused comrade.

Job 33:4: The spirit of God (רֽוּחַ־אֵל) made me, and the breath of the Almighty keeps me alive.

This is a reference back to Genesis 2:7: And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul. (Yes, it is.)

Are missionaries saying that the Christian holy spirit is now the creator and not God the father?
(What exactly are you saying here?  Your question makes no sense.  Christians believe based on ample evidence from the OT, some of which I have presented, that the Holy Spirit is the presence and power of Allah, which I have shown is asserted by the Talmud in previous posts.  The Holy Spirit does not create of itself, but creates by Allah the Father, as the Holy Spirit is not its own power, but is the power of Allah the Father.  It makes no sense to say that the Holy Spirit creates, not Allah the Father.  No Christian would ever say that.  I notice you have your question written in blue.  Are you suggesting that the Jewish website asked this question?  I believe that the website has more sense than to ask such an uninformed and unintelligent question as this.  I’m sure that the question is not anyone else’s but yours.  Are you being deceptive again?Shocked

The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is not part of a trinity" [Ibid].   Whatever.

Then you wrote, “All of this confirms what I claimed before, which is that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with "wind".  (It is more than that, as your Jewish quotes have shown.)  And since Amos 4:13 stated that God "bore the wind", it can be deduced that the wind/spirit was created.  I think I have already explained that the Holy Spirit per Elijah is not the same thing as the wind, yet is often spoken of using wind as a reference, and I showed the same thing in the NT.  Why do you go on and on about this quality of the wind.  The wind definately is synonymous with the Holy Spirit, but not the same as the Holy Spirit.  So your quoting, and writing of your own words claiming them to be quotes about the wind really don’t matter at all because they are irrelevant to what Christians believe and to what the NT teaches.  I hope you realize this.)  Moving on to the "Shekinah", "Turn to Torah" states:”

"Now let’s look at the second spirit – the Shekinah (שכינה).

Numbers 11:26: Now two men remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad, and the spirit (הָרוּחַ) rested upon them. (Another difference between the Holy Spirit and the wind proving that they are not the same thing.  Wind doesn’t rest.  It is always on the move.  Wind is synonymous in that it shares many characteristics and often the HS is present in it.  But it is not the same thing.)  They were among those written, but they did not go out to the tent, but prophesied in the camp.

Judges 3:10: And the spirit of the Lord (רֽוּחַ־יהוה) came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and the Lord delivered into his hands Cushan-rishathaim the king of Aram; and his hand prevailed upon Cushan-rishathaim.

I Samuel 10:6: And the spirit of the Lord (רוּחַ יהוה) will pass over you, and you will prophesy (the wind itself cannot make someone prophesy.  But the presence and power of Allah can.  The wind is not the same as the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is often present in the wind.) with them, and you will be turned into another man.

The Shekinah (שכינה) is one aspect of Hashem but is NOT a separate god or person. The Shekinah (שכינה) is another Name for Hashem. This Name refers to a presence of Hashem and the spirit that gives prophecy. The Shekinah is not a third part of a trinity" [Ibid.].

Very nice, Isla.  You have just verified the Christian belief about the Holy Trinity. Big%20smile For indeed, Catholics (Christians) do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a seperate god, as your quote says that it is not.  Nor do Christians believe that it is a seperate person, as a man is.  Rather we believe that the Holy Spirit is one aspect or attribute of one and the same Allah, as the quote states.  When Catholics speak of a person of Allah, we are using the word person to refer to an aspect of Allah.  Your quote describes what Jesus taught and what Catholics believe about the Holy Trinity, though it’s last sentence turns around and contradicts itself by saying that the Holy Spirit is not a part of a trinity.  Again, you have unwitingly verified the Holy Trinity using a Jewish source, Big%20smileand also have shown that even Jews do not understand what Christians believe is the Trinity.Big%20smile

So, the Shekinah refers to the "presence" of God.  (I have already told you this.)  It is an "attribute" (Christians believe this) and not a separate person (as in the trinity) (Christians use the word person, again, to mean attribute, and not separate person as people are separate persons.  The quote does not contradict Christian belief).  To further confirm this definition, let us look at what the Encyclopedia Judaica states.  Under the heading of "Shekinah", it states:

"SHEKHINAH (Heb. שְׁכִינָה; lit. "dwelling," "resting"), or Divine Presence, refers most often in rabbinic literature to the numinous immanence of God in the world. The Shekhinah is God viewed in spatio-temporal terms as a presence, particularly in a this-worldly context: when He sanctifies a place, an object, an individual, or a whole people – a revelation of the holy in the midst of the profane. (This is what Catholicism believes)  Sometimes, however, it is used simply as an alternative way of referring to God himself (Yes, this is how Catholics use it.  The Holy Spirit is the same God as Allah in heaven), ...The term, though seemingly hypostatized in certain passages, must be viewed purely figuratively and not as representing a separable aspect of God or as being in any sense a part of the Godhead. (Now how can this be, a figurative aspect of Allah having the power to transform a person, thing, or place into something that is Holy?Confused  How could a figurative aspect of Allah put life and a soul into shaped clay called Adam?  No, this particular sentence in the “quote” is not accurate with the words of the Torah or of the books of the prophets.  Logic demands another explanation, sorry to say.  It is clear that the only reason this sentence could be in any Jewish literature is to contradict Christianity, as it clearly does not match what is in the OT.)  The latter notion is totally alien to the strict monotheism of rabbinic Judaism for which the unity of the divine Essence is a basic premise. The references to Shekhinah which are open to misinterpretation, e.g., those which talk of God placing His Shekhinah in the midst of Israel (cf. Sif. Num. 94), or where the Shekhinah is pictured as talking to God (Mid. Prov. to 22:28), are the product of homiletic license"  Yeah, right.  This an attempt to rationalize away what the Holy Bible OT/NT says clearly is a quality of Allah.  End of story.  ClapThe Jews have to walk a fine line to criticize Catholic teaching yet not negate what the OT clearly states. http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 - .

We can see here that the apparent similarities between the two are not always clear.  What is more interesting is that some Jewish sages (notice the word, “some” and not allBig%20smile) believed that the Shekinah was a created light (as opposed to the Holy Spirit which was synonymous with wind)!  (IHere we go again, Isla.  You are fixated on the term, “wind,” to the exclusion of the other meanings of the Ruak Elohim, or the Ruach HaKodesh, which the Jewish source said also refered to “spirit, breath, mind.  My, how selective you are.  How you like to use partial data with intent to mislead.  I have already shown where Shekinah in the Talmud and OT means the power and presence of Allah.  Up above, you have used the Encyclopedia Judaica to define the Shekhinah as a dwelling, resting place, and divine presence.  This is what my sources have said is the meaning Judaism gives the word.Big%20smile)  Mentioning the great medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides, the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

"Maimonides accepts Saadiah's view that the Shekhinah is a created light, identified with glory. He too associates the Shekhinah with prophecy, explaining that it is the Shekhinah which appears to the prophet in his vision (Guide of the Perplexed, 1:21)" [Ibid.]    

Also, the Encyclopedia Judaica expounds on the difference between "Holy Spirit" and "Shekinah".  Under the heading of "Holy Spirit", it states:

"There are a number of texts in which the two terms Ru'a ha-Kodesh and http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 - are found interchanged in different versions (cf. Pes. 117b; Shab. 30b; and TJ, Suk. 5:1, 55a; see also http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587519970 - , Sot. 13:3f.; Sot. 48b; Sanh. 11a). This interchange may be due to the fact that though Ru'a ha-Kodesh and Shekhinah are conceptually distinct, they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God. G.F. Moore, however, considers the exchange of terms to be mainly the result of copyists' errors (Judaism, 1 (1927), 437)" http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX2587517118&&docId=GALE%7CCX2587517118&docType=GALE&role= - .  Notice the words, “...they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God.” WinkBig%20smile It is this range in which they are identical and in which they are sometimes used as synonyms for God in which Catholics and indeed all Christians consider them referring to the Holy Trinity.  This claim of copyist error is not shared by all Jewish authorities.  Don’t you think that if these were copyist errors, Allah would have called upon Jesus to point this all out?  But Jesus never did.  This is because they are not copyist errors.  The OT does indeed use Ru’ah ha-Kodesh and Shekhinah both as straight synonyms for Allah, because whereas the terms are conceptually distinct, in fact they are one and the same with Allah.

All of this serves as conclusive evidence of the created nature of the Holy Spirit (I have shown that it proves the opposite) and its distinctness from the Shekinah.  (silly goose, your own quotes show that it is the same thing, distinct only in how it refers to Allah or the Holy Spirit)  The similarities between the two may (is “may” the best you can do?) be due to "copyist errors" (op. cit. Encyclopedia Judiaca), whereas the differences prove that they are actually separate concepts. (again, not so different, as I have shown using your very own quotes)    

Originally posted by Jack

(Did I say that the Jewish Encyclopedia was not a “Jewish” source?   Grabbing at smoke again, are we, IslamisnotPeace? )

You asked the question "[w]here did you say you got you rediculous (sic) data again?" while claiming that your information was straight from Jewish sources (rabbinical literature and the Talmud) when it was actually based on a "Yahoo! Answers" page (you still haven’t named the “Yahoo! Answers” page where I supposedly got the data, so prove where I got the data or you are again just making stuff up.) in which a Christian attempted to prove the same thing you are trying to prove.  On the other hand, I utilized an actual Jewish source (which also quotes from the Talmud) which states the exact opposite of what you are claiming.  Are you talking about the above quotes?  I have shown above where they agree with what the Catholic Church has always said from the time of Jesus till now.

Originally posted by Jack

So, IslmisPeace, you are saying that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the wind per the first chapters of Genesis and throughout the Tanakh.

 

I am not saying that.  Jewish sources say that, as I showed. 

Originally posted by Jack

The early scribes (later called rabbis) added Shekinah in biblical verses where the verb shakhan is used in relation to God. Shakhan literally means "to dwell" or "to live with", or even "to pitch one's tent." The word Shekinah means the God-Who-Dwells-Within.

Not quite.  The word "Shekinah" actually just means "dwelling" or "resting" [Encyclopedia Judaica].  It does not mean "the God who dwells within".   The Encyclopedia Judaica specifically said and capitalized the words as follows:  “Presence of God”.  We have here a word that the J. Encyclopedia says indeed does mean God “present” and “dwelling,” as in God who dwells within.  You are getting entangled in the variations in explanation from source to source?  Kind of shows the limits to your intelligence, doesn’t it? LOL 

But I just noticed something, Jack.  The above statement is clearly not your own words.  They are just too sophisticated for you.  (Is this kind of like your shameful copying of stuff and posting it in blue, mixing your own words in also in blue and claiming it is part of the Jewish website?Embarrassed  I checked on you, my friend.  You are not being entirely honest, here, nor have you been in these posts.)  So I did a Google search and found that your "research" is actually just shamefully copied from a random website with Christian undertones.  The very fact that you simply refuse to use Jewish sources to gain an understanding of this subject belies your bias.  (kind of like you refuse to use Christian sources to verify your understanding of Christian beliefs, huh?Big%20smile)  Your statement "[t]he early scribes (later called rabbis)..." is directly copied from the internet, probably from one of the following websites:

http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/ -

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060622173735AA0XJ7X -

Am I right?  Come clean, Jack!   (So, you have been accusing me of using [you call it “shamefully copying,” though when you copy, it is called “careful research”LOL my biased and pompus friend] a shameful website called “Yahoo! Answers” and now you are admitting that perhaps my research might have come from other sources, huh?LOL  Are you finally admitting that your negative assumptions about me might be wrong?  Could the Good Lord finally be reaching you with the good sense that you might be wrong on some things?  Hmmmmm.)

Now don't think that I am not going to respond to this plagiarized material.  I just wanted to embarrass you and expose you as the biased, shabby researcher that you are.  Anyway, let's continue... (I am not embarrased, my psychological friendLOL, as I do my research, then I post on my own feet, not hiding on the credentials of others as you do, or sneaking your personal comments into the quotes of those who are far more qualified than you are.)

Originally posted by Jack

The Shekinah eventually became an interchangeable term with the Holy Spirit in Judaism, which was eventually carried into Christianity through Jesus to his Apostles.

You (and your copied source) have yet to prove this.  (Isla, I don’t have to prove this, as your very quote repeats my assertion  Let me repeat your quote again for you from the ” Encyclopedia Judaica:  "There are a number of texts in which the two terms Ru'a ha-Kodesh and http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 - are found interchanged (see the word interchanged, which I used and now you want me to prove?) in different versions (cf. Pes. 117b; Shab. 30b; and TJ, Suk. 5:1, 55a; see also http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587519970 - , Sot. 13:3f.; Sot. 48b; Sanh. 11a). This interchange (there it is again) may be due to the fact that though Ru'a ha-Kodesh and Shekhinah are conceptually distinct, they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God..What’s more, even without this quote of yours from the Encyclopedia Judaica, my critique of your “quotes” above are proof enough.  When your quotes said that the Holy Spirit appears as a wind, as a light, and as breath, you have simply posted what I had already said about the Holy Spirit from my sources.  You criticize my sources, but they said what yours said, and in less wordsLOL, I might add.  Sorry, Isla, but you act like a longwinded bagpipe.  Nice try, though.) On the other hand, I have shown above that the two concepts are not interchangeable.  (They have their limits, it’s true.  But your sources said that both terms are often used as synonyms for one and the same Allah and have made clear that each term’s range of meanings makes them somewhat interchangeable. It even points out that they have been used in the scriptures interchangeably. So your conclusion here is absolutely a boldfaced lieEmbarrassed that does not square up with your own evidence.  What is your term for that... non-sequiter. )  So far, you have made only baseless, unproven statements.  Well done!  (hee, hee!LOL)

The Shekinah is often pictured as a bird or dove.

Wrong!  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud actually equates the Shekinah with light (see the Encyclopedia Judaica reference as well) while the Holy Spirit was sometimes equated with a dove:

"...the Shekinah appeared as physical light; so that Targ. to Num. vi. 2 says, "Yhwh shall cause His Shekinah to shine for thee."  A Gentile asked the patriarch Gamaliel (c. 100): "Thou sayest that wherever ten are gathered together the Shekinah appears; how many are there?" Gamaliel answered: "As the sun, which is but one of the countless servants of God, giveth light to all the world, so in a much greater degree doth the Shekinah" (Sanh. 39a). [...]

The Shekinah tinkled like a bell (Soah 9b), while the Holy Spirit also manifested itself to human senses in light and sound. The Holy Spirit had the form of a dove, and the Shekinah had wings" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah - .   (Isla, above these two “quotes,” you say that I am wrong in saying that the Shekinah is often pictured as a bird or dove, claiming that Jews equate it with light and the Holy Spirit as a dove, suggesting these are two different things.  Then in the sentence just before my comment, your quote says that the Shekinah had wings. Are you confused?  How could something that is only light (Shekinah) also have wings if it is not also taking theform of a bird?  You are flailing, my friend. LOL In your desperate attempt to prove me wrong, yet again you are proving me right.) LOLLOL

Once again, Jewish sources contradict your claim. (hee, hee!)

There is an even more direct connection to the Hebrew tradition of the Shekinah as St.Paul. the former Pharisee, stresses the indwelling nature of the Holy Spirit throughout his famous passage in Romans 8:8:  “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you.”  There goes your Muslim accusation from another string that St. Paul hijacked the Christian faith.  You see, St. Paul was simply referencing what was already a present understanding of God in Judaism which had been realized by the Jewish believers more than 500 years before.

First of all, the verse is Romans 8:9, not verse 8.  Second of all, Paul contradicts the Jewish sources which show that the Shekinah is not the same as the Holy Spirit, (in your confusion caused by the stress of proving this, you have actually proven the opposite, LOLas I have pointed out above.) since the latter was created (this you still haven’t proven).  And as "Turn to Torah" observed, each represents a different "spirit".  In fact, there are multiple "spirits" mentioned in the Tanakh.  According to the Jewish website http://whatjewsbelieve.org/index.html - :

"There are more than just three manifestations of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is of course, the Spirit of God, as we read in Genesis 1:2:

And The Spirit Of God (Ruach Elohm) moved over the face of the waters

But there is also an Evil Spirit of God, as we read in I Samuel 16:23:

And it came to pass, when The Evil Spirit Of God (Ruach Elohm Raah) was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.  (I have already discussed this verse with Hasan in another post on this string.  Allah is not an evil God and therefore the evil spirit sent by Him is not the same as the Holy Spirit, which in essence is Allah per your quote above from Jewish sources.)

There is also a Lying Spirit Of God in I Kings 22:23:  (Oh, right.  Aren’t you the guy who said in another post that Allah doesn’t change his mind in reference to lying and produced a verse from the books of the prophets in the OT that clearly state that Allah doesn’t lie?  Here you are producing a verse and claiming that Allah lies and send his own spirit to do so?  Man, you just can’t get it right, can you?LOL)

Now therefore, behold, the Eternal hath put a lying spirit (Ruach Sheker) in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Eternal hath spoken evil concerning thee.  (Look at verse 22(which you have conveniently left out-being deceptive again, are we, or did we just make a little old booboo due shabby reaserch?).  In it you will find the rest of the story.  The lying spirit is not Allah’s Holy Spirit, but rather another spirit offering to be sent by Allah to the prophets.  This lying spirit is not a manifestation of Allah, but rather a spirit sent by Allah sent to set up a king to be removed through death in battle.  In Latin, when something under the instructions of someone, we say it is “of” that someone, thus, the lying spirit is “of” Allah, as the larger context of the passage indicates.  Are you sure that you are comprehending that Jewish website correctly, or are you simply putting in your own words again and giving them a blue color to make them appear to be part of the quote, as you did in other quotes above?)

In Exodus 12:23, we are told that God will smite the Egyptians. But later in the same verse, we see that it is the Destroyer who smites the Egyptians. (Yes, of course.  This is, again a spirit sent by Allah to do Allah’s work.  But it is not the Holy Spirit, because Allah is not a God whose hand brings death, but rather a God whose hand gives life.  Some translations refer to this “Destroyer” as the Angel of Death.  Whatever you choose to call this spirit, it is definitely not Allah’s person, as the Holy Spirit is.)

For the Eternal (this word shows that Allah is responsible for what is about to happen, not that he did the smiting with his own hands.  Does Allah even have hands? What does Muhammad say about Allah having hands?) will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Eternal will pass over the door, and will not suffer the Destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

One could then say that the Destroyer should be seen as a Person in God, just as the Spirit Of God is seen as a Person in God.  (You are too confused.  Here you show how little you know about what Christians believe.  So far in this extremely long post of yours, you have not contradicted what Christians believe.  You seem desperate to do so, however.)  To this we could add that the Lying Spirit Of God should be seen as a Person in God, and the Evil Spirit Of God should be seen as a Person in God. (Yes, yes.  Go on and show your ignorance, my friend.) This would mean that instead of the Trinity in the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, one should have the Father, the son, the Holy Spirit, the Lying Spirit, and the Evil Spirit, as well as the Destroyer. Should we add to this the Burning Bush?" http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html - .  (I notice, my confused and funny friend, that you are losing control in your delirium, Confusedforgetting to change the color of your own insane verbal effervescence such that it appear to be part of the quote.  Get a grip, poor chap! LOL By the way, didn’t you tell me when you read my response to your accusation that I was Blasphemer that you didn’t like dramatics?  What would you call this little “Destroyer/Burning Bush” thing, dear heart?Confused)  

Again, we see how the NT contradicts the Tanakh. (Actually, you have shown that they agree, my delusional friend.LOL) Clearly, Paul was not representing actual Jewish teachings.  (Yeah, right.  And this conclusion of yours is about as wrong as your insane ramblings and emotional ejaculations.  It’s a conclusion that’s about as grounded as your assertion that the Holy Trinity is made up of three gods, which it is not, or as when you claim that the spirit of deceit and Allah are one and the same Lord.  What a guffaw!LOL

Originally posted by Jack

The wind you referenced from the first chapters of Genesis was not the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit was definitely present in that wind.  This is why one can say that the Holy Spirit was over the waters during that day of creation and be right on about it.  About the wind not being the Holy Spirit, 1 Kings 19:11 reveals to us that though synonymous at times, yet the wind and the Holy Spirit are not the same things:  1 Kings 19:11 11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.”  From this passage we see that the wind, though not being the Holy Spirit, can contain the presence of the Holy Spirit, or Shekinah.

This is a non-sequitur (ohhh what a word!LOL) for several reasons.  First of all, 1 Kings 19:11 mentions an earthquake (as you showed) as well as a fire following the wind.  Therefore, this "wind" is not the same as the "wind/spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1.  1 Kings 19:11 simply speaks of a different kind of wind.  Remember what the Jewish Encyclopedia stated:

"Though the nature of the Holy Spirit is really nowhere described, the name indicates that it was conceived as a kind of wind that became manifest through noise and light" [Ibid.].

The "wind" mentioned in 1 Kings 19:11 shows no such characteristics (noise and light).  (No noise?  So the wind that Elijah went out of the cave to see just tore the mountains apart, an you say there was no noise? heehee... haw...ho, ho, ho, gasp! Ahhh haw haw hee hee!) Just as the Tanakh mentions different types of "spirits of God", it also mentions different types of "wind". 

Isla, you really do have a hard time getting/understanding what the Holy Spirit is even when Christians try to explain it to you.  In the university where I studied, they say that sometimes one’s audience does not hear what one says as a message is delivered due to something called “internal noise,” which for normal people could be understandings and definitions of concepts that don’t match those of the one who is speaking.  For those who boarder on insanity, internal noise is actually internal voices or memories that play over what the speaker is saying so that the listener just doesn’t hear the message correctly.  I’ll say it again, and perhaps you could quiet those competing voices. LOL I said that Christianity understands the Holy Spirit as entering into and being present in the wind at times, as it was present in the pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of slavery to sin in Egypt, as it was present in the wind blowing over the water in Genesis, and as it enters into men and women to change their hearts and transform their lives into believers who conform their every action to the will of God our Father.  I never said it was a kind of wind which you have claimed that it is, and then claimed it was created like wind is created.  Can you clear the sludge and muck from your brain so that it is more receptive to understanding the message I have been delivering? Tongue The Christian description of the Holy Spirit matches that of the OT a lot more than your description of Christian understanding does.  Have I lost you again in this paragraph?Confused

Originally posted by Jack

Though not the same thing (wind and Holy Spirit) yet the fact that they are synonymous is recognized by Jesus when he uses wind to refer to a quality of God’s Holy Spirit (indwelling presence) in John 3:8 where he is speaking to Nicodemus, “The wind (referencing the Holy Spirit) blows where it chooses...”  The meaning implied by this statement is that the Holy Spirit will serve all peoples, not just Christians or Jews.

  

Isla said, “The reason for this is that linguistically, the Greek word for "spirit" is the same as the Greek word for "wind", as it is with Hebrew.  According to the NIV:

"The Greek for Spirit is the same as that for wind" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26129d - .   (and this just verifies what I’ve been saying about your confusion.  You are writing as if they indeed are the same thing just because the word in Greek and in Hebrew has two different meanings.  In fact the wind is created and the Holy Spirit is the presence of Allah, not any more created than is Allah who is present.  Now take some time, my thick headed friend and let this absorb into your brain.  Water doesn’t absorb into stone very quickly after all...LOL)

The difference is that both the Tanakh (Amos 4:13) and the Talmud (Hag. 12a, b) say that the wind, no matter what type, is created.  This includes the "wind/spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1.  Therefore, the Tanakh contradicts the NT.  (See what I mean?  Your whole point in this very long post is that the Holy Spirit is the same as the wind.  I and all of Christianity, however, recognize that they are different, as does the OT (illustrated by 1 Kings 19.)  Incidentally, you have not shown any OT or Talmudic quote which says that the “wind/spirit of God” is created.  Rather, you have written this yourself and colored the words blue.  This I have shown and is clear to anyone who looks at the quotes above.  Any sentence suggesting such creation does not match the style of the rest of the quote that contains it.  You have been inserting lines into your quotes.  Come on, Isla, come clean.  We’ll all respect you more if you do.Big%20smile)

Originally posted by Jack

St. Paul and Jesus were right in sync when St. Paul spoke of the same thing using different verbiage in Galatians 3;28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male and female;  for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  This has always meant, as context will tell you, that as we all have the Shakinah in us through Jesus, we are all as one as the Shakinah (Holy Spirit) which unites us is one.

  

Again, the Shekinah is not the same as the Holy Spirit.  (so you sayWink)Your continued use of non-sequiturs (ohhh what a word!LOL)does nothing to change the facts.  (I do not think you know what “non-sequitur” means) Moreover, Galatians 3 makes no mention of the Shekinah, only of the "Spirit", which is of course associated with the "Holy Spirit" which Jewish belief stated was created.  (No.  You stated that it was created.  I checked your quotes.  The blue writing which states this is yours and was added by you to the quotes in blue, my deceiving friend.  Nice try, though...Big%20smile)

Originally posted by Jack

In conclusion on this point, I’ll present a little summary of all the appearances of the Holy Spirit (Shekinah) in the Tanakh.

 

You can repeat your false claim that they are one and the same, but the above sources I quoted show clearly that they are not the same.  (there you go again, using your imagination again.  You probably think that you are the only one in this interchange who knows anything, my pretend Jewish Rabbi.)

Originally posted by Jack

The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the burning bush with Moses, in the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of smoke by day that protected the Israelites from Pharoh, then guided them through the desert.  The Shekinah (Holy Spirit) was present in the cloud that rested on the summit of Mt.Sinai when the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and the Shekinah was present in the cloud that occupied the Holy of Holies in the Meeting tent built by the Israelites under Moses to house the Ark of the Covenant.  The Talmud teaches that the Shekinah is everywhere.

  

Yes, and it is not the same as the Holy Spirit.  The Talmud does say that the Shekinah is everywhere [Baba Bathra 25a], that it was present in the Burning Bush etc.  It does not, however, say that it is the same as the Holy Spirit.  (You are confused again.)

Originally posted by Jack

Observing Jews have a saying that the Shekinah (Holy Spirit) descends on each Friday at sunset to transform each Jewish home during the Sabbath.

  

Observant Jews do not believe they are the same thing, as I showed above. (you haven’t)   

Originally posted by Jack

I have just shown the contrary using your precious Talmud and the Tanakh.  And I have shown how what was present in the Tanakh is exactly what Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John were talking about in the NT.  Doesn’t leave much wiggle room for you, now, does it, IslamisnotPeace?

Yeah, sure.  I have refuted all of your claims.

Originally posted by Jack

Your whole assertion that my sources are poor sources and your sources are better because they are Jewish is a pathetic joke and shows how you derive your logic, IslamisPeace.  For my sources quoted the same Talmud as you did.

   

Except that your "sources" used selective quotations to come to a baseless conclusion.  (I have shown that this is what you did.  I’ve also shown that you doctored your quotes.  Come clean, now, Isla, and confess...) Every Jewish source contradicts that conclusion.  My sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, refer to the Talmud to prove that Jews believed the Holy Spirit to be created.  How then, can it be the same as the Shekinah, which is just a fancy word for "God's presence"?  (The Christian definition of Holy Spirit is the “presence and power of God,” in case you haven’t been listening (Oh, yeah, you suffer from internal noise. I forgot...).  That has been my whole point.  We don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is anything more than that.  For you to claim that Christians have it all wrong, that we believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate god in a group of three [as you have referred to the Holy Trinity more than once], just shows that you don’t know what you are arguing against.  Your arguments are against a concept that doesn’t exist.  Christians believe what is in the OT, and the NT simply teaches more of what is already in the OT.  I wish that you would listen more and talk less, my friend.  We have two ears and only one mouth, you know.  I think Allah had that emphasis on listening in mind when he created us.)

Now, since you like "Yahoo! Answers" so much, I thought I would give you a dose of your own medicine.  In response to the question "In Judaism is the Shekinah the Holy Spirit?", a Jewish poster refuted the claim of a Christian poster by stating:

"No- it refers to when G-d chooses to make [a] portion of himself moe (sic) easily discenable (sic) in a place and thus people say "here is G-d". This is easily seen in the Hebbrew (sic) as shekhina is a compond (sic) word made up of "SheKhan Yiheh" "that here he is" It is not a separate bing (sic) or part of G-d; just G-d letting himself be felt in a place" http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgFt4INw6S_73cEfqbhkwrtJBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20101110104109AAuouot - .  (As a Catholic, I say “AMEN to this!”  This is what Catholicism officially teaches regarding the Holy Trinity.  It is in this way that I have been describing the Holy Trinity through comparison on Islamicity Forums for over a year and a half now.  Let me repeat these comparisons for you:  1) a son, father, and husband – three persons / one man, 2) steam, water, ice – three substances / one element, 3) a triangle – three corners / one shape, 4) a clover – three extensions / one leaf, 5) a fork [borrowed from another intelligent Christian poster on Islamicity Forums] – three prongs/one eating utensil.  All of creation reflects something of the master who created it all.  You have just quoted a Jew agreeing that Allah makes Himself present to us in different ways.  Catholics call these ways “persons,” and we recognize three main ways that Allah has made Himself present to us, first as a Creator-Father (Allah/Yahweh), second as Jesus His Son (Allah’s Word become flesh), and as Holy Spirit (Allah’s Presence and Power active in the world around us).  Jews and Christians agree, as does the OT and the NT, though Jews have only gradually been coming to realize over the centuries that we really do agree.  As they do realize this, they become Jews born again Christian.  Praise be to Allah, no?)

So here, a Jew directly refutes the Christian lies about the Holy Spirit and Shekinah being one and the same.    But the Jew doesn’t.  Get with it, man.

Originally posted by Jack

I might also add that your “sources” are not the authorities you claim them to be, as there are two Talmuds, not one, the lesser used one being older, and being from the same faith community as Jesus, and also being not in full agreement with the teachings of the Talmud which you claim is the authority in Judaism.

Now I have heard everything!  You quote from the same Talmud, but when faced with other passages from that Talmud, you try to use special pleading once again by saying that it is not as authoritative.  You quoted from the same Talmud, you dunce!  How dense can you be?  By the way, what does the "older" Talmud say that contradicts the Babylonian Talmud? Do tell.  (The fact that there are two should be telling enough.  If you are interested, use your special investigating powers to discover the differences.)

Originally posted by Jack

You, brother, are Muslim, not Jewish, and so you are about as qualified as I to speak about Judaism, if not less so.

 

When did I say I am "qualified" speak about Judaism?  I have only stated the facts as Jewish sources mention them.  (oh, you’ve inserted your own conclusions and interpretations, as I have clearly and frequently pointed out.)  You, on the other hand, have repeatedly used Christian sources to "verify" your biased views.  (I have only used them appropriately to verify what Christians believe.  You however, have described Christian belief incorrectly because you refuse to use Christian sources in this discussion for anything other than showing your personally perceived contradictions.)You have been the one to repeatedly make unproven assertions using websites maintained by non-Jews, whereas I have made assertions based on material taken directly from Jewish sources.  (No problem, your sources on this post have verified my assertions just fine, thank you!Big%20smile)

Originally posted by Jack

To repeat my last concluding discourse (your pathetic and revealing response will follow), “Now, I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are looking for.  Even kindergarteners know that you get what you get and you don't through a fit.  If you claim that this is not the answer to your question, then... too bad...  get over it.” 

All reasonable people will see that you are a dunce who cannot use objective reasoning and research to ascertain the facts.  (You are here describing yourself.)  Your reference to kindergarteners is apt since you basically think like one!   (At least I think!  You should try thinking sometime.LOL)

Originally posted by Jack

IslamisPeace responded:  “It isn't (the answer I was looking for) because you are using Church tradition and teachings (aw, too bad old friend ) to garble the passages from the Tanakh.... Christians rely on blind faith and deliberate manipulations!  I am not responsible for your own ignorance and shabby research.” 

So you admit it!  (I’m quoting you, dufus!LOL) You cannot "prove" that the Tanakh and NT are in agreement without referring to Church propaganda, whereas I have used actual Jewish sources which show conclusively (conclusively?LOL) that the Church's understanding of the Tanakh is pathetically erroneous.  (This exclamation here just really takes the cake after all the partial quotes, biased and incorrect interpretations, misrepresentations and quote add-ons that you have posted in this post.  So much for “actual Jewish sources”LOL)  Hence, the conclusion is that the Tanakh contradicts the NT.  There, there Jack.  Don't weep for your refuted Church propaganda.   (Believe me, I’m not weeping.Big%20smileLOL)

Originally posted by Jack

My response:  All Jewish sources?  Yeah, and all posters on Islamicity Forums think you are just the coolest, most intelligent, and fascinating poster on the boards.

 

So far, all Jewish sources mentioned have confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.  Let me list them for convenience:

1.  Jewish Encyclopedia  You have used the Encyclopedia Judaica to define the "SHEKHINAH (Heb. שְׁכִינָה; lit. "dwelling," "resting"), or Divine Presence,  This is what my sources have also said is the meaning Judaism gives the word.  This also matches the Catholic explanation of the Holy Spirit.Big%20smile

2.  Turn to Torah Turn to Torah says,  "Ruach (רוּחַ) can mean wind, spirit, breath, or mind.  Only wind in this list is created, my friend.  Neither Allah’s Breath, His Spirit, nor His Mind is created.  Christianity describes the Holy Spirit as the transforming Power and Presence of God that often presents itself as the Breath of God (brought life to Adam and Eve) or as appearing like a wind.Big%20smile

3.  Babylonian Talmud (I have shown that this is a poor reference and why.  But just so you can remember, its pronouncements on the meaning of the OT match what Catholics believe, then it turns around and says that it doesn’t agree with Christian beliefs.  It’s quite an interesting approach to appologetics.LOL)

Now, if you could kindly list the Jewish sources which do not believe that the Holy Spirit was created, we can move on.  (Not one of your sources said that the Holy Spirit was created.  You interpolated that into the quotes, as I have pointed out.  Nice try, though:  )  Which Jewish sources state that the Holy Spirit was not created? (This point is not the thrust of my case, Isla.  Sorry, but it is for you and you have failed to make your case.  Soooooo sorry!Tongue)

I also showed that some Jewish scholars (Saadiah, Maimonides etc.) even believed that the Shekinah was also created [Encyclopedia Judaica]!  (And I pointed out that this simply shows that your sources don’t agree with one another.  Kind of ruins your case, now, doesn’t it?ConfusedLOL)

Oh where will you go from here Jack?  You are dead meat!     (Come a little closer and let me show you how dead I am... said the resting tiger to the hungry buzzard.LOL)

These posts are getting quite long.  I’m getting tired of having to sift through them again and again.  Why don’t you do it this time.  Else our posts will take days and days just to read through once, and maybe weeks to respond to.  Hey, Allah bless you, my friend,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 14 November 2011 at 2:01pm
Jack,
I don't see any point in long post of your. Care to address the issue I brought and you have been dodging so far. Please refer to my last post about "evil spirit from God" can you address that quote and words from the OT directly rather than wishing it to go away or vanish.
Hasan

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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 November 2011 at 1:21pm
Response to Jack:

Disclaimer - This rebuttal has been edited for content.  It has been rated "G" and is "suitable for all audiences".   

Originally posted by Jack

It is not necessary for the OT to explain the Holy Spirit for the HS to be present there.  Does the wind have to explain itself for you to know that it is there?  Of course not!  So, who says that the OT needs to explain the Holy Spirit in order for the Holy Spirit to be present there?  You and all Islam?


I didn't question whether the Holy Spirit was "present" in the Tanakh.  I questioned whether the NT understanding of it is the same as the Tanakh's understanding, hence the title of this thread "Tanakh vs. NT: Confirmation or Contradiction?". 

Originally posted by Jack

Don’t be goofy, pen friend.  Your original post challenged all to compare the NT to the OT.  Now you are saying that I used the NT too much because I referred to 3 places in the NT.  You are too funny!  LOLLOLLOLI can’t breath!!! LOL Somebody call 911! CryLOLLOL
   

I said that your attempts to prove that the Tanakh does not contradict the NT by mostly quoting the NT is irrelevant.  If you want to prove that the NT does not contradict the Tanakh, you need to demonstrate that the teachings of the NT match those of the Tanakh.  In order to that, you have to quote from the Tanakh, not the NT's understanding of the Tanakh. 

Originally posted by Jack

No, I do not have to show verses that point conclusively to the Holy Spirit.  Your demand is about as pathetic as saying that you will not accept a glass of water as water until the glass says very clearly that it is full of water.  LOLI have established the parameters that must be met from the NT.  It clearly identifies the Holy Trinity.  Then I produced verses from the OT that identified what the NT indicated were the persons of the Holy Trinity.  All you have done here is to refer to the Holy Trinity as three gods, which it is not, and claim that the OT does not explain the Holy Trinity.  Your demands are irrelevant.  St. John and all the other Apostles in the NT explained what the Holy Trinity was, and using this explanation, I have shown it to be present in the OT.  Case closed.  But here you have produced 13 long pages trying to refute it using a Jewish Encyclopedia (an excelent religious authority I’m sure) and the Talmud which I have shown to clearly be biased and for other reasons to be unacceptable as an authority in this discussion (yet you can’t make your case without it).  Then you have indicated that I cannot use the NT in our discussion because it is biased Christian propaganda (even though this string is supposed to be about comparing the OT and the NT).  You remind me of a little boy I used to play with 40 years ago who said, “At my house, I am the boss.  At your house, I am the guest, so I am the boss.”  It’s all goofy. 


Thus far, your entire argument is one big non-sequitur.  By saying that the Tanakh "identified the three persons" does not prove that it supports the trinitarian doctrine.  The evidence I have shown proves conclusively that the trinitarian doctrine is not present in the Tanakh. 

Originally posted by Jack

Oh, really!  Kind of like a Muslim trying to play Rabbi LOL(not exactly a Jewish source) selectively quoting from the Talmud (not exactly a solid authority of Judaism on two counts, as I have so clearly shown).  So what is the name of the “Yahoo! Answers” page that I quoted?  If you are going to accuse me of something, then back up your assertions.  Such logic you have, Isla. LOL I’m sure you can do better than this.  At least I hope you can... Wink


First of all, I have utilized Jewish sources.  I have never made a claim on my own.  If you think I did, I challenge you to show me where.  Second of all, your sole piece of "evidence" for your side of the argument was the following "Yahoo! Answers" page:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm

The question asked was "How is the Jewish Holy Spirit different from the Christian Holy Spirit?" to which several Christians answered that they are the same (a claim which is completely false as I showed).  Furthermore, the poster called "kismet" attempted to show that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Shekinah (another false claim as I showed).   

Originally posted by Jack

I’m sorry, but who “listed” what?  Did you leave this background information out of your quote for a reason?  Are you selectively quoting again?)


If you had gone to the link, the webpage is called "answering trinity proofs".  It is a direct answer to common trinitarian arguments raised by Christians.  In response to the common trinitarian argument that "[t]he Tanach shows that there is a third part of a trinity 'God the Holy Spirit'", the author of the website states that there are two different spirits, the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah.  This is a direct refutation from a Jewish website of your claim that the two are the same. 

Originally posted by Jack

O.K.  I’m following the part you’ve posted so far.)
 

Well then, you should realize already that the two are not the same.

Originally posted by Jack

so the website discusses two terms referring to the Holy Spirit, but you are only here discussing one, and not the one that I was discussing.  Very telling about you and your position, my Isla.)


You need to keep reading Jack. 

Originally posted by Jack

Isla, how does the author of “Turn to Torah" know what point I am missing here? Confused Are you sure that some of this “quote" is not your own wording?  Come on, now, and come clean my slightly soiled squire
 

Did you even look at the link I gave you?  I lifted the quotes directly from that website!  Here is the link for your benefit:
http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html -
http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html

Check my quotes with the website and tell me that I have not reproduced everything as is.   

Anyway, we are digressing from the issue.  The bottom line is that I have given you evidence from a Jewish website which clearly states that the Holy Spirit was created.  This echoes what the Jewish Encyclopedia stated. 

Originally posted by Jack

I’m sorry, Isla, but Catholics do not believe in three gods.  We believe that God is One.  What gods exactly are YOU speaking of and from whence do they come?)


Irrelevant, but noted.  The website does erroneously state that the trinity comprises of three "gods".  However, this still does not change the fact that from a Jewish perspective, the Holy Spirit (one of the supposed "persons" of the trinity), was created.  Since it was created (and the Tanakh and all Jewish sources state this unequivocally), it is impossible that it could be the same "co-eternal" Holy Spirit which supposedly is part of the trinity, as Christians claim.

Originally posted by Jack

So your quote says that Ruach Elohim/HaKodesh can mean wind, or spirit, or breath, or mind.  Then it says decisively that the two terms are “wind”.  What happened to the other three possible meanings?  Is your quote contradicting itself...?Wink
 

The website showed the relevant passages from the Tanakh which show that is a type of wind.  This concurs with what the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud state.

Originally posted by Jack

Here are some reasons why I seriously doubt your presentation of this quote is anything but deceptive.  Where on the website does this quote come from?  You don’t site anything that would it make it possible for your readers to go back and check it for themselves.
 

I gave a link in my post.  Did you notice the number "1" in brackets in the first quote?  If you had clicked on it, it would have taken you to the website.  Even so, I gave the link again above.  So go ahead.  Double check my quotes and then tell me that I was being "deceptive".  I will expect an apology from you. 

Originally posted by Jack

Why does the quote refer to the quotes that I listed?  I didn’t list any quotes on that website.


It doesn't refer to you personally.  It is simply responding to the most common trinitarian arguments.  The "you" it is referring to is any Christian. 

Originally posted by Jack

Very good, Isla.  Here, now, is a Muslim playing Catholic quoting an early church father who is not speaking ex-cathedra, and when the quote is presented in the absence of context.  Who taught you how to document your work, Isla.  LOLYou must have not graduated from high school with more than a D+ in Language arts and Writing.  Because this quote is not ex-cathedra, it holds no weight in Catholic Belief.  This is a very week quote and means nothing to Catholicism in this issue.  Nice try, though.). 


Questioning either my credibility or that of the person quoted does not serve to refute the points I have made.  What does it matter if Origen does not represent the Church's position?  Who made the Church the ultimate authority?  The purpose of this reference was to show you that even some Christians believed that the Holy Spirit was created.  What your beliefs are regarding this person (Origen) is irrelevant.  Origen was simply interpreting the Gospel of John in a literal way.  It does indeed say that everything was created through the "son".  As such, Origen concluded that the Holy Spirit too was created through the "son".  It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion which cannot be logically refuted if we read the passage from the Gospel of John in a literal way.

Originally posted by Jack

Dearest Isla, I do not think you know of that of what you speak.  What does it mean, “not uncreated?”  Can you explain this expression a little better?”


Dearest Jack, when did I say "not uncreated"?  I said that some early Christians did not believe that the Holy Spirit was uncreated.  In other words, they believed that the Holy Spirit was created, just as Jews did.  Yet, mainstream Christians argue that the Holy Spirit is one person of the co-eternal trinity.  But if the Holy Spirit was created, then how could it be God? 

Originally posted by Jack

(I don’t see noise or light in this OT verse...


What does the word "uproar" mean if not noise?  Here is the verse again:

Ezekiel 3:12: And a wind (רוּחַ) lifted me up, and I heard behind me the sound of a great uproar: "Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place."

Notice that he "heard...a great uproar".  That implies noise.

Originally posted by Jack

Yet when the Holy Spirit descended on the heads of Mary and the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, there was a great wind and roar that engulfed the room, and the Holy Spirit, like tongues of fire [this must be the “light” settled onto their heads, so Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh must be the “spirit, mind, or breath” of God, neither created, which is the Holy Spirit of Christian esteem.Big%20smile)


Actually, it serves as indisputable evidence that the NT does indeed contradict the Tanakh, since the Tanakh states that the Holy Spirit was created yet the NT (according to you) states it was uncreated. 

Originally posted by Jack

In fact, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is Allah interacting with humanity, yes.  Your Jewish source, or at least that which doesn’t seem to be you your own words, seems to agree with Catholicism, my confused comrade.


The Jewish website disagrees with nearly aspect of Christianity.  Yes, it may agree with the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is used as a way to interact with humanity, but that is where the agreement ends.  The rest is nothing but disagreement, which is the point of this thread and which you have failed to refute.

Originally posted by Jack

(What exactly are you saying here?  Your question makes no sense.  Christians believe based on ample evidence from the OT, some of which I have presented, that the Holy Spirit is the presence and power of Allah, which I have shown is asserted by the Talmud in previous posts.  The Holy Spirit does not create of itself, but creates by Allah the Father, as the Holy Spirit is not its own power, but is the power of Allah the Father.  It makes no sense to say that the Holy Spirit creates, not Allah the Father.  No Christian would ever say that.  I notice you have your question written in blue.  Are you suggesting that the Jewish website asked this question?  I believe that the website has more sense than to ask such an uninformed and unintelligent question as this.  I’m sure that the question is not anyone else’s but yours.  Are you being deceptive again?Shocked
 

I am not saying anything.  Thus far, you have not replied to the article I quoted except to make accusations against me for being "deceptive" and asking irrelevant questions.  What I have shown here serves as a direct refutation of your false claims about what Jews believe.  You choose to disregard the evidence and divert again to the "Yahoo! Answers" page which did not prove anything.  The Tanakh and the Talmud make clear distinctions between the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah, as I have shown.  You simply are wrong and you have misrepresented what Jews actually believe.

Originally posted by Jack

Why do you go on and on about this quality of the wind.  The wind definately is synonymous with the Holy Spirit, but not the same as the Holy Spirit.


The Jewish sources I have quoted contradict your claim.  You have been unable to offer a substantive rebuttal.

Originally posted by Jack

So your quoting, and writing of your own words claiming them to be quotes about the wind really don’t matter at all because they are irrelevant to what Christians believe and to what the NT teaches.  I hope you realize this.)
 

Exactly!  Your "understanding" is based purely on the NT, not on the Tanakh, even though you regard the Tanakh as "scripture".  You rely on the NT's selective references to the Tanakh, and disregard the actual Tanakh itself.

Originally posted by Jack

(Another difference between the Holy Spirit and the wind proving that they are not the same thing.  Wind doesn’t rest.  It is always on the move.  Wind is synonymous in that it shares many characteristics and often the HS is present in it.  But it is not the same thing.)


This is not talking about the "Holy Spirit".  If you read the quote carefully, "Turn to Torah" is talking about the Shekinah.  As explained, the Shekinah is different from the Holy Spirit.  Also, if you read verse 17 of the same chapter, it seals the deal:

"I will come down and speak with you there, and I will increase the spirit that is upon you and bestow it upon them. Then they will bear the burden of the people with you so that you need not bear it alone."

Commenting on the phrase "I will come down..." Rashi wrote:

"I will come down: This is one of the ten descents [of the Shechinah] recorded in the Torah. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:17]" http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9939/showrashi/true - Originally posted by Jack

(the wind itself cannot make someone prophesy.  But the presence and power of Allah can.  The wind is not the same as the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is often present in the wind.)        

Once again, irrelevant, as the verse is referring to the Shekinah as "Turn to Torah" clearly stated and not to the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Jack

For indeed, Catholics (Christians) do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a seperate god, as your quote says that it is not.  Nor do Christians believe that it is a seperate person, as a man is.  Rather we believe that the Holy Spirit is one aspect or attribute of one and the same Allah, as the quote states.


The website said "separate god or person".  Also, it seems that you are contradicting Catholicism because according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) is:

"
  • The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.
  • Though really distinct, as a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - Person , from the Father and the Son, He is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm - consubstantial with Them; being http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm - Essence or http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - Nature .
  • He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm -
    1.  The Holy Spirit is not the Shekinah.
    2.  The Holy Spirit is created.
    3.  The Shekinah is simply another name for God and refers to His "presence" and not to a distinct "person" which proceeds "by way of spiration..." 

    The point the website makes is that the Christian understanding of both the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah are wrong and in contradiction to what the Tanakh actually states.  

    Originally posted by Jack

    When Catholics speak of a person of Allah, we are using the word person to refer to an aspect of Allah.  Your quote describes what Jesus taught and what Catholics believe about the Holy Trinity, though it’s last sentence turns around and contradicts itself by saying that the Holy Spirit is not a part of a trinity.  Again, you have unwitingly verified the Holy Trinity using a Jewish source, Big%20smileand also have shown that even Jews do not understand what Christians believe is the Trinity.Big%20smile


    The literal meaning of "person" is not the issue here.  The rest of your statement completely misconstrues the clear statement of the website and turns it into something completely different and which represents what you want it to say but not what it actually says.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (I have already told you this.)


    Yes, but you also erroneously claimed that it is the same as the Holy Spirit, which I have shown is incorrect. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    (Yes, this is how Catholics use it.  The Holy Spirit is the same God as Allah in heaven)


    The Shekinah is not the Holy Spirit.  The Encyclopedia Judaica was referring to the Shekinah and not to the Holy Spirit.  If Catholicism assigns attributes to the Holy Spirit which Judaism actually applies to the Shekinah, then Catholicism is wrong.  Therefore, the main argument of this thread is proven true, namely that the NT contradicts the Tanakh. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    (Now how can this be, a figurative aspect of Allah having the power to transform a person, thing, or place into something that is Holy?Confused How could a figurative aspect of Allah put life and a soul into shaped clay called Adam?  No, this particular sentence in the “quote” is not accurate with the words of the Torah or of the books of the prophets.  Logic demands another explanation, sorry to say.  It is clear that the only reason this sentence could be in any Jewish literature is to contradict Christianity, as it clearly does not match what is in the OT.)


    Because it not a separate attribute of God, but God Himself. 

    Ask yourself.  Why would God talk to Himself (i.e. the Shekinah talking to God)?  It is understood as being figurative, not literal.  There is no other explanation.  It certainly cannot be used as a cryptic reference to the trinity because such a concept was never even known to the Jews, because it was never explained in the Tanakh.

    But this is all irrelevant semantics again.  The point is that Jewish teachings disagree with you and since these teachings are based on the Tanakh and the Talmud, the only logical conclusion is that the NT contradicts the Tanakh.       

    Originally posted by Jack

    eah, right.  This an attempt to rationalize away what the Holy Bible OT/NT says clearly is a quality of Allah.  End of story.  ClapThe Jews have to walk a fine line to criticize Catholic teaching yet not negate what the OT clearly states. http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&contentSet=GALE&docId=GALE%7CCX2587518280 -  
    Originally posted by Jack

    notice the word, “some” and not allBig%20smile


    Yes, but this is with regard to the Shekinah and not the Holy Spirit.  Even so, Maimonides is one of the famous and well-respected Jewish sages in history, so his opinion carries much weight in traditional Judaism.

    Originally posted by Jack

    IHere we go again, Isla.  You are fixated on the term, “wind,” to the exclusion of the other meanings of the Ruak Elohim, or the Ruach HaKodesh, which the Jewish source said also refered to “spirit, breath, mind.


    And you are fixated on trying to equate the Shekinah with the Holy Spirit, which are two different things.  The point here is that the Shekinah was associated with light whereas the Holy Spirit was associated with wind.  That further proves that the two are not the same. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    My, how selective you are.  How you like to use partial data with intent to mislead.  I have already shown where Shekinah in the Talmud and OT means the power and presence of Allah.


    I never disagreed that the Shekinah was God's presence.  I disagreed with your claim that it is the same as the Holy Spirit.  What is clear is that the Holy Spirit was created.  Whether the Shekinah was created is not clear (although some Jewish scholars believed so).  However, they are clearly different in other regards as well, as I have shown.

    Originally posted by Jack

    Up above, you have used the Encyclopedia Judaica to define the Shekhinah as a dwelling, resting place, and divine presence.  This is what my sources have said is the meaning Judaism gives the word.Big%20smile)
     

    Yes, and that serves as further evidence that it is not the same as the Holy Spirit.  That was the issue we were discussing, wasn't it?

    Originally posted by Jack

    Notice the words, “...they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God.” WinkBig%20smile
     

    It also states that the two are "conceptually distinct".  In other words, it is saying that the Talmud is not exactly clear and sometimes seems to confuse the two.  One possible explanation for this is that these confusions were due to copyist errors, which is certainly possible.  Another possible explanation is that they are simply examples of contradictions within the Talmud.

    Originally posted by Jack

    It is this range in which they are identical and in which they are sometimes used as synonyms for God in which Catholics and indeed all Christians consider them referring to the Holy Trinity.


    But then you would be picking and choosing since, as the Encyclopedia Judaica states, the two are "conceptually distinct".  By choosing to concentrate on the alleged similarities (which are only over a certain "range") and ignoring the differences, you are guilty of selectivity.

    Originally posted by Jack

    This claim of copyist error is not shared by all Jewish authorities.


    That may be true, but just because it is not "shared by all Jewish authorities" does not mean it is wrong.  The Talmud differentiates between the two and the similarities are limited.  You would have to account for why they are treated differently as well.  The minor similarities would not be sufficient to declare them one and the same.  Clearly, Jewish sources do not treat them as such.

    Originally posted by Jack

    Don’t you think that if these were copyist errors, Allah would have called upon Jesus to point this all out?  But Jesus never did.  This is because they are not copyist errors. 
     

    The Talmud was not compiled during the time of Jesus (pbuh).  It existed as an oral tradition.  Furthermore, when did Jesus even refer to the Talmud? 

    Originally posted by Jack

    The OT does indeed use Ru’ah ha-Kodesh and Shekhinah both as straight synonyms for Allah, because whereas the terms are conceptually distinct, in fact they are one and the same with Allah.


    How can they be "conceptually distinct" yet be the same?  You are again being selective.  None of the Jewish sources unequivocally state that they are one and the same.  The fact that they are "conceptually distinct" and only similar "over a certain range" is evidence that they are actually not the same.  How could they be if the Talmud direclty states that the Holy Spirit was a created wind whereas the Shekinah is God's presence (and which which may have been a created light according to some Jews)?  You have failed to respond to the differences.

    Originally posted by Jack

    silly goose, your own quotes show that it is the same thing, distinct only in how it refers to Allah or the Holy Spirit)


    Not so, as all of the sources I have quoted make it a special case to explain that they are actually different.

    Originally posted by Jack

    The Encyclopedia Judaica specifically said and capitalized the words as follows:  “Presence of God”.  We have here a word that the J. Encyclopedia says indeed does mean God “present” and “dwelling,” as in God who dwells within.  You are getting entangled in the variations in explanation from source to source?  Kind of shows the limits to your intelligence, doesn’t it? LOL


    Yes, but the word does not literally mean "the God who dwells within".  That is simply incorrect.  The word simply means "dwelling" or "presence".  Where are you getting the "within" part?  That seems like an interpolation on your part which is not supported by the linguistic evidence.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (Is this kind of like your shameful copying of stuff and posting it in blue, mixing your own words in also in blue and claiming it is part of the Jewish website?Embarrassed  I checked on you, my friend.  You are not being entirely honest, here, nor have you been in these posts.)
      

    Let's see if you can back up your accusations with solid proof.  Otherwise, I will expect an apology from you.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (kind of like you refuse to use Christian sources to verify your understanding of Christian beliefs, huh?Big%20smile


    Irrelevant and off-topic, but can you provide an example?

    Originally posted by Jack

    So, you have been accusing me of using [you call it “shamefully copying,” though when you copy, it is called “careful research”LOL my biased and pompus friend] a shameful website called “Yahoo! Answers” and now you are admitting that perhaps my research might have come from other sources, huh?LOL  Are you finally admitting that your negative assumptions about me might be wrong?  Could the Good Lord finally be reaching you with the good sense that you might be wrong on some things?  Hmmmmm.)


    There is a difference between out-right plagiarism and using quotations while citing the authoritative source you got the information from.  I do the latter because I cite my sources.  That is called research.  On the other hand, you directly copied a random, unauthoritative webpage without citing the page.  That is called plagiarism and is also an example of bad research habits because the source you copied is in no way an authority on the subject it is discussing.  To the person reading your response, it would appear that these were your own words, when it reality, they were not. 

    You still have not admitted that you simply plagiarized a random webpage which is not maintained by experts on Jewish beliefs.  Is that not what you did?

    Originally posted by Jack

    (I am not embarrased, my psychological friendLOL, as I do my research, then I post on my own feet, not hiding on the credentials of others as you do, or sneaking your personal comments into the quotes of those who are far more qualified than you are.)
     

    By definition, that is called plagiarism and is also an example of poor research since you were not even plagiarizing an authoritative source.  What indication is there that the source you copied from is even an expert?  Would you rely on a mechanic for information on medicine? 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Isla, above these two “quotes,” you say that I am wrong in saying that the Shekinah is often pictured as a bird or dove, claiming that Jews equate it with light and the Holy Spirit as a dove, suggesting these are two different things.  Then in the sentence just before my comment, your quote says that the Shekinah had wings. Are you confused?  How could something that is only light (Shekinah) also have wings if it is not also taking theform of a bird?  You are flailing, my friend. LOL In your desperate attempt to prove me wrong, yet again you are proving me right.)


    You are interdicting your own interpretations into the facts.  The Shekinah did have "wings".  That doesn't necessarily make it a "bird".  The angels also apparently have "wings".  Does that make them "birds"?  Of course not.  The point is that the Shekinha was not symbolized as a dove but rather as "light".  Therefore, your source is wrong. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    (I have already discussed this verse with Hasan in another post on this string.  Allah is not an evil God and therefore the evil spirit sent by Him is not the same as the Holy Spirit, which in essence is Allah per your quote above from Jewish sources.)
     

    Yes, I read your response and found it weak.  If you read verse 15 of the same chapter, you will see that this "evil spirit" originated from God:

    "15 Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you."


    Also, in verse 23, the "evil spirit" is associated with the "spirit of God":

    "Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him."


    There is no doubt that according to the Tanakh, this "evil spirit" is one of  God's "spirits". 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Oh, right.  Aren’t you the guy who said in another post that Allah doesn’t change his mind in reference to lying and produced a verse from the books of the prophets in the OT that clearly state that Allah doesn’t lie?  Here you are producing a verse and claiming that Allah lies and send his own spirit to do so?  Man, you just can’t get it right, can you?LOL)


    How does this change the fact that the Tanakh clearly identifies other "spirits of God" other than the "Holy Spirit"?  The question is why does Christianity ignore these other "spirits of God" and not include them in the trinity?  The central theme of this thread is that the NT contradicts the Tanakh.  Here, we see more evidence of this.

    Concerning what I wrote in the thread, your point only confirms that the Tanakh does have apparent contradictions, which is not a problem for me since I don't even regard it as scripture.  You do, so you must explain the contradictions.  In any case, I said that God does not change His mind.  I did not say that He is capable of lying.  I believe that God does not lie or change His mind about things He has declared to be forbidden. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    (Look at verse 22(which you have conveniently left out-being deceptive again, are we, or did we just make a little old booboo due shabby reaserch?).  In it you will find the rest of the story.  The lying spirit is not Allah’s Holy Spirit, but rather another spirit offering to be sent by Allah to the prophets.  This lying spirit is not a manifestation of Allah, but rather a spirit sent by Allah sent to set up a king to be removed through death in battle.  In Latin, when something under the instructions of someone, we say it is “of” that someone, thus, the lying spirit is “of” Allah, as the larger context of the passage indicates.  Are you sure that you are comprehending that Jewish website correctly, or are you simply putting in your own words again and giving them a blue color to make them appear to be part of the quote, as you did in other quotes above?)


    Did you look at the website?  The quote was taken directly from it.  Here is the link:

    http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html - http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html

    Concerning your appeal to verse 22, it does not refute anything the website stated.  This "spirit" is not identified yet it is called the "spirit from/of the Lord" in verse 24.  Latin is irrelevant here.  The Tanakh was written in Hebrew.  It is true that there seems to be disagreement among the Jews as to who this "spirit" was exactly.  According to Rashi, it was the spirit of Naboth, who was unjustly executed for refusing to give up his land to Ahab http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15906/showrashi/true - - [3]
    .  Yet, the website "What Jews Believe" identifies it as being literally a spirit of God.  Even if it wasn't a spirit of God, it still creates all sorts of theological problems since the verse depicts God allowing this "lying spirit" to deceive people through the prophets. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Yes, of course.  This is, again a spirit sent by Allah to do Allah’s work.  But it is not the Holy Spirit, because Allah is not a God whose hand brings death, but rather a God whose hand gives life.  Some translations refer to this “Destroyer” as the Angel of Death.  Whatever you choose to call this spirit, it is definitely not Allah’s person, as the Holy Spirit is.)
      

    Not at all, because the verse specifically says that God will "go through the land".  This "destroyer" is clearly identified as a spirit of God.  More evidence for this association can be seen in verses 12-13 of the same chapter:

    "12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt."

    So, according to these verses, God is the "Destroyer", and not simply a "God whose hand gives life". 

    Originally posted by Jack

    this word shows that Allah is responsible for what is about to happen, not that he did the smiting with his own hands.  Does Allah even have hands? What does Muhammad say about Allah having hands?)


    Your Bible says that God created man in His own image.  What this means I will leave to you.  Does God literally have hands?  I don't know.  The Qur'an does speak of His "hands" but we cannot use these verses to say that He literally has two hands, two legs, two eyes etc.  We don't know what God "looks like" (although the Qur'an promises us that we will see His "Face" in Heaven). 

    But this is going off topic.  The point is that the verses from Exodus identify yet another "spirit" which comes forth from God and is identified as Him.  Yet this "spirit", like the "evil spirit" and the "lying spirit" are not included in the trinity and are actually pretty much ignored in Christian theology.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (I notice, my confused and funny friend, that you are losing control in your delirium, Confusedforgetting to change the color of your own insane verbal effervescence such that it appear to be part of the quote.  Get a grip, poor chap! LOL By the way, didn’t you tell me when you read my response to your accusation that I was Blasphemer that you didn’t like dramatics?  What would you call this little “Destroyer/Burning Bush” thing, dear heart?Confused)  


    You are obviously not looking at the links I gave.  They are there for your benefit so you can check the quotes for yourself.  That's the whole point of citing one's sources, so that people who read one's writing can check the sources for themselves.  That is why in scholarly circles, all articles and books are often peer-reviewed to check for accuracy.  So, check the links I provided to see if I have deliberately altered the quotes.  You will find that I have faithfully reproduced the quotes exactly.   

    Originally posted by Jack

    ohhh what a word!LOL)


    It's Latin and it means "does not follow".  It is a logical fallacy where one comes to a conclusion which "does not follow" the premises.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (No noise?  So the wind that Elijah went out of the cave to see just tore the mountains apart, an you say there was no noise? heehee... haw...ho, ho, ho, gasp! Ahhh haw haw hee hee!)
     

    But was there any light?  No, there wasn't.  Also, according to Rashi, the "wind", earthquake and fire were all "camps of angels" http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15903/showrashi/true - - [4]
    .

    Originally posted by Jack

    I said that Christianity understands the Holy Spirit as entering into and being present in the wind at times, as it was present in the pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of slavery to sin in Egypt, as it was present in the wind blowing over the water in Genesis, and as it enters into men and women to change their hearts and transform their lives into believers who conform their every action to the will of God our Father.  I never said it was a kind of wind which you have claimed that it is, and then claimed it was created like wind is created.  Can you clear the sludge and muck from your brain so that it is more receptive to understanding the message I have been delivering? Tongue The Christian description of the Holy Spirit matches that of the OT a lot more than your description of Christian understanding does.  Have I lost you again in this paragraph?Confused


    The above evidence from Jewish sources shows conclusively that the Christian understanding of the "Holy Spirit" is very different from the Jewish understanding.  The Tanakh does not treat the Holy Spirit the same way as the NT does.  Therefore, the conclusion is that the two contradict each other.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (See what I mean?  Your whole point in this very long post is that the Holy Spirit is the same as the wind.


    And that is based on the claims of Jewish sources, and not my own interpretation. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    I and all of Christianity, however, recognize that they are different, as does the OT (illustrated by 1 Kings 19.)


    Yet your reading of 1 Kings 19 also contradicts the Jewish reading.  The
    "wind" in that passage is a "camp of angels" and not just some random wind. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Incidentally, you have not shown any OT or Talmudic quote which says that the “wind/spirit of God” is created.


    Yes I did.  Have you already forgotten?  I gave the Talmud reference a few weeks ago.  I also referred to Amos 4:13 which is also used by the Talmud to show that the spirit of God was created.  I also provided an authentic Jewish website which corroborates this fact.  The Jews do indeed believe that the spirit of God was created. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Rather, you have written this yourself and colored the words blue.  This I have shown and is clear to anyone who looks at the quotes above.  Any sentence suggesting such creation does not match the style of the rest of the quote that contains it.  You have been inserting lines into your quotes.  Come on, Isla, come clean.  We’ll all respect you more if you do.Big%20smile)


    I will wait for your apology once you check the links I provided.  You will see that I have done no such thing.  In light of our recent "truce", I think you should avoid making such accusations, especially if you haven't even looked at the links, which it is obvious that you didn't.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (so you sayWink)
     

    As do all the Jewish sources I have quoted.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (No.  You stated that it was created.  I checked your quotes.  The blue writing which states this is yours and was added by you to the quotes in blue, my deceiving friend.  Nice try, though...Big%20smile)


    No, you did not check my quotes.  If you had, you would not be making these silly accusations.  But I will forgive and forget these transgressions, in light of our truce.  However, I will expect an apology once you find that your accusations are baseless.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (The Christian definition of Holy Spirit is the “presence and power of God,” in case you haven’t been listening (Oh, yeah, you suffer from internal noise. I forgot...).  That has been my whole point.


    And this definition is wrong.  The Holy Spirit does not refer to the "presence and power of God".  That is the Shekinah.  The Holy Spirit is "ruach haKodesh" which is the created spirit which "hovered" over the water before God created the world. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    We don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is anything more than that.  For you to claim that Christians have it all wrong, that we believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate god in a group of three [as you have referred to the Holy Trinity more than once],


    I never said that.  The website "Turn to Torah" did, which I admit is wrong.  However, "Turn to Torah" proved conclusively my claim that the Jews believe in a different Holy Spirit, which their scripture identifies as a created spirit, and not the third "person" of a triune God. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    (As a Catholic, I say “AMEN to this!”  This is what Catholicism officially teaches regarding the Holy Trinity.


    How can you say this when the Jewish poster is contradicting your claim that the Shekinah is the same as the Holy Spirit? 

    Originally posted by Jack

    It is in this way that I have been describing the Holy Trinity through comparison on Islamicity Forums for over a year and a half now.
     

    Then you are contradicting the Tanakh, which is exactly the point of this thread.

    Originally posted by Jack

    Let me repeat these comparisons for you:  1) a son, father, and husband – three persons / one man, 2) steam, water, ice – three substances / one element, 3) a triangle – three corners / one shape, 4) a clover – three extensions / one leaf, 5) a fork [borrowed from another intelligent Christian poster on Islamicity Forums] – three prongs/one eating utensil.  All of creation reflects something of the master who created it all.  You have just quoted a Jew agreeing that Allah makes Himself present to us in different ways.  Catholics call these ways “persons,” and we recognize three main ways that Allah has made Himself present to us, first as a Creator-Father (Allah/Yahweh), second as Jesus His Son (Allah’s Word become flesh), and as Holy Spirit (Allah’s Presence and Power active in the world around us).  Jews and Christians agree, as does the OT and the NT, though Jews have only gradually been coming to realize over the centuries that we really do agree.  As they do realize this, they become Jews born again Christian.  Praise be to Allah, no?)
     

    You cannot speak for Jews.  You should speak for your own people.  The Jews do not agree with you.  So please stop putting words into their mouths.  I have shown conclusively that the Jews do not agree with you.  There is no trinity in the Tanakh and the understanding of concepts like the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah are different.

    Originally posted by Jack

    The fact that there are two should be telling enough.  If you are interested, use your special investigating powers to discover the differences.)


    You have made a claim.  So now, back it up.  We are discussing here.  If you can't back up a claim yourself, then don't make such a claim.  Here is a Jewish explanation of the two Talmuds.  These are videos, so enjoy:
    http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/movie_cdo/aid/1256815/jewish/The-Talmud.htm -
    http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/movie_cdo/aid/1256815/jewish/The-Talmud.htm

    http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/movie_cdo/aid/1256816/jewish/The-Jerusalem-and-Babylonian-Talmuds.htm - http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/movie_cdo/aid/1256816/jewish/The-Jerusalem-and-Babylonian-Talmuds.htm

    According to these videos, the Babylonian Talmud actually contains the same material as the Jerusalem Talmud, so your claim that they are different is wrong.

    Originally posted by Jack

    You have used the Encyclopedia Judaica to define the "SHEKHINAH (Heb. שְׁכִינָה; lit. "dwelling," "resting"), or Divine Presence,  This is what my sources have also said is the meaning Judaism gives the word.  This also matches the Catholic explanation of the Holy Spirit.Big%20smile


    That's exactly the point.  Catholicism has erroneously made the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah as one and the same whereas all Jewish sources deny this correlation.  The Encyclopedia Judaica explains that the two are "conceptually distinct" and only similar "over a certain range".  Therefore, they are not the same. 

    Originally posted by Jack

    Only wind in this list is created, my friend.  Neither Allah’s Breath, His Spirit, nor His Mind is created.  Christianity describes the Holy Spirit as the transforming Power and Presence of God that often presents itself as the Breath of God (brought life to Adam and Eve) or as appearing like a wind.Big%20smile


    And the Holy Spirit is identified as a created wind by Jews based on passages from the Tanakh and Talmud.  Therefore, Christianity contradicts Judaism.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (I have shown that this is a poor reference and why.


    All you did was make many assertions without any supporting evidence, despite my repeated requests.

    Originally posted by Jack

    But just so you can remember, its pronouncements on the meaning of the OT match what Catholics believe, then it turns around and says that it doesn’t agree with Christian beliefs.  It’s quite an interesting approach to appologetics.LOL


    Then you must only be reading what you want to read and not what it actually states.  The authoritative sources I have quoted all prove that the Christian understanding is wrong.

    Originally posted by Jack

    (And I pointed out that this simply shows that your sources don’t agree with one another.  Kind of ruins your case, now, doesn’t it?ConfusedLOL)


    They don't agree on the matter of whether the Shekinah is created or not but they unanimously agree that it is different from the Shekinah.  Therefore, the Christian understanding is wrong.

    Originally posted by Jack

    These posts are getting quite long.  I’m getting tired of having to sift through them again and again.  Why don’t you do it this time.  Else our posts will take days and days just to read through once, and maybe weeks to respond to.  Hey, Allah bless you, my friend,


    That's okay.  There are no deadlines to make rebuttals.  Take as long as you need to respond.  I know I will.  The fact that these posts are getting long means we are going into detail, which is the only way to get to the truth. 


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 5:36am
Dear Hasan,
 
In big font so you will be able to read it better, you said, "...you have only used excuses in answer. "because in another verse" and so on."
 
Dear friend, I am surprised at you.  Are we equating "context" with "excuse?"  Perhaps this explains why you often get the meaning of verses in the Holy Bible wrong...  I look at the larger writing of the author to see if the author may give some clear clue as to the meaning of a term or sentence elsewhere in his writing so that we will be able to assign the correct meaning to the term or verse in question.  To only look at a verse is to risk asigning a meaning to it that the author did not intend, and different from the rest of the passage.  What does this care in interpretation have to do with excuses.  The conclusion I drew from "context" is that the evil spirit was a spirit created by Allah that chose evil and that entered Saul only after Allah withdrew His own Spirit, and that entered Saul to fill the vaccuum created by the departure of Allah's Spirit.  But Allah's Spirit is not evil.  How could Allah's Spirit be evil if it had left Saul before the evil spirit entered him.  You see, Allah's Spirit in Saul couldn't be evil if it wasn't present in Saul when the evil spirit was there.  This explanation could only be determined from context, not on the verse alone.  And it is the most logical explanation (definately not an excuse).
 
Think about it.
 
Allah's blessings,
 
Jack Catholic 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 5:44am

Dear Isla,

You said, “I asked for proof that the teaching of the trinity was present in the Tanakh.  If you are not trying to answer the question, then you are going off on tangents.  As I said, I am not interested in Church propaganda on the specifics of the trinity concept.  I am interested in whether the Tanakh agrees with the NT on the concept of the trinity.

O.K. First you said you wanted proof that the teaching of the Holy Trinity was present in the OT.  Then you said you are interested in whether the OT agrees with the NT.  Which answer do you want?  I’ll give you both again:

The answer to the second of the two questions is a very clear “yes, the OT and the NT agree.” 

I have answered the first question repeatedly with the following answer (which makes you seem to explode with exasperation.  Why, I do not know.)  Here is the answer again for the millionth time.  The name “Holy Trinity” is not a teaching, it is a term devised by the Catholic Church to refer to what is in the OT and NT.  The OT clearly speaks of Allah as Father / Creator and also speaks of the Holy Spirit, which is defined in both its Hebrew terms per your quotes as the presence of Allah, and Christians have pointed out how it is also clear in the OT that the Holy Spirit is the Power of Allah at work.  The Word of Allah is also present in the OT and is powerful and active.  St. John in the NT tells us that this Word of Allah is Jesus when it takes on human flesh and is born of Mary.  The NT simply repeats what is already in the OT about the Father, the Holy Spirit, and is mainly about the life of Jesus (the Word of Allah present in the OT and in action and in human flesh in the NT).  The term Holy Trinity simple is a title for these three presences of the same one Allah.  Why do you have difficulty with this?

Is the trinity concept present in the Tanakh? 

To this question, my answer has always been that the elements of the Holy Trinity are present in OT.  There is no other answer than this to your question.

If not, why do Christians claim that it is and that there is no disagreement between the Tanakh and NT? 

There is no dissagreement between the OT and the NT, Isla, because the NT says the same thing as the OT in regards to the members of the Holy Trinity accept that the NT is about Jesus, and Jesus did not exist in human flesh in the OT times, though the OT has numerous prophesies about him which are all fullfilled in the NT.  It is only in this respect that they are any bit different.  But the OT and NT compliment each other perfectly in this way.  There is no contradiction between them.

 

In other words, you accept the foreign concept of the trinity only through blind faith.

The concept of the Holy Trinity is not foreign, as it is present all through the OT and the NT.  I don't need faith to see it there.

You also did not respond to the fact that the "Holy Spirit" was believed by the Jews to have been created. 

I certainly did.  Each and every time you gave some definition of a Hebrew term referring to the Holy Spirit and how one of its meanings was “wind,” you said that this was proof that Hebrews believed that the Holy Spirit was created, implying that the wind was created, so also the Holy Spirit was created.  I responded to each one with the observation that not one of your quotes or definitions from Jewish sources or even the Christian one said, “the Holy Spirit was created.”  You interpreted this into the quotes repeatedly.  You have shown absolutely no evidence that Jews believe the Holy Spirit to be created.  This is just you speaking, and you are showing yourself to be a very poor Jewish scholar, my friend.

 

You also did not respond to your own Catholic source which admitted that the person of the "son" was "obscurely" mentioned in the Tanakh. 

I agreed above with this Catholic source, as I have already said.  Yet this does not in any way mean that the OT does not contain the elements of the Holy Trinity, including Allah's Word in action (whom we call Jesus), sorry to say.

So, there you have it, Isla, the truth with proof to all your concerns, and the evidence that the NT and OT do not contradict on the matter of the Holy Trinity. 

 
And may Allah bless you,

 

Jack Catholic

 

 



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 25 November 2011 at 10:30am

contradict.  We seem to be discussing mostly the OT. 

Dear Isla,

I appreciate your very nice post.  You have shown that you can be funny in print, and now you’ve shown that you can write a polite yet intelligent post, so now all you have to do is bring back your “funny” while remaining polite yet intelligent.  If you can manage to do this, I know that readers will search out your posts just to drink in what you have written.  This is a goal for any and all posters everywhere.  Allah’s blessings to you in this! And best wishes from me as well.  I will finally return to calling you by your pen name, IslamisPeace.  Great job!

IslamisPeace, you said, “Your attempts to prove that the Tanakh does not contradict the NT by mostly quoting the NT is irrelevant.  If you want to prove that the NT does not contradict the Tanakh, you need to demonstrate that the teachings of the NT match those of the Tanakh.  In order to that, you have to quote from the Tanakh, not the NT's understanding of the Tanakh. “

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

You wrote, “Thus far, your entire argument is one big non-sequitur.  (And your argument is one big confuso.)  By saying that the Tanakh "identified the three persons" does not prove that it supports the trinitarian doctrine.  The evidence I have shown proves conclusively that the trinitarian doctrine is not present in the Tanakh. 

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

Your whole argument, IslamisPeace, is about the meaning of the OT according to modern Jewish sources, while telling me to stop quoting the NT.  Then you turn around and make it clear that your Jewish sources don’t agree with one another.  I, on the other hand, am simply comparing NT with OT and reflecting on how that comparison has affected Christian belief.  Yes, I did use the Answer.Yahoo page to begin with, as you can see that the answer given by a poster on the page was so full of biblical references that one almost could not follow what he was trying to say.  He did a very fine job in answering a question, and without trying he showed very concisely how OT and NT do not contradict.  And this is how I used it:  I simply looked at it, took the biblical references contained in it, and ran with those biblical references.  I did not use the web page address as a source, as the Holy Bible did just fine as a source of its own accord.  I did not use my own interpretation of the Holy Bible, nor did I use the Yahoo author’s interpretation, but simply used biblical context to establish the meaning of the verses referenced.  You have had to bring in extra Jewish sources to prove that I was wrong in identifying the meaning of the biblical verses, though you admit your sources do not agree with each other (more on this next), which ruins the credibility of your sources.  About the credibility of your Jewish sources, you have even admitted two things:

First, in reference to Ruach Elohim and Ruach HaKodesh, you said that your sources said they are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for Allah, yet these Jewish sources claim that the two terms are “conceptually distinct”.  Then here is what you said in your own words about your Jewish sources, “the Talmud is not exactly clear and sometimes seems to confuse the two.  One possible explanation for this is that these confusions were due to copyist errors, which is certainly possible.  Another possible explanation is that they are simply examples of contradictions within the Talmud.  This doesn’t bode well for the credibility of the Talmud.

Second, you have said regarding the Shekhinah’s being created, “I gave the Talmud reference a few weeks ago.  I also referred to Amos 4:13 which is also used by the Talmud to show that the spirit of God was created.  Amos 4:13 says:  He who forms the mountains,  who creates the wind,  and who reveals his thoughts to mankind, who turns dawn to darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth— the LORD God Almighty is his name.  In this verse of Amos 4, the wind is mentioned, not the Breath of Allah, nor His Spirit, nor His mind.  Thus, all this verse says is that the wind is created.  Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are not included in the verse.  So it is incorrect to say that Allah’s Breath, Spirit, and Mind are created.  So this verse is evidence that the wind is created, but not that the Shekhinah is created.  In support of what I am saying, you have said and I quote, “They (the Jewish sources) don't agree on the matter of whether the Shekinah is created.  This also does not bode well for the credibility of the Talmud.

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

So you indirectly admit that your Jewish sources are not totally reliable in this discussion.  The greatest and most reliabile of the Jewish sources is the OT, or Tanakh.  That is what I mostly have been pulling from.  But there is some value to what you have presented, as we shall see below.

So, here is the yahoo.com page I used to begin responding to this thread in print nice and big and blue as you seem to need it to be:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224154058AA8IJKm -

I have to commend you, IslamisPeace, for finally bringing official Catholic teaching from official Catholic sources into this discussion.  As you are trying to prove the teaching of the Holy Trinity wrong, it helps to actually define it first, so I am glad that it is now here for all to see.  The website “Turn to Torah” has been referring to the Holy Trinity as “separate gods or persons.”  I took issue with this definition and referred to the Holy Trinity as being three separate aspects of the same one Allah.  You were wise to see that I was not using the official Catholic definition.  You have paraphrased the Holy Trinity in your own words from the Catholic Encyclopedia, mainly in reference to the Holy Spirit.  Before I quote you, I’d like to say that I took a risk and used the term “aspects” from one of your Jewish sources to refer to the three members of the Holy Trinity, choosing in this way to not accept the “Turn to Torah” website’s use of the word “person.”  I did this because I did not want to get into the issue of the meaning of the word, “person.”  But with the very nicely put paraphrasing that you have given below, I am pleased to now get into the issue of the meaning of the word “person.”  I’ll do this first, which will put your paraphrasing more into perspective with what the OT, Talmud, and Jewish sources have been saying about the Holy Spirit and how it is practically the same as what the Catholic Church has always said.

First, the word “person” originally comes from an Etruscan word phersu (Online Etymology Dictionary), which means “mask.”  When the Greeks colonized southern Italy in 900 BC, they borrowed the word and integrated it into Greek as, “persephone” (in Greek, masks tended to increase the volume of the actor’s voice so the audience could here better, and hence the addition of the term, “-phone” to the word “phersu-“).  The Italian dialect of Greek, which came to be called Latin, used the term in the following form, “persone,” which continued to refer to masks in drama, and also characters in the drama, until the Roman Senate began using the term for legal purposes to refer to both human and business entities.  By the 13th century in France, the term personne had come to mean, “human being.”  Now, the meaning of the word is so varied and depends on the context of its usage that it may lead to the moral and legal ripping apart of the United States of America as a nation.  One must be careful in using the term, whether in a religious context, sociological, psychological, legal, or philosophical context.  Just check any English dictionary for the word and you will see how many meanings there are.

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

  • The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.  (If we say that a person is like a mask per 3rd and 4th century definition, than it would be easy to say that the Holy Ghost is but the same Allah, appearing in a form other than himself, as if Allah were wearing a mask to hide his appearance from us. After all, doesn’t the OT say that none shall see the face of God and live, yet there are incidences of people such as Moses speaking to Allah “face to face?”  “Face-to-face” is a term meaning that there was nobody between Allah and Moses when they spoke, so then in order for Moses to live through the experience, Allah would have to wear a mask to hide his face, and hence, the old Latin term of “person.”) 
  • Though really distinct, as a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - , (the face is often jokingly called one’s “mask,” so Christians are actually here saying that Allah has a mask of the Son(Jesus), a different mask of the Holy Spirit, and a third mask which is his own face.) from the Father and the Son, He is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm - with Them; being http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm - or http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm - . (this one and the same Divine Essence or Nature is the Church’s way of referring to what Jesus said in John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but the will of Him who sent me.”  Thus the Essence, Nature, or “Will” of Jesus is the same as that of Allah, and it is only the mask, or “Person” appearing before us that is different or separate.)
  • He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm - .

So, the website's use of the word "person" is accurate.  (this was the issue.  The website used the word “person” as it used the word “god” to mean separate entities or begings.  But you can see by your paraphrase of the Catholic Encyclopedia above that the Catholic Church does not recognize the Holy Spirit, or Jesus the Son, or Allah the Father as separate entities, but rather as one and the same entity appearing (your Jewish sources say “appearance”) as separate persons or masks.  Your paraphrase continues:)  But more importantly, the Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of the trinity serves as more evidence that the NT is in opposition with what the Tanakh states since:

1.  The Holy Spirit is not the Shekinah.
2.  The Holy Spirit is created.
3.  The Shekinah is simply another name for God and refers to His "presence" and not to a distinct "person" which proceeds "by way of spiration..." 

So let’s discuss your three point conclusion from your paraphrase above.  I’d like to address the 2nd point first.  You say that the Holy Spirit is created.  First of all, you never showed where the OT said word for word that the Shekinah “is created.”  You simply said that its meaning included the word, “wind,” and that the wind was created.  But Shekinah means so much more than “wind.”  Even in point 3, you say that Shekinah is another name for Allah and refers to His “presence.”  “Presence” is not an object to be created.  Rather, it is a condition.  So if Allah is present in your house right now, IslamisPeace, can you say that Allah’s presence is an object that was “created” for you?  It just does not make any sense to say that Allah’s presence is a created thing.  So, no, the OT does not say that the Shekinah is created.  You haven’t shown that it did, nor where it did, nor does it make any sense to say that it was created.  Rather, you have shown a bunch of Jewish sources that don’t agree with one another where only some claim the Shekinah was created, and others disagree.   Let’s take the first half of one of your summary statements, IslamisPeace, “They (the Jewish sources) don't agree on the matter of whether the Shekinah is created or not but they unanimously agree that it (the Holy Spirit) is different from the Shekinah.  Your second point against the Catholic understanding of the Holy Spirit is null and void due to disagreement of your sources. 

Now Let’s look at your first point, that the Holy Spirit is not the Shekinah.  You are saying that the Ruach Elohim and the Ruach HaKodesh are the Holy Spirit and not the Shekinah in Jewish belief.  So let us consider Jewish belief per the OT where we find the Shekinah. and I’ll produce the Holy Spirit as Christians know Him from the NT, then compare Him to the Jewish understanding of the Shekinah.  Then we will see if, as you have said above, “...the NT is in opposition with... the Tanakh...”  If we look in the NT in the following verses (Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:67, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:48, Acts 4:31, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:9, and Acts 13:52), we see that the believers who do great work for Allah are able to do so because they are “filled with the Holy Spirit.”  In other words, they are filled with the “presence” of Allah, and isn’t the Shekinah simply the “presence” of Allah, as you have shown that the Jews believe?   Let’s see... you have used the Encyclopedia Judaica to define the shekhinah:  Shekhinah (Heb. שְׁכִינָה; lit. “dwelling,” “resting”) “Divine Presence”.  In terms of the Shekhinah, the OT and NT does not contradict.

For your third point, you say first that Shekhinah is simply another name for God and refers to His "presence".   This, my friend, IslamisPeace, is what I have been saying throughout.  It is what the Catholic Church has always taught since the beginning.  As this is a Jewish description from the OT, then it only makes sense that on all accounts you are right about the OT and Jewish belief, but are wrong about the Catholic Church and the NT by claiming they are in disagreement with the OT.  They are in full agreement, and nearly so with Jews it seems (accept that Jews claim they are not, though their theology seems to be in full agreement).

One more point about the Shekhinah.  You said that, “...the Shekinah was associated with light...  One event in the NT where the Holy Spirit appears as light is in Acts 2:3, “3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  Fire at the time of Jesus was the only way to get light in the dark of night, so it is only correct, then, that verse 4 of that chapter names the Holy Spirit, saying that the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit.  By all indications, it seems that the Shekhinah is what the NT refers to when it speaks of the Holy Spirit.  So though you say that the Shekhinah is not the Holy Spirit of the Old Testament (Ruach Elohim, Ruach Hakodesh), it is definately the Holy Spirit of the NT.  I have to say that in terms of the Shekhinah and the NT, there is no (what are your exact words?) opposition with what the Tanakh states.

So what about the Holy Spirit and Ruach Elohim/Ruach HaKodesh.  You said that Jews define the term Ruach as meaning either wind, spirit, breath, or mind.  You also said that Jews believe that, “...they (Ruach Elohim/Ruach HaKodesh) are identical over a certain range and are both sometimes used as straight synonyms for God.  Then you clarify your statement by saying, “It also states that the two are "conceptually distinct".  (commentary on the Talmud)   You had said that Elohim is the royal “we” name for God, and HaKodesh means “of God” and refers to Allah’s Divine Wisdom.  Therefore we can be sure that if the terms Elohim or HaKodesh accompany the term Ruach, that the meaning of Ruach is not “wind,” but rather one of the other three meanings:  spirit, breath, or mind, and that these are referenced to Allah himself.  It is no wonder that these terms are often used as synonyms for Allah Himself.  I pointed out that your sources had mentioned that Jews believe that the Holy Spirit (referenced by these two terms) is Allah interacting with humanity.  You responded with, “Yes, it may agree with the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is used as a way to interact with humanity.  So everything here, though choppy, is exactly what Christians believe about the Holy Spirit, IslamisPeace.  How can one say that the Catholic concept of the Holy Spirit is not the same.  The Jews believe that the Holy Spirit is Allah interacting with Humanity through His Spirit, and this is what Catholics believe.  Jews say that this is not the same for them, but when they describe the details of their beliefs, it matches Catholic theology exactly. 

One more thing about Ruach Elohim/Ruach HaKodesh – you said, “the Holy Spirit was associated with wind.  So Ruach Elohim/Ruach HaKodesh is the Holy Spirit associated with the wind, and Shekinah is associated with light.  The passage of Acts 2:1-5 in the NT tell us that the Holy Spirit appeared as a wind and a light (flame).  Thus, Christians recognize the Holy Spirit to be the transforming presence (Shekhinah) and wisdom (Ruach HaKodesh/Elohim) of Allah.  The message here is that the NT and the OT fit together like a hand in a glove, IslamisPeace.  Using your own words and the sources you provided to show how they fit pretty much raps up the issue brought up in the first few posts of this string.  The NT does not contradict the OT.

So, you have used multiple external sources that do not agree with one another in explaining the meaning of the OT, and have shown that these sources actually contradict one another.  Where they agree, they also agree with Christian sources on the meaning of the OT.  But then the external Jewish sources you use all unanimously “clarify” that they don’t agree with Christianity just in case you might see that they do.  Then you, IslamisPeace, turn around and say that even you don’t accept these Jewish sources as authorities on the subject because they are not Muslim sources.  Don’t you see the futility in your arguments, my friend?  I do.  I have just taken to patiently reminding you of the simple truth in this matter which you have brought up, that the NT simply does refer to what is in the OT, and that the Christian faith refers to what is in each testament by the term, Holy Trinity.  It should be this simple.  It is for me, but why not for you, my dear?

About my accusations that you put your own words into the quotes, if you are telling the truth now, I must say that you certainly did not make any effort to print the quotes so that they appeared as evidence rather than direct argument with my assertions to you.  You also did not explain that numbers in parenthesis are actually links and not numbered “points”.  I’ve never seen such a link in my life. I don’t apologize for challenging your quotes, or even for challenging you for that matter.  But I will admit that I was mistaken in what I perceived to be the truth, which was that you were writing your own words into the quotes and calling them “quotes”.  I see now that this was not the case, and I thank you for clearing this up.

Hey, as always, Allah’s blessings, my friend,

Jack Catholic

 



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 November 2011 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by Jack

O.K. First you said you wanted proof that the teaching of the Holy Trinity was present in the OT.  Then you said you are interested in whether the OT agrees with the NT.  Which answer do you want?


The topic of this thread is whether the NT agrees with or contradicts the Tanakh.  This topic can be discussed from many angles, but I chose the trinity first because of its importance in Christian dogma.  So, in order to prove that the NT agrees with the Tanakh on the matter of the trinity, you would need to prove that the Tanakh teaches the trinity concept.  So far, you have not done that.  On the other hand, I have shown evidence that the trinity is definitely not present in the Tanakh and that the Christian understanding of concepts like the Holy Spirit is wrong.  Therefore, the NT does indeed contradict the Tanakh. 

Originally posted by Jack

The answer to the second of the two questions is a very clear “yes, the OT and the NT agree.”
    

This claim is clearly false, as I have shown.  How do the Tanakh and NT agree?  The Tanakh states that God is One, whereas the NT states (although not always clearly) that God is One in three "persons".  Is that not a contradiction?  I think it is. 

Originally posted by Jack

The name “Holy Trinity” is not a teaching, it is a term devised by the Catholic Church to refer to what is in the OT and NT.
 

Thank you for admitting that the "term" has been "devised by the Catholic Church".  That is what I have been saying all this time.  The trinity is an invention of the Church, based on its manipulation of the Tanakh and even the NT.  It was never known to the Jews.

However, I disagree with your claim that this "term" is based on "what is in the [Tanakh]."  That's exactly the point of this thread.  My assertion is that there is nothing in the Tanakh which refers to the trinity.  I asked you (or anyone else) to prove me wrong, which you have not been able to do yet, despite your insistence that you have. 

Originally posted by Jack

The OT clearly speaks of Allah as Father / Creator and also speaks of the Holy Spirit, which is defined in both its Hebrew terms per your quotes as the presence of Allah,


I have no idea how you can misconstrue the Jewish sources I mentioned as somehow claiming that the Holy Spirit is defined "as the presence of Allah".  The Holy Spirit is not the Shekinah.  The Shekinah is defined as the presence of Allah.  The Holy Spirit is something else entirely.  The quotes I referred to state this clearly, while mentioning that the two are "similar" along a "certain range".  They explain, however, that the two are "conceptually distinct".  That implies that they are not the same.

Originally posted by Jack

The Word of Allah is also present in the OT and is powerful and active.  St. John in the NT tells us that this Word of Allah is Jesus when it takes on human flesh and is born of Mary.
       

Exactly.  The NT completely misconstrues simple terms like the "word of Allah" and turns them into completely foreign ideas.  John stated that the word was with God at the beginning and that everything was made through it.  Genesis, on the other hand, fails to mention this "word". 

What is the "word of Allah" in the Tanakh?  It is simply God's literal word to man.  It is not some incorporeal entity which is an "aspect" of God.  Here is an example:

"25 “Now LORD, the God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father the promises you made to him when you said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your descendants are careful in all they do to walk before me faithfully as you have done.’ 26 And now, God of Israel, let your word that you promised your servant David my father come true" (1 Kings 8:25-26)    

How can this be misconstrued to be an incorporeal "person" of a "triune" God?  I have no idea. 

Originally posted by Jack

The NT simply repeats what is already in the OT about the Father, the Holy Spirit, and is mainly about the life of Jesus (the Word of Allah present in the OT and in action and in human flesh in the NT).
 

I disagree.  It does not simply "repeat what is...in the OT".  It actually completely alters it and makes interpolations.  These alterations and interpolations are done in an attempt to eliminate any contradictions, of which there are many. 

Originally posted by Jack

The term Holy Trinity simple is a title for these three presences of the same one Allah.  Why do you have difficulty with this?


I don't "have difficulty" with the Church's teachings.  I have "difficulty" understanding how anyone can make such claims, while ignoring the plethora of evidence which shows the exact opposite. 

And if the trinity is simply "a title for [the] presences of...Allah" then it neglects other "presences of Allah", such as the "evil spirit", the "lying spirit" and the "Destroyer" which I referred to before.  I notice that your rebuttal fails to respond to my points about these "presences" of Allah, as you put it.  If the NT only includes three "presences" while ignoring the others, and if we believe the Church's interpretation that these "presences" are incorporeal "persons" of the Godhead (which is wrong anyway), then should we not assume that God is actually a "hexa-une" God?  Why then does the Church insist that God is "triune"? 

Originally posted by Jack

To this question, my answer has always been that the elements of the Holy Trinity are present in OT.  There is no other answer than this to your question.


I understand and I feel that this supports my assertion that the NT has no claim to being "in agreement" with the Tanakh.  The fact that only the "elements of the trinity are present" and not the explanation that these "elements" represent God as being "triune" speaks volumes about the foreign status of the trinity concept.  Why would God not thoroughly explain this concept so that people would have known about it for thousands of years? 

Originally posted by Jack

There is no dissagreement between the OT and the NT, Isla, because the NT says the same thing as the OT in regards to the members of the Holy Trinity
 

Not at all.  There is a disagreement since the NT claims the Holy Spirit is more than the Tanakh says it is.  There is also a disagreement since the Church claims that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Shekinah, which is not supported by the Tanakh and all Jewish sources, as I showed. 

Originally posted by Jack

accept that the NT is about Jesus, and Jesus did not exist in human flesh in the OT times, though the OT has numerous prophesies about him which are all fullfilled in the NT.


That is another subtopic which I wanted to discuss because it is related to this thread.  I believe those alleged "prophecies" can be separated into two classes:

1.  Those which cannot refer to the NT's description of Jesus and his life when they are read in context.

2.  Those which the NT's Jesus fails to fulfill.

I am definitely interested in discussing this issue. 

Originally posted by Jack

The concept of the Holy Trinity is not foreign, as it is present all through the OT and the NT.  I don't need faith to see it there.


You just said that only the "elements" of the trinity are present in the Tanakh.  The Tanakh never actually explains that these "elements" are part of a triune God.  Therefore, the trinity is a foreign concept invented by the Church by incorporating (via several misunderstandings and manipulations) these "elements", some of which are also not explained thoroughly (such as the word/son element). 

Originally posted by Jack

I responded to each one with the observation that not one of your quotes or definitions from Jewish sources or even the Christian one said, “the Holy Spirit was created.”


Really?  Not one?  What about the Jewish Encyclopedia, which refers to the Talmud?  What about "Turn to Torah"?  Why are you ignoring these?

By the way, did you check my quotes with the links?  Did you find any evidence of dishonesty on my part?  If not, are you going to apologize for making false accusations, as I requested? 

Originally posted by Jack

You interpreted this into the quotes repeatedly.  You have shown absolutely no evidence that Jews believe the Holy Spirit to be created.  This is just you speaking, and you are showing yourself to be a very poor Jewish scholar, my friend.


Well, I guess that answers my questions. LOL  You are still accusing me of misrepresenting the Jewish sources I mentioned.  This is why have a hard time showing any respect for people like you.  It is your absolute refusal to admit that you are wrong which greatly irritates me.  Here, you continue to make accusations without providing any evidence.  I gave you the links and I challenge you to show that I "interpreted into the quotes" and that it is "just me speaking".  The irony is that between the two of us, I am the only one who has actually used Jewish sources to prove my points.  If anyone is "interpreting" and being a "very poor Jewish scholar", it is you since you have made several statements regarding Jewish beliefs without providing any Jewish sources to back up your claims.

Originally posted by Jack

I agreed above with this Catholic source, as I have already said.  Yet this does not in any way mean that the OT does not contain the elements of the Holy Trinity, including Allah's Word in action (whom we call Jesus), sorry to say.


Why not?  Let's put your arguments in perspective:

1.  The trinity is not mentioned in the Tanakh.

2.  But the "elements" are mentioned.

3.  Even so, the "element" called the "son" or "word" is "obscurely" mentioned. 

So, now we see that not only is the trinity not thoroughly explained but even the "elements" are not always thoroughly explained.  In the case of the "son", it is "obscurely" explained.  I would add that whenever God refers to His "son" in the Tanakh, it is actually referring to either the state of Israel or select individuals who are very close to Him, and not some other aspect of Him.  In that way, the "element" of the "son" is also not explained the way the Church explains it.  This is yet another example of contradictions between the NT and the Tanakh.

To close, I am giving you the links again and am challenging you again to back up your claims that I have added my own interpretations into the Jewish sources I quoted.  Your refusal to apologize for these childish accusations will only serve to show your true nature.  I am trying very hard to maintain a cordial discussion here, Jack.  But if you continue to push me, don't be surprised when I nullify the truce.  And more importantly, don't whine when it happens.  I am giving you a fair warning.Wink 

http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html - http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html -

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html - http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html




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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 November 2011 at 6:41pm
I forgot to respond to your appeal to Exodus 3:5 and Exodus 26:33 on the other thread, where you tried to mix this thread with the one about whether Paul contradicted Jesus.  Here is what Exodus 3:5 states:

"5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”"

And Exodus 26:33 states:

"33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place."


You tried to use these verses to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the "presence of Allah".  The problem with this argument is two-fold:

1.  Just because the word "holy" is used does not imply that the "Holy Spirit" was present.

2.  Neither Exodus 3:5 or Exodus 26:33 mention the Holy Spirit by name.  

The use of the word "holy" simply means what it implies, that the place of the burning bush and the Temple were holy places, in the same way Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are holy cities for Muslims.  There is no evidence in these verses that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the "presence of Allah".  In fact, Jews believe that the Shekinah (not the Holy Spirit) was present in the burning bush and also in the Holy of Holies in the Temple.  As we have already ascertained, the two are not the same.         


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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 3:17pm
Jack,
I was pointing out the words, " an evil spirit from God", the language used in the Bbile, that's it.  And like brother Islamispeace has been tryuing to tell you that holy or evil spirit does not refer to God rather what God has created, there is spirit that is good, and there is spirit that is evil. Just as you siad evil spirit is created by God, why not admit that good spirit is also created by God, and God send it to whom He pleases. When you reject one, and accept other you make your choice, and thus also the consequences that come with it. I hope it make sense to you.
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: 06 December 2011 at 2:50pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
I'm waiting for you to respond to my post of November 25 at 10:30 am.  Are you trying to ignore it?  I'm waiting...
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 3:14pm
Dear Hasan,
 
I already dealt with the words, "an evil spirit from God."  My explanation was very clear.  Why do you keep bringing it up.  You aren't pretending that I didn't address your questions, are you?  Brother IslamisPeace and I have been discussing Holy Spirit terms that Jews say are used sometimes synonymosly with Allah.  But the "evil spirit from God" has never been used synonymosly for Allah because Allah is not evil.  He is Holy.  That long list of "spirits" of God that lie, torment, and destroy are created by Allah and have come to serve evil purposes.  But Allah never has been, nor never will be evil.  The only relationship between Allah and Evil is first opposition, then second is permitted only so that a greater good may eventually occur after.  The Breath of Allah, His Wisdom, His presence, His power are all one and the same as Allah himself, not seperate, and they can never be said to be created.  How can Allah create his own breath?  How can Allah create His own Wisdom, or His own Presence, or even His own Power.  These are the essences of the Holy Spirit, an entity seperate for the "spirits" that Christians refer to as "angels of the Lord."  There is much to learn about the Holy Bible, OT and NT, which is lacking in the Holy Qur'an because Muhammad couldn't read and therefore couldn't have known about or spoken about when he was "speaking" the Qur'an. 
 
No, the fact that in the OT there is an "evil spirit from God" in no way can lead solidly to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a created spirit.  The statement is a statement about the evil spirit itself, not about a totally different "Spirit."  Per IslamisPeace's "Jewish" evidence, the Hebrew terms used in the OT for the different spirits even have a different connection and connotation with Allah.  There is no comparison.
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 10:56am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
I'm waiting for you to respond to my post of November 25 at 10:30 am.  Are you trying to ignore it?  I'm waiting...
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


LOL As with most things in life, Jack, the reasons are simple.  First, I haven't been around that much in the past few days, so I didn't even see your second post until a few days ago.  Second, I have a life outside of debating with Christians.  I have final exams coming up and a research paper to finish.  Needless to say, I have my priorities.  So, if you are getting bored, might I suggest knitting?  That should keep you busy while I finish my rebuttal.  Big%20smile


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 1:08pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
I have been knitting, actually.  It's my eybrows.  You should see the decorations and beeds I've added to them. LOL
 
Hey, good luck on your exams!
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 December 2011 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


And I showed that that poster's conclusions contradict authentic Jewish sources.  The poster made a blanket statement (that the "Holy Spirit is called Shechinah in Hebrew"), something which I showed was completely false.  I backed up my claims with academic sources.  You will also notice that the poster references Wikipedia.  Besides the fact that Wikipedia is NOT an academic source, no where in the actual article is it claimed that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Shekinah, except for a vague reference to a Yiddish song which doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit ("Will I, shekinah, to you come") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechina - Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

Because they are not.

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

"The Ruach Elohim or Ruach HaKodesh is a means of Hashem interacting with humanity" http://www.turntotorah.com/trinity.html - [2] .


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

And what do you mean by "if you are telling the truth now..."?  Have you not looked at the links?  Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?  You made accusations against me.  I am challenging you to back them up or apologize.  It's very simple.  If you don't do either, do not whine and open melodramatic threads like your "An Invitation to Share" thread when I put you in your place.  Like I said before, I am giving you a fair warning!  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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


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

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


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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 1:00pm
Jack,
I only bring up the verse that says " an evil spirit from God" becaues it appears
exactly like that in the Bible, that's it.
Hasan
(on vacation in Mexico)


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


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

One of the many tenets of Christianity is the claim that the New Testament is in perfect agreement with the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible), which is why the Christian canon includes the Jewish holy books.  However, is this actually true?  Are the NT and the so-called "Old Testament" (OT) in actual agreement or are they actually contradictory?  Based on my reading and understanding of both books, I think they actually contradict each other in many places.  There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement.  While there are many examples, I would like to begin this topic with one of the most important: the trinity. 

While the concept of the trinity is not even well-developed in the New Testament itself, there is no doubt that it is completely absent from the Tanakh.  No where is God referred to as three in one in the Jewish Bible.  Yet Christians insist the concept is there.  Where, we may ask?  Let the Christians on this forum try to answer this question. 




 
 
Hi brother,
 
The Trinity is not three, but one.  
 
The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false.  We worship one Triune God.
 
The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation.  Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 December 2011 at 11:58am
While we wait for Jack to offer his rebuttal, here is some more evidence of the contradictions between the Tanakh and New Testament.

In his "Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed", Augustine wrote:

"God is Almighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be deceived, cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, cannot deny Himself. How many things that He cannot do, and yet is Almighty! Yea therefore is Almighty, because He cannot do these things. For if He could die, He were not Almighty; if to lie, if to be deceived, if to do http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08010c.htm - unjustly , were possible for Him, He were not Almighty: because if this were in Him, He should not be worthy to be Almighty" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm - [1] .

So here, Augustine declared that God could not die.  Muslims, Jews and Christian agree on this point.  Augustine continues and states:

"In the name of the judge there is a mark of the times, when He suffered under http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm - Pontius Pilate : when He suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried. Who? What? For whom? Who? God's Only Son, our Lord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? For ungodly and sinners. Great condescension, great http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm - grace ! What shall I render unto the Lord for all that He has bestowed on me?" [Ibid.]. 

So here, Augustine declares that Christ, the "son", died on the cross.  Earlier, Augustine had declared that the son was also God:

"For this reason we http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm - believe also in His Son, that is to say, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God the Father Almighty's, His Only Son, our Lord. When you hear of the Only http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm - Son of God , acknowledge Him God" [Ibid.].   

Of course, this is a contradiction but Augustine offers an explanation:

"Whatever He would, He did: because He was in such wise Man that, unseen, He was http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God ; God assuming, Man assumed; One Christ, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm - Man " [Ibid.].

So, Jesus was apparently both God and man.  And since God does not die, obviously the part of Jesus that died on the cross was man, not God.  This is what we are interested for the purpose of this thread.  Does Jesus' human sacrifice on the cross fulfill the laws of the Tanakh?  I think not.  Here are some verses from the Tanakh, which I feel show the contradictions between it and the NT:

"6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" [Hosea 6:6].

"31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods" [Deuteronomy 12:31]. 

In the Tanakh, God declares that He is willing to forgive without any sacrifices or offerings.  This is also seen in the example of the people of Jonah (pbuh):

"Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" [Jonah 3:8-10].

And as Deut. 12:31 declares, God forbid human sacrifices.  What else would Jesus' death on the cross be if not a human sacrifice?  After all, it was Jesus the "man" that died on the cross, not Jesus the "God". 


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



Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 25 December 2011 at 11:44pm
I find it fascinating that that that the starting point for this entire thread is the belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  Are there really that many people out there that believe this?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 December 2011 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by Bowman

Hi brother,
 
The Trinity is not three, but one.  
 
The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false.  We worship one Triune God.
 
The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation.  Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus.


Bowman, I never said Christians worship three gods.  Also, trinitarian theolgy states that God is "three in One".  So, I think that you are the one who actually doesn't understand the concept, even though you claim to. 

Most of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims, with no proof whatsover.  Moreover, the topic of the thread is not the Quran or Islamic teachings and the alleged "false" statements about the trinity.  The topic is whether New Testament agrees with the Tanakh, as Christians claim, or if it actually contradicts it.  In this thread, I have given a multitude of proofs to support the latter claim.  You stated that the "triune God first revealed Himself in Genesis..." but you offered no proof for such a brash statement.  I would love to see what evidence you can bring.  I have asking for it but so far, no one has brought any clear evidence of the trinity concept being present in the Tanakh. 


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



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 30 December 2011 at 7:29am
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

Hi brother,
 
The Trinity is not three, but one.  
 
The false islamic concept of Christians worshipping three separate gods is simply false.  We worship one Triune God.
 
The Triune creator God first revealed Himself to mankind in Genesis and then again all the way through scripture to Revelation.  Later, the authors of the Koran even copied the Trinity into their opus.


Bowman, I never said Christians worship three gods.  Also, trinitarian theolgy states that God is "three in One".  So, I think that you are the one who actually doesn't understand the concept, even though you claim to. 

Most of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims, with no proof whatsover.  Moreover, the topic of the thread is not the Quran or Islamic teachings and the alleged "false" statements about the trinity.  The topic is whether New Testament agrees with the Tanakh, as Christians claim, or if it actually contradicts it.  In this thread, I have given a multitude of proofs to support the latter claim.  You stated that the "triune God first revealed Himself in Genesis..." but you offered no proof for such a brash statement.  I would love to see what evidence you can bring.  I have asking for it but so far, no one has brought any clear evidence of the trinity concept being present in the Tanakh. 
 
 
 

Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible...

 

·        Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2)

·        Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural)

·        Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…”  (Gen 18.3)

·        They answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument)

·        Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19)

·        God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33)

·        According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19.  One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12).  Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22).  Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24)

·        Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’

 



-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Bowman

Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible...

 

·        Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2)

·        Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural)

·        Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…”  (Gen 18.3)

·        They answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument)

·        Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19)

·        God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33)

·        According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19.  One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12).  Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22).  Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24)

·        Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’


Your appeal to these verses is refuted by two important verses that you have overlooked from one of the same chapter, namely Genesis 19:1-2, which state:


"1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning”" (Gen. 19:1-2).


Notice how Lot (pbuh) treats these angels (and they are angels as verse 1 states clearly) the same way that Abraham (pbuh), even calling them "lords" and referring to himself as their "servant".  Therefore, in light of Genesis 19:1-2, it is clear that at least two of the men were angels and not "God the son" and "God the Holy Spirit".  Hence, there is no reference to the trinity in these verses.     



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



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

Genesis chapters 18 – 19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the entire Holy Bible...

 

·        Yahweh appears as ‘three men’ to Abraham (Gen 18.1 – 2)

·        Abraham addresses the ‘three men’ as ‘my Lords’ (adonai - plural)

·        Abrahams responds… “If I have found favor in your (singular) sight (singular)…”  (Gen 18.3)

·        They answered Abraham” indicating that each of the ‘three men’ were Lord (Gen 18.5) (Effectively eliminating the three angels or God and two angels argument)

·        Yahweh speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen 18.14, 19)

·        God the Father remained to talk with Abraham, then returned to Heaven without going to Sodom (Gen 18.33)

·        According to the text, there are at least two Yahwehs in Genesis 18 – 19.  One Yahweh stated that he would go down to Sodom – and then two of the ‘three men’ went to Sodom (Gen 18.2, 22; 19.12).  Abraham remained talking with another Yahweh (Gen 18.21 – 22).  Later, Yahweh is described as being in Heaven while Yahweh is mentioned as being in Sodom (Gen 19.24)

·        Gen 18 -19 shows us that there was never such a thing as the ‘Majestic Plural’


Your appeal to these verses is refuted by two important verses that you have overlooked from one of the same chapter, namely Genesis 19:1-2, which state:


"1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning”" (Gen. 19:1-2).


Notice how Lot (pbuh) treats these angels (and they are angels as verse 1 states clearly) the same way that Abraham (pbuh), even calling them "lords" and referring to himself as their "servant".  Therefore, in light of Genesis 19:1-2, it is clear that at least two of the men were angels and not "God the son" and "God the Holy Spirit".  Hence, there is no reference to the trinity in these verses.     

 
 
The Hebrew term is Malek, which means messenger.
 
Lot bows down in worship ('na') to them...of which, only God receives worship.
 
This merely amplifies what we already have shown you.


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Trajik
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 9:28pm
Asalamu Alaykum Wa Ramatulah wa barakatu Isalmispeace, Smile
 
This was a very good response brother.  I was going to reply but you already addressed the question. 
 
Asalamu Alaykum Bowman, Smile
 
You seem like a good seeker of truth.   Insha'allah you find it.  I will keep you in my dua's. 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 January 2012 at 11:23am
Originally posted by Bowman

    

The Hebrew term is Malek, which means messenger.


Yes and it refers to angels.  The point is that they were not "God".  What is your point?
 
Originally posted by Bowman

Lot bows down in worship ('na') to them...of which, only God receives worship.


If that's the case, then why does your Bible say that David bowed down to Saul?

8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. 9 He said to Saul, “Why do you listen when men say, ‘David is bent on harming you’? (1 Samuel 24:8-9) 
 
Concerning Lot's act of bowing in Genesis 19, the word used can refer to prostrating both to God and to royalty, as stated by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

"A primitive root; to depress, i.e. Prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God) -- bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship" http://concordances.org/hebrew/7812.htm - [1] .

Originally posted by Bowman

This merely amplifies what we already have shown you.


No, it actually shows that you are deliberately misreading the verse to point to a concept that is not there.  Why does your Bible refer to the two men as angels yet you insist they were God?  Can't you see that by doing so, you are committing a heinous sin?  They were angels, not God.  To call them God, when even your own Bible says they were merely servants of God is to violate the 1st commandment.        




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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 January 2012 at 11:24am
Originally posted by Trajik

Asalamu Alaykum Wa Ramatulah wa barakatu Isalmispeace, Smile
 
This was a very good response brother.  I was going to reply but you already addressed the question. 
 
Asalamu Alaykum Bowman, Smile
 
You seem like a good seeker of truth.   Insha'allah you find it.  I will keep you in my dua's. 


Walaikum as-salaam brother.  Thanks for the kind words.  May Allah (swt) guide us all on the straight path. 


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



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 01 January 2012 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

    

The Hebrew term is Malek, which means messenger.


Yes and it refers to angels.  The point is that they were not "God".  What is your point?
 
They were worshiped and prayed to as God.
 

 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

Lot bows down in worship ('na') to them...of which, only God receives worship.


If that's the case, then why does your Bible say that David bowed down to Saul?

8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. 9 He said to Saul, “Why do you listen when men say, ‘David is bent on harming you’? (1 Samuel 24:8-9) 
 
Not even the same Hebrew word as used in the Genesis 19 example.
 
Try again...
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace


Concerning Lot's act of bowing in Genesis 19, the word used can refer to prostrating both to God and to royalty, as stated by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

"A primitive root; to depress, i.e. Prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God) -- bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship" http://concordances.org/hebrew/7812.htm - [1] .
 
 

H4994

נא

nâ'

naw

A primitive particle of incitement and entreaty, which may usually be rendered I pray, now or then; added mostly to verbs (in the imperative or future), or to interjections, occasionally to an adverb or conjugation: - I beseech (pray) thee (you), go to, now, oh.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

This merely amplifies what we already have shown you.


No, it actually shows that you are deliberately misreading the verse to point to a concept that is not there.  Why does your Bible refer to the two men as angels yet you insist they were God?  Can't you see that by doing so, you are committing a heinous sin?  They were angels, not God.  To call them God, when even your own Bible says they were merely servants of God is to violate the 1st commandment.        


 
 
No.
 
What you have witnessed is the Uniplural creator God of the Holy Bible.
 
Btw...this concept was copied into the Koran, as well...


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 January 2012 at 8:23pm
Originally posted by Bowman

They were worshiped and prayed to as God.


This is irrelevant.  We already know that the angels worship God.  You still have yet to provide conclusive evidence that the two men were not angels but God Himself.  On the other hand, I have shown that the Bible itself identifies these men as angels.  The angels are messengers of God.  Therefore, they cannot be God. 

Originally posted by Bowman

Not even the same Hebrew word as used in the Genesis 19 example.
 
Try again...


Again, irrelevant.  The point is that in both instances, a man prostrated or bowed to another individual.  Furthermore, I showed that the word used in Genesis 19 can refer to homage being paid to both royalty and God.  Therefore, its usage is not limited to prostrating to God. 

If you want an example of the same word being used, I can certainly provide it:

"7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites" (Genesis 23:7).

The same word is used in Genesis 19 and Genesis 23 http://concordances.org/hebrew/7812.htm - Originally posted by Bowman

H4994

נא

nâ'

naw

A primitive particle of incitement and entreaty, which may usually be rendered I pray, now or then; added mostly to verbs (in the imperative or future), or to interjections, occasionally to an adverb or conjugation: - I beseech (pray) thee (you), go to, now, oh.

       

First of all, I provided supporting evidence from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which shows that the word used in Genesis 19 is not always used to imply worship of God...unless you believe that Abraham was worshiping the Hittites in Genesis 23! Shocked

Second, the word "naw" does not even appear in Genesis 19:1!  The word used for Lot's act of bowing is " http://concordances.org/hebrew/vaiyishtachu_7812.htm - way·yiš·ta·ḥū " which means "and bowed" http://biblos.com/genesis/19-1.htm - [1] .  I don't know where you got the idea that the word "naw" is used in Genesis 19:1.  It appears in Genesis 12:13 (among other places), which states:

"13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you”" (Genesis 12:13).

It also appears in Genesis 19:2 but it is the word used for "please":

2 “My lords,” he said, “please (naw) turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

   “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

In addition, you have completely misunderstood the meaning of the word "naw".  It does not imply worship.  The short definition of the word actually means "please".  The phrase "I pray" is in the context of "I pray thee/you".  It does not mean praying to God.  It's a figure of speech which implies requesting something of someone, kind of like asking for a favor.

Originally posted by Bowman

No.

What you have witnessed is the Uniplural creator God of the Holy Bible.
 
Btw...this concept was copied into the Koran, as well...


Just saying "no" does not refute anything.  On the contrary, what I have "witnessed" is just another attempt by a Christian to misrepresent the Tanakh as a result of poor research and ignorance of both the Bible and the Hebrew language.

Also, as I said before, the topic of this thread is not the Holy Quran.  So please stop diverting to unrelated topics.  If you want to discuss that issue, open a new thread.      



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



Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 02 January 2012 at 11:35pm
<>

As-Salaam- mu-Alikum Islamforpeace!

I did a brush true this discussion and what I have found let me put is this way in short. The NT. It self contradict their doctrine.

You established a verse that read as follows: “The evil spirit of God”.

Does that mean the evil spirit is a part of God?

There is also in the writings that mentioned: “the angel of God”. Is the Angel a part of God?

There is also mentioned in the writings: “the son or sons of God”. Is he or they are a part of God?

The answer to all is no! They are all God’s creation.

So the Holy Spirit is no exception! The holy spirit of God is the creation of God, which you have proven in your post (wind, breath, spirit, ruah).

 

JESUS (s) WAS A FAITHFUL WITNESS AND NOT GOD ALMIGHTY.

 It mentioned in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%20%201:3-5&version=9 - - 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Ø  John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from “him” which is, and which was, and which is to come; “and” from the seven Spirits which are BEFORE HIS THRONE; V.5 “And” from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:4-5&version=9 - -5

  As you can see all are distinct personality, First God Almighty, and then the seven Spirits which is BEFORE THE THRONE and Verse 5 says, “and” from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness…” If the seven Spirits of God Almighty was part of Him well then they would also be on the throne, but they were before the throne worshiping God Almighty.

TNC

<>

-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 3:50pm
Anything to add, Bowman?  

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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 4:03pm
Here is another example to add to our growing list of contradictions between the Tanakh and the NT:

Christians claim that the Tanakh is full of prophecies which were allegedly fulfilled by Jesus, as mentioned in the Gospels.  One such "prophecy" is found in Isaiah 7:14, the so-called "Sign of Immanuel":

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you "#fen-NIV-17797c" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17797c - c ] a sign: The virgin "#fen-NIV-17797d" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17797d - d ] will conceive and give birth to a son, and "#fen-NIV-17797e" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17797e - e ] will call him Immanuel" (NIV, Isaiah 7:14).


Besides the facts that the word for "virgin" actually means "woman" and that Jesus was never referred to as "Immanuel", the NT claims that this verse is referring to Jesus (pbuh).  Yet when in context, the verse is clearly not talking about Jesus.  We read in the subsequent verses the following:

"15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria”" (Isaiah 7:15-17).


These verses make it clear that this cannot be a prophecy about Jesus because he did not fulfill these criteria.  Christians claim he was "God-incarnate" yet the Isaiah 7:15 states that the boy named "Immanuel" would learn to distinguish between right and wrong.  How could this apply to Jesus if he was "God-incarnate" and "sinless"?  Second, Isaiah mentions that the king of Assyria would come down upon the Israelites as punishment.  When did a king of Assyria attack the Jews during or even after Jesus' ministry?  The answer is never.  The verse cannot be referring to the siege of Jerusalem since that was done by the Roman army, not an Assyrian army.  Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 cannot be referring to Jesus and hence, the NT contradicts the Tanakh once again. 


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



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 13 January 2012 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

… Besides the facts that the word for "virgin" actually means "woman" … Christians claim he was "God-incarnate" yet the Isaiah 7:15 states that the boy named "Immanuel" would learn to distinguish between right and wrong. How could this apply to Jesus if he was "God-incarnate" and "sinless"? … and that Jesus was never referred to as "Immanuel"


Might I add the word virgin actually applies to a single women but I’m sure you already knew that right? But what is your point? Who gave birth to Immanuel in Isaiah’s time, show us? Outside of the book of Isaiah, the name Immanuel occurs only once in the Bible, at Matthew 1:23. Matthew was inspired to apply the prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to the birth of Jesus, the rightful Heir to the throne of David Matthew 1:18-23

But if you’re going to exclude this prophecy to Jesus because as you say” Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel” then Muhammad really doesn’t have a chance at all because Muhammad’s name was never mentioned in the Holy Scriptures or is this another double standard that Islam practices?
   
On the other hand, both Joseph and Mary belong to the tribe of Judah and are descendants of King David. Which means the heirship rights of Jesus will be doubly established. But, who was Immanuel then if not Jesus? Adam WAS sinless was he not, yet he did not distinguish between right and wrong, so your reasoning here is unreasonable.

Isaiah foretold that Christ would be a descendant of David, specifically mentioning Jesse, David’s father. Jesus did indeed directly descend from David. (Matthew 1:6 Jes′se became father to David the king) Luke 3:23, 31, 32) Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Jesus’ mother, Mary: “God will give him the throne of David his father.”—Luke 1:32, 33; Isaiah 11:1-5, 10; Romans 15:12.

The New Testament will always confirm the Tanakh and the Quran will always contradict both.

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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 14 January 2012 at 6:46am
Hi, ya'll,
 
Long time no post to you.  Very nice postings, IslamisPeace!
 
I notice here that not a single thing posted has really shown a contradiction between the New Testament or the Old (Tanakh).  Nothing presented since my last post on this string has contradicted Jesus as the word of Allah (as infinit as Allah from whom He springs forth) become man (from wence comes the humanity which could be put to death on a cross), nor of the Holy Spirit, different from the other spirits of (from, or sent by...) Allah who are not Allah in that It is the power and presence of Allah appearing as a created wind, but in truth is the uncreated Breath and Spirit of Allah Himself.
 
What's more, regarding the prophecies of Isaiah, 7:15, the attacks of the king of Assyria did indeed come before the boy could distinguish between right and wrong... occurred even before occupation by Rome, or the wars of the Maccabees, or even the attack of Alexander the Great of Greece.  In this way, Jesus did indeed fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. 
 
Regarding learning "to distinguish between right and wrong.  How could this apply to Jesus if he was "God-incarnate" and "sinless"?"
 
The Jews did not believe that a child could reach the age of reason before the age of 7 years.  Thus, children before that age were also incapable of committing a sin.   A sin is only a sin if three things happen:  1) a person must know that their behavior is sinful, 2) a person must have thought about the behavior before acting out the bahavior, and 3) a person must have chosen to behave in the sinful way.  If either of these considerations is missing, than the person has not sinned.  Thus before the age of "learning the difference between wrong and wright" had occurred, Jesus had not sinned.
 
Another thing, regarding the learning of right and wrong, remember that as well as being fully Allah, Jesus was also fully human.  As such the later, Jesus in his divinity always knew the difference between right and wrong.  However, in his humanity, before the age of 7, Jesus did speand some time as a baby.  How possible is it for a two month old to say, "Um, excuse me, but you should not take that money, 'cause it belongs to somebody else and that would be stealing."  The developement of a human demands that a person get from 2 months old to 7 years old, and it doesn't occur suddenly... 
 
About having an all-knowing sense of right and wrong like Allah while at the same time being self-centered like a human child, it is possible to be concerned with oneself while at the same time having a sense of right and wrong such that you know something is right or wrong yet can't put the concept into words.  Jesus had the capacity of Allah, while being somewhat limited by His Humanity.
 
Peace and Blessing,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 January 2012 at 5:02pm
Originally posted by Kish

Might I add the word virgin actually applies to a single women but I’m sure you already knew that right? But what is your point? Who gave birth to Immanuel in Isaiah’s time, show us?


Who knows? That is not for me to prove!  If anything, it proves that this verse was a false prophecy.  But one thing is clear: It cannot be referring to Jesus as I showed.

But actually, there is an answer to your question.  If we read Isaiah 8, Immanuel is mentioned again:

"3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”

 5 The LORD spoke to me again:

 6 “Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates— the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks 8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,    passing through it and reaching up to the neck.  Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel "#fen-NIV-17816b" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+8&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17816b - b ]!”(Isaiah 8:3-8).

Isaiah impregnates "the prophetess" who then gives birth to son.  The Jewish scholar Rashi identifies this son as Immanuel.

Originally posted by Kish

Outside of the book of Isaiah, the name Immanuel occurs only once in the Bible, at Matthew 1:23. Matthew was inspired to apply the prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to the birth of Jesus, the rightful Heir to the throne of David Matthew 1:18-23.


And this proves that Matthew's supposed "inspiration" did not come from God because even a child could see that the verse is not only deliberately mistranslated but taken completely out of context. 

No other place in the NT is Jesus ever referred to as "Immanuel".  It was a name which he never used.  Matthew simply manipulated the verse to serve his purpose.  Ironically, its an example of Christians corrupting the text to serve their own theological ends.

Originally posted by Kish

But if you’re going to exclude this prophecy to Jesus because as you say” Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel” then Muhammad really doesn’t have a chance at all because Muhammad’s name was never mentioned in the Holy Scriptures or is this another double standard that Islam practices?
  

Again, trying to change the topic Kish?  Why do you attempt to change the  when you are cornered?  We are not talking about Muhammad (pbuh) in this thread.  We are not talking about the Quran in this thread.  We are not talking about Islam in this thread.  Get it?  Big%20smile

Furthermore, Jesus also is never mentioned by name in the Tanakh!  Guess who's problem that is?  Yours!  Its a problem for you Christians who blindly accept Church tradition over reason and who believe in both the Tanakh and NT as scripture.  Muslims do not accept either (and do go making the same tired old argument about the Quran "confirming" the previous scriptures LOL).

Originally posted by Kish

On the other hand, both Joseph and Mary belong to the tribe of Judah and are descendants of King David. Which means the heirship rights of Jesus will be doubly established. But, who was Immanuel then if not Jesus? Adam WAS sinless was he not, yet he did not distinguish between right and wrong, so your reasoning here is unreasonable.


Immanuel cannot be Jesus because Isaiah specifically mentions that while Immanuel is still a boy "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."  Furthermore, Isaiah states that Israel will be conquered by the king of Assyria.  None of these things happened when Jesus was a boy.  Israel was under the control of the Romans during Jesus' childhood and continued to be after he was gone.  There also was no Assyrian king laying waste to the land of Israel but instead a Roman general. 

Originally posted by Kish

Isaiah foretold that Christ would be a descendant of David, specifically mentioning Jesse, David’s father. Jesus did indeed directly descend from David. (Matthew 1:6 Jes′se became father to David the king) Luke 3:23, 31, 32) Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Jesus’ mother, Mary: “God will give him the throne of David his father.”—Luke 1:32, 33; Isaiah 11:1-5, 10; Romans 15:12.


And this proves what regarding the misquotation of Isaiah 7? 

You failed to refute my arguments regarding the contradiction between Matthew and Isaiah and then go into a rant about Jesus being a descendant of David.  Wow.  Has anyone here questioned that?  Jesus may very well have been descended from David but that is not the issue here. 

But that actually brings up yet another example of the contradictions between the NT and the Tanakh.  This is with regard to the criteria that the Messiah is supposed to fulfill.  The criteria that are laid out in the Tanakh are simply not fulfilled by Jesus, except for his line of descent from David (pbut).  This is a a serious and embarrassing problem for Christians who believe that the Tanakh and NT are in complete agreement.


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 January 2012 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by Jack

Long time no post to you.  Very nice postings, IslamisPeace!


Welcome back Jack!  Where ya been?  You know, you were in such a rush the last time you were here that I was surprised to see that you had taken a little vacation!  But that's okay.  It allowed me the time to pursue other endeavors.

Now that you are back, I am eagerly awaiting your rebuttal to my last post to you. 

Originally posted by Jack

I notice here that not a single thing posted has really shown a contradiction between the New Testament or the Old (Tanakh).  Nothing presented since my last post on this string has contradicted Jesus as the word of Allah (as infinit as Allah from whom He springs forth) become man (from wence comes the humanity which could be put to death on a cross), nor of the Holy Spirit, different from the other spirits of (from, or sent by...) Allah who are not Allah in that It is the power and presence of Allah appearing as a created wind, but in truth is the uncreated Breath and Spirit of Allah Himself.


See, I disagree and I think so do many other people here.  I think this thread makes you guys a little uncomfortable.  I give you credit because you have stuck around the longest.  But the other guys who have tried their hand have usually left after a couple of exchanges.  The newest such person is Bowman.  You should be able to see how his claims regarding Genesis 18 are completely false. 

Originally posted by Jack

What's more, regarding the prophecies of Isaiah, 7:15, the attacks of the king of Assyria did indeed come before the boy could distinguish between right and wrong... occurred even before occupation by Rome, or the wars of the Maccabees, or even the attack of Alexander the Great of Greece.  In this way, Jesus did indeed fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah.


Well, in that way, then the "prophecy" can refer to almost any Jewish boy born between that period and the time of Jesus.  Such an argument just does not work.

What's more is that the invasion by the king of Assyria was supposed to happen during the childhood of this "Immanuel".  That immediately eliminates the possibility that it is a prophecy about Jesus (pbuh).

Originally posted by Jack

The Jews did not believe that a child could reach the age of reason before the age of 7 years.  Thus, children before that age were also incapable of committing a sin.   A sin is only a sin if three things happen:  1) a person must know that their behavior is sinful, 2) a person must have thought about the behavior before acting out the bahavior, and 3) a person must have chosen to behave in the sinful way.  If either of these considerations is missing, than the person has not sinned.  Thus before the age of "learning the difference between wrong and wright" had occurred, Jesus had not sinned.


But if Jesus was God, then he would not have to worry about sinning.  He would already have known what is good and what is evil.  That is the point you are missing.  That is why this verse cannot logically apply to Jesus if Jesus was God.  In fact, if this verse did apply to Jesus, then he could not be God.  Either way, it is a theological problem for Christians to explain. 

Originally posted by Jack

Another thing, regarding the learning of right and wrong, remember that as well as being fully Allah, Jesus was also fully human.  As such the later, Jesus in his divinity always knew the difference between right and wrong.  However, in his humanity, before the age of 7, Jesus did speand some time as a baby.  How possible is it for a two month old to say, "Um, excuse me, but you should not take that money, 'cause it belongs to somebody else and that would be stealing."  The developement of a human demands that a person get from 2 months old to 7 years old, and it doesn't occur suddenly...


And yet Isaiah somehow forgot to mention this little tidbit about Immanuel being both God and man. 

If Jesus was God, then regardless of whether he was also human, his so-called divinity should have been "active" at all times.  Therefore, even as a baby, he should have been perfectly capable of choosing right and wrong and being all-powerful.  If he was not capable of making the distinction, then he was not God (yet the Gospels say that the wise men went to him and "worshiped" him).

On a related note, the only other religious groups who worshiped a baby god were pagans.  This idea is simply not at home with monotheism. 

Now about Jesus being both God and man, I talked about this while you were gone.  In my http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21896&PID=161034#161034 - post on December 25 , I referred to Augustine's "Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed" and how he claimed what you are claiming, that Jesus was both God and man.  The reason I brought it up was to show that the Christian doctrine of atonement could not be valid because since God never dies (as Augustine mentioned), the death of Jesus on the cross was the death of his human form.  But if this was true, then it was invalid because the Tanakh mentions that God hates human sacrifices and does not accept them as valid offerings.  Why then would He come down in the form of a man to die in His "human" form?

Originally posted by Jack

About having an all-knowing sense of right and wrong like Allah while at the same time being self-centered like a human child, it is possible to be concerned with oneself while at the same time having a sense of right and wrong such that you know something is right or wrong yet can't put the concept into words.  Jesus had the capacity of Allah, while being somewhat limited by His Humanity.


Then he could not be God.  Allah (swt) has no limitations.  Jesus clearly did.  Therefore, he was not God. 


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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,
 
In big font so you will be able to read it better, you said, "...you have only used excuses in answer. "because in another verse" and so on."
 
Dear friend, I am surprised at you.  Are we equating "context" with "excuse?"  Perhaps this explains why you often get the meaning of verses in the Holy Bible wrong...  I look at the larger writing of the author to see if the author may give some clear clue as to the meaning of a term or sentence elsewhere in his writing so that we will be able to assign the correct meaning to the term or verse in question.  To only look at a verse is to risk asigning a meaning to it that the author did not intend, and different from the rest of the passage.  What does this care in interpretation have to do with excuses.  The conclusion I drew from "context" is that the evil spirit was a spirit created by Allah that chose evil and that entered Saul only after Allah withdrew His own Spirit, and that entered Saul to fill the vaccuum created by the departure of Allah's Spirit.  But Allah's Spirit is not evil.  How could Allah's Spirit be evil if it had left Saul before the evil spirit entered him.  You see, Allah's Spirit in Saul couldn't be evil if it wasn't present in Saul when the evil spirit was there.  This explanation could only be determined from context, not on the verse alone.  And it is the most logical explanation (definately not an excuse).
 
Think about it.
 
Allah's blessings,
 
Jack Catholic 
 
Jack,
that is exactly what I mean, it is an exuse to say when somthing does not seem to agree to come up with things like 'the writer's intentions' are explored!
I agree with you that God's spirit cannot be evil unlike the words of the OT state: " an evil spirit from God" words are very clear but something is wrong with that verse. Who's responsible with that mess up, only Allah knows.
Hasan
 


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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 21 January 2012 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

And this proves that Matthew's supposed "inspiration" did not come from God because even a child could see that the verse is not only deliberately mistranslated but taken completely out of context.


Then show us the actual text of what it should say ‘IF’ deliberately mistranslated. Which means you would have to go as far back as before the Dead Sea Scroll. Can you prove that or is this just another one of your assumptions and personal opinion without any textual docs to back it up and prove it?

Like the DSS of Isaiah show us your textual proof; thank God for the scroll of Isaiah being revealed to the world, what textual, scriptural and archeological proof!
Originally posted by islamispeace

No other place in the NT is Jesus ever referred to as "Immanuel". It was a name which he never used.


But, Muhammad is not even referred to in the NT at all, not even one time! Do I detect a double standard again? If it was still in another place you would close your eyes to the truth because the truth hurts when you have been lie to all this time, that’s understandable. The fact of the matter, Matthew referred to Jesus as Immanuel as indicated whether you like it or not. Pray to Jehovah, Jesus’ God and ask for direction and he will guild you.
Matt 1:18 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im•man′u•el,” which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.”

Originally posted by islamispeace

Matthew simply manipulated the verse to serve his purpose. Ironically, its an example of Christians corrupting the text to serve their own theological ends.


Muslims would prove it if they could but they cannot, why, it’s God’s inspired word and Matthew was privileged to write it. So, like most of them they make assumptions to try and explain it away. But, using the name Immanuel once in the Gospel would serve what purpose? He was known most importantly as Jesus, Ye•shu′a‛ or Yehoh•shu′a‛ which means “Jehovah Is Salvation.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Furthermore, Jesus also is never mentioned by name in the Tanakh! Guess who's problem that is? Yours! Its a problem for you Christians who blindly accept Church tradition over reason and who believe in both the Tanakh and NT as scripture. Muslims do not accept either


No… it is simple as I have been saying from day one. Since Islam does not accept the Tanakh and NT as do Christians and Judo-Christians alike, it’s teaching are not from the God of Abraham. Because the OT and NT diametrically oppose the Quran it is then the Quran that contradicts the two as YOU just admitted, read your statement again. The OT and the NT are harmoniously joined together; one cannot do without the other. Where does that leave Muhammad’s god and his teachings?

Originally posted by islamispeace

(and do go making the same tired old argument about the Quran "confirming" the previous scriptures ).


My friend, the previous scriptures had been completed 600 years before the Quran and before there were ever a Mecca, why would it need it? Remember, for some strange reason it was the Quran that refers to the previous scriptures and Jesus so many times NOT the other way around, don’t flatter yourself. Still laughing?
Originally posted by islamispeace

And this proves what regarding the misquotation of Isaiah 7?


Hello! Isaiah foretold that Christ would be a descendant of David, specifically mentioning Jesse, David’s father. Jesus did indeed directly descend from David. (Matthew 1:6 Jes′se became father to David the king) Luke 3:23, 31, 32) Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Jesus’ mother, Mary: “God will give him the throne of David his father.”—Luke 1:32, 33; Isaiah 11:1-5, 10; Romans 15:12.

Isaiah 11:10 10 And it must occur in that day that there will be the root of Jes′se that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples

Paul also agrees! Romans 15:7,8, 12 And again Isaiah says: “There will be the root of Jes′se, and there will be one arising to rule nations; on him nations will rest their hope.

That is proof of the inspiration and harmony of Isaiah (OT) and Matthew (NT) that Jesus would be born in that line of decent to fulfill the prophecy.

Here we also have not two but “three witnesses” according to Bible law, to confirm the description and genealogy of Jesus being Immanuel something that the Quran cannot and will not ever confirm, admit and practice in the case of Muhammad.

Do you agree islamispeace?

Originally posted by islamispeace

The criteria that are laid out in the Tanakh are simply not fulfilled by Jesus, except for his line of descent from David (pbut).


Well, that’s a start. The Prophets in the OT agree, the Apostles agree and the NT agrees that’s all that really matter.

You and the rest of us are only children of Abraham.

Amen, come Jesus Lord.

Kish


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


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 23 January 2012 at 2:01am
<>

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

No other place in the NT is Jesus ever referred to as "Immanuel". It was a name which he never used.


But, Muhammad is not even referred to in the NT at all, not even one time! Do I detect a double standard again? If it was still in another place you would close your eyes to the truth because the truth hurts when you have been lie to all this time, that’s understandable. The fact of the matter, Matthew referred to Jesus as Immanuel as indicated whether you like it or not. Pray to Jehovah, Jesus’ God and ask for direction and he will guild you.
Matt 1:18 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im•man′u•el,” which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.”

<>

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

Furthermore, Jesus also is never mentioned by name in the Tanakh! Guess who's problem that is? Yours! Its a problem for you Christians who blindly accept Church tradition over reason and who believe in both the Tanakh and NT as scripture. Muslims do not accept either


No… it is simple as I have been saying from day one. Since Islam does not accept the Tanakh and NT as do Christians and Judo-Christians alike, it’s teaching are not from the God of Abraham. Because the OT and NT diametrically oppose the Quran it is then the Quran that contradicts the two as YOU just admitted, read your statement again. The OT and the NT are harmoniously joined together; one cannot do without the other. Where does that leave Muhammad’s god and his teachings?
Kish


Mr. kish, examine it for yourself, how the OT and the NT fits here?

Isaiah 7:14:

I bring attention to common evidence used by the church to prove their claims about Jesus and the validity of the NT through a prophecy fulfillment.

Claim of Matthew Chapter 1:22-23:

Ø  22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"-which means, "God with us." Matthew1:22-23

This verse is in reference to Isaiah 7:14, and a claim that Isaiah gave a prophecy about the birth of a future Messiah who would be born of a virgin centuries before the event would take place, giving validity to the Church and its idea of replacement theology. This verse is commonly read during the Christmas season, and a source for strength in the Christian cause. There are two important points that rest on this claim:

1) The validity of the NT. Given that we are told this is a word of God, which gives a historical and accurate account of Jesus. If a mistake exists, then one must question everything else.

2) The validity of the church. The group who founded the church chose the narratives that best served their theological beliefs. If the evidences for these beliefs can be found to be highly suspect, then their theological beliefs loose their supporting evidence and also become suspect.

Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 specifically. For the purpose of context, I will include all relevant verses in that chapter.

 

Below is a paste of appropriate verses needed for the discussion from the JPS TANACH, which I dislike, but it suffices for now. I will make comments that explain the context of the verse, the setting, and then provide points that show this is not a prophecy, or a dual prophecy, and given the setting and context, has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus (S) or the late second temple. 

Isaiah 7:1-16

Ø  7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it.

In 732 BCE, we find the Davidic throne under the threat of war from the “two warring kingdoms of the North”. The Kingdom of Syria and the Kingdom of Israel are trying to destroy the Kingdom of the South and have laid siege to the city of Jerusalem. King Ahaz is about to loose everything, and it should be mentioned that King Ahaz is not a “man of God”, which will allow this chapter to make sense.

The threat of the Davidic throne is reinforced below.

Ø  7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind.

Ø  7:3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: 'Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field;

Ø  7:4 and say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah.

Ø  7:5 Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying:

Ø  7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel;

Ø  7:7 thus saith the Lord GOD: it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

Ø  7:8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people;

Ø  7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not have faith, surely ye shall not be established.'

These verses further reinforce the position that the context of this verse is about a war, and now God reassures that the aggression of the two northern kingdoms will fail. Keep in mind that so far, nothing is given in the context of this chapter that has anything to do with late second temple or Jesus (S).

Ø  7:10 And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:

Ø  7:11 'Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

Ø  7:12 But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the Lord.'

Ø  7:13 And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

Ø  7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Ahaz, who is not a great man of Gd, feels intimidated to ask Gd for a sign. Asking for a sign, not a miracle, as the sign will be a symbol of Gd's Words of reassurance about the failure of King Ahaz's enemies. This sign would mark the downfall of the two kingdoms of the north.

If this sign were the virgin birth of Jesus centuries later, then what sign of reassurance would this be to a people that were under siege and ready to be destroyed? In other words, what would King Ahaz, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem care about an event that would happen long after they were dead, how would the virgin birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?  

Ø  7:15 Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Ø  7:16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

This goes on to tell us how the sign will be relevant to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. By the time the child, who is a sign, reaches the age of knowing right from wrong, the two kingdoms will be vanquished and defeated. This came to pass. 

So if this is strictly interpreted as the virgin birth of Jesus, then what relevance does eating curds and honey have to do with Jesus? When did he eat them? What two northern kingdoms were destroyed when Jesus reached puberty?

If this is a "dual prophecy", then what in the verse tells you it is such, and how would the birth of Jesus be unique given that now we have a second virgin birth?

The event has nothing to do a virgin birth because the verse tells us that there will be a sign and the point of the sign becomes complete by the time the child reaches a certain age and the two northern kingdoms are destroyed, so whether or not the child was born of a virgin would not have mattered in this scenario.

 

The Context (of Isaiah 7:14) demonstrates:

1) That it makes no difference if the female discussed in 7:14 is a virgin or not (the end result and point of the verse is not dependent upon a strict interpretation of the female being virgin)

2) That the verse is irrelevant to the people of the late second temple

3) The verse talks about a sign, not a miracle, relevant to the people of the time period.

 

The context:

      Two armies from two kingdoms are set to destroy Jerusalem and the Davidic throne.

      God offers, not a miracle, but a sign to the reigning king of Jerusalem, and the representative of the Davidic line.

The Sign:

      A child will be born to a woman. Before the child reaches the age of puberty, the two armies will be destroyed.

Conclusion:

      According to the Hebrew Scriptures, this did indeed occur.

The sign, according to any common sense reading, according to any serious exegesis, even with the most conservative of uses of the charity principle (seeking the best, strongest interpretation without twisting it to a preconception), is not the birth but the time line given by the child's age that coincides with the destruction of the armies.

The birth of the child has no bearing on the armies of the two northern kingdoms, but the child does.

According to Christians, it is the birth that is the sign, because the birth is to a virgin, and this is a prophecy about Jesus being born centuries later after the people in Jerusalem are all dead and forgotten about and after the siege had ended. For the sake of the argument, let’s say the verse is about a child born to a virgin, and this is the sign. Let’s also assume it is a prophecy.

This implies

1) There were two virgin births, one at that time and one in the late second temple. This would mean the birth of Jesus was not unique. OR;

2) There was one virgin birth, and somehow, the Hebrews were supposed to be able to render almah as young woman who was not a virgin, and then almah as virgin for the double prophecy meaning, which would be relevant to a future generation that had nothing to do with those who were held captive behind the walls of Jerusalem. I would like for Christians to show me the text that allows someone to render almah as non virgin and then as virgin for the prophecy interpretation.

If the child born was all together part of a prophecy that has nothing to do with King Ahaz, then

1) Which two warring kingdoms of the north were destroyed when Jesus reached the age of puberty?

2) If this part of Isaiah 7 is not part of the prophecy, then please, I would like for Christians to provide me with the methodology that allowed them to rip the point of the story (the destruction of the two warring armies) out of the verse as a non prophecy, and only keep the mentioning of a child born to a virgin separate from the point?

If "almah" in chapter 7 must be strictly interpreted as virgin, then the entire sign should be rendered meaningless. Let’s assume that chapter 7 is about a virgin birth. This would mean that the woman being a virgin is a critical point for 7 to work.

I will demonstrate by now assuming this is not a virgin birth in Isaiah 7.

The birth is not by a virgin.

Before the child reaches puberty.

The two warring armies of the north are destroyed.

The child reaches the age of puberty.  

Conclusion: The end result in the story occurs with or without the word "almah" being rendered "virgin".

Matthew's claim of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is obviously a mistake. No one with any serious intention of learning can look at this claim and look at the actual verse and declare it a prophecy about a virgin giving birth.

The main themes of the story are entirely irrelevant to late second temple. What would be the significance at the moment before Jesus knows right from wrong? Would this imply that Jesus did not know right from wrong and had to reach puberty before his true divine self would kick in? What two warring kingdoms were destroyed (armies) before Jesus (S) knew right from wrong? What would Ahaz care about Jesus (S) and late second temple period? Why would Isaiah tell Ahaz to ask God Almighty for a sign for people living in 2 CE?

The answers do not exist, and giving the point away that almah is virgin causes more problems, and unanswered questions.

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

That article was posted on a discussion forum form a Brother whom I do not remember his name; may Allah (S) reward him for his contribution, Inshallah.

TNC


-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 23 January 2012 at 2:16am
<>

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

Matthew simply manipulated the verse to serve his purpose. Ironically, its an example of Christians corrupting the text to serve their own theological ends.


Muslims would prove it if they could but they cannot, why, it’s God’s inspired word and Matthew was privileged to write it. So, like most of them they make assumptions to try and explain it away. But, using the name Immanuel once in the Gospel would serve what purpose? He was known most importantly as Jesus, Ye•shu′a‛ or Yehoh•shu′a‛ which means “Jehovah Is Salvation.

Kish
Hi kish, I am coming again, you running from the truth! But I will keep coming till the truth establish.

You didn’t answer my question how they derive Hebrew “Jehashuah or Jeshua” from the original Greek “Iesous”.

They invented it because “Jeshua” mean “salvation” and “Jehashuah” mean “Jehovah is Salvation” another invented meaning.

This is an explanation a Christian reply to me how they arrived with the Greek name of the Messiah (S) on a discussion forum some time back:

[QUOTE]  

A word or a name in Hebrew which begins with a YODE (Hebrew Y) would have to be transliterated into Greek using an IOTA (Greek I) and would likely be followed by an ETA (Greek E) or an OMIKRON (Greek O), depending on the phonics of the original word. Since there is no letter in Greek equivalent to the Hebrew YODE, the Greek IOTA (followed by another vowel to mimick the required sound) is the next best thing. Transliteration is a mimicking or "best rendering" type of work, not an exacting science.

 

The answer:

A word or a name in Greek which begins with an IOTA would then be transliterated into English using the letter I. In such cases the I would sound like a Y and if we knew for certain the origins of the first word from which the Greek transliteration was conducted (in this case being a Hebrew word that starts with a YODE) we would be justified in bypassing the I altogether and using the Y instead thats where Iesous is coming from and from the Jews.

[END QUOTE]

 

 Know the “fact”:  If the socal original is in Greek, so from the Greek we have to transliterate it back into Hebrew: Greek is “Iesous” transliterate it back to Hebrew is “Yesous”, same pronunciation as “Isa” in Arabic and not Jushua and Jahashuasa.

 

How the derive the name “Jesus”? They transliterates IESOUS TO JESOUS by changing the “I” into “J” and drop the “O” = JESUS, a name foreign to the original pronunciation (Yesous in Hebrew; Isa in Arabic).


THIS IS TO SHOW THAT THE QUR'AN REVEALS THE TRUTH!

 

TRUTHNOWCOME



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 23 January 2012 at 2:50am
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

(and do go making the same tired old argument about the Quran "confirming" the previous scriptures ).


My friend, the previous scriptures had been completed 600 years before the Quran and before there were ever a Mecca, why would it need it? Remember, for some strange reason it was the Quran that refers to the previous scriptures and Jesus so many times NOT the other way around, don’t flatter yourself. Still laughing?
Kish
<>

Don’t even try that here! THIS IS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORUM!

Jesus’ message was to inform his followers of the prophet who will come after him with all the truth, this is what he [Jesus (S)] said:

Ø  “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but what he hears.” ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%20%2016:12-13&version=9 - - John.16:12-13 )   

 “All the truth” will come with the arrival of the Comforter. Here in the Book of Revelation chapter 10 mentioned the coming of another Book which John did not wrote and . It is mentioned:

Ø  And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven. 2-And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth. 3-And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voice. 4-And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, “I was about to write”: and I heard a voice from haven saying unto, seal up those things which the seven thunder utters, “and write them not”. Rev.10:1-4

·       Point (1) Another Mighty Angel: Jesus (S) is not another mighty angel; it is Gabriel (s) the messenger of Allah who brought the message to and from Allah.

·       Point (2) He had in his hand a little book open: V.2 And he had in his hand a little book open:

·       Point (3) Seventh thunders uttered their voice (something was revealing): V.3...And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voice.

·       Point 4: John was about to write what was revealing: V.4-And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write:

·       Point 5: He was told to seal up the message and write them not: V.4…and I heard a voice from haven saying unto, seal up those things which the seven thunders utters, and write them not. (Rev.10:4)  

 The angel brought the little book and John was order “not to write down the message in that book,” because the time was not right. “So it is not the bible,” because the bible is a “written book” and it (the bible) is telling us about “another book.” Which book is that? 

Further as you read in Verse 7 it says:

Ø  “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound: the mystery of God should finish as he declared to his servants the prophets. (Rev.10:7)

 In the days when this little book shall reveal all the mystery (all the truth) of God will finish (revealed).The book was never written according to the voice from Heaven: “seal up those things…and write them not.”

Now, “Begin to sound” mean “revealing” In the days when this little book shall reveal “all the mystery” (That is “all the truth”) of God will finish (revealed, no more mystery) as he declared to his servants the prophets.

 And this is what Jesus (S) said:

Ø  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but what he hears.” ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%20%2016:12-13&version=9 - - John.16:12-13 )   

 Therefore, the Spirit of Truth which is the Comforter would have to bring this little book which contains all the truth. 

 And in 10:4 it says: John was about to write… So when this Book will reveal “some one” will have to be there to “write the message down.” Allah has revealed to Muhammad (S):

Ø  “…And We have sent down to thee (O Muhammad) the book (the Qur’an) explaining all things, a guide, a mercy, and Glad Tiding to Muslims.” (Q.16:89)

Ø  “This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.” (Qur.10:37)

Ø  This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (Q.5:3)

10-And I (John) took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and eat it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. (Rev.10:10)

 We know that John did not eat the book, he read the book and the truth was sweet but practicing the law was bitter.

Ø  11-And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many people, and nations, and tongues, and kings. (Rev.10:11)

  Why prophesy again? Because he had already went, so he has to go back again to inform them about the coming of the universal book that he did not wrote.

  Allah (S) mentioned:

Ø  We have not sent thee but as a (universal messenger) to all mankind…but most of mankind knew not”. (Q.34:28)                                        

 

 Coming of the universal book

  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014&version=9 - - REVELATION 14 :

It is mentioned in the bible http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:6-7&version=9 - - Rev.14:6-7 :

Ø  And I saw another angel fly in the midst of haven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. Saying with aloud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:6-7&version=9 - - Rev.14:6-7

Note: The word “gospel” is Good News”; in other words the angel was bringing the “everlasting Good News”. The everlasting Good News was yet to come; Jesus (S) gospel (Good News) could not be for all time. Jesus (S) already on earth with his gospel (Good News), he could not be the another angel with everlasting Good News. The everlasting Good News is the little book that mentioned in Revelation 10:1-11 another angel with a little book which John did not wrote but is yet to come; and the coming of it is clearly stated in Revelation 14:7

Ø  “…another angel fly in the midst of haven, having the everlasting Good News…” Rev. 14:7

That means, the everlasting Good News have to come from Heaven having an angel bringing it. It says in verse 7;

Ø  “Fear God and Give Glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come!”

Not the Day of Judgment, because the angel was bringing what? The “everlasting Good News” and that was the Criterion: the standard way of judgment between right and wrong. In other words, coming of the everlasting Good News then Judgment will come and the Comforter will use it to reprove the world.

This is what mentioned in the Qur’an:

Ø  Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) to His Servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures.” (Q.25:1)

Ø  “This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.” (Qur.10:37)

Ø  Say, the Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a guide, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. (Q.16:102)

Ø  A book, whereof the verses are explained in detail-A Qur’an in Arabic, for people who understand-Giving Good News and admonition: yet most of them turn away, and so they hear not. (Q.41:3-4)

Ø  Without doubt it is (announced) in the reveled books (Torah, Gospel) of former people. (Q.26:196)

Ø  And this is a book which We have sent down, bringing blessing and conforming (the revelation) which came before it. (Q.6:92)

Ø  …it is no less than a Message for all creatures (mankind and jinn). (Q.12:104)

Ø  …so fear Allah and obey me. (Q.3:50)

Ø  ye who believe! Fear Allah as He should fear, and die not except in a state of Islam. (Q.3:102)

Ø  And glorify Him morning and evening. (Q.33:42)

Ø  Thus have We revealed it (the Qur’an) to be a judgment of authority in Arabic (Q.13:37)

  What Revelation 14-7 says?

Ø  Fear God and Give Glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come!”

Not the Day of Judgment, the Criterion: the standard way of judgment between right and wrong.

And Jesus (S) said: 

Ø  “And when he (the Comforter) is come he will reprove the world of sin, and righteous, and judgment.” ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:8&version=9 - - John.16:8

  Adding further, when Judgment comes the Comforter will used it to reprove the world (Gentiles) and the Comforter has to be a “person.” according to http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2042:1-4&version=9 - - Isaiah 42:1-4

Ø  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentile.” 3-A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax he shall he not quench: he shall bring forth Judgment unto truth. 4- He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for His LAW.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2042:1-4&version=9 - - Isaiah 42:1-4

Ø  For the LAW was given by Moses… ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:17&version=9 - - John.1:17 )

Moses (S) was a law giver and here the Comforter is a new law giver!

  After the coming of the universal Rev.14:12 say:

Ø  “…here are they that keep the commandment of God, and the faith of Jesus…”

That conforms that the “Everlasting Good News” is the commandment of God, the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong), and the true teaching of Jesus (S) which is his faith.

DON’T TRY THAT HERE KISH!

Ø  Truth has (now) come, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish. (Q.17:81)

THEN HE (S) WARNS:

 

Ø  Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,”

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 23 January 2012 at 9:08am
Originally posted by truthnowcomes

Mr. kish, examine it for yourself, how the OT and the NT fits here?


TNC, the fact that Muhammad contradict, misquote and added to the scriptures of ‘the book’ and Islam is totally out of harmony with the Old and New Testament you are not in a position to quote much of anything except your own book.

Revelation 22:18 If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.


First and foremost, KNOWING what Isaiah and other prophets had written about the Messiah, the Jewish nation long anticipated his arrival. That is why many Jews “were in expectation” of the Messiah’s imminent appearance. How do we know this despite what you have been told through your teachings of Muhammad?

Luke 3:15 Now as the people (Jews) were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: “May he perhaps be the Christ?

Now… How would we know this would be a dual prophecy?
Isaiah also foretold that Christ would be a descendant of David, specifically mentioning Jesse, David’s father. Jesus did indeed directly descend from David.

How was this confirmed according to the Law of Moses in the OT and NT? By two or three witnesses!

Luke 1:32, 33 (Angel Gabriel) Isaiah 11:1-5, 10 (Prophet Isaiah) Romans 15:12. (Apostle Paul)

You may not like it but now is the time for TRUE SUBMISSION, all personal feelings aside!

Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Jesus’ mother, Mary: “God will give him the throne of David his father.” Why does the Quran intentional leaves this out but acknowledges the Gospel account? To hide the fact that Jesus is indeed Immanuel and or the Messiah who the Jews were inspection of.

Answer this, was Immanuel Isaiah’s first, second or third child? In fact, who gave birth to the son named Immanuel? Can you show and prove the answer to these two questions?

If not, everything you wrote is purely speculation. Stop assuming who is what and what is who without FACTS!

Originally posted by truthnowcomes

If this sign were the virgin birth of Jesus centuries later, then what sign of reassurance would this be to a people that were under siege and ready to be destroyed? In other words, what would King Ahaz, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem care about an event that would happen long after they were dead, how would the virgin birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?


Again, that is why it is a dual prophecy and the real identity of Immanuel was never truly revealed which you or anyone else has been able to do using the OT.   The birth of the first Immanuel was a sign that God had not forsaken the house of David. Likewise, the birth of Jesus, the Greater Immanuel, was a sign that God had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant with David’s house as he promised. Luke 1:31-33 says and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.
Originally posted by truthnowcomes

Matthew's claim of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is obviously a mistake. No one with any serious intention of learning can look at this claim and look at the actual verse and declare it a prophecy about a virgin giving birth.


Originally posted by truthnowcomes

I will make comments that explain the context of the verse, the setting, and then provide points that show this is not a prophecy, or a dual prophecy, and given the setting and context, has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus (S) or the late second temple.


You have failed to show and prove all THREE!
On the other hand, this is only one of dozens of prophecies concerning Jesus in just the book of Isaiah alone that the Angel Gabriel, Matthew, Paul and others confirms. Whether Muslims accept it or not is irrelevant, sorry. The account and prophecies in Isaiah pertaining to Jesus still stands as a dual prophecy which I clearly showed using the Old and New Testament of the Holy Scriptures.

Originally posted by truthnowcomes

Don’t even try that here! THIS IS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORUM!
Jesus’ message was to inform his followers of the prophet who will come after him with all the truth, this is what he [Jesus (S)] said:
 “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but what he hears.” (John.16:12-13)


Hostile are we? I believe you are better off just sticking to your Quran for now. The Quran was produced in Arabia for Muslims; it is the first book for Muslims. Its appeal is to the preferences and prejudices of the Arabs, that’s it.

Jesus never, never, never, ever said the ‘spirit of truth’ is a person, every Jew and Christian knows that!
If you really feel confident on this subject I suggest you open up a new thread on this matter that Muslims have been misinformed by their Imams, believe me I personally know. The ‘only’ prophets Jesus said will come after him will be FALSE PROPHETS!
ANYONEANYONEANYONEANYONE

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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 24 January 2012 at 3:37pm
Kish,
this is from Psalm 18
 
7 Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of the hills also quaked and were shaken,
Because He (God) was angry.
8 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
10 And He rode upon a cherub (fat naked baby angels as seen in churches and homes), and flew;
 
I don't have words to explain this, may be you do?
 
Hasan 
 


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


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 24 January 2012 at 7:23pm
<>

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by truthnowcomes

Mr. kish, examine it for yourself, how the OT and the NT fits here?


TNC, the fact that Muhammad contradict, misquote and added to the scriptures of ‘the book’ and Islam is totally out of harmony with the Old and New Testament you are not in a position to quote much of anything except your own book.

Revelation 22:18 If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.

Kish, this is where you are wrong! First of all, revelation 22:18-19 has nothing to do with OT and NT; in fact, it has to do with the book of revelation itself and no other book; it says: “if anyone makes an addition to “these things” (meaning: the prophesies that written inside the book of revelation). Try again!!

Muhammad (S) nor the Quran did contradict anything, in fact it came to reminds, conforms and substitutes and correct former revelation:

Ø  None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not Allah hath power over all things?  (Q.2:106) 

Ø  ye People of the Book! Believe in what We have (now) revealed, conforming what was (already) with you… (Q.4:47)

Ø  Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place, and say “We hear and disobey,”…and but few of them will believe. (Q.4:46)

Ø  From those, too, who called themselves Christians We did take a Covenant, But they forgot a good part of the message that was sent down: So We stirred up enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Q.5:14)

·       Ye People of the Book! Why do you mix truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge. (Q.3:71)

·       There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” But it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Q.3:78)

OT:

·        "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

·       The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE.   (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

·       From Hebrew:  http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=jer+8%3A8&section=0&it=kjv&oq=jer%208%3A8&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=jer&ng=8&ncc=8 -   How do ye http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0559 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8799 - ) , We are http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02450 - and the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08451 - of the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03068 - is with us? Lo, http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0403 - in http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08267 - http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06213 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8804 - ) he it; the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05842 - of the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05608 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8802 - ) is in http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08267 -

·       13 And Jehovah says: “For the reason that this people have come near with their mouth, and they have glorified me merely with their lips, and they have removed their heart itself far away from me, and their fear toward me becomes men’s commandment that is being taught, (MEN’S COMMANDMENT ADDED TO THE SCRIPTURES) 14 therefore here I am, the One that will act wonderfully again with this people, in a wonderful manner and with something wonderful; and the wisdom of their wise men must perish, and the very understanding of their discreet men will conceal itself.” ( http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/isa/chapter_029.htm - )

QURAN:

People of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that you used to hide in your Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a light [Muhamed (pbuh)] and a perspicuous Book.” (Q.5:15)

Truth has (now) come, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish. (Q.17:81)

THIS IS HOW IT AGRRES:

The Prophet of Islam was prophesied in yet another prophesies in Isaiah 28. Christian’s commentators claimed that Jesus (S) fulfilled this prophesy also which is not true. A closer look revealed that when the Mighty Strong one come God himself will teach him (V.26), he will speak to the Jews in another language (V.7-9), at that time the Jewish people would be in a state of evilness and corruptions (V.10-11) and In verse 26 he will establish the corner stone which Jesus (S) spoke of in Matthew 21:42-43 when he said: “… Did ye never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders reject the same is become the head of the corner: This is the Lord’s doings, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore say I unto you The kingdom of God shall taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” That nation is the Ishmaelite the seed of Abraham!

Muhammad (S) was that Mighty Strong One mentioned in verse 2, He (S) was the only Prophet who claimed to have followed the religion of Abraham (S) and speak to the Jews in another language. In verse 17 he will bring judgment (17Judgments also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet…) and the Qur’an conforms that: “Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) to His Servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures.” (Q.25:1)

AGREEMENTS:

The leaders of the Jews were already informed by God Almighty that when the Mighty strong One [Muhammad (S)] would come upon them his Message will be strange to them:

Ø  From the Lord shall rise up in Mount Perazim, he may do his work; his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isaiah.28:21)

At Mt. Perazem to the valley of Gibeon the message will reach them and it will be strange to them.

This Hadith conform Isaiah 28:21:

Ø  Abd-Allah ibn Mas ud said: “The Prophet (pbuh) said, ‘Islam begin as something strange, and it will revert to being strange as it was in the beginning, so good tiding for the stranger.’ Someone ask, ‘Who are the strangers?’ He said: ‘The ones who break away from their people for the sake of Islam.’” This Hadith was narrated by Ibn Majah on authority of Anas and Abu Hurayrah. [Ibn Majah, kitab al-Fitan (Hadith 3988), 2/1320]

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

In Isaiah 42 The God of Abraham (S) mentioned of His’ servant whom he will send to the world and he will established “NEW LAW’ (Judgment) in the earth.

This servant has to come from Ishmael’s descendant true Kedar (Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the village that Kedar doth inhabit… http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2042:11&version=9 - ; And these are the names of the son Ishmael, by their names according to their generations: the first born of Ishmael, Nebajoth…and Kedar...” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:13&version=9 -

Ø  “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentile.” (Iasiah.42:1)

   According to Christian Jesus (S) is God or son of God and here is says “My Servant or God Servant /Slave,” so that cannot be Jesus (S). All prophets after Jacob (S) mentioned in the Bible came for the Israelites not Gentiles. This includes Jesus (S) (Matt.15:21-26, Matt. 10:5-6 and many more. And Jesus (S) did not stay on earth long enough to bring judgment to the Gentile. But Muhammad (S) he brought message which is the Criterion of Judgment between right and wrong to the Gentiles.

It mentioned in the Qur’an: “Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong, i.e. the Qur’an) to his slave [Muhammad (pbuh)] that he may be a Warner to the ‘Alamin (mankind and jinn).” (Q.25:1)

 And Jesus (S) said:

Ø  “And when he (the Comforter) is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” (John.16:8)

 How would the comforter reprove the world of Judgment? He would reprove the world of judgment when the everlasting Good News would have come. Revelation 14: 6-7 mentioned the coming of the universal Book of judgment:

Ø  “And I saw another angel fly in the mid of Heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nations, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying... fear God and give glory to him for judgment is come.” (Rev.14:6-7)

The everlasting gospel was yet to come; Jesus (S) gospel could not be for all time! Jesus (S) already on earth with a gospel, he could not be the another angel with everlasting gospel, the everlasting Gospel is the little book that mentioned in Revelation 10:1-11“another angel” with a “little book” which John did not wrote but is yet to come (See Ch.5); and it is clearly stated in Revelation 14:7 and I quote: “…another angel fly in the midst of haven, having the everlasting gospel…”. So, an angel have to bring the everlasting gospel and it has to come from Heaven! The word used there is “eu´Aggeliðzw” which mean “Good New” and was translates as gospel. That means the angel was bringing the “Everlasting Good News”!

The Qur’an makes that claimed in ch.26: 192-196.It mentioned:

Ø  “Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) to His Servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures.” (Q.25:1)

Ø  A book, whereof the verses are explained in detail-A Qur’an in Arabic, for people who understand-Giving Good News and admonition: yet most of them turn away, and so they hear not. (Q.41:3-4)

Ø  “Thus have We revealed it (the Qur’an) to be a judgment of authority in Arabic” (Q.13:37)

Ø  Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and Judgment (Between right and wrong). (Qur’an 2:185)

The book of Revelation 14-7 says? “Fear God and Give Glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come!” Not the Day of Judgment, the Criterion: The standard way of judgment between right and wrong; that is because the angel was bringing the everlasting Good news (a Message) or we can say the book of judgment between right and wrong. I have written a whole chapter on revelation 14 with a fuller explanation.

Ø  4- He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for His LAW. (Isaiah.42:4)

 

AGREEMENTS:

Isaiah.42: 9 stated:

Ø   “Behold, the former things (OLD LAW) are come to pass, and new things (NEW LAW) do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you.” 

The former things are the old law and have to replace with new law (the Islamic law), “He shell not fail nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for ‘his Law.’” (Isaiah.42:4)

THAT IS WHERE THE QURAN COMES IN; IT REPLACES FORMER THING (LAW) WITH NEW THINGS (LAWS).

 

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 24 January 2012 at 7:34pm
<>

Originally posted by Kish


First and foremost, KNOWING what Isaiah and other prophets had written about the Messiah, the Jewish nation long anticipated his arrival. That is why many Jews “were in expectation” of the Messiah’s imminent appearance. How do we know this despite what you have been told through your teachings of Muhammad?

Luke 3:15 Now as the people (Jews) were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: “May he perhaps be the Christ?

Now… How would we know this would be a dual prophecy?
Isaiah also foretold that Christ would be a descendant of David, specifically mentioning Jesse, David’s father. Jesus did indeed directly descend from David.

How was this confirmed according to the Law of Moses in the OT and NT? By two or three witnesses!

Luke 1:32, 33 (Angel Gabriel) Isaiah 11:1-5, 10 (Prophet Isaiah) Romans 15:12. (Apostle Paul)

You may not like it but now is the time for TRUE SUBMISSION, all personal feelings aside!

Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Jesus’ mother, Mary: “God will give him the throne of David his father.” Why does the Quran intentional leaves this out but acknowledges the Gospel account? To hide the fact that Jesus is indeed Immanuel and or the Messiah who the Jews were inspection of.

 

Mr. Kish, it seems to me you are beside your self! You are asking foolish question which you your self already knows. Let me put it this way: When Jesus (S) came did he sit on the throne of David (S) or the author of Luke is wrong?

 

Originally posted by Kish


Answer this, was Immanuel Isaiah’s first, second or third child? In fact, who gave birth to the son named Immanuel? Can you show and prove the answer to these two questions?

If not, everything you wrote is purely speculation. Stop assuming who is what and what is who without FACTS!

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER IT YOURSELF?

 

THIS IS FACT:

This is a clear indication you are beside yourself! It didn’t mentioned who child it was; but the birth of the child would be “a sign” for king Ahaz’s AND HIS NAME would be IMMANUAL:

 

Ø  7:10 And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:

 

Ø  7:11 'Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

 

Ø  7:12 But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the Lord.'

 

Ø  7:13 And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

 

Ø  7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you (AHAZ) a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (ISAIAH 7:10-14)

 

Ahaz, who is not a great man of God, feels intimidated to ask God for a sign. Asking for a sign, not a miracle, as the sign will be a symbol of God's Words of reassurance about the failure of King Ahaz's enemies. This sign would mark the downfall of the two kingdoms of the north.



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 24 January 2012 at 8:00pm
<>
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by truthnowcomes

If this sign were the virgin birth of Jesus centuries later, then what sign of reassurance would this be to a people that were under siege and ready to be destroyed? In other words, what would King Ahaz, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem care about an event that would happen long after they were dead, how would the virgin birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?

Again, that is why it is a dual prophecy and the real identity of Immanuel was never truly revealed which you or anyone else has been able to do using the OT.   The birth of the first Immanuel was a sign that God had not forsaken the house of David. Likewise, the birth of Jesus, the Greater Immanuel, was a sign that God had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant with David’s house as he promised. Luke 1:31-33 says and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.

So they had two Immanuel? I mean god came two times one when he forsakes king Ahaz, and the other when Mary gives birth? Good try! Did he sit on the throne of David (s)? Or god with us (Immanuel) they kill him? Who is telling the truth God or the author of Luke?

tnc



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 25 January 2012 at 8:11am
Originally posted by honto

Kish,
this is from Psalm 18


Sorry, I don’t know what you’re asking but if it’s not relevant to what we have been discussion on this thread I’d rather not start answering something new and off topic.


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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 25 January 2012 at 11:21am
TNC, just as Muslims believe the Quran is the ‘final revelation’ for Muslims. Both Christians and Judo-Christians believe and know for a fact that the “Final Revelation’ was already written and completed by the Apostle John before Muhammad was even born. That ended the inspiration of the Bible canon through the Holy Scriptures. Muhammad therefore branched away and started his own ‘NEW’ religion and new ‘LAWS’ with no one to confirm that he was actually inspired from God to write anything. That is the ‘sandy’ foundation which Islam is built on, which is why Islam’s arguments when compared to the Bible are so weak and shaky and proved to be false!

Psalms 30:5, 6 Every saying of God is refined… 6 Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar.

Nothing Muhammad says agrees with the Old and New Testament, it’s that simple. What Muslims try to do and I emphasize the word TRY, if the OT and NT do not agree with the Quran then the OT and NT is wrong. Well, according to your Islamic sources you would come up with that conclusion.

But, here is the key factor so listen carefully; Jesus never said anything wrong against the OT or the NT before or after his resurrection, neither did his twelve Apostles and his disciples. But, guess what, Muhammad comes on the scene 600 years later with no credentials as being from God in his late forties in a dark cave, self-proclaimed himself to be a messenger of God and then TRIES to change everything that was built by Moses and the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ.

To make matters worse you put this messenger on a greater pedestal then the Greatest man who ever lived Jesus, but yet Moses, David and even the 12 Apostles did and accomplished more than the messenger of Allah ever did in his life.

Example

Originally posted by truthnowcome

Muhammad (S) nor the Quran did contradict anything, in fact it came to reminds, conforms and substitutes and correct former revelation:


Yea, according to your self-proclaimed prophet in the book of Muhammad with no credentials from Moses God to prove it, he doesn’t even use Moses’ God’s name.

http://dnkjb.net/1189chapters/OT05DEU13.htm - Prophet Moses

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: forJehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk afterJehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from Jehovah your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.



Originally posted by truthnowcome

THIS IS HOW IT AGRRES


Yea, according to Muhammad and his uninspired words, read above and below scripture of Deuteronomy 18: 15-22.

http://dnkjb.net/1189chapters/OT05DEU18.htm - A Prophet from among my brothers


Sorry, but Muhammad does not fit any of the description! From being among Moses brothers, calling on Moses God Jehovah, speaking God’s word that he has not spoken, Muhammad spoke prophecies not coming true, he was possess.   

Originally posted by truthnowcome

THAT IS WHERE THE QURAN COMES IN; IT REPLACES FORMER THING (LAW) WITH NEW THINGS (LAWS).


Yea, Muhammad thought he replaced the Bible with the Quran, Jehovah with Allah and Jesus with Muhammad. But, let me remind you again in case you forgot
     
     
Deuteronomy 13:5 says And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from Jehovah your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

You also quoted Isaiah 42:8, 9 but again Muslims do not follow Isaiah’s God, Jehovah so how could you apply it to Islam. Is that the reason you left his name out? Here is what it says . . .
I am Jehovah: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

TNC, you admitted that you do not know the answer if Immanuel was Isaiah’s first, second or third child and which virgin women gave birth to him, yet you disagree with Isaiah being a dual prophecy, Jesus being Immanuel and Mary being the virgin women. You really don’t know but the scriptures as I’ve shown you which are in the OT and NT do know, you just happen to disagree without any conclusive evidence or reason only because of what you have been told THROUGH ISLAMIC SOURCES. Your response . . .

Originally posted by truthnowcome

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER IT YOURSELF? … It didn’t mentioned who child it was

What is with the BOLD PRINT? Your keys getting stuck? No need to get angry, God is love.
But TNC, some names of individuals in the Bible were prophetic and describe the work the person would do. The name Immanuel well describes Jesus’ role as the Messianic Seed, a descendant of David, the one who proves that God is with those who worship Him.

What does the name Immanuel means (Im•man′u•el) [With Us Is God].


Originally posted by truthnowcome

When Jesus (S) came did he sit on the throne of David (S) or the author of Luke is wrong?


LUKE 1:32. 33 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.

Originally posted by truthnowcome

So they had two Immanuel? I mean god came two times one when he forsakes king Ahaz, and the other when Mary gives birth? Good try! Did he sit on the throne of David (s)? Or god with us (Immanuel) they kill him? Who is telling the truth God or the author of Luke?


This was a duel prophecy, Jesus being the Greater Immanuel as the NT confirms did come. The fact of the matter is they both are telling the truth. Through inspiration Isaiah knew that Jesus would be the ‘son of God’ and Jesus himself said so.      

Also, I don’t mind if you cut or paste but can you at least respond and answer my questions in some of your own words rather than cut and paste everything you read. I would like to know your thoughts not someone else’s.



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


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 26 January 2012 at 12:55am
<>

Originally posted by Kish

TNC, just as Muslims believe the Quran is the ‘final revelation’ for Muslims. Both Christians and Judo-Christians believe and know for a fact that the “Final Revelation’ was already written and completed by the Apostle John before Muhammad was even born. That ended the inspiration of the Bible canon through the Holy Scriptures. Muhammad therefore branched away and started his own ‘NEW’ religion and new ‘LAWS’ with no one to confirm that he was actually inspired from God to write anything. That is the ‘sandy’ foundation which Islam is built on, which is why Islam’s arguments when compared to the Bible are so weak and shaky and proved to be false!

Psalms 30:5, 6 Every saying of God is refined… 6 Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar.

Nothing Muhammad says agrees with the Old and New Testament, it’s that simple. What Muslims try to do and I emphasize the word TRY, if the OT and NT do not agree with the Quran then the OT and NT is wrong. Well, according to your Islamic sources you would come up with that conclusion.

 

Kish that sounds like “hot air” you didn’t even prove your case by refuting me. I gave you Isaiah 28 and 42 establishing that the God of Abraham (S) revealed to Isaiah of his  “servant” whom he would sent to the world with the “NEW LAW” TO REPLACE “THE OLD LAW” AND THE MESSAGE WOULD BE STRANGE TO THE JEWS; IN OTHER WORD, IT WOULD BE STRANGE TO THE “OT” MESSAGE.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Originally posted by Kish


Psalms 30:5, 6 Every saying of God is refined… 6 Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar.

WELL PROVE THAT WRONG!

·        "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

·       The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE.   (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

·       From Hebrew:  http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=jer+8%3A8&section=0&it=kjv&oq=jer%25208%3A8&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=jer&ng=8&ncc=8 -   How do ye http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0559 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8799 - ) , We are http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02450 - and the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08451 - of the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03068 - is with us? Lo, http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0403 - in http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08267 - http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06213 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8804 - ) he it; the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05842 - of the http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05608 - ( http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8802 - ) is in http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08267 -

·      13 And Jehovah says: “For the reason that this people have come near with their mouth, and they have glorified me merely with their lips, and they have removed their heart itself far away from me, and their fear toward me becomes men’s commandment that is being taught, (MEN’S COMMANDMENT ADDED TO THE SCRIPTURES) 14 therefore here I am, the One that will act wonderfully again with this people, in a wonderful manner and with something wonderful; and the wisdom of their wise men must perish, and the very understanding of their discreet men will conceal itself.” ( http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/isa/chapter_029.htm -

Originally posted by Kish

But, here is the key factor so listen carefully; Jesus never said anything wrong against the OT or the NT before or after his resurrection, neither did his twelve Apostles and his disciples. But, guess what, Muhammad comes on the scene 600 years later with no credentials as being from God in his late forties in a dark cave, self-proclaimed himself to be a messenger of God and then TRIES to change everything that was built by Moses and the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ.

Or you mean, you didn’t read the message of Jesus (S)? He agree with Isaiah 29! And for your information the NT didn’t written in his time.

It’s in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATTHEW%2015&version=KJV -

1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

 3But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye (the scribes) made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

 8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is FAR FROM ME.

 9BUT IN VAIN THEY DO WORSHIP ME, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.

I an sorry Mr. Kish but I cant help it, I have to tell the truth,truth is done truth! Can’t hide it!

Originally posted by Kish


To make matters worse you put this messenger on a greater pedestal then the Greatest man who ever lived Jesus, but yet Moses, David and even the 12 Apostles did and accomplished more than the messenger of Allah ever did in his life.

I know where you coming from but Allah (S) already inform us that we make no distinction among his messenger.

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 26 January 2012 at 1:02am
<>

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by truthnowcome

Muhammad (S) nor the Quran did contradict anything, in fact it came to reminds, conforms and substitutes and correct former revelation:


Yea, according to your self-proclaimed prophet in the book of Muhammad with no credentials from Moses God to prove it, he doesn’t even use Moses’ God’s name. Deuteronomy 13:1-5

 

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: forJehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk afterJehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from Jehovah your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

 

Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;16 According to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice ofJehovah my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Sorry, but Muhammad does not fit any of the description! From being among Moses brothers, calling on Moses God Jehovah, speaking God’s word that he has not spoken, Muhammad spoke prophecies not coming true, he was poss