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 »

manfred wrote: 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"...)
Let me explain something to you.

What you are doing is trying to make a comparison of what is known to exist in one culture and language (English) in modern times, to ancient Hebrew. This is a fallacy known as presentism:

"Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a logical fallacy also known as the "fallacy of nunc pro tunc."

Until you can demonstrate that the ancient Hebrews themselves regarded it as a majestic plural, your argument will remain a fallacy.
manfred wrote: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.
None of that addresses my argument at all. My argument is in regards to what was written in the 1st Chapter of Genesis, not a paraphrase of what was written in the Book of Deuteronomy 6.4.
manfred wrote:The "Old Testament", the torah, the prophets and the other texts, are the religious texts of the Jews.
Correction: they are the religious texts of the ancient Hebrews, who existed long before the culture of the Jews came into existence. You will not find a single mention of "Jew" anywhere in the Pentateuch.
manfred wrote: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.
Again, "presentism." The texts existed long before anyone was ever considered a Jew. Also, if you had actually read my argument you would have noticed that I confined my suggestion of polytheism to only the 1st Chapter of Genesis, and not all the texts in general. Also again, if texts do not make a religion, how then can a religion develop and change as time goes on? Do you think that the ancient Hebrews, earliest Christians, and earliest Muslims were all practicing the exact same religious rites and traditions as modern day followers of those same religions? Do you think the followers of Jesus in his day celebrated Christmas?

The opposite is true. Religions develop from the texts. Without the texts, where is the religion? Could a Jew be a Jew without the Torah? Could a Christian be a Christian without any gospel in existence? Would a single Muslim exist without the Quran?

The texts come first, and the religions are then created afterwards.
manfred wrote: 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.
What kind of Jew was Jesus? Was he a Sadducee? Pharisee? Essene? Since the gospel record demonstrates that he argued and fought with the Sadducee and Pharisee over doctrine so much that they conspired to have him killed, the chances are very great that he did not hold to their views at all. The Pharisee and Sadducee were the dominant sects of the Jewish population during the time of Jesus representing the vast majority of the Jewish population. Yet here we see Jesus constantly in confrontation with them over doctrine, interpretation, and beliefs.

Suffice to say Jesus absolutely did NOT perceive God like all his people for if he did we would not have Christianity today.
manfred wrote: 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.
Yet, Paul never met Jesus. Paul also fought with many of the apostles who had actually walked with Jesus. Indeed, Paul was sent away by those apostles to the Gentiles, while those apostles- such as Peter and James- remained in Jerusalem. There were two sects of Christianity being developed immediately after the death of Jesus. The first sect was run by the original apostles in Jerusalem, with James as the head of it. This was the Jewish sect. The 2nd sect was organized by Paul, which spread its message out to the Greeks and Gentiles.

James was killed by the Jews in Jerusalem many years later, as reported in Flavius Josephus' 1st century book Antiquities of the Jews. Tradition teaches us that Paul died in Rome at the hands of Caesar Nero.

Therefore, Paul does not give us an accurate portrayal of how the earliest Christians perceived Jesus, for the earliest Christians were Jews, and not the gentiles whom Paul preached to, and himself became. Paul and the Gentiles were 2nd generation followers of Jesus, not 1st generation, which were the Jews.

If you want to learn about Jesus, then learn from Jesus himself, and not Paul, Peter, or any one else. Study his words and his religious philosophy from him only.
manfred wrote: 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.
Whether or not Christians see themselves as polytheists is not relevant because you are trying to make a point based upon beliefs as opposed to facts. Again, the texts came first, and the religion later. If this were not true, then Judaism would exist without the Torah, Christianity would exist without the NT, and Islam would exist without the Quran.

Your argument is logically impossible.

Peace.

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

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by paarsurrey »

Fathom wrote: If you want to learn about Jesus, then learn from Jesus himself, and not Paul, Peter, or any one else. Study his words and his religious philosophy from him only.
Hi friend fathom

A very good post from you; very informative indeed. The Catholics Protestants and the ex-Catholics-Protestants should now comment.

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
emma67
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:12 am
Location: France

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by emma67 »

Besides the fact that the title of this topic is easily proved wrong by historical records as mentioned by James White in the videos below, I suggest viewing several other videos by James White such as the one he made on Ahmad Deedad who spoke as much Greek as I do and is easily refuted.
Just because our minds are finite, some people automatically assume that if something is beyond their full grasp, it's by definition wrong, even when faced with evidence.
I like to resort to the simple examples of what Time is or what Space is to explain the Trinity. Time being made of 3 tenses, past, present and future, yet Time is only 1 concept. Space being made of a length, width and height, yet Space is 1 concept. In the same way, God is one essence with 3 manifestations/persons. Some other basic ways of grasping the idea of the Trinity include the idea of Flatland suddenly meeting a 3D object, there are such videos on youtube too.

So let us let a specialist such as James White give us his views on the Trinity considering that he taught Ancient Greek and Hebrew and reads the original texts as we read our respective mothertongues. So much and so many mistakes have been said by pseudo scholars on the topic that it's best to refer to someone knowledgeable on the topic. Not only are we dealing with the translation of Ancient Greek but also different cultural habits and a different historical context.

1 - Adnan Rashid and Dr. James White on Trinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXNZxdfi ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I especially like the analysis of the idea of the Trinity according to the Qu'ran.

2 - Abdullah vs Dr James White: Does the Trinity equal polytheism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4C5_jaS_pY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I especially like the comments added directly on the video by Abdullah because he blatantly REFUSED to listen to the arguments made by James White regarding God being capable of entering his creation while this does in no way mean that the universe(s) were godless in the meantime. James White drums it in a few times but Abdullah simply refuses the idea on the basis of his rationality, as if his mind was capable of judging what abilities a divinity may have...Abdullah digs his own grave throughout this video but seems to be utterly oblivious of this fact. It's obvious he's a soft core Muslim with little real understanding of Islam, he fell for the diluted version. He mentions he's prepared to throw away Islam should he discover inconsistencies and errors in the Qu'ran. Hasn't he learned what happens to apostates of Islam? I wish we could help him! I think I'll refer him to this website now.
"Love's the only engine of survival'' (Leonard Cohen)

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

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

Teaching an understanding of the Trinity does not need to be so complex, for the concept is very easy to understand if explained properly. I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any religion. However, I have spent decades in the study of ancient texts and religions.

Here is a very simple but effective way to understand the Trinity.

Let's take a big jug of milk, and pretend that it is God.

Now, place three equally sized cups on a table. Fill each cup with milk.

The 1st cup is the Father. The 2nd cup is the Son. The 3rd cup is the Holy Spirit.

You see 3 cups, but the same milk from the same jug is in the 3 cups.

Now, empty each cup back into the jug and answer the following question.

When looking at the milk in the jug, can you tell which part of that milk is the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?


That is how you understand the Trinity.

Peace.

User avatar
emma67
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:12 am
Location: France

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by emma67 »

Fathom wrote:Teaching an understanding of the Trinity does not need to be so complex, for the concept is very easy to understand if explained properly. I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any religion. However, I have spent decades in the study of ancient texts and religions.

Here is a very simple but effective way to understand the Trinity.

Let's take a big jug of milk, and pretend that it is God.

Now, place three equally sized cups on a table. Fill each cup with milk.

The 1st cup is the Father. The 2nd cup is the Son. The 3rd cup is the Holy Spirit.

You see 3 cups, but the same milk from the same jug is in the 3 cups.

Now, empty each cup back into the jug and answer the following question.

When looking at the milk in the jug, can you tell which part of that milk is the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?


That is how you understand the Trinity.

Peace.
This isn't a good example. But first I'll answer your question since it will explain why it's not a good example. Yes, of course it's easy to tell which is which since the 3 persons remain so though they share the same essence. The Trinity isn't God, God and God as you are doing with milk, milk and milk or to take one of my examples above, it would be like saying that time is past, past and past, or present, present and present or future, future and future. Each person has an individuality, God the father, Jesus the God Man and the Holy Spirit. Mix them in a jug and you end up with God the father, Jesus the God Man and the Holy Spirit sharing the same essence.
"Love's the only engine of survival'' (Leonard Cohen)

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

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Fathom »

emma67 wrote:
Fathom wrote:Teaching an understanding of the Trinity does not need to be so complex, for the concept is very easy to understand if explained properly. I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any religion. However, I have spent decades in the study of ancient texts and religions.

Here is a very simple but effective way to understand the Trinity.

Let's take a big jug of milk, and pretend that it is God.

Now, place three equally sized cups on a table. Fill each cup with milk.

The 1st cup is the Father. The 2nd cup is the Son. The 3rd cup is the Holy Spirit.

You see 3 cups, but the same milk from the same jug is in the 3 cups.

Now, empty each cup back into the jug and answer the following question.

When looking at the milk in the jug, can you tell which part of that milk is the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?


That is how you understand the Trinity.

Peace.
This isn't a good example. But first I'll answer your question since it will explain why it's not a good example. Yes, of course it's easy to tell which is which since the 3 persons remain so though they share the same essence. The Trinity isn't God, God and God as you are doing with milk, milk and milk or to take one of my examples above, it would be like saying that time is past, past and past, or present, present and present or future, future and future. Each person has an individuality, God the father, Jesus the God Man and the Holy Spirit. Mix them in a jug and you end up with God the father, Jesus the God Man and the Holy Spirit sharing the same essence.
I understand your view, but your view may be a bit one dimensional, and may not permit you to see beneath the surface. Please indulge me, and allow me to explain.

What if "the Son" does not refer to the physical personage of Jesus? What if the physical person of Jesus was but a vessel for "the Son," whom was a spiritual entity known as "Christ?"

Sound far-fetched? New Age? Gnostic perhaps? What then would you do if this claim I am making can be supported with the very uttered words of Jesus himself, as opposed to the interpretations of his words from his own apostles, followers, and the Christian religion in general? If you are open minded enough to entertain these possibilities, then permit me your audience as I attempt to demonstrate a position regarding this Jesus who was called Christ in such a way that may help you to see things from a perspective wholly uncommon within the orthodox Christian religion.

Firstly, let's take a look at the person of Jesus to determine what he thought of his own person. We will examine a few verses from Matt, as well as use his own words.

Mat 13.54 And when He had come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so much so that they were astonished and said, "From where does this man have this wisdom and these mighty works?
Mat 13.55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas,
Mat 13.56 and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things? "
Mat 13.57 And they were offended in Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house."
Mat 13.58 And He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.


I think a reasonable mind can determine that what Jesus said in the red colored text above was in reference to himself. Just from the context it's rather obvious that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet. Therefore, I think we can both agree that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet, and that a prophet speaks the word of God, as opposed to his own words. The point here is not to enter into an argument about what else Jesus was, but only to establish as fact that the verse above clearly demonstrates an attribute of prophet hood to Jesus. At this point it does not matter what else anyone claims of Jesus, for we are going to take it step by step and recognize each attribute individually for the sake of fully identifying the personage of Jesus.

Further references to Jesus making this statement can be found also in Mark 6.4 and John 4.44.

Can we agree on this? Assuming we can, I will continue.

If we have agreed to establish as fact that one of the attributes of Jesus was his prophet hood, we should then establish the nature of a prophet. So what is a prophet? Let's find out from various sources.

Dictionary.com provides its top 2 definitions:

1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel


In the Old Testament we can conclude from Jeremiah 1.9 that a prophet is one who will speak the words that God puts into his mouth. Here is the relevant part of those verses:

Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I will most assuredly give you the words you are to speak for me.”

Also from the Old Testament we see the following description of a prophet:

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.

Therefore, from several sources I believe we can sum up what a prophet actually is as one who speaks the word of God and also predicts future events with 100% accuracy.

Can we agree on this point? If so, I will continue after your next response.

Peace.

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

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by paarsurrey »

Fathom wrote:
Mat 13.54 And when He had come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so much so that they were astonished and said, "From where does this man have this wisdom and these mighty works?
Mat 13.55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas,
Mat 13.56 and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things? "
Mat 13.57 And they were offended in Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house."
Mat 13.58 And He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.


I think a reasonable mind can determine that what Jesus said in the red colored text above was in reference to himself. Just from the context it's rather obvious that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet. Therefore, I think we can both agree that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet, and that a prophet speaks the word of God, as opposed to his own words.

In the Old Testament we can conclude from Jeremiah 1.9 that a prophet is one who will speak the words that God puts into his mouth. Here is the relevant part of those verses:

Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I will most assuredly give you the words you are to speak for me.”
Hi friend Fathom

I agree with the contents of your post. You have described it well.

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
Centaur
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Centaur »

As far as I know Christians dont deny the fact that jesus was a prophet as well .A prohet in simpler terms some one who prphesies.But as per NT jesus is god/word of god him self
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

User avatar
emma67
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:12 am
Location: France

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by emma67 »

paarsurrey wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Mat 13.54 And when He had come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so much so that they were astonished and said, "From where does this man have this wisdom and these mighty works?
Mat 13.55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas,
Mat 13.56 and his sisters, are they not all with us? Then from where does this man have all these things? "
Mat 13.57 And they were offended in Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house."
Mat 13.58 And He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.


I think a reasonable mind can determine that what Jesus said in the red colored text above was in reference to himself. Just from the context it's rather obvious that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet. Therefore, I think we can both agree that Jesus regarded himself as a prophet, and that a prophet speaks the word of God, as opposed to his own words.

In the Old Testament we can conclude from Jeremiah 1.9 that a prophet is one who will speak the words that God puts into his mouth. Here is the relevant part of those verses:

Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I will most assuredly give you the words you are to speak for me.”
Hi friend Fathom

I agree with the contents of your post. You have described it well.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

This site isn't a Christian site. Many people here are Atheists. I don't see what these posts are doing here. However I'm commenting here briefly to refer you to a debate which should clear this discussion fast. Again the Trinity mentioned in the Qu'ran includes Mary which has never been what early Christians and Christians nowadays believe. If you wish to introduce the one sect which believed this, the debate below will clear this as well.
The New Testament wasn't translated into Arabic until well after Mohamad's death and so he had very limited knowledge of Christianity to say the least.

Here is the debate in 3 parts about 'Jesus in the Bible and the Qu'ran' to set the record straight regarding all your claims, I'll let James White speak. He reads Hebrew and Ancient Greek which he has both taught and he's been a Christian apologist for over 20 years. It's fascinating to hear the imam having absolutely no arguments at all to offer. He is on the whole quite friendly which makes a change from most Muslims who engage insuch debates. However, to believe in the Qu'ran, you have to be blind and wish to remain so and he does just that:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buEa_15l ... 0D086996FB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cn8Q4tx ... B&index=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giPuCFPz ... B&index=21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Love's the only engine of survival'' (Leonard Cohen)

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

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by paarsurrey »

emma67 wrote: This site isn't a Christian site. Many people here are Atheists.
Hi friend emma67

I understand that most of the Atheists Agnostics were in the background ex-Christians. They don' believe God means they don't believe the illogical and mythical Trinity and that Jesus is god. They might believe in the Creator- God Allah YHWH; but they cannot believe Jesus as god, being irrational and mythical.

So Jesus one of the perfect men called Messenger Prophets is acceptable to those Atheists Agnostics who were formerly some sort of Christians. Being disgusted with this weird Trinity, in my opinion, they stopped going to Church. This is the position, as I understand in the West.

This is only a discussion in search of truth; no disrespect is intended to any body, please.

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
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 friend Fathom

I agree with the contents of your post. You have described it well.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Hello friend paarsurrey.

Thank you for agreement to my post.

I noticed that your posts all say "I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran." Have you ever read about Jesus and Mary anywhere else outside the Quran? They are not just in the Holy Bible, but they are also in other books, including one that is older than the Quran, and it says some of the same things that the Quran says about them.

Would you like me to show you those old books? They are on the Internet.

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 »

hello friend fathom,

could you please show me older religious texts (besides the Bible) mentioning Mary and Jesus?
account suspended for inappropriate language

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:hello friend fathom,

could you please show me older religious texts (besides the Bible) mentioning Mary and Jesus?
Sure, here's one:

Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

It has been dated as being written between 600 - 625.

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 »

hello friend fathom,

so you're basically saying that the Quran, not only plagiarized AND distorted stories from the Bible, it also plagiarized and distorted stories from the non-canonical gospels... ok, so? It appears that you think that plagiarizing and distorting stories from non-canonical gospels is somehow worse than plagiarizing and distorting stories from canonical gospels...

it's as if the canonical gospels (in your eyes, at least) have more credibility than the non-canonical gospels and as such, stealing stories from the latter is even more evidence of the falsehood of the Quran?

When you mentioned "older" texts, I thought you'd show me texts (even older than the Bible) that describe a figure like Jesus and his virgin mother, Mary... something like the the story of the Great Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or like another story almost exactly similar to that of Moses' birth (even though it supposedly happened many years BEFORE Moses).
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2689&start=0#p44412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
account suspended for inappropriate language

Gabriel
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by Gabriel »

paarsurrey wrote:
emma67 wrote: This site isn't a Christian site. Many people here are Atheists.
Hi friend emma67

I understand that most of the Atheists Agnostics were in the background ex-Christians. They don' believe God means they don't believe the illogical and mythical Trinity and that Jesus is god. They might believe in the Creator- God Allah YHWH; but they cannot believe Jesus as god, being irrational and mythical.
I know you're a class A troll, who doesn't actually read or respond to others questions, but I think most Atheist Agnostics would beg to differ.
paarsurrey wrote:So Jesus one of the perfect men called Messenger Prophets is acceptable to those Atheists Agnostics who were formerly some sort of Christians. Being disgusted with this weird Trinity, in my opinion, they stopped going to Church. This is the position, as I understand in the West.
Yes, as with most of your posts, its made purely of your own opinions and has little bearing on reality. Your understanding of the West is completely retarded to say the least.

Its like this; Christianity is the majority faith in the West, Islam is the majority faith in the East. in the "West" you're allowed to leave your faith without being lynched. In the "East" (due to Islam's apostasy laws) leaving your faith can get you killed, beaten, or thrown in jail. Therefore, more people (who happen to be Christians) apostatise in the West. It has nothing to do with any doctrine. If the concept of the Trinity was all that bothered these folks, they'd leave their church and join one of the many NON-Trinitarian churches. Do you understand what I've just typed?

Also, the irony of you referring to the understanding of Jesus as God as "irrational and mythical", yet claiming the idea that a simple "man" being born of a virgin, speaking as a child, performing miracles etc, would somehow be perfectly acceptable to the Atheist Agnostic....is beyond belief.
This is only a discussion in search of truth; no disrespect is intended to any body, please.
What a load of BS. You are not here to discuss, but to spam. You ignore what anyone says, and pick out one solitary line from an entire post, just so you can spew your worthless drivel. Also, People offend each other all the time here. Not many people have a problem with that. You could at least be honest and admit it.

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:It appears that you think that plagiarizing and distorting stories from non-canonical gospels is somehow worse than plagiarizing and distorting stories from canonical gospels...
And just how did you arrive at this conclusion? Is there anything in the post I wrote that supports your line of reasoning? If so, produce it please.

[quote="debunker" as if the canonical gospels (in your eyes, at least) have more credibility than the non-canonical gospels and as such, stealing stories from the latter is even more evidence of the falsehood of the Quran?[/quote]

Assume much? I find it very amusing that you somehow seem to think you can read my mind and tell me what I think in regards to what has more credibility.
debunker wrote: you mentioned "older" texts, I thought you'd show me texts (even older than the Bible) that describe a figure like Jesus and his virgin mother, Mary... something like the the story of the Great Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or like another story almost exactly similar to that of Moses' birth (even though it supposedly happened many years BEFORE Moses).
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2689&start=0#p44412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well then don't assume such things, and then come back here and try to present yourself as some kind of false mystic who so miserably fails at determining what my position is on the aforementioned assumptions of yours.

Suffice to say the end result is your assumptions are so devoid of evidence of an origin that I haven't a fken clue what you're talking about.

:shock:

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 »

And just how did you arrive at this conclusion? Is there anything in the post I wrote that supports your line of reasoning? If so, produce it please.
Assume much? I find it very amusing that you somehow seem to think you can read my mind and tell me what I think in regards to what has more credibility.
Ok, so what was the point of your offer to paarsurrey?
I noticed that your posts all say "I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran." Have you ever read about Jesus and Mary anywhere else outside the Quran? They are not just in the Holy Bible, but they are also in other books, including one that is older than the Quran, and it says some of the same things that the Quran says about them.

Would you like me to show you those old books? They are on the Internet.
account suspended for inappropriate language

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:
And just how did you arrive at this conclusion? Is there anything in the post I wrote that supports your line of reasoning? If so, produce it please.
Assume much? I find it very amusing that you somehow seem to think you can read my mind and tell me what I think in regards to what has more credibility.
Ok, so what was the point of your offer to paarsurrey?
I noticed that your posts all say "I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran." Have you ever read about Jesus and Mary anywhere else outside the Quran? They are not just in the Holy Bible, but they are also in other books, including one that is older than the Quran, and it says some of the same things that the Quran says about them.

Would you like me to show you those old books? They are on the Internet.
The point of my offer is detailed right inside my post to him. He always says, "I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran," which indicates to me that he may be unaware of other texts similar to what the Quran says which mention Jesus and Mary.

It's really that simple.

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 »

Ok Fathom, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
emma67
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:12 am
Location: France

Re: Trinity – a mistake of the Catholics Protestants

Post by emma67 »

paarsurrey wrote:
emma67 wrote: This site isn't a Christian site. Many people here are Atheists.
Hi friend emma67

I understand that most of the Atheists Agnostics were in the background ex-Christians. They don' believe God means they don't believe the illogical and mythical Trinity and that Jesus is god. They might believe in the Creator- God Allah YHWH; but they cannot believe Jesus as god, being irrational and mythical.

So Jesus one of the perfect men called Messenger Prophets is acceptable to those Atheists Agnostics who were formerly some sort of Christians. Being disgusted with this weird Trinity, in my opinion, they stopped going to Church. This is the position, as I understand in the West.

This is only a discussion in search of truth; no disrespect is intended to any body, please.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Most Atheists and Agnostics used to be Christians? What a sweeping statement without any foundation. Atheists and Agnostics come from all sorts of backgrounds, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and also simply an Atheistic background.
Again, what are you talking about? Do you really think an Atheist is someone who simply rejects the trinity? An Atheist doesn't believe in God, period, no Allah, no Yahweh. I don't think the Trinity bothers them half as much as Islam. You are simply expressing your opinion. Just because you can't comprehend something fully, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and is not true. How about Quantum mechanics? Atheist scientists are the first to state that no one understands it fully, we simply can't, but this doesn't mean that it is mythical or illogical. Regarding Jesus being mythical, most Atheists recognize the historical Jesus. It would be hard not to considering there are sources outside of Christianity which mention his existence. But I can tell you that I prefer an Atheist who doesn't acknowledge the existence of Jesus to a Muslim who believes that Jesus was a mere prophet and as such is in total contradiction with the previous scriptures he or she pretends to respect. There's also the fact that I don't fear half as much for my life with an Atheist as with a Muslim. We could discuss for ever whether Christianity, Hinduism, Atheism or whatever you like is the true way. One of the main points made on this site is the fact that the nature of Islam leads to violence, lack of respect for human rights, lack of tolerance and no respect at all for life ultimately, especially when it comes to women. I've never met an Atheist who treated me as less than his or her equal and that's a lot more than we can say for Islam.

I don't believe this is a discussion in search of truth at all. As to disrespect if directed towards me, I really don't care very much, I'm so used to disrespect living in a Muslim country. Daily insults are our daily bread.
If you are really searching for the truth, then the first thing to acknowledge is that you will only ever reach your personal truth since whatever is metaphysical is by definition beyond physics and cannot be proved all the way to faith. This should also make us all humble and understand that there can be no possible justification for an Islamic state or any religion state at all. But when it comes to Islam, Muslim countries are intolerant and violent towards us ex or non-Muslims. It's OK to kill the infidels since it's written in the Qu'ran.
However, if you are genuinely looking for truth, you will also make sure that you analyse your book and see where it stems from. If you listened to the links I provided, it's obvious that Christianity derives from the Old Testament, that there are passages which announced a God man in the Jewish scriptures. The problem when it comes to the Qu'ran is that although it states it's the 3rd book and that should you be in doubt, you may refer to the previous books, it's in complete contradiction with Christianity. There's no way round this as those videos amongst many others clearly show and as we all know by now. So the only alternative left for Muslims is to state that the Bible is corrupt. Otherwise, they'd have to wake up to the fact that their book is a lie and we can't have that, can we, hu?
Last thing regarding truth, it really is exceptionnally difficult to believe that God woul lie and deceive us as the Qu'ran implies.
"Love's the only engine of survival'' (Leonard Cohen)

Post Reply