Oneness of God

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

Oneness of God
by Aisha Brown

The three monotheistic religions-- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "tawhid" in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema", or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)


It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)


Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: there is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163).


Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-- in one divine being.


If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:


"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one...they are not three gods, but one God...the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed).


Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son, + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?


It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.


How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?*


Trinity in the Bible


References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.


In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text--that is, not the actual words of Jesus-- as can be seen by two factors:


1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and


2) the "Great Commission" was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost--see Mark 16:15.


The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "... there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.


It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.


The Doctrine Takes Shape


While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son". After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.


Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.


A Formal Doctrine Is Drawn Up


When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria--Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop-- Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.


Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.


Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The Church Puts Its Foot Down


The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.


It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/ Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.


Debate Continues


Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.


The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" -- yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion ..."


The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus: "... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)


Islam and the Matter of the Trinity


While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam.


"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God" (Qur'an 5:73). It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.


Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)


Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities -- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.


Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity -- God being Three-in-One-- is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.


This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.


While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:171; 5:73) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.


In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages,


"... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (the Qur'an 18:110)


"... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (the Qur'an 17:39)


-- because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures,


"... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ..." (the Qur'an 21:92)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What is the source for the Trinity, something which is considered Shirk in Islam and Shi.tuf[/color in Hebrew?

Why do Christians believe in it? Is there any evidence from the Old Testament? And what is the evidence from the New Testament?

Does the Bible mention the word 'Trinity' at all?

[Sephiroth]

The Trinity is a logical inference based on Christ's status as the Son of God and God's power to create through thought (or His word).

A theologist I am familiar with explained it thusly:

We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

And I infer the following:

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

* * *

I.

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be something logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), unnecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

II.

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing) of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

Gnostics proposed a prolation or pronunciation of God to the material world. Before this prolation occurred, there would have been some unavoidable Silence and Abyss between the Creator and the creation.

Catholic orthodoxy opposes to this conception the coeternity of the Word, engendered from the same substance of God before time began. The Divine Verb was, previous to its current incarnation, the invisible Image of the Creator, but it was also the invisible or rational image of every creation. It acts as a mediator between both realities.

Truth would be inactive and it could not create anything if it wasn't, at the same time, expansive. The self-sufficient truth, then, also implies the true. So, Trinity can be condensed in this sentence: "'The truth (Father) is the truth' (Son) is true (Holy Spirit)". There doesn't exist a simpler way to express the first true proposition, the unfounded fundament of everything.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

III.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

2) However, the Father can't be fully identified with those coeternal ideas, since they presuppose a creative intention and a preceptive order. In the other hand, the will of Creation is an accidental one compared to the eternal, unengendered and self-subsistent potency of God.

Plus, God's providence depends on his will, while his will doesn't depend on providence.

Finally, ideas are naturally conceivable, but God is absolutely inconceivable.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

God, nevertheless, is Christ's fundament.

4) God, an absolutely undetermined potency, engenders the Truth, an absolutely determined potency. At last, it engenders the Spirit, which is the infinite and absolutely determined act, as far as it is coherent with the Truth.

[mule]

Ah..........Ansar. Many times you have seen the verses and you are not interested in a christians honest thought. I think you just really don't like christians much.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ah..........Ansar. Many times you have seen the verses and you are not interested in a christians honest thought. I think you just really don't like christians much.

Nonsense. I have many Christian friends whom I love dearly and respect.

I will get to dear Sephiroth's post is a moment.

:w:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Thank you for your post, Sephiroth. Hopefully, we can have a fruitful and enjoyable discussion.:)

The Trinity is a logical inference based on Christ's status as the Son of God and God's power to create through thought (or His word).

But you also need to throw the Holy Spirit in there, before it becomes Trinity.

I find your theological explanation very interesting. I haven't seen that before.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

Why does the Father have to think the truth? Doesn't the son think it as well?

