Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 08:44:00 AM



Title: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 08:44:00 AM
lets try this one more time without death threats from ignorant individuals of this forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ZJYL1KKRU


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 09:56:06 AM
Sorry, don't have 2 hours to invest at the moment.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 09:57:31 AM
find two hours, its better than an eternity in hell


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 10:16:47 AM
find two hours, its better than an eternity in hell

I'll be spending eterntiy with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...so no worries.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
You have that signed by God himself and with a stamp of approval or just wishful thinking?

Jews believe if you are a Jew you go to heaven regardless and if you are a non-jew regardless of how you were, you eternally perish.

More wishful thinking :) Maybe you haven't dedicated enough time for God, to be aware and was only told to believe that ;) Blind faith is no faith at all just the blind leading the blind.

This video I posted is by a non-muslim, a christian btw.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
You have that signed by God himself and with a stamp of approval or just wishful thinking?

Jews believe if you are a Jew you go to heaven regardless and if you are a non-jew regardless of how you were, you eternally perish.

More wishful thinking :) Maybe you haven't dedicated enough time for God, to be aware and was only told to believe that ;) Blind faith is no faith at all just the blind leading the blind.

This video I posted is by a non-muslim, a christian btw.

I've experienced the risen Christ friend...I have no doubts.  

Overcoming the hard-heartedness of others is one of the most difficult challenges and most often an impossibility on my own.  

I live my life as a representative for Christ as best I'm able and hope and pray others find salvation in him like I have.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 10:25:32 AM
Empty hoo haa emotional statements no facts.

I also went as a child to christian camps and they used to play "Jesus loves you" all night long until we fell asleep and kept us in the chapel for hours singing Jesus saved mankind, Jesus loves us all.

However, besides the emotional non-sense it didn't come anywhere near close to what the scriptures or history teach.

So again, you are running on blind faith, emotional rhetoric and no proof. Conjecture and wishful thinking is not proof no matter how many times you repeat it. Just as no matter how many times you try to 'explain' the trinity it does not make it true. Only wishful thinking. Pagan philosophy became strong post 150AD and so did Christian teachings

You strayed from the message and teachinsg of Jesus and turned Jesus into a demigod.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 10:38:41 AM
Empty hoo haa emotional statements no facts.

I also went as a child to christian camps and they used to play "Jesus loves you" all night long until we fell asleep and kept us in the chapel for hours singing Jesus saved mankind, Jesus loves us all.

However, besides the emotional non-sense it didn't come anywhere near close to what the scriptures or history teach.

So again, you are running on blind faith, emotional rhetoric and no proof. Conjecture and wishful thinking is not proof.
Church attendance, sunday school attendance, prayer meeting attendance, church camp attendance, etc...is meaningless on it's own.  I mean no offense by that statement either.

I've provided no emotional appeals, no lavish displays, no hateful rhetoric, no attacks.  

Simply put, I am the proof.  The body of believers are the proof (regardless of the few bad apples that always exist in every group).   You can be the proof too.  Blind faith is meaningless, but faith based in personal experience and a relationship with Christ is the crux.  

On it's own there isn't enough scripture, apologetics, debate, scholarly texts, youtube videos, etc...to fill the void or satiate most.  Only a personal experience with the risen Christ can do that and that's the aspect that will be left unexplored lifetime after lifetime after lifetime.    

You want proof?  Take it to the Lord in prayer and worship and ask for revelation in your own life.  

I've debated nonbelievers plenty and talk is often cheap from both sides.  Everyone desires the real deal....the genuine article....the gold standard of proof; yet, the vast majority refuse to do what is required to experience that proof.  

Christ is the narrow gate and that gate is always unlocked, but you have to pull it open and truly, humbly desire to do so.  He knows the contents of your heart so when you truly surrender you'll have no doubts.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 10:41:31 AM
You are still running on blind faith, blind leading the blind.

You are claiming you are going to heaven just because you are christian and 'saved by Jesus'.

This is not from God, this is not even from the utterance of Jesus. It's your own wishful thinking

If you read the scriptures your trinitarian beliefs are destroyed.

God is one not a demigod, or three persons or whatever other non-sense.

And about 'personal experience', there are hindus who claim things happened to them but they worship cows and idols.

I also had a dream of Jesus telling me there is only one God, he was in white robes and his face not so visible but i felt it, this happened to me while I was studying the scriptures and doubting the trinity. This was to me a significant dream.. and eventually it led me to islam.

Yet you would denounce that or 'reinterpret' that the way you want.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
You are still running on blind faith, blind leading the blind.

You are claiming you are going to heaven just because you are christian and 'saved by Jesus'.

This is not from God, this is not even from the utterance of Jesus. It's your own wishful thinking

If you read the scriptures your trinitarian beliefs are destroyed.

God is one not a demigod, or three persons or whatever other non-sense.

And about 'personal experience', there are hindus who claim things happened to them but they worship cows and idols.

Friend, your statements are unfortunately empty and I hate to say that.  You have no genuine relationship with Christ, but it doesn't have to be that way.  I'm no better or different than you....I just took a few steps you haven't. 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 10:47:12 AM
You actually have no genuine relation with Christ because you are not following his teachings or message nor dress like him or believe what he believed or thought. You follow your desires.

You are just repeating that Jesus saved you, that's an empty statement. You are repeating that you are going to heaven. That is an unproven empty statement and your wishful thinking. You are stating Jesus is God, yet that is also wishful thinking and blasphemy.

Jesus didn't teach the trinity, but you do.

Quote
But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws. Matthew 7:23 '

You abandoned God's law and follow the teachings of the church, of paul, constantine a pagan did away with the law of God.

So no you are not following Christ, you are CLAIMING it, but not in action just emotional rhetoric.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 11:02:00 AM
You actually have no genuine relation with Christ because you are not following his teachings or message nor dress like him or believe what he believed or thought. You follow your desires.

You are just repeating that Jesus saved you, that's an empty statement. You are repeating that you are going to heaven. That is an unproven empty statement and your wishful thinking. You are stating Jesus is God, yet that is also wishful thinking and blasphemy.

Jesus didn't teach the trinity, but you do.

You abandoned God's law and follow the teachings of the church, of paul, constantine a pagan did away with the law of God.

So no you are not following Christ, you are CLAIMING it, but not in action just emotional rhetoric.

"No MOS!  You're wrong, you're this."
"No a_ahmed!  You're wrong, you're this."

These exchanges are utterly meaningless.   My position is stated about 4-5 posts up from this.  If you choose to explore what I encourage I'm happy to speak with you, pray for you, etc....but the back and forth "no I'm right, you're wrong" stuff I don't care for.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 07, 2012, 11:41:15 AM
The trinity is a pagan belief but not all christians believe in it. Christianity is not the problem its hundreds of years of lies spread by the chatholic church and other so called christian organizations to control the masses. At the age of 25 I recognized this through study but it didnt make leave christianity just the catholic church.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
In the original thread, I began posting verses which were forgeries and later additions, fabrications which shed light on the deliberate introduction of the trinity.

You are clinging onto lies. It is not the word of God, it is the word of men.

God does not change, God does not deceive, God does not mislead. Only men do and that is why the trinity is such a paradox and falsehood. You can only play with words. But the eternal truth about our eternal lord and creator is only one. That God is ONE... ETERNAL. As was thought by Jesus as is told to us in scripture. Not what Paul, or the church or constantine did.

Jesus did not come to destroy the law of God, yet who did? The romans? Constantine? He was a pagan.

So why do you cling onto these pagan beliefs? You are therefore making yourself in my eyes look silly and just an emotional rant.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I do not need to accept your blind faith. I came to faith not by blindness but by rational and thought. The burden of proof is against you as the scriptures denounce what you preach.

The only support you have for the trinity is paul's own teachings which he himself dubbed "my own gospel" and as he argued, condemned and cursed the actual disciples of Jesus and tried to persuade them to give up the law of God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 12:49:21 PM
The trinity is a pagan belief but not all christians believe in it. Christianity is not the problem its hundreds of years of lies spread by the chatholic church and other so called christian organizations to control the masses. At the age of 25 I recognized this through study but it didnt make leave christianity just the catholic church.

You should watch the documentary I posted. It's really interesting and brings me back into my own line of thought from many years back how I explored this while reading scriptures and reading about history.. and then debating with priests, pastors, teachers, etc...


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 12:54:53 PM
And since we've gotten back on topic. This verse for example is a forgery:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

The fact that some hardcore christians actually believe that the bible is the word of God should tremble from it's foundation. Secondly, the fact that verses like these were deliberately forged to introduce the trinity should make one think. Not to mention the church chose to NOT include certain gospel writings and denounced them "the apocrypha" because they CHALLENGED the trinitarian teachings of the church which basically play on words that God is 'whole' but 'three persons' and all the other semantic explanations which really are pagan and not Jesus' teachings.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 01:15:21 PM
And since we've gotten back on topic. This verse for example is a forgery:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

The fact that some hardcore christians actually believe that the bible is the word of God should tremble from it's foundation. Secondly, the fact that verses like these were deliberately forged to introduce the trinity should make one think. Not to mention the church chose to NOT include certain gospel writings and denounced them "the apocrypha" because they CHALLENGED the trinitarian teachings of the church which basically play on words that God is 'whole' but 'three persons' and all the other semantic explanations which really are pagan and not Jesus' teachings.

I'm not clear, are you a Muslim?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 01:19:24 PM
I became Muslim.

I accept Jesus and all the prophets and messengers before him. I believe in God, I believe in the revealed scriptures, but not in the forgeries of men. I will not accept lies that are labeled on God when clearly if you study just a tiny bit you will realize they are the handy work of men.

God does not lie, God does not deceive, God does not change, God is above all that and God is certainly eternally one and nothing resembles him in the creation (as the old testament states).

Jesus is certainly the messiah and will return.

I believe everything up to the point where the falsehood began. And that is. The romans, paul, the church and constantine. Everything before hand was Jesus, his followers. Everything afterwards went astray.

And what do you get when people follow desires and go astray? In the long term. COMPLETE divergence. To the point people ended up worshipping Jesus and claiming he is God Almighty. Such sacrilege and blasphemy, contrary to Jesus' own teachings and of course everything every other prophet and messenger brought before hand.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 01:35:11 PM
Proving Jesus is not the only 'son of God' or literally son of God as this is pagan. This is in the old testament:

Psalms A-V {2:7} I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. <------------- (David)

Exodus A-V {4:22} And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel[is] my son, [even] my firstborn <------------- (Israel)


Psalms A-V {82:6} I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. <------ blasphemous but it calls everyone children of God

Romans A-V {8:14} For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. <----- again same idea. But what does it mean? If you understood hebrew language, it would mean godly person, not like God, but one who follows God..




And the verse:

John A-V {5:7} For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one <----- is an out right forgery

John A-V {3:16} For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. <--- another forgery and Christians like to quote "3:16" all the time but not realizing this is a forgery










Mark A-V {12:29} And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is,] Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord


Deuteronomy {6:4} Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.


^

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד - Sh'ma Yisra'el YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Eḥad





 Qul Hu-walaahu 'Ahad      Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! (http://ahadees.com/images/quran/arabic/112_1.gif)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 01:47:53 PM
John {1:1} In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

The fist word (God) in Greek text is (Hothios) which means supreme Lord.
The second word (God) in Greek text is (Tonthios) which means created being with great quality or godly person which is used in the bible to call a messenger as a god like Moses (PBUH) called god in the bible, further more the above verse is not the saying of Jesus (PBUH) himself.

And if the (word) in this verse means God then let us exchange the two words and see how the verse looks like (in the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God) which is meaningless.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 07, 2012, 03:27:53 PM
I did not know muslims believed in Jesus as the messiah. Do you believe Jesus had a prehuman existence.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 03:37:09 PM
No and there is no such thing. Another forgery by later christians trying to further divinize Jesus and speak of him beyond the truth. It's plain logic, if that were true the Jews who had many prophets and messengers before Jesus would have known this.

Quote
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. ... Surah 4:171



Quote
Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).

5:44-45


Quote
The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in God, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say), “We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers” and they say, “We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).” Quran 2:285

]
Quote
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. 2:79


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 04:25:42 PM
Constantine banned the law of God and made it even punishable to 'observe the law of the jews'. It's interesting to listen to this a bit unrelated but I just saw it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpmbb6bKVIU


Another of many ignored early writings in the very land of Jesus, Palestine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m23VV6MOYF0


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 04:29:21 PM
You believe that you came from nothing and will perish  ::) I guess you are nothing now. It's all an accident, this post is an accident. it's all an illusion  ::) Stick to the atheist thread where I did not post.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 07, 2012, 04:45:05 PM
Good video. I asked about a prehuman existance because of the verse in john you quoted. Jesus would fit in that verse as tonthios as you put it. This would not make him equal to GOD.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 05:04:37 PM
Well God is eternal and there is nothing before God. This is a fundemental belief of monotheism. Otherwise God seizes to be God or then it's a false deity you are speaking of.

God has NO beginning and NO end. He is eternal. The 'alpha and omega' conjecture is latin. There is no such thing in aramaic, arabic or hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic which was the language of Palestine.

God is the absolute first and last, in the sense that he is eternal.

When God resurects everyone he will cause all to die when he asks who is the master of this day and everyone including the angels and even the angel of death will die. And God will answer himself to this rhetorical question and revive everyone. God is the one that created us all and gave us all life.

Jesus had a beginning and is not eternal. He was created by God as Adam was created by God. The only difference is Jesus had a mother. Jesus had to eat, he had to sleep, he was injured, bleeding.

When God says in the old testament that there is nothing that resembles God in creation... it is pretty clear that Jesus is not God. And God is certainly eternal never changing as again the old testament testifies this.

Jesus therefore is like any other human being who needs sleep, food, has blood and bleeds, can be injured, and has need of God. He just happens to be chosen by God to serve God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 07:49:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5j4DIellR4


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 07, 2012, 08:12:54 PM
There is no such thing as luck :) And I wouldn't put my faith in 'luck'.

What is it in your heart that is preventing you from denouncing falsehood and lies against God and embracing the eternal truth of God? Petty benefit of this world? Fear of people?

God's reward is eternal... and the suffering of this world temporary. God is the most merciful and most compassionate.

Lying against God is a great sin.. and misleading others away from the truth of God.

You keep silent on the verses which tear apart the trinity in the bible. And you turn a blind eye to the verses which are forgeries of men which you cling onto for creed and resolution of faith..


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 09:40:43 PM
There is no such thing as luck :) And I wouldn't put my faith in 'luck'.

What is it in your heart that is preventing you from denouncing falsehood and lies against God and embracing the eternal truth of God? Petty benefit of this world? Fear of people?

God's reward is eternal... and the suffering of this world temporary. God is the most merciful and most compassionate.

Lying against God is a great sin.. and misleading others away from the truth of God.

You keep silent on the verses which tear apart the trinity in the bible. And you turn a blind eye to the verses which are forgeries of men which you cling onto for creed and resolution of faith..

I've experienced the risen Christ in my life.  I've experienced the power of the Holy Spirit.  I have no doubt about my salvation and who Jesus Christ is and what his gift of salvation means for my life and eternity.  Some of the things you say about God are completely correct and others are not.  

Why don't I address your posts point by point?  My experience with others is fairly simple and straightforward....the loudest, brashest voice typically understands the least about that which they're exclaiming.  

As I stated before, the back and forth of this type is relatively pointless.  I can "Google Warrior" with the best of em.  For every online reference you post up I can find one that defends thoroughly and completely in the opposite and vice versa...ad nauseum.   Is that helpful for others?    

When I address others I ask myself "Would others recognize the qualities of God through my example? "  Reread your posts and tell me if you've represented God with love, compassion and mercy.

Have a good night/day.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 08, 2012, 08:00:20 AM
Jesus was angry when he faced the crooks at the temple. Being angry against falsehood is a good characteristics. That does not mean that one is not merciful or compassionate. God is just and demands justice and will serve justice on the day of judgment.

So your argument and proof is still emotion?

You seem afraid to look at scripture, because if you look at scripture it destroys your belief of the trinity. I am not even talking qur'an, I am purely talking bible. The qur'an just re-affirms what I already found out and know.

Like I've said. I've had my own experiences, things that absolutely prove to me God is watching me. I've also had dreams like the one I've already mentioned of Jesus telling me that there is only one God. Now... you would not believe that why because you believe in trinitarianism.

Likewise, you having cited your example, I told you... even HINDUS who worship vishnu, krishna, hanuman and all sorts of idols and things will tell you they 'experienced things' in their life which affirm their faith.

Now are you going to argue that these idols are true or real? No. The irony with hindus is.. if you read THEIR scriptures it ALSO says do not make graven images of God. It also says God is one :) It's there.. lol... yet the brahman priests will say the people are 'too dumb' to understand God, so they need idols to get 'closer to God'.

As you can see yet again even in hinduism it is MEN who twist the truth just as the trinity is a lie forged by men.

So you are not bringing anything to the table except your emotion. You have faith but clearly you have no knowledge. Your faith is being misguided.

God watches over us, provides for us, ALL, whether we believe or disbelieve. He puts tests in front of us whether we believe or disbelieve. HE is the one that gives us our sustenance and tests us with it. He can give and take. This all regardless if you believe or disbelieve, regardless if you turn to idols or Him alone. BUT you will be in the end questioned for what you did and believed. As this life is meant but as a test and a short passing time. The angel of death does not discriminate young or old. If God decrees it that is it. We will all eventually return to God and be questioned.

You have no argument for the trinity as you know the scriptures are against you so you are resorting to emotion?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 08, 2012, 08:03:56 PM
Jesus was angry when he faced the crooks at the temple. Being angry against falsehood is a good characteristics. That does not mean that one is not merciful or compassionate. God is just and demands justice and will serve justice on the day of judgment.

So your argument and proof is still emotion?

You seem afraid to look at scripture, because if you look at scripture it destroys your belief of the trinity. I am not even talking qur'an, I am purely talking bible. The qur'an just re-affirms what I already found out and know.

Like I've said. I've had my own experiences, things that absolutely prove to me God is watching me. I've also had dreams like the one I've already mentioned of Jesus telling me that there is only one God. Now... you would not believe that why because you believe in trinitarianism.

Likewise, you having cited your example, I told you... even HINDUS who worship vishnu, krishna, hanuman and all sorts of idols and things will tell you they 'experienced things' in their life which affirm their faith.

Now are you going to argue that these idols are true or real? No. The irony with hindus is.. if you read THEIR scriptures it ALSO says do not make graven images of God. It also says God is one :) It's there.. lol... yet the brahman priests will say the people are 'too dumb' to understand God, so they need idols to get 'closer to God'.

As you can see yet again even in hinduism it is MEN who twist the truth just as the trinity is a lie forged by men.

So you are not bringing anything to the table except your emotion. You have faith but clearly you have no knowledge. Your faith is being misguided.

God watches over us, provides for us, ALL, whether we believe or disbelieve. He puts tests in front of us whether we believe or disbelieve. HE is the one that gives us our sustenance and tests us with it. He can give and take. This all regardless if you believe or disbelieve, regardless if you turn to idols or Him alone. BUT you will be in the end questioned for what you did and believed. As this life is meant but as a test and a short passing time. The angel of death does not discriminate young or old. If God decrees it that is it. We will all eventually return to God and be questioned.

You have no argument for the trinity as you know the scriptures are against you so you are resorting to emotion?

I'm not afraid to evaluate or discuss scripture....I've done it time and time and time and time again on these boards.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 08, 2012, 08:31:21 PM
So what say you about the forgeries in the bible which dictate trinitarian doctrine?

One. Like I said it should show that the bible is not the absolute word of God as its presented by evangelists. It is clearly MANY writings put together, some included, some excluded deliberately.

Two. The many verses which are held as creed or basis for creed and trinitarianism are fabrications and forgeries, later deliberate additions. The story of the prostitute and not getting stoned is a deliberately fabricated story yet it is an important event, yet it is not true.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 11, 2012, 08:22:32 AM
The bible is actually the inspired word of God which contains many writings put together, some included, some excluded with definite, deliberate, inspired purpose.

I addressed the "fabrications and forgeries" related to Mark and John in the other thread you started.

I can't speak to the story of the prostitute being a fabrication.

I like your shortcut approach in that you just deny all of Paul's writing as inspired from the outset and save yourself the trouble....no muss, no fuss.

Here'a 2+ hour discussion that you may review.  I enjoyed it, both speakers are very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7-uluKCDQ
 



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 11, 2012, 09:45:44 AM
So in conclusion the bible is not the word of God. It is the word of men. Unreliable and formed from dissected selective writings. Some that CLAIM they are INSPIRED by God. WHO were these people? We cannot know for sure besides Paul. No names, no references, no last names (not to mention it is a strong semetic tradition to always indicate son of son of son of etc... when referencing people). The riddle continues. Not to mention the apocrypha which you don't care about you should. Writings the church deliberately ignored because they contradict the trinitarian non-sense.

You run circles around the facts of the verses that are known forgeries, so that you get out of trouble.

The trinity is a lie. God is one. God is not a man. Things that the old testament thought us from long before Paul came long with his blasphemies.

I've watched plenty of Shabir Ally, Ahmed deedat and non-muslim non-trinitarian debates on the subject to just reaffirm what I already have come to know.

The trinity was not once mentioned by Jesus himself even if we are to take Paul's writings as credible. Jesus kept emphasizing GOD is one, God is one in heaven, that only God knows the time of the hour, that Jesus himself or the angels do not. This by itself shows Jesus is not God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 11, 2012, 09:56:22 AM
Paul's unreliable fake accounts of him witnessing and converting:

Quote
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
—Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
—Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
—Acts 9:7, New International Version (NIV)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
—Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)
My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
—Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)
My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
—Acts 22:9, New International Version (NIV)


An unreliable fraud


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 11, 2012, 10:38:01 AM
Paul's unreliable fake accounts of him witnessing and converting:

An unreliable fraud

I now understand your claims of false, forgery, unreliable, etc....they're simply misguided.

You deny the conversion of Saul to Paul.  Nevermind those that were with Paul on the road to Damascus, nevermind his life changing witness for Christ, nevermind his suffering for Christ, nevermind his interaction with Christ's disciples....I guess nevermind all of it?

If you choose to continue insulting me that's perfectly fine....you aren't the first and won't be the last.   I'm saddened that you stand behind a false prophet of which beleivers were warned hundreds of years prior to cautious of.  Again, I'm happy to share my faith with you, share my experiences with you, pray with/for you and I have nothing against  you choosing to be a Muslim.  I don't agree with your choice, but it's your choice friend.  I also realize you aren't singling me out.  I'm just the only one that isn't ignoring you so you're unleashing on me. 



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 11, 2012, 10:41:20 AM
So in conclusion the bible is not the word of God. It is the word of men. Unreliable and formed from dissected selective writings. Some that CLAIM they are INSPIRED by God. WHO were these people? We cannot know for sure besides Paul. No names, no references, no last names (not to mention it is a strong semetic tradition to always indicate son of son of son of etc... when referencing people). The riddle continues. Not to mention the apocrypha which you don't care about you should. Writings the church deliberately ignored because they contradict the trinitarian non-sense.

You run circles around the facts of the verses that are known forgeries, so that you get out of trouble.

The trinity is a lie. God is one. God is not a man. Things that the old testament thought us from long before Paul came long with his blasphemies.

I've watched plenty of Shabir Ally, Ahmed deedat and non-muslim non-trinitarian debates on the subject to just reaffirm what I already have come to know.

The trinity was not once mentioned by Jesus himself even if we are to take Paul's writings as credible. Jesus kept emphasizing GOD is one, God is one in heaven, that only God knows the time of the hour, that Jesus himself or the angels do not. This by itself shows Jesus is not God.
Correct, the inspired word of God.

I'm in no trouble whatsoever.  I have the blessed assurance of Christ's salvation in my life....full assurance in the heart.  Nothing special about me whatsoever, I'm just like you.

Not saying the word trinity doens't mean the trinity isn't there.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 11, 2012, 10:47:30 AM
You call Muhammad a false prophet? Yet he delivered people from darkness into light?

Paul and the romans destroyed God's law and brought people into the dark ages for a thousand years.

You shall know them by their fruits.

You keep ranting about being 'blessed' for worshipping Jesus a man.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19


"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32

"He withdrew about a stone's throw and prayed, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done'" Luke 22:41-42


"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will'" Matthew 26:39 & Matthew 26:42


'Abba, Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" Mark 14:36



You bring great injustice upon Jesus by lying in his name

But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'Matthew 7:23


Unless you're implying God is bi-polar and that God goes back on his word, deceives, lies and changes his mind and is in fact a man... then these verses show that Jesus obeyed the will of God, was not God, not a man, and prayed to God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 11, 2012, 11:00:52 AM
You call Muhammad a false prophet? Yet he delivered people from darkness into light?

Paul and the romans destroyed God's law and brought people into the dark ages for a thousand years.

You shall know them by their fruits.

You keep ranting about being 'blessed' for worshipping Jesus a man.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19


"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32

"He withdrew about a stone's throw and prayed, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done'" Luke 22:41-42


"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will'" Matthew 26:39 & Matthew 26:42


'Abba, Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" Mark 14:36



You bring great injustice upon Jesus by lying in his name

But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'Matthew 7:23


Unless you're implying God is bi-polar and that God goes back on his word, deceives, lies and changes his mind and is in fact a man... then these verses show that Jesus obeyed the will of God, was not God, not a man, and prayed to God.

Tell me about your relationship with Jesus Christ.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Thick Nick on September 11, 2012, 11:57:41 AM
Ahmed... are you silly enough to think that the Koran was never manipulated or altered as you claim the Christian bible has been? Here is the main difference between modern Muslims and modern Christians... both believe they are right... both believe the other is wrong... but if I say the Bible is crap no one wants to cut my head off. How does it make you feel when I say the only thing I would ever do with the Koran is rip out the pages and wipe my ass on them? If I said that right to your face? Islam has no turn the other cheek which makes them barbarians no matter what has happened in the past, one religion changed and one didn't. Guess which one is still living on the stone ages?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 11, 2012, 01:17:33 PM
The qur'an is as it was revealed 1400 years ago.

Every qur'an in existence is the same. Pick up any qur'an of today and it is the same.

On the other hand the bible not only fails this litmus test, it even has arithmetic errors. Are you going to call God poor at math? It just shows that it has been mendled by human hands as the qur'an indicates and as us Muslims know and believe.

To be Muslim we must accept and acknowledge the revelations, The torah, Gospel as revealed to Jesus, David's zabur (psalms), etc... but we acknowledge that men have changed their for their petty worldly gains.

You will not find a single qur'an differ. On the other hand, biblical scripture (I am not even talking about translations which are erronous on another level) differ in some crucial issues especially when it comes to doctrine and verses from which doctrine is derived from.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 11, 2012, 01:18:45 PM
Ahmed... are you silly enough to think that the Koran was never manipulated or altered as you claim the Christian bible has been? Here is the main difference between modern Muslims and modern Christians... both believe they are right... both believe the other is wrong... but if I say the Bible is crap no one wants to cut my head off. How does it make you feel when I say the only thing I would ever do with the Koran is rip out the pages and wipe my ass on them? If I said that right to your face? Islam has no turn the other cheek which makes them barbarians no matter what has happened in the past, one religion changed and one didn't. Guess which one is still living on the stone ages?

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)


The funny thing is, 'cross' was something that later christians idolized. Pretty ironic to find this verse the way it is, isn't it?


Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.  Surah An-Nisa' 82 (The Women)



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 10:32:28 AM
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)


The funny thing is, 'cross' was something that later christians idolized. Pretty ironic to find this verse the way it is, isn't it?


Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.  Surah An-Nisa' 82 (The Women)



Christ came to collect his church....his body of believers.  That's what that verse means.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 10:34:51 AM
There was no such thing as a 'church' until the 'church' happened.

There was Synagogues and Jewish temples as Jesus himself preached in.

What that verse means is that he has come to turn even family against each other, so that those that believe in God and obey his messenger are evident and those that are treacherous like the rabbis of that time who were after the wealth of this world and power. Corrupt.

The only good life to lead is one in belief and obedience of God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 11:40:31 AM
The qur'an is as it was revealed 1400 years ago.

Every qur'an in existence is the same. Pick up any qur'an of today and it is the same.

On the other hand the bible not only fails this litmus test, it even has arithmetic errors. Are you going to call God poor at math? It just shows that it has been mendled by human hands as the qur'an indicates and as us Muslims know and believe.

To be Muslim we must accept and acknowledge the revelations, The torah, Gospel as revealed to Jesus, David's zabur (psalms), etc... but we acknowledge that men have changed their for their petty worldly gains.

You will not find a single qur'an differ. On the other hand, biblical scripture (I am not even talking about translations which are erronous on another level) differ in some crucial issues especially when it comes to doctrine and verses from which doctrine is derived from.

As the story goes, the Qur'an was delivered directly from Allah by the angel Gabriel and was then recited to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel.  Due to Mohammed's illiteracy he memorized the entire text and then worked with a group of scribes to put the entire memorized message into written form over a 20+ year period all under his complete direction.  All that said, the Qur'an was tranferred into print by a group of scribles from a single source....Mohammed.  IMHO, of course it's perfectly preserved and untampered with, it came from one source....in my estimation that makes its transfer to print far less impressive.  Further, it has not one single, external, corroborating source to defend any of its tenets.  In addition, it came into being some 500-600 years after the bible was in full canonical form.  Now I certainly believe in God providing divine revelation to certain people....especially unlikely people.  Although, the Islamic denial of Christ as the resurrected Lord I simply can't ignore.  Labeling Christ as simply a prophet who takes second fiddle to Mohammed just screams "red flag" for a believer (for a nonbeliever they find all religion to be nonsense).  Christians don't deny certain arithmetic differences in scripture...the 10, 11, 12 disciple count for example is mere minutia and takes nothing from the core of Christ and his resurrection.  Christians know who wrote the inspired gospels and the NT...there's very little discussion in that regard, but it takes absolute blind faith to trust in the words of Mohammed no matter how beautifully they may be written.  He may not have been able to read or write, but he could certainly think and talk and did so for 20 years to his scribes who then crafted his words for him.  And of course they took no liberties during their dictation correct?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 11:41:12 AM
There was no such thing as a 'church' until the 'church' happened.

There was Synagogues and Jewish temples as Jesus himself preached in.

What that verse means is that he has come to turn even family against each other, so that those that believe in God and obey his messenger are evident and those that are treacherous like the rabbis of that time who were after the wealth of this world and power. Corrupt.

The only good life to lead is one in belief and obedience of God.

You know exactly what I'm saying...spinning it changes nothing.  Christ did not come to incite a riot between family members.  He came for his believers....sometimes that was entire families, sometimes it was individual members of a family that choose to follow Christ.  

I absolutely agree with your last statement though.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 01:05:13 PM
No you are the one spinning the meaning actually. You want to see what is not there. Just as you will 'see' the trinity in the old testament but its not there only your wishful conjecture.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 01:40:26 PM
As the story goes, the Qur'an was delivered directly from Allah by the angel Gabriel and was then recited to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel.  Due to Mohammed's illiteracy he memorized the entire text and then worked with a group of scribes to put the entire memorized message into written form over a 20+ year period all under his complete direction.  All that said, the Qur'an was tranferred into print by a group of scribles from a single source....Mohammed.  IMHO, of course it's perfectly preserved and untampered with, it came from one source....in my estimation that makes its transfer to print far less impressive.  

Wow, I'm baffled. So we know whom this was revealed to and its perfectly preserved from more than 1400 years ago. And you find this MEH?

On the other hand the bible is riddled with forgeries and words of various men, scribes, historians, rabbis, God, prophets, unknowns, frauds and that to you is more impressive? Not to mention other works are deliberately not included (apocrypha). Not impressive at all. Just very non-credible.

Quote
Further, it has not one single, external, corroborating source to defend any of its tenets.  In addition, it came into being some 500-600 years after the bible was in full canonical form.  Now I certainly believe in God providing divine revelation to certain people....especially unlikely people.

God is the one that defends it and affirms it and ultimately has today preserved it.

It reaffirms what was BEFORE and continous the same message. While paul a no body, claimed to have visions and sounds and RADICALLY changed the message of God and turned a monotheistic religion into a triunetheistic religion worshipping a MAN who is supposedly GOD and committed suicide on a cross to 'save mankind' so that sins are forgiven. Wait what?

So what if there is a 500-600-700- whatever time difference? God ALWAYS sent messengers and prophets to people because they DEVIATED from the original message. That is why we have so many off shoot religions, sects, groups, etc.. God is one and has one eternal message to all mankind. It is MEN who deviate because they follow their vain desires and not God's commandments.

Each time these prophets came back to educate mankind... but again and again people slowly deviate.

Jesus was sent to the children of Jacob/Israel... as they deviated yet again. They had the law, yet they did not have faith. Hence Jesus' focus on emotion/faith and not just the law, although he said he has not come to abolish it but to enact it. And he repeated the most important statement given to Jews. Hear oh Israel, your Lord God is one Lord.

Quote
 Although, the Islamic denial of Christ as the resurrected Lord I simply can't ignore.  Labeling Christ as simply a prophet who takes second fiddle to Mohammed just screams "red flag" for a believer (for a nonbeliever they find all religion to be nonsense).  

That's because you are blindly following your desires. There is no 'red flag'. Your beliefs are what are a 'red flag' you go away completely from the original teaching of all the past prophets and of Jesus himself. You radically change into following this unknown Paul and the romans.

Quote
Christians don't deny certain arithmetic differences in scripture...the 10, 11, 12 disciple count for example is mere minutia and takes nothing from the core of Christ and his resurrection.  Christians know who wrote the inspired gospels and the NT...there's very little discussion in that regard,

No they don't. They are unknown authors. Attributed mostly to paul's own writings.

Quote
but it takes absolute blind faith to trust in the words of Mohammed no matter how beautifully they may be written.  He may not have been able to read or write, but he could certainly think and talk and did so for 20 years to his scribes who then crafted his words for him.  And of course they took no liberties during their dictation correct?

No actually, it takes a BRAIN to rationally believe in what he revealed. It takes blind faith to believe that Jesus was God, a man, and committed suicide on the cross saved mankind and we are now sin free. Total non-sense.

Muhammad preached what all the past prophets preached. God is one. Eternal. Forgiving and merciful but also stern in punishment. There is no contradiction or deviation only firmness and principle.

For 23 years the non-muslim arabs persecuted Muhammad and his companions but God's speech prevails over the lies of men who slander God almighty.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 02:45:12 PM
No you are the one spinning the meaning actually. You want to see what is not there. Just as you will 'see' the trinity in the old testament but its not there only your wishful conjecture.

No spinning....that's just what it means LOL!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 02:46:08 PM
Wow, I'm baffled. So we know whom this was revealed to and its perfectly preserved from more than 1400 years ago. And you find this MEH?

On the other hand the bible is riddled with forgeries and words of various men, scribes, historians, rabbis, God, prophets, unknowns, frauds and that to you is more impressive? Not to mention other works are deliberately not included (apocrypha). Not impressive at all. Just very non-credible.

God is the one that defends it and affirms it and ultimately has today preserved it.

It reaffirms what was BEFORE and continous the same message. While paul a no body, claimed to have visions and sounds and RADICALLY changed the message of God and turned a monotheistic religion into a triunetheistic religion worshipping a MAN who is supposedly GOD and committed suicide on a cross to 'save mankind' so that sins are forgiven. Wait what?

So what if there is a 500-600-700- whatever time difference? God ALWAYS sent messengers and prophets to people because they DEVIATED from the original message. That is why we have so many off shoot religions, sects, groups, etc.. God is one and has one eternal message to all mankind. It is MEN who deviate because they follow their vain desires and not God's commandments.

Each time these prophets came back to educate mankind... but again and again people slowly deviate.

Jesus was sent to the children of Jacob/Israel... as they deviated yet again. They had the law, yet they did not have faith. Hence Jesus' focus on emotion/faith and not just the law, although he said he has not come to abolish it but to enact it. And he repeated the most important statement given to Jews. Hear oh Israel, your Lord God is one Lord.

That's because you are blindly following your desires. There is no 'red flag'. Your beliefs are what are a 'red flag' you go away completely from the original teaching of all the past prophets and of Jesus himself. You radically change into following this unknown Paul and the romans.

No they don't. They are unknown authors. Attributed mostly to paul's own writings.

No actually, it takes a BRAIN to rationally believe in what he revealed. It takes blind faith to believe that Jesus was God, a man, and committed suicide on the cross saved mankind and we are now sin free. Total non-sense.

Muhammad preached what all the past prophets preached. God is one. Eternal. Forgiving and merciful but also stern in punishment. There is no contradiction or deviation only firmness and principle.

For 23 years the non-muslim arabs persecuted Muhammad and his companions but God's speech prevails over the lies of men who slander God almighty.

When I have a bit more time I'll read this longer response....thx!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 02:47:25 PM
No spinning....that's just what it means LOL!

No it doesn't

It's like someone talking about a ferrari going around a track. It's red, its a ferrari, its going around a track.

You come along and say no actually thats not the correct meaning its not REALLY a ferrari, its a car of mystery, and its not really red, its actually something you must feel, its not really going around a track, its flying.

-_-


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 03:09:06 PM
No it doesn't

It's like someone talking about a ferrari going around a track. It's red, its a ferrari, its going around a track.

You come along and say no actually thats not the correct meaning its not REALLY a ferrari, its a car of mystery, and its not really red, its actually something you must feel, its not really going around a track, its flying.

-_-

Ok, the nonsense, back and forth has gone on long enough.   I mentioned before that  no one else is even bothering to respond in these threads....once I stop, the thread stops.   That said, here goes:

"Hey a_ahmed!  You're correct about everything you're posting and I'm completely wrong about everything I'm posting in response.  I absolutely, totally and completely concede defeat to a_ahmed.  I if see a red flower and a_ahmed says it's blue, by Allah the flower is blue."

Now, am I going to become a muslim?  Not a chance....I'm a born again Christian saved by grace with full assurance in the heart that has no doubt about the risen Christ or my experiences with the Holy Spirit.

I will say that if you ever want to know the risen Christ I am happy to speak with you about it and pray with you about it.  

Have a good one!   Done.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 03:11:47 PM
Well the moral of the story is. You are not actually following scripture only your wishful conjectures and blind faith that you persist regardless of what you are confronted with. Nor are you aware of history as you would then know how the trinity creeped in slowly and the original teachings of Jesus dissapeeard and were replaced with pagan ones that turned Jesus into a God


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 12, 2012, 04:03:17 PM
I do believe that Jesus had a prehuman existance. These scriptures prove it: Proverbs 8:22 & 23, John 1:30 and 17:5 and Colossians 1:15 & 16.  I do believe that the trinity is a lie, and that God is superior to Jesus as per John 14:28 and that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men as per this scripture: 1st Timothy 1:5 & 6.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 04:21:56 PM
Proverbs 8 is "Wisdom’s Call"

It's poetic speak about Wisdom not about Jesus.

Jesus did not exist until God created him. It's illogical. The OT is way before Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+8&version=NIV

Anything from NT is unreliable to talk about what was 'before creation' as it contradicts with OT.

John 1 opens with a forgery, it is a mistranslation of greek words.

The 'word' literally meaning God's command in flesh, or rather, a messenger of God.

The Colossians is a letter to the colossians presumed to be a writing of paul himself to the church of colossians.

Therefore that's not really credible as again it goes to Paul's own gospel, not Jesus' gospel, not Jesus' teachings but rather his forced teachings that he was arguing for trying to 'convert' people to this 'new faith' he found/developed claiming his vision/hearing.

Paul is after all the one arguing for the divinity of Jesus. He is the one that is making Jesus what he is not. The disciples of Jesus refused him, he condemned them and cursed them for not following Paul's own gospel/teachings. Likewise with these early churches. They refused him but he argued against them.

Therefore, there was friction and conflict from the get go. He was not accepted. Paul was a fraud and the people saw him for what he was. He was teaching something Jesus was not teaching and something contrary to everything revealed prior to all the pats prophets and messengers.

Like I said he is the one that does a complete u-turn on what came before.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 12, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
So basically you are saying that the whole book of John is false because of one mistranslation?

I have the translation from Greek to English- John 1:1-2 In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the word. This was in beginning toward the God. (this is from my greek new testament)

This is the interpretation: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Oh and I put the wrong chapter on 1st Timothy 2:5 & 6 about Jesus being the only mediator between God and men.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 12, 2012, 05:18:27 PM
Yet clearly Jesus was not the only mediator between God and men? Moses was. Abraham was. Israel/Jacob was. Etc...

I am not saying the whole is a forgery. In effect, what definition of a forgery are we to use? If we are to claim that it is the word of God then clearly it is a forgery because it is not the word of God. If we are to argue about the forgeries within the writings and who the author is, when it was written, then that is where we should be arguing about. Without a doubt, a writing AFTER Jesus, not Jesus' own either. What it is indeed is clearly a work of men and it cannot be taken for the absolute in the absolute as it is erronous here and there. It is not the word of God

If there are differences, deliberate additions or removals, deliberate translation errors... it indicates someone has ulterior motives.

It is only logic to know, that if Jesus was created before everything God would have revealed this to past people. Jesus wouldn't have needed a mother. He would have been created like Adam was no mother or father. Instead God chose to create Jesus with a mother called Mary. Mary went through delivery. She was criticized by her community of lewd things. Accusing her of fornication/etc... It wasn't all happy jingles and bells as the bible seems to present it as. We indeed have little to nothing of Jesus' life in detail preserved. Even some vital stories that were taunted as stories of Jesus have come to be later forgeries (like the story of the prostitute...) Pretty much he comes to life, then he is in the temple, etc... then he is 33, then he perishes and there is the whole divinity stuff coming after. :-/


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 13, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJPSJ9sUIio


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on September 13, 2012, 05:44:11 PM
Lots of great info in this thread, thanks ahmed!  I'll take a closer read and make some notes later when I have time at home.  I've been discussing this same issue with my father in law a lot lately.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 06:54:11 PM
Well the moral of the story is. You are not actually following scripture only your wishful conjectures and blind faith that you persist regardless of what you are confronted with. Nor are you aware of history as you would then know how the trinity creeped in slowly and the original teachings of Jesus dissapeeard and were replaced with pagan ones that turned Jesus into a God

Lots of great info in this thread, thanks ahmed!  I'll take a closer read and make some notes later when I have time at home.  I've been discussing this same issue with my father in law a lot lately.

Here's some more color to add to ahmed's notion of Paul's pagan ministry (snipnits from a larger work):

Many Muslim critics assert that the Apostle Paul was not a true Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. They erroneously argue that Paul came in after the real Apostles and took over the scene corrupting Christianity with new foreign teachings. Many Muslims assert that the original message of Jesus and his true followers, their supposed Islamic teaching, was in complete disagreement with Paul’s “new” theology. In contrast to this modern Islamic view the Christian position is that history demonstrates Paul was truly converted to Christianity. Christians argue that the evidence shows he was accepted by the original Apostles and by the earliest Christians as a genuine convert with sound theology who was given an important mission from Christ himself.

Positive Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship

When historians use the historical method they will consult the earliest sources regarding the historical issue in question. The earliest sources pertaining to Paul are the 1st century documents that were canonized into the Bible in the 4th century. The Bible is not one source - it is a compiled collection of many separate documents written over a span of about 1400 years. The 1st century texts that were canonized into the New Testament have much to say concerning the Apostle Paul and are thus very important to our study. Some Muslims may object and assert that one can not use the Bible to prove Paul. However, such a surface level objection is based on ignorance since, again, the New Testament is a collection of valuable early historical documents, many of which speak directly to this issue. To discard the 1st century documents that are in the Bible and not include them in our study would be to neglect the earliest sources we have concerning this issue. That method would essentially be to irresponsibly throw away important data, which no serious historian or researcher would ever do. If historical sources don’t count then we can’t know anything about history.

1st Century Biblical Sources

With respect to the 1st century Biblical evidence concerning Paul we have Paul’s writings (Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon), the history of the 1st century church known as “Acts” or “Acts of the Apostles,” and a Christian epistle known as 2 Peter. So, with respect to 1st century Biblical writings we have Paul’s epistles as well as two other independent documents to work with. All of the 1st century Biblical sources that mention Paul affirm that Paul was a genuine Apostle. None of them question that.
All through out the book of Acts we see Paul identified as a true Apostle. And so we could quote numerous passages affirming this from Acts. However, one striking feature is that in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council Paul played a leading role with the other Apostles such as James and Peter in answering the question about Gentiles being under the law. As the council was in session we see the following:
“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)

Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter (vv. 7-11) and right before James (vv. 13-21) who concluded the council and gave the final decision that Gentiles are not under the law. This demonstrates that there was 1st century recognition of Paul’s acceptance by the early church and by the Apostles themselves as an authoritative voice.

The book 2 Peter is rejected by many liberal scholars and Muslims but there is a strong case for its authority and for Petrine authorship.(2) This text is another 1st century source that not only affirms that Paul was a true Apostle, but it also identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture:
"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The best case scenario is that Peter wrote this and is accepting Paul. I believe this is the case. The worst case scenario is that this is another independent 1st century attestation affirming the reliability of Paul which we can add to the list. Even if it were not from Peter, it is still an early attestation which was accepted by the church and even added to the Canon of Scripture. Historians look for the earliest 1st century writings when it comes to Jesus and early Christianity. That there are no early 1st century writings asserting that Paul was a false Apostle discredits the Muslim position severely. The historical principles of early sources and multiple independent attestation is thus met with respect to 1st century Biblical evidence for Paul.

Paul was open about his humanity and imperfection

"8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- 10that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own." (Philippians 3:8-12)
"12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (1 Timothy 1:12-16)

"7So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)

This information meets the principle of embarrassment which historians look for. Christ and the Apostles had a very high view of holiness or sanctification(3) and so therefore we wouldn’t expect Paul to admit his imperfection and need for grace if he was an imposter trying to usurp or lead people away from the moral teachers Jesus and the Apostles. It is a human tendency to want to appear morally good in religious settings. This is especially true of those times. Although Paul was a sanctified model for morality and exhorted others to be moral, he was honest in admitting that he, like everyone else except Christ, was not perfect and that he, like everyone else, relied on God’s grace in his life. We know from history that later untrustworthy people who claimed to follow Christ, such as Pelagius, dishonestly claimed to be completely morally perfect(4). One would naturally expect something like this from Paul if he was trying to usurp Jesus and the Apostles who taught holiness and sanctification. But Paul, being genuine, admitted his imperfection, as did the other Prophets and Apostles either explicitly or implicitly(5), and taught that one ought to strive for holiness in light of being imperfect. In being honest about his imperfection and his reliance on God’s grace Paul was in fact doing the right thing according to Jesus’ teachings on salvation.(6) Hence, this kind of material demonstrates that Paul was genuine since if he was not then there would be no reason to include these types of admissions in his epistles – admissions that critics may twist or use against Paul.

Paul recorded his rebuke of Peter

One thing you would not want to do if all you were was a false Apostle pretending to be a true Apostle is invent a story where you rebuke a major influential Apostle in front of others for not handling the Gospel accurately. However, this actually happened. Paul did just that to the Apostle Peter demonstrating that Paul genuinely cared about the Gospel and would not compromise it for anyone, including major Apostles he worked with who stepped out of line:

“11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16)

Although Peter learned from this mistake and would go on to grow in grace, remain close with Paul, and eventually die as a martyr in Rome where Paul was also martyred, proving that Peter was a genuine appointed leader of the early church(7), this information tells us a lot about the integrity and reliability of Paul. One would not expect Paul to report that he publically rebuked a fellow worker and major Apostle if in fact he was some usurper trying fit in. You would expect him to want to avoid any unnecessary controversies or quarrels. This meets the principle of embarrassment.
Disinterested Comment about James

We can know Paul was a reliable true Apostle because of his disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19:
“18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19)

Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. The point is if Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul is trustworthy showing that he wasn’t out to merely prove he was an Apostle with fanciful detailed stories, but that he was actually recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.

Paul’s Gospel in the 1 Corinthians 15 Apostles Creed is the original Gospel

We can know Paul was a genuine Apostle preaching the original Gospel because his 1 Corinthians 15 Creed, which he received very early from the Apostles (Peter and James), is dated very closely to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion by scholarship which shows that Paul’s message was not some later innovation. The creed states:

“3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Here Paul reminds the Corinthian church that this Gospel message or creed which he previously preached to them orally was first given to him. It is important to note that Paul mentions that he received this creed before giving it to them. The 1st century evidence demonstrates that Paul received this creed from Peter and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem. This demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel (Jesus’ sacrifice for sins, the resurrection and appearances) was not some later corruption but that it goes right back to the beginning – coming from the original Apostles who walked with Jesus.

The 1st century documentation shows that after Paul’s conversion around A.D. 32, where he saw Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus, he then went to Arabia and after three years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James:

“15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:15-19)

Paul went to Jerusalem in A.D. 35 to meet with Peter and James – five years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. In Galatians 1:18 it says something extremely noteworthy with respect to Paul’s fifteen day Jerusalