Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Debate how Islam compares to other faiths and religions.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends

I think generally the Jews and the Muslims agree that YHWH and Allah is the same Creator-God Allah YHWH. Since Jesus was never a Christian himself; he was a Jew; so he won't dislike being a Servant of Allah.

You know this is mentioned in Quran; and Allah is a witness to it; He alone is sufficient as a witness:

[4:173] Surely, the Messiah will never disdain to be a servant of Allah, nor will the angels near unto God; and whoso disdains to worship Him and feels proud, He will gather them all to Himself.
[4:174] Then as for those who believed and did good works, He will give them their rewards in full and will give them more out of His bounty; but as for those who disdained and were proud, He will punish them with a painful punishment. And they shall find for themselves beside Allah no friend nor helper.
http://www.*you_got_to_be_kidding*/quran/search2/sh ... &verse=172" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quran mentions a number of attributes of the Creator-God Allah YHWH; that would define in detail the person of God Allah YHWH. One who likes to compare the true concept should compare the attributes.

It is obvious that Muslims and Jews don't believe in the Trinity which was later invented by Paul and/or Church; it had nothing to do with Jesus. Trinity is a mistake of the Catholics and Protestants; better relinquish it as soon as possible to the pleasure of Jesus. However, there is no compulsion; one should do it as a free will when convinced.

I love Jesus and Mary a mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Jesus was a polytheist, if you were to understand him according to the earliest available sources. He believed in multiple gods, and also believed that people were also gods. It was his beliefs that got him in trouble with the traditional Jews, who them put together a plan to have Jesus executed by the Romans.

The Jesus and Mary whom are mentioned in the Quran have nothing to do with the Jesus and Mary mentioned in the Christian scriptures. There are no similarities between them at all. It's like completely different people, and the problem with the Quran's version of Jesus and Mary is that there is absolutely no supporting evidence that the Jesus and Mary in the Quran ever existed. There are no historical records whatsoever. There are no records outside the Quran to corroborate what the Quran says. Therefore, what the Quran says cannot be demonstrated to be true.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by manfred »

Ok, there seems to be rather a lot of confusion around on this topic. First, I have never heard of any sect who worshiped Mary as a goddess, I wonder if I could have the name?

Then parrsurrey, you are not relaying Marie's word accurately. She said nothing about exaggerations of Mary in any denomination. Certainly neither catholic nor orthodox Christian worship Mary as a goddess.

Next, I am also not sure where this idea that Jesus was a "polytheist" comes from. "Baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" does not mean that Jesus assumed there to be 3 gods. That would be very odd for any kind of Jew, even an extraordinary one like Jesus, and that idea is not borne out by the gospels.

We are still, after all that, waiting for a response to the original question posed to parrsurrey: The quran tells us that "trinity" means "God, Jesus and Mary", a kind of divine family snapshot.

This is not not, and never was Christian teaching. So how come that the quran supposedly God's unfailing word, made such a basic mistake?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

manfred wrote:Next, I am also not sure where this idea that Jesus was a "polytheist" comes from. "Baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" does not mean that Jesus assumed there to be 3 gods. That would be very odd for any kind of Jew, even an extraordinary one like Jesus, and that idea is not borne out by the gospels.
It can be demonstrated to be true from the gospel record, with the very words of Jesus himself. Below, you will find an exegesis and translation of mine beginning at John 10:30. Please read it very carefully.

The Meaning of John 10.30
by Fathom

One of the key problems with translating the original Koine Greek texts into any other language including English is the translation of what is known as the "idiom." The word "idiom" means a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people or culture.

This can lead to serious problems in comprehension which in turn can lead to the translator being mislead in his interpretation of the text. You see, no language is ever truly translated, but instead it must be "interpreted." The word for word translation is not nearly enough for comprehension, therefore an interpretation is also required.

Yet, in the case of ancient texts such as the Koine Greek, another problem which exists with the translation of the Gospels is the fact that the Koine Greek language became all but extinct 1500 years ago, and thus the idiom were all but lost also. What this means is that the earliest translators of the gospel were faced with the daunting task of attempting to interpret from an extinct language while in possession of minimal knowledge of that language, as well as the idiom of the people of 1st century Jerusalem and Greece.

Yet, due to modern discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi Library and other ancient Greek texts, a greater knowledge of the multiple meanings of specific Koine Greek words and phrases has enabled us to re-examine the translation/interpretation of specific bible verses by virtue of modern scholarship verses 16th century scholarship, such as the King James version translation. The more ancient texts we find, the more we can compare certain phrases which enable us to grasp a better understanding of idiom.

Therefore, I will attempt to provide a thesis regarding the idioms for John 10.30 for those of you who read this, and share with you what I have learned over the years. Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version:

Joh 10.30 I and the Father are one!
Joh 10.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10.32 Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?
Joh 10.33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.
Joh 10.34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?"
Joh 10.35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
Joh 10.36 do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?


Now we will look at each verse independently and explore for the idioms, particularly for John 10.30.

In John 10.30 some of the context can be used to help us understand what is meant by the use of the word "one" at the end. It is generally agreed among scholars that the word "one" refers to a state of being in which Jesus is claiming that he is of the same essense/nature/substance/purpose of the Father. Yet, the Christian religion uses this verse in their claim that Jesus is saying that he is God, as in the Supreme Deity. They base this belief upon the capitalized use of the word "God" which the Jews used in their accusation against Jesus in John 10.33.

In English, in regards to the Christian religion at least, when the word "God" is capitalized it always refers to the Supreme Deity. English grammar and punctuation developed like any other language, with improvements in grammar and punctuation occuring over hundreds of years. Names became capitalized, as well as places and some other things. It's an innovation which evolved in an effort to increase comprehension and meaning.

However, the original texts of the Gospels did not have this form of capitalization and grammar. The word "God" which we see in the English for John 10.33 has no capitalization in the Koine Greek. If translated totally into lower-case, the Gospel would display every use of the word "God" as "god." Therefore, with this reasoning we can determine that the English capitalized used of "God" in John 10.30 was the effort of Christian scribes to invoke their comprehension of that word as refering to the Supreme Deity.

But what if it actually does not refer to the Supreme Deity? Is it possible that it could refer to something other than the Supreme Deity? Before we examine that possibility, let us go back and have another look at John 10.30 to seek out if the idiom currently agreed upon infers anything else.

When we examine the context we see two distinct entities being referenced; The Father and Jesus. Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is in John 14.28.

c) With John 14.28 considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus is not saying that the is the Father or the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.

So now in an effort to determine which 1 of the 2 in the above e) is the truth, we will examine the accepted idiom for John 10.30 to see what it infers.

In John 10.30, the Koine Greek word used for Father is transliterated as "pater." This means a parent or father either physically or figuratively. Since Jesus is referring to God as Father, then he is making a distinction between himself and the entity of Father. So let us reason:

a) Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father in John 14.28, and therefore we have evidence to support that he may also be doing it in John 10.30.

b) Since Jesus regards God as a Father in John 10.30, it infers that Jesus is a son of God the Father.

c) Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god, since the idiom describes the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, but yet is distinguished from the Supreme Deity.

d) If you are son of an elephant, you would be an elephant. If you are the son of a lion, you would be a lion. Therefore, if you are the son of a god, then you would be a god.

(please forgive the d) analogy above, but it was required to get the point across.)

Therefore, with reason we can determine what the idiom from John 10.30 infers as so:

1.) Jesus claims God as a Father, and that they are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

2.) Therefore since Jesus claims God as a Father, it follows that he claims he is a son of God the Father.

3.) Therefore it follows that Jesus claims to be a god, since a son is a product of its father consisting of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

So now let's test this again with John 10.33 while using a small-case "god" in place of the interpolated upper-case "God:"

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."


With the lowercase "god" in place of the uppercase, we still have the reason why the Jews would want to stone him. The reason is still identical as it would be with the uppercase God; it breaks the Jewish first commandment as far as those Jews were concerned. So far this appears to be working without any problems, but what else can we determine to help verify that the lower-case "god" is the intended meaning of John 10.33? Let's take a close look at what Jesus says in John 10.34 as a response to the accusation of him presenting himself as a god in John 10.33:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34: - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'


What we see above is very interesting. When the lowercase use of "god" is used in John 10.33, Jesus replies to it with a lowercase use of "gods" in John 10.34. This completely follows the accusation of him regarding himself as a god. However, when we examine John 10.33 with the uppercase use of God, then Jesus' use of the lowercase "gods" in John 10.34 is markedly non sequitur. It simply does not follow because if the Jews are accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then why does Jesus defend himself with a partial quote of a Psalm 82.6 which mentions the lowercase "gods" which does not refer to the Supreme Deity?

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity. But the scripture he did use does not defend against any accusation of him presenting himself as a Supreme Deity at all. In fact, when we fully look at the Psalm Jesus used to defend himself, we see this:

Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.

Jesus used the scripture above to defend against the accusations of the Jews that he had presented himself as a god, but what is interesting about the Psalm is that the rest of it also says "and all of you sons of the Most High." The rest of that Psalm would also address the other inference from John 10.30 that Jesus has claimed to be a son of God the Father. Hense, so far it appears that Jesus' use of that Psalm as a means of defense against the accusation of the Jews addresses all three idioms postulated in John 10.30. But can we use any other supporting evidence to justify our position on the 3 idioms we postulated in John 10.30, as well as the postulation that the lower-case "god" was to be the intended meaning in John 10.33? Let's now take a look at John 10.33 - 10:36, with the Psalm in its entirety worked in:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34 - 36 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods 9i]and all of you sons of the Most High[/i]?' Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"


When we examine the quote above, we again see that in John 10.35 Jesus continues to use the lower case "gods" as a means against the accusation made by the Jews in John 10.33. Jesus is still not addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, but is clearly addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as a deity; a god. Jesus is arguing to the effect that since the Jews' own book shows where God had previously regarded people in the past as "gods," then why would his accusers have any problem if Jesus also regarded himself as a god.

But what is even more revealing about the quote above is the reason Jesus gave for the Jews' accusation of blasphemy against him:

... because I said I am the son of God?

But where did Jesus previously say he was the son of God in which it caused the Jews to want to stone him for blasphemy?

You will notice that it was not until immediately after Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Since we do not see the direct statement of "I am the son of God" anywhere previous to John 10.36, then what we are left with is 10.30 as being the only logical place where the words of I and the Father are one can invoke the understanding as also meaning "I am the son of God." So again, let us reason:

a) In John 10.30 Jesus says that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

b) The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for the blasphemy of breaking the 1st Commandment because of the connotation that Jesus claimed to be a god.

c) Perplexed by the actions of the Jews, Jesus asks them why they were about to stone him.

d) The Jews explained the blasphemy accusation was because they understood Jesus' words as him claiming to be a god.

e) Jesus defends his position of being a god by quoting a Psalm which demonstrated where God had regarded others as gods and sons of God.

f) Jesus continues to defend his position of being a god with reason by stating that since it was acceptable for God himself to regard persons in the past as gods, then the Jews should have no problem with him regarding himself in like manner.

g) Jesus shows us that the reason the Jews were going to stone him was because he had said that he was the son of God, which completely contradicts the Christian belief that the word "God" in 10.33 refers to the Supreme Deity. The contradiction is explained because Jesus gives the reason of "because I said I am the son of God" at the end of John 10.36, which does not jibe with the Christian claim that the reason was because the Jews had accused him of claiming to be the Supreme Deity in John 10.33.

h) Therefore, the words of "because I said I was the son of God" could only jibe with a lower-case use of "god" in John 10.33, which in turn leads straight back to the connotations of John 10.30 of him being of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

So now let us put the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36 in order to see the final product:

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god!"

John 10.34 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'

John 10.35 - 36 - Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"



In conclusion, I believe that the Christian interpolation of a capitalized "God" in John 10.33 confuses the entire meaning of what occurred in the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36. By accepting the capitalized "God" in John 10.33, it renders all following defenses made by Jesus as being non sequitur, because his defenses do not appear to address the accusation of him claiming to be a Supreme Deity. On the contrary, if John 10.33 is accepted as being a lower-case "god," which does not refer to the Supreme Deity, then all of Jesus' following defense arguments address that accusation perfectly.

Therefore, my official position is that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus in John 10.30 as a claim of him being the Supreme Deity, but instead understood him as claiming to be a god, and a son of God the Father.

Hence, the evidence above demonstrates that not only did Jesus regard himself as being a god, he also believed and demonstrated with textual evidence that God Himself regarded other people as gods according to the aforementioned Psalm.

Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, and Jesus clearly demonstrates his belief in polytheism, and used examples of polytheism from the Jews' very own scriptures.

There are many more examples in the bible of Polytheism, notably right on the first page of Genesis. We can also discuss that if you like.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by debunker »

There are many more examples in the bible of Polytheism, notably right on the first page of Genesis. We can also discuss that if you like.
I read a lot in the Bible, I saw blasphemy, but NOT polytheism. Jesus is NOT the only son of God in the Bible and this title, as I understood it from my reading of the Bible, is only honorary. HOWEVER, your presentation was pretty convincing. Apart from the gospel of John, did you notice elsewhere any indication of polytheism? You seem to think that you did, so how about you start a new thread in the religion section, under the title: Polytheism in the Bible?
account suspended for inappropriate language

paarsurrey
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:12 pm

Jesus claimed no God-Head for himself

Post by paarsurrey »

Hi friends

Jesus only talked metaphorically when he talked of God- the Father and of himself as Son of God, which later clever Paul and Church made Trinity from. Please read the following paragraph of John 8 clearly.

John 8:36-50

36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus says to the Jews that they were sons of the devil or devil was their father; in the same sense as Jesus was son of God meaning obedient to Him, or YHWH was his father Lord meaning Jesus followed his Lord/God's Word revealed on him.

It is very easy to understand that Jesus was not meaning physically for himself and the Jews, it was all metaphoric. Cunning Paul and his associates only exploited such metaphoric expressions for their own ulterior motives; and they invented Trinity from these expressions; which has obviously nothing to do with Jesus.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim;bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/sects/religions Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists and working for their unity and brotherhood.

http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

paarsurrey
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by paarsurrey »

Hi friends

Jesus only talked metaphorically when he talked of God- the Father and of himself as Son of God, which later clever Paul and Church made Trinity from. Please read the following paragraph of John 8 clearly.

John 8:36-50

36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus says to the Jews that they were sons of the devil or devil was their father; in the same sense as Jesus was son of God meaning obedient to Him, or YHWH was his father Lord meaning Jesus followed his Lord/God's Word revealed on him.

It is very easy to understand that Jesus was not meaning physically for himself and the Jews, it was all metaphoric. Cunning Paul and his associates only exploited such metaphoric expressions for their own ulterior motives; and they invented Trinity from these expressions; which has obviously nothing to do with Jesus.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim;bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/sects/religions Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists and working for their unity and brotherhood.

http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Jesus claimed no God-Head for himself

Post by Cassie »

Selective quotation won't help your cause. Remember John 3.

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


What does "only begotten son of god" mean?

User avatar
ixolite
Posts: 3089
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:19 am
Location: Berlin, D
Contact:

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by ixolite »

paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends

I think generally the Jews and the Muslims agree that YHWH and Allah is the same Creator-God Allah YHWH.
Errr...no, they don't.
Since Jesus was never a Christian himself;
Well, duh, since Christian means follower of Christ and Jesus is supposed to be Christ, he can't be one.
he was a Jew; so he won't dislike being a Servant of Allah.
Since Jews believe in YHVH and not Allah I am pretty sure he would dislike it.
You know this is mentioned in Quran; and Allah is a witness to it; He alone is sufficient as a witness:
Image
Quran mentions a number of attributes of the Creator-God Allah YHWH; that would define in detail the person of God Allah YHWH. One who likes to compare the true concept should compare the attributes.
Yeah, lets compare:

OT = do not kill
NT = love your enemies
Koran = slay the unbelievers

:roll:
It is obvious that Muslims and Jews don't believe in the Trinity
Duh, if they would, they would be Christians.

User avatar
ixolite
Posts: 3089
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:19 am
Location: Berlin, D
Contact:

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by ixolite »

paarsurrey wrote:
Spoiler! :
Hi friends

Jesus only talked metaphorically when he talked of God- the Father and of himself as Son of God, which later clever Paul and Church made Trinity from. Please read the following paragraph of John 8 clearly.

John 8:36-50

36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus says to the Jews that they were sons of the devil or devil was their father; in the same sense as Jesus was son of God meaning obedient to Him, or YHWH was his father Lord meaning Jesus followed his Lord/God's Word revealed on him.

It is very easy to understand that Jesus was not meaning physically for himself and the Jews, it was all metaphoric. Cunning Paul and his associates only exploited such metaphoric expressions for their own ulterior motives; and they invented Trinity from these expressions; which has obviously nothing to do with Jesus.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Stop doing that.

M.

User avatar
Marie
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Marie »

manfred wrote:Ok, there seems to be rather a lot of confusion around on this topic. First, I have never heard of any sect who worshiped Mary as a goddess, I wonder if I could have the name?

Then parrsurrey, you are not relaying Marie's word accurately. She said nothing about exaggerations of Mary in any denomination. Certainly neither catholic nor orthodox Christian worship Mary as a goddess.

Next, I am also not sure where this idea that Jesus was a "polytheist" comes from. "Baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" does not mean that Jesus assumed there to be 3 gods. That would be very odd for any kind of Jew, even an extraordinary one like Jesus, and that idea is not borne out by the gospels.

We are still, after all that, waiting for a response to the original question posed to parrsurrey: The quran tells us that "trinity" means "God, Jesus and Mary", a kind of divine family snapshot.

This is not not, and never was Christian teaching. So how come that the quran supposedly God's unfailing word, made such a basic mistake?
The of this sect was the Collyridians:

Collyridianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Collyridians)
Jump to: navigation, search

Collyridianism was an obscure early Christian heretical movement whose adherents apparently worshipped Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The main source of information about them comes from their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about AD 375. According to Epiphanius, certain women in then-largely-pagan Arabia syncretized indigenous beliefs with the worship of Mary, and offered little cakes or bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις – a word occurring in the Septuagint) to her. Epiphanius states that Collyridianism originated in Thrace and Scythia, although it may have first travelled to those regions from Syria or Asia Minor. Little else is known.

In his book The Virgin, however, Geoffrey Ashe puts forward the hypothesis that the Collyridians represented a parallel Marian religion to Christianity, founded by first-generation followers of the Virgin Mary, whose doctrines were later subsumed by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 432. Averil Cameron has been more sceptical about whether a cult even existed, noting that Epiphanius is the only source for the cult, and that later authors simply refer back to his text.[1] Some women interested in feminist spirituality claim the Collyridians as precursors.
[edit] Collyridianism in Muslim-Christian Dialogue

The Collyridians have become of interest in some recent Muslim-Christian religious discussions in reference to the Islamic concept of the Christian Trinity. The debate hinges on some verses in the Qur'an, primarily [Qur'an 5:73], [Qur'an 5:75], and [Qur'an 5:116] in the sura Al-Ma'ida, which have been taken to imply that Christians considered Mary part of the Trinity. This doctrine is uncommon among Christian or quasi-Christian groups, and has led to non-Muslim speculation that Muhammad was mistaken, confusing Collyridian beliefs with those of orthodox Christianity.

Some Muslim scholars reject the interpretation that the Qur'an is said to assert that Mary is part of the orthodox Christian Trinity, as the relevant verses can be seen as simply emphasizing the purely human nature of Mary to reinforce the Islamic belief in the purely human nature of Jesus. Other scholars point to the fact that some Muslim verses are highly contextual, dealing with circumstances and situations in which the Qur'an was revealed. According to this view, at a time when the divinity of Mary was still associated with Christian belief because of the heritage of the Collyridian heresy, these verses simply reject the Collyridian Christian belief as false, whilst also serving as general restatement of the central Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, the pure oneness of God.
[edit]

Mary was also viewed as part of the trinity amongst some heretical Christian sects of Arabia.

paarsurrey
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by paarsurrey »

Marie wrote: Mary was also viewed as part of the trinity amongst some heretical Christian sects of Arabia.
Hi friend Marie

Thank you for this informative post.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Regards
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim;bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/sects/religions Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists and working for their unity and brotherhood.

http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

debunker wrote:
There are many more examples in the bible of Polytheism, notably right on the first page of Genesis. We can also discuss that if you like.


Apart from the gospel of John, did you notice elsewhere any indication of polytheism?
Yes, as mentioned, it is evidenced right on the very first page of the Holy Bible in the Book of Genesis. I will demonstrate to you that not only does it teach polytheism, but also that there are two gods, with one being male, and the other being female.

First, let us look at the very first verse in the Holy Bible:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The verse above is what you see in a modern English Christian bible. You will also see it in an English Jewish Torah. However, when we look at the word "God" used in that word in the ancient Hebrew language, we see something quite different. The word "God" is translated from the ancient Hebrew word "'elohiym," and the definition for 'elohiym is listed below:

elohiym: gods in the ordinary sense; Specifically used in the plural of the supreme God.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstron ... 4.htm#S430" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a word which denotes plural, meaning more than one. But because of the Jews' and Christians' belief in monotheism, the true translation of that verse is being ignored in support of the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews and the Christians. The true translation of that verse is as follows:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth.

So what other evidence can we find to support the argument above? We do not need to look very far, for again right on the very first page of Genesis we see the following English translation. Please pay careful attention to the words I underline below:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

Do you see the underlined words above, "Us and Our?" These words are plural, indicating more than one god. If it was only one god, why speak in terms that clearly indicate more than one god? This verse clearly and conclusively demonstrates a polytheistic belief system. Also, the word "God" written in the verse above is again "elohiym,' and it should be translated as follows:

Gen 1:26 And the gods said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

Now you can see how it makes perfect sense when the proper translation is put in place in that verse. Without the proper translation of "the gods" in that verse, we have the verse in a state of contradiction with the singular non-plural use of God because the singular non-plural use of God contradicts the plurals words of "Us and Our." Look at those two translations again below and study them carefully:

A: Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.
B: Gen 1:26 And the gods said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

Which one makes more logical sense?

So can we take this a step further and again determine that this is polytheistic? Yes, and not only that, we can also demonstrate that polytheistic nature of these gods are male and female; masculine and feminine. Here is the next evidence, and once again from the very first page of Genesis. Again, it comes from the English translation, which I will re-translate afterwards:

Gen 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.

The above is what you see in the Holy Bible, but let me translate that again by once again translating "God" to "the gods," as well as remove the words "His" and "He" from the translation above, because they do not exist in the original Hebrew:

Gen 1:27 And the gods created humankind in the gods' image; in the image of the gods, the gods created humankind. The gods created humankind as male and female.

The actual only words in the ancient Hebrew of that verse that can be translated into English are the following:

The gods created humankind image. Image of the gods created. Male and female created.

The above are the only words that are directly translated from the ancient Hebrew. None of the other words that you see in the normal English translation actually exist. Those other words were only put in as a means of an "interpretation," and not an actual translation, nor an accurate interpretation at all.

But what you see in the actual translation, and with the knowledge that "elohiym" is plural," is that the gods created humankind in their image, and the image the gods created as humankind were male and female. Therefore,it only stands to reason that if the gods created male and female humans in the image of the gods, then the gods themselves must be male and female. This not only demonstrates polytheism again, but also demonstrates the existence of at least 2 gods, and they are male and female.

We can discuss further if you like.

Peace.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by debunker »

The actual only words in the ancient Hebrew of that verse that can be translated into English are the following:

The gods created humankind image. Image of the gods created. Male and female created.
Ok. When you put the whole picture togeather, I can see your point.

However, as you know in some languages, Our, We, etc can be used by a king or a ruler. (I can relate since this is the case in Arabic too). You cannot judge other languages from the point of view of your language.

And since I know nothing about Hebrew, I cannot judge what the word Elohim means.. We have Hebrew speakers in this forum, maybe they can shed some light on this. But the link you provided does confirm my suspicion that Elohim is only used to emphasize the greatness of the Supreme God.

So, honestly, I don't think this is a very good example to prove polytheism in the Bible (unlike the verses from John).

Anyway, is there any other CLEAR CUT proof for polytheism? By the way, I had a similar conversation with Hux and he didn't show any good evidence.. (in your case, however, so far you convinced me only using verses from John).

PS. I liked very much your emphasizing the idea that a text from another language can never be exactly translated but it must be interpreted too. Very true.
account suspended for inappropriate language

Bob
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Café de Flore, Paris

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Bob »

Marie wrote:
Bob wrote:Hello parrsurrey,

Can you please explain to us why the Koran states:
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

This surely is the Trinity according to the Koran, namely, Jesus, God and Mary. However for Christians, the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and NOT Mary who is not considered to be divine.
There were many heretical Christian sects in Arabia, one of them worshipped Mary as a goddess.
So that means that this verse no longer has any relevance then? It has been abrogated by history. And what about Christians outside Arabia? How come Allah, the Lord of the Universe, seems to be particularly interested in what was going on in Arabia in the 7th Century?

I thought the Koran's messages were supposed to be eternally true and not limited by time and space. Was I wrong? :)

User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

debunker wrote:
The actual only words in the ancient Hebrew of that verse that can be translated into English are the following:

The gods created humankind image. Image of the gods created. Male and female created.
Ok. When you put the whole picture togeather, I can see your point.

However, as you know in some languages, Our, We, etc can be used by a king or a ruler. (I can relate since this is the case in Arabic too). You cannot judge other languages from the point of view of your language.
What you described above is called "presentism," a fallacy in historical analysis. It occurs when a person in his present day attempts to understand a historical event via means of present day comprehension.

However, there is absolutely no evidence available to suggest that that is what I have done. However, you have demonstrated presentism in your thinking because there is no precedent in the Jewish culture where a singular God refers to Himself with the plural use of "Our, We" etc.

The strongest point in my argument is that the verse states clearly that males and females were created in the image of the gods. Since modern Jews and Christians regard God as male, then the image of the gods that were created as male and female do not constitute the same monotheistic god. It absolutely confirms the existence of male and female gods, otherwise we have a massive contradiction.

Both Jews and Christians totally ignore the first chapter of Genesis when considering the creation of humankind. Instead, they refer to the Adam and Eve story for reference in the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Yet, what must be understood is that the male and female in Genesis Chp 1 were created on the 6th day, while Adam was not created until after the 7th day, chronologically. The male and female in Gen Chp 1 were created in the image of the gods, but Adam was created from the earth, and Eve was created from Adam.

Why is this clue important? Because the name "Jehovah" was first introduced in Genesis Chapter 2- 2.5, as opposed to Elohim in Chapter 1- 1.1. What we have are two entirely different names for God, and two entirely different creation stories in Gen Chapter 1 and Gen Chapter 2. This suggests two entirely different creation stories which clearly contradict each other when analysed, and suggests 2 entirely different points of belief and origins.

In short, two different religious beliefs have been combined in Genesis Chapter 1 and 2. One is polytheistic in nature, and the other is monotheistic.

We will talk later of the rest of which you wrote.

star
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by star »

It is obvious that Muslims and Jews don't believe in the Trinity which was later invented by Paul and/or Church; it had nothing to do with Jesus. Trinity is a mistake of the Catholics and Protestants; better relinquish it as soon as possible to the pleasure of Jesus
1.You dont have any proof that Trinity was invented by Paul and or Chruch , even you cannot decide who to blame :)
2.Indeed Trinity has lots to do with Jesus becouse he claimed to be God .

Attempt to set Paul against Jesus


Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus. Of course, this is not true. Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him. So, Paul met Jesus. Also, Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words.

In addition, many Muslims claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and that Paul is the one who wrote that Jesus was God. First of all, if they admit that Paul wrote that Jesus was God, then remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. Nevertheless, they sometimes assert that Paul hijacked Christianity and took it over and made Jesus into something He was not. This claim is false.

Perhaps the primary area where Muslims think Paul and Jesus contradict is in the area of who Jesus is. Paul states that Jesus is God in flesh: Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form." Muslims assert that no where in the Gospels did Jesus claim to be God. Therefore, they claim, Paul's words are not true and the Bible is not trustworthy.

This attack by Muslims is an attack based out of opinion. Jesus did claim to be God. In John 8:56-59, it says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."3 Why did the Pharisees want to kill Jesus? They explain their reason in John 10:33 when they say, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," (KJV). Whether or not the Muslim will accept this, let alone agree that this is correct, matters little because his presupposition will not allow him to accept, no matter what. Nevertheless, the text clearly states that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Also, consider John 5:18 where the Apostle John says, "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," (KJV). In this verse Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees thought He was breaking the Sabbath law. John the Apostle also states that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was "making himself equal with God." The Muslim will always find a way to argue out of these texts. But, two facts remain. First, Jesus claimed to be God. Second, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was God and the Muslims agree with them.There are other areas that the Muslims will say are where Jesus and Paul do not agree, but when they bring it up, always ask for an example. Each time I've done this, I've discovered that the Muslim did not have a sufficient understanding of what the text is saying. Remember, always read the context.

star
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by star »

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants
by paarsurrey » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:25 pm
Marie wrote:Matthew 28:16-20

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


Hi friend Marie

1. Did Jesus himself write the above sentences?
2. Did Jesus memorize the above sentences himself and told his followers to memorize them also?
3. Did Jesus dictate the above sentences to Matthew to publish them on Jesus’ behalf?
4. Did Jesus authorize Matthew to write for Jesus whatever Matthew wanted to write?

Please make us wise on the above.


Here is good example when Muslims are putting Islamic criteria of inspiration to Christian faith.

1.Jesus wasn’t a writer , he was preaching ,he was spreading the WORD not giving leaflets or he didn’t own a book shop. Jesus DIDN’T WRITE ANYTHING.HE WAS PREACHING GOSPEL- GOOD NEWS.
2.Jesus didn’t memorize anything ,he was preaching. And as everyone see he told to his followers to go baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit I think that this is very simple to understand. No need for explanation.
3.Matthew was chosen by God and inspired by God to write down the Gospel. He was directly inspired by God to write down this sentence.
4.Matthew was inspired by God to write down this sentence and since Father , Holy Spirit and Jesus are one ,answer is yes JESUS AUTHHORISE Matthew to write this sentence.



HOW TO PROOF THAT TRINITY IS FALSE?
1.Show that nowhere Jesus claimed in the Bible to be God.
2.If Christian will show you that he claimed , tell that Bible was corrupted. :roflmao:





HOW TO PROOF THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS LAST PROFET?

1.Show Christian this passage from THEIR OWN BIBLE:
Daniel 12:1
[ The End Times ] "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.



1.Michael Jackson was the last prophet and he was raised to heaven from his villa , during his life he was called King , he started singing prophesy about God when he was child that why in the Bible is sais that he is “ great prince”
2.Last century we faced Holocaust , atomic bombs , global warming now days polar bears are dying and women are walking naked on the street such distress didn’t happed “from the beginning of nations..”
3.All the prophets mention in the Bible came and Michael Jackson was last one.


2.What you should answer when someone say that this passage doesn’t say about Michael because he wasn’t a prophet ,and Bible says here about something else?


- firstly say that THEIR BIBLE cannot be trusted any more ,and original one had context which clearly says about Michael Jackson
- second Christin Jews and Americans are unbelievers who doesn’t want to see the truth .God put veil on their eyes and they don’t see the truth .Satan also is helping them .They destroy all tapes and videos where Michael Jackson was sinning about God and he claims to be a prophet.


3.What if someone will say that are clear evidence that he died because of heart attack or drugs?

This is common misconception Michael Jackson s doctor was American Jew converted to Christianity and he was paid by Israeli governments to say so .All media are in hands of Westerners and that why we cannot trust them any more.





4.Michael Jackson was accused on pedophilia.

This is common misconception . Sharing a bed with young boys when you almost turn 50 is not pedophilia .Did Michael Jackson ever SAID - I was pedophile ? Show me if you are truthful or you are a liar ,and it is big punishment for liar , no he was eating cookies and drinking milk with poor children ,in his bedroom ,and he is free from guilt.

5.Michael Jackson didn’t perform any miracle.

His singing about God is miracle.
And everyone see that he was born black and he was rise to heaven white this is true miracle!!!


5.There are no evidence about above statements.


God is one witness and apart from God we don’t need any. If someone is insulting last prophet Michael Jackson God prepared great punishment for such person here and after ,and you should warn unbelievers about this.



I hope that I show Islamic logic which apply also to their claims about Trinity.
:) :)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by manfred »

star, stop it, you are giving me a belly ache laughing... :roflmao:
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by manfred »

As to the idea that the bible is a polytheistic text, surely we all know that elohim is a majestic plural? (Like the English Queen saying "We are not amused"...)

Surely this answers that:
Deuteronomy 6:4 wrote:
שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד
shma, Ysroel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.


ehad-wahad in arabic, means ONE.

The "Old Testament", the torah, the prophets and the other texts, are the religious texts of the Jews. To suggest that they are polytheistic texts is to say that either Judaeism is a polytheistic religion or Jews do not understand their own texts, the texts that was written in their midst and read in one specific way from the start to this very day. Texts do not make a religion, religions make texts. Judaeism is a montheistic religion, and it therefore can only produce montheistic texts.

Next, Jesus was a Jew. The chances that he somehow did not perceive God like all his people (as ONE) is not very likely; for a start he would not have managed to get any followers from the Jews.

Next, St John's gospel in one of the latest canonical bible texts, one one of earliest ones. To see who the earliest Christian perceived Jesus, Paul is the best source, as are Peter's letters.

Christians do not see themselves as polytheists, so it is not very likely that they would write religious texts endorsing that. Christianity is, in a sense, an off-shoot of Judaeism. To them, to, the same rule applies that the beliefs came first, the texts second.
The texts show the beliefs already in place, they did not create the beliefs.

As John's gospel is mention, the theology of the text is set out in brief at the very beginning:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.


Here the author equates "the word" with Jesus, God's ultimate revelation. He makes clear that the "Word" is divine. He sets the scene for the story of the incarnation of the ONE God.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Marie
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Marie »

Bob wrote:
So that means that this verse no longer has any relevance then? It has been abrogated by history. And what about Christians outside Arabia? How come Allah, the Lord of the Universe, seems to be particularly interested in what was going on in Arabia in the 7th Century?

I thought the Koran's messages were supposed to be eternally true and not limited by time and space. Was I wrong? :)
These heretical Christian sects no longer exist. The teachings of these have nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity and present Christianity. Non of the Christian sects follow these teachings. Besides Muhammed got Christianity wrong.

Post Reply