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

Indeed. But why the need for these thoughts and thinking subjects to begin with? Why the need for the Son? What role does he fullfill that cannot be fullfilled otherwise?

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

This implies that the Holy Spirit is not a being or 'person' as trinitarians assert, but only a state. A state of activity and a state (not amount) of kinetic energy. According to the laws of the universe, there is a low probability that the Holy Spirit will exist. Moreover, there are an infinite number of greater states of activity that exist.

All these complications arise from your attempt to define a noun as a verb, which is simply ridiculous to me.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

Okay. Now tell me, how does a thought call out to its thinker for help? How does the act of thinking travel to different people? Why does the Father only have one thought? What is He always thinking about? Only one of these identities is a 'person', yet trinitarians asser that each is a person. How can a thinker be locked on one thought? And how does someone's thought become their son? And why does the thought die to atone for the sins of humanity?


And why do people pray to the thought and not the thinker?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

If you assert that a truth can only be an entity and not a fact of correctness (as it is supposed to mean), then why can't there be only one truth?

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be something logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), unnecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

Again, you are applying the word truth in a different sense. Truth is a reality. Why can God not be the ultimate reality?

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing) of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

I don't understand what the problem is.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

Just a point of interest, it is not just Islam but Judaism as well.

As a matter of fact, even Christians believe that all previous prophets taught their followers only about ONE God and never mentioned Trinity.

Is Abraham wrong? Noah? Moses? Muhammad?

No. The simplest truth is that there is ONE truth upon which tthe UNIverse rests. It is not a triverse. One Creator sustains it.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

Which truth? Your conclusions are based on a very abstract and vague premise. I agree that there was a specific design for the universe, but this was decided by God.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

I don't see the logical connection between point 2 and point 3.

-----

I am also interested in seeing the response of our Jewish and Atheist members to this.

peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Also, Christianity says that it still believes in One God but we know that this can't be possible.

1. Christ was sent by God. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same,
2. Christ called out to God. The Caller and the One being Called upon cannot be the same.

And there are many other examples, but it demonstrates that this is no longer monotheism but it would be viewed by Islam and Judaism as polytheism.

:w:

[mule]

Ansar,

Why don't you prove it from the bible that christians are polytheistic?

mule

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Because my whole point is that the Bible doesn't support the polytheisitc doctrine of trinity that Christians believe in. Christ can't be God according to the Bible. Read my post here:
http://www.load-islam.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=12

[mule]

Ansar what is the doctrine of the trinity?......a definition please.

[mule]

oh good greif my braty dog just got into my garbage can. :confused:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

oh good greif my braty dog just got into my garbage can. :confused:

Yikes.

Trinity? Well Christians claim it's one being in three persons, but as I have demonstrated (post 8 & 10) it is actually polytheistic.

[mule]

If it says one being then that settles it. Case closed.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

What you are looking for is a triad. A triad is composed of 3 gods. Mormons believe this.

better luck next time.
mule

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Mule, it seems you did not understand my point.

I agree that the BIBLE supports monotheism.

But what Christians believe about Trinity contradicts the Bible. Their trinity is really a triad. Trinitarian Christians disobey the Bible.

There is only ONE God, and Christ is NOT the Son of God.

My point:
trinity=triad
Bible does not support trinity

[mule]

But what Christians believe about Trinity contradicts the Bible. Their trinity is really a triad. Trinitarian Christians disobey the Bible.

That is not true. If you do not like the word trinity use Godhead. A trinity is diferent from a triad even if you do not believe me. I don't disobey the bible. It is all throughout the bible. Even in the beginning.........Let us make man in our image. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..........

I just don't think you want to hear where it is in the bible.

There is only ONE God, and Christ is NOT the Son of God.

of course there is only one God. You of course can believe anything you want.

mule

[mule]

Even the old testament says that he has a son...........

Proverb 30: 4. Who ascended to heaven and descended? Who gathered wind in his fists? Who wrapped the waters in a garment? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and what is the name of his son, if you know?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

That is not true. If you do not like the word trinity use Godhead. A trinity is diferent from a triad even if you do not believe me.

It's not an issue of me believing you or not, it's an issue of logic. I showed you why a trinity is really a triad. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same.

Why didn't you respond to this point? It shows that trinity is really a triad.

I don't disobey the bible. It is all throughout the bible. Even in the beginning.........Let us make man in our image. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..........

The Bible doesn't even mention trinity. And how does making Adam in God's image equal trinity? :confused:

Proverb 30: 4. Who ascended to heaven and descended? Who gathered wind in his fists? Who wrapped the waters in a garment? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and what is the name of his son, if you know?

In response:

Question: Is Jesus the son that is referred to in Proverbs 30:4?


Answer: In an attempt to prove the divine origin of Jesus, Christian theologians have pointed to this proverb as a prooftext for their claim. However, an examination of what the text actually says will dispel any attempt at such a forced interpretation.

After informing us that he does not have all the wisdom and understanding that he should possess, Agur, the son of Jakeh, poses a series of rhetorical questions, the answers to which he realizes all men who seek knowledge should possess:

Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know? (Proverbs 30:4)

Knowing the answers to these questions is to know the fundamentals of all knowledge.

The answer to the question "What is his name?" is given in the Scriptures, where we are informed that only God, the creator of heaven and earth, is in complete control of the forces of nature. Following this question a second question is asked: "What is his son's name?" As the first question is readily answered through a reading of the Scriptures, the source of all true knowledge, so, too, the second question is to be answered by studying the same source. We thus obtain the answer by studying such verses as Exodus 4:22: "Israel is My son, my firstborn"; Deuteronomy 14:1: "You are the children of the Lord your God"; and Hosea 2:1: "It will be said to them: 'You are the children of the living God.'" Consequently, it is Israel that is the name of His son, His firstborn. True, we find elsewhere in the Bible that David and Solomon stand in a filial relationship with God (Psalms 89:27-28, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 28:6). Indeed, this will also be true of the future Messiah. But the right to this title is due, in the final analysis, to the fact that they are the representatives or personifications of Israel as a whole. Hence, it is Israel that is the sole bearer of the august title of the "son" or "firstborn" of God.

Christian theology may argue that any reference to Israel's relationship with God only points to an allegedly greater relationship between God and Jesus, but this argument remains unproved, having no bases in the Jewish Scriptures. It is an argument based on misguided motives, trying to prove the preconceived by forced interpretation. Only in a figurative sense will the future Messiah, when the calms, enter into the "sonship" of God, a position he will share with all of God's chosen servants.

I believe that answers your question. Also, many prophets in the Bible were called son of God. I could show you hundreds of passages. Does this mean that they're all divine? NO! Because son of God actually has a similar meaning to servant of God.

In fact, I would like to ask our Jewish friends for the difference between servant of God and son of God in hebrew.

[mule]

It's not an issue of me believing you or not, it's an issue of logic. I showed you why a trinity is really a triad. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same.

Why didn't you respond to this point? It shows that trinity is really a triad.

I think you are using the logic of man to measure the greatness of God. Haven't you ever read........For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness?

or

the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men?

The Bible doesn't even mention trinity. And how does making Adam in God's image equal trinity?

The Koran does not have the word "royal plural" in it either........

Let us (plural) make man in our(plural) image. So God(singular) created man in his(singular) own image, in the image of God (singular)created he him..........

believe that answers your question. Also, many prophets in the Bible were called son of God. I could show you hundreds of passages. Does this mean that they're all divine? NO! Because son of God actually has a similar meaning to servant of God.

I was not asking you a question. I know what that means. I don't agree with your response. I also don't believe that all the sons of God are divine. Some are servants and others angels and yet in Jesus' case he called God his father.

Jhn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

mule

[SpaceFalcon2001]

Let us (plural) make man in our(plural) image. So God(singular) created man in his(singular) own image, in the image of God (singular)created he him..........

As I have mentioned before, it was well known before christianity existed that that refered to His Holy Court of Him and Angels, in their decision to create the world.

I was not asking you a question. I know what that means. I don't agree with your response. I also don't believe that all the sons of God are divine. Some are servants and others angels and yet in Jesus' case he called God his father.

Jhn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus is not Equal with HaShem, infact we Jews have a prayer called Avienu Malkeinu, Our Father Our King! We say it quite often, calling HaShem our father, yet none of us are magically transformed to become saviours of the universe and new Gods. Perhaps we lack the proper pagan mythology to back us up?

Regardless, the very fact that Jesus broke the sabbath by picking grain and telling others to break the sabbath (in addition to many other instances of Jesus breaking the commandments) shows that he was not a good Jew, and could never be Moshiach:
The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of G-d”. (Isaiah 11:2)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

I think you are using the logic of man to measure the greatness of God.

Can you show me where I am measuring the greatness of God?
I never did. I just showed that the trinity can logically not be considered monotheism.

Now its up to you if you wish to tell me that your religion is illogical, I am not making that conclusion I am simply using the logic given to me by God to analyse the truth.

And the truth is that the trinity is not monotheism.

The Koran does not have the word "royal plural" in it either........

Let us (plural) make man in our(plural) image. So God(singular) created man in his(singular) own image, in the image of God (singular)created he him..........

So you are saying that God using the plural=multiple Gods? Or multiple ;persons' in a God?

Anyway, this use of 'we' according to Islam is the Royal We. You may read this fatwa for more info: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...e&QR=606&dgn=4

In arabic, it is not unusual to see a single arab say "naqool" (we say), when he is only one person. This is not evidence for trinity at all!

And why three? Why not four? Or five?
And why Christ as His son? Why not Moses? Or David? Or John the Baptist?

I need more proof than that, mule.

I was not asking you a question. I know what that means. I don't agree with your response. I also don't believe that all the sons of God are divine. Some are servants and others angels and yet in Jesus' case he called God his father.

many prophets were called son of God.

Wikipedia says about the tile "Son of God":

the title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10).


In Judaism, it is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba). In one midrash, the Torah is said to be God's "daughter" (Leviticus Rabbah xx.)"

How do we know which ones are divine and which aren't? :confused: Is it pick and choose? Is there an election?

Looking forward to your reply,
Ansar

[mule]

SpaceFalcon2001,

As I have mentioned before, it was well known before christianity existed that that refered to His Holy Court of Him and Angels, in their decision to create the world.

You are better using the argument that God is refering to himself as a royal plural.

You are not made in the image of Angels you are made in the image of God.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jesus is not Equal with HaShem, infact we Jews have a prayer called Avienu Malkeinu, Our Father Our King! We say it quite often, calling HaShem our father, yet none of us are magically transformed to become saviours of the universe and new Gods. Perhaps we lack the proper pagan mythology to back us up?

hm.....back then it must meant something different, because the passage says that he was about to get stoned for making himself equal to God. Pagan mythology? Gasp, that's not very nice.

Regardless, the very fact that Jesus broke the sabbath by picking grain and telling others to break the sabbath (in addition to many other instances of Jesus breaking the commandments) shows that he was not a good Jew, and could never be Moshiach:
The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of G-d”. (Isaiah 11:2)

That musta meant that he was Lord of the sabbath.

The Moshiach was a good man. You must consider the new testament reliable.

mule

[SpaceFalcon2001]

You are better using the argument that God is refering to himself as a royal plural.

Sorry, I only have one God.

You are not made in the image of Angels you are made in the image of God.

Here is what has been true since the torah was written:

"And God said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of creation of theworld, 'Let us make Man'" (Tagum Jonathan)

When Moses wrote the Torah, and came to this verse (let us make), which is in the plural and implies that there is more than one creator, he said: "Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divines?" "Write!", HaShem replied. "Whoever wishes to err will err... Instead, let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man, He took counsel with the ministering Angels!" (Midrash)

Thus, HaShem taught that one shouls always consult others before embarking on major new initiatives, and He was not deterred by the possibility that some might choose to find a sacrilegious implication in the verse. The implication of HaShem's response, "Whoever wishes to err," is that one who sincerely seeks the truth will see it; one who looks for an excuse to blasphame will find it.

HaShem spoke with his Angels that he created out of respect to them, to show them that their creation was not meaningless! For HaShem would not want his closest servants to become enamored with the idea that they were not important.

The Moshiach was a good man. You must consider the new testament reliable.

Was? That interesting as none of the prophicies have been fulfilled. Jesus was a sinner, just like everyone else. He broke the sabbath and deserved to be stoned, as a failure for a Jew (and a dead one at that, if he even existed), he has no hope of being anyone's Moshiach.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

SpaceFalcon,

Sorry, I only have one God.

The Royal Plural does not indicate more than one God. It is used in many languages by an authority to refer to themself. So it refers to a single entity.

The problem I have with your interpretation that it refers to angels as well is that God ascribes actions to Himself using "we" which could not be done by angels. Angels are not creators. Angels do not give life and death. Angels are not the kings of the universe.

your interpretation places the angels on an equal level with God, Himself.

:w:

[SpaceFalcon2001]

The problem I have with your interpretation that it refers to angels as well is that God ascribes actions to Himself using "we" which could not be done by angels. Angels are not creators. Angels do not give life and death. Angels are not the kings of the universe.

your interpretation places the angels on an equal level with God, Himself.

:sl: Ah, I am sorry Al-haq that you are confused. True enough, it says "let us make man in our image" (that is to say Man would be fashioned to be self aware, and have a mind of his own), however, I did not say that Angels actually did the creating. "Let us" is simply providing the Angels with respect, to read on:

"Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness... So God created Man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He [singular] created them

Just as Man is unique, so the manner of his creation was unique and exalted. Throughout the chapter, God brought all things into being with an utterance, but He created Man with His own hands, as it were (Rashi)

:w:

[mule]

You're better off using the argument for royal plural.

Sorry, I only have one God.

Sigh........so do I.

Was? That interesting as none of the prophicies have been fulfilled. Jesus was a sinner, just like everyone else. He broke the sabbath and deserved to be stoned, as a failure for a Jew (and a dead one at that, if he even existed), he has no hope of being anyone's Moshiach

At least I can say you believe he existed.

[SpaceFalcon2001]

At least I can say you believe he existed.

Well, that's not too hard to believe. Jesus was probbly real, just like Shabbat Zevi we know was real. Both became acclaimed messiahs, although Jesus has had his name dragged through more mud. Not to mention the texts about Jesus that predate the Gospels that speak of him, not as a God, but as a quote worthy man Read: Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Q.

[mule]

I don't believe in a gospel of Q. I have never read the Gospel of Thomas. Don't know a thing about it.

I have enough work just reading the bible. If I want to predate the gospels I go to the old testament.

[SpaceFalcon2001]

I don't believe in a gospel of Q. I have never read the Gospel of Thomas. Don't know a thing about it.

I have enough work just reading the bible. If I want to predate the gospels I go to the old testament.

When you're ready to move beyond "church approved" writings:
www.earlychristianwritings.com

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: Ah, I am sorry Al-haq that you are confused. True enough, it says "let us make man in our image" (that is to say Man would be fashioned to be self aware, and have a mind of his own), however, I did not say that Angels actually did the creating. "Let us" is simply providing the Angels with respect, to read on:
:w:

Are we in the image of the angels as well? This means that the angels have the same image as God right?

There are many more difficulties withi this interpretation.

And may I ask which jewish groups supports this interpretation? Because all the Jewish websites I have been to use the 'royal we' explanation.
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeli...bereishis.html

[SpaceFalcon2001]

It is (as I quoted) a Midrash, taught to better understand the text's intention, and of the great commentator Rashi.

Further, we are made in the image of HaShem, just as the angels are, for even though they are created purely as servants of HaShem, they too have the ability to think as we do: the ability to rationalize their actions, and make choices.

[mule]

In the bible does it say that angels are made in the image of God?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

...[angels can] make choices.

According to Islam they cannot. They can only do what Allah swt commands them to. They have no choice in any matter. They do what is programmed into their nature.

[SpaceFalcon2001]

According to Islam they cannot. They can only do what Allah swt commands them to. They have no choice in any matter. They do what is programmed into their nature.

Well that is a difference of our theologies I suppose.

My question here is, why do you think Satan is a Jinn if he was to rule over all the angels? Why would Allah bother puting a lower life form in charge of Angels?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't think he was a lower life form, and I don't think he was put in charge of the angels. :) That may be another difference in our theologies. :D

[SpaceFalcon2001]

In the bible does it say that angels are made in the image of God?

Not quite specifically, but we do see them as early as Genesis 18/19 walking sometimes as Men, and other times as Angels, paying attention to customs and the ways of other peoples.

The defenition of an Angel is a function HaShem wishes to be performed, they are not puppets (or why not have HaShem do any job that needs to be done himself?), they need to be independant enough to make the choices that will result in their mission being fulfilled.

[SpaceFalcon2001]

I don't think he was a lower life form, and I don't think he was put in charge of the angels. :) That may be another difference in our theologies. :D

Sorry, I was working off this:

In Islam, Satan is known as Iblis إبليس or "Shaitan شيطان", who was the chief of the angels until he disobeyed Allah by refusing to prostrate himself before Adam because he refused to accept Man as his superior. Islam describes Satan as a Jinn, an entity made of fire, and not of the angels made from light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan, is this not true entirely?

[kadafi]

Sorry, I was working off this:
Quote:
In Islam, Satan is known as Iblis إبليس or "Shaitan شيطان", who was the chief of the angels until he disobeyed Allah by refusing to prostrate himself before Adam because he refused to accept Man as his superior. Islam describes Satan as a Jinn, an entity made of fire, and not of the angels made from light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan, is this not true entirely?

That is not correct. Iblis was the highest of the Jinns before he disobeyed. Now, he is the chief of the Shaytans (Devils).

Please bear in mind that wikis are unreliable sources. They are forum encies that are often very inaccurate.

For more info --:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

Peace!

[SpaceFalcon2001]

Please bear in mind that wikis are unreliable sources. They are forum encies that are often very inaccurate.

Of course it's unreliable, it's a public encyclopedia, that has many advantages and disadvantages to it. The best thing is that you can still go in there and make it correct!

[Burninglight]

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-- in one divine being.

The only thing that happened in the 4th century was Constantine coined the term trinity, but He is not the inventer of the Father calling Jesus His Son nor is he the inventer of the Holy Spirit who is God according to the Bible. If Constantine were never a factor we would still have the message Paul gives. That we are only saved by grace through faith. It is a gift that cannot be earned or worked for.

All have sinned and come short of God's glory and standard; the wages of sin is death, but God's gift is eternal life through Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift that can only be received by faith not by works otherwise a person can take the credit and God doesn't get the glory. Don't blame some 4th century pagan for Christianity or taking from the onesness of God. It was written before Constantine was born: he that has the son has life; he that doesn't have the son, has not life but the wrath of God abides on him. The Lord our God is one.

[Ramadhan]

The only thing that happened in the 4th century was Constantine coined the term trinity,

\
That's not the only thing that happened in the 4th century.
Constantine also burned and destroyed every other gospels that were not canonized by nicea council and any other gospels that contradicted paul's blasphemy.
Constantine also hunted down and exterminated christians who did not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was god or divine.

but He is not the inventer of the Father calling Jesus His Son nor is he the inventer of the Holy Spirit who is God according to the Bible.

And Bible keeps telling you that God also has many sons, not only Jesus (pbuh), but your pride refuses to let you see this.

If Constantine were never a factor we would still have the message Paul gives.

If constantine were never a factor and there had been no nicea council, you would have had majority christians who do no tbelieve that Jesus is God or son of god in literal sense.

That we are only saved by grace through faith. It is a gift that cannot be earned or worked for.

Please bring proof that christians who accepted Jesus as God who came down to earth and died to pay for humans sins are saved.

Has there been any christian who died and came back to earth and told you this?

Your faith is based on blind faith, nothing more, you refuses to see that the bible who you hold is 100% true is also telling the contradiction.
In fact, your faith is mostly based on what Paul said, not on what Jesus (pbuh) even if it's only written in small parts in the gospels.

And you we have shown you that the bible that you have today in your hands is not the same even from the bible(s) they were translated from, let alone from the actual sayings of jesus (pbuh) and his dsiciples.

[Burninglight]

That's not the only thing that happened in the 4th century.
Constantine also burned and destroyed every other gospels that were not canonized by nicea council and any other gospels that contradicted paul's blasphemy.
Constantine also hunted down and exterminated christians who did not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was god or divine.

proof it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan...d_Christianity

[Hamza Asadullah]

proof it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan...d_Christianity

I would strongly recommend anby Christian to read the following:

The Lost Books of the Bible

The Church View:
In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered inspired.

The Bible View:
There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forces. The language of the King James Bible is obscure and limited.

An Introduction

Human history has allowed precious few ancient religious writings to survive the onslaught of the more aggressive and powerful religious forces, which seek only to gain territory and wealth. Genocide and cultural eradication always go hand in hand with missionary zeal. In many cases every trace of the conquered society's religious writings, practices, icons, and even buildings were destroyed, in the name of conversion from worship of gods considered evil, and religious customs labeled as heresies. What generally results from past crusades is the conqueror's religion replacing or predominantly blending with the conquered culture's former religious practice, making the its religion almost unrecognizable. Christianity falls into the latter category, having been the victim of the Roman Empire, under the Emperor Constantine, who blended the Christian Church with the institutionalized "pagan" practices of Rome and eliminated any semblance of either the Jewish religious influence or the first church Jesus established during his ministry.

The First Reformation

After solidifying his position to gain complete control of the western portion of the empire in 312, the Emperor Constantine instituted the Edict of Milan, a "Magna Carta of religious liberty," which eventually changed the Empire’s religion and put Christianity on an equal footing with paganism. Almost overnight the position of the Christian Church was reversed from persecuted to legal and accepted. Constantine began to rely on the church for support, and it on him for protection. The Church and the Empire formed an alliance, which remains to this day. Very rapidly, the laws and policies of the Empire and the doctrine of the Church became one with Constantine as the interpreter of both law and policy. This was accomplished by eliminating hundreds of books thought to be against "Church" doctrine and watering down what remained by blending Christian beliefs and practice with long established Roman sanctioned pagan worship.

Constantine believed that the Church and the State should be as close as possible. Constantine tolerated pagan practices, keeping pagan gods on coins and retaining his pagan high priest title "Pontifex Maximus" in order to maintain popularity with his former subjects. In 330 he began an assault on paganism but used a clever method of persuasion to force people to follow the laws by combining pagan worship with Christianity. He made December 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the official holiday now celebrated as the birthday of Jesus. He also replaced the weekly day of worship by making rest on Saturday unlawful and forcing the new religion to honor the first, not the seventh day, as a day of rest. As a way of defining his concept of the new universal religion he simply classified everything "Jewish" to be an abomination. Considering almost every aspect of the Bible is "Jewish" by association, every doctrinal biblical principle was changed or eliminated. After 337 Constantine increased his purging of the more obvious aspects of paganism.

Through a series of Universal Councils, he and his successors completely altered doctrine without regard to biblical edict, set up a church hierarchy of his own design, and established a set of beliefs and practices, which are the basis for all mainstream Bible-based churches. The separation of the Protestants and the Roman Church caused a physical split but the beliefs and practices established by Constantine remained almost identical. Very little has changed since the 4th century Councils changed the face of Christianity. An effective practice instituted was the purging of any book in the formerly accepted biblical works, over 80% of the total, that church leaders felt did not fit within their new concept of Christianity. The doctrines and practices remaining in the surviving books were effectively eradicated by simply changing them by replacing clear scripture with Church-sanctioned doctrine.

Forbidden Not Lost

Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.

What we now have in Bible-based religion, whether labeled as "Catholic", or Protesting Catholic, known as “Protestant", is unrecognizable form either the Hebrew religion, now known as the Jewish religion, or the church established at Jerusalem by the Apostles and disciples of Jesus. The practices of this first church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown, despite being clearly outlined in the existing New Testament. In its place are doctrines and practices first established in the first "true" Reformation of Christianity begun by Constantine.

There is much controversy over how many books the Bible should actually contain but considering the depth and scope of those few works remaining in the "accepted" Bible, we see but a fragment of incredible wisdom and history. A study of the Lost Books of the Bible is incomplete without a clear understanding that this is not a matter of simple loss, but a campaign by the Roman Catholic Church to purge books variously classified as heretical, dangerous, and corruptive. To the public they are “lost”; to the Church they are “forbidden”. Although the exact number of books purged is known only to the Church, and not shared knowledge, some can be determined by the discovery of their presence in the church prior to the reformation resulting in what became known as the Roman "Universal" Church.
One of the more obvious forms of discovery comes from the surviving books themselves, which sight works not present in the existing collection. Also many do not know that the Apocryphal books were actually included in the King James translation until they were officially purged by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885. Other writings also connect many books to the first church. Whatever the number before the purge by the formation of Catholicism by Constantine; even one lost book is a great loss indeed.

We claim no expertise concerning the authenticity of any the lost books and leave this judgment to the reader. We do, however, strongly reject the self-proclaimed authority of any dogmatically motivated and church-controlled mortals who think themselves qualified to make such decisions. One of the most logical and realistic concepts in the Bible is the caution that one should prove all things. We believe that proving the veracity of a given thing is an individual responsibility, which must not, and should not be the duty of those who think themselves better judges.


Read more here: http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm

[MustafaMc]

What we now have in Bible-based religion, whether labeled as "Catholic", or Protesting Catholic, known as “Protestant", is unrecognizable form either the Hebrew religion, now known as the Jewish religion, or the church established at Jerusalem by the Apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Interesting article, but the site itself is more than a bit flaky - UFOs and such.

[Burninglight]

I would strongly recommend anby Christian to read the following:

The Lost Books of the Bible

The Church View:
In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered inspired.

The Bible View:
There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forces. The language of the King James Bible is obscure and limited.

These are not proof. BTW, do you have the original Quran?

[Ramadhan]

These are not proof. BTW, do you have the original Quran?

yes, we do have the original qur'an.

You can view them at

www.qur'an.com


do you have the original bible?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Interesting article, but the site itself is more than a bit flaky - UFOs and such.

Its a play on the word UFO to mean unidentified books of the NT. Which Christian scholars themselves confirm today that the gospels are written by unknown men at an unknown time. Therefore they are like UFO'S because they are unidentified foreign objects which should never have been put together with the word of God.

[Hamza Asadullah]

These are not proof. BTW, do you have the original Quran?

Yes certainly, i have one on my shelf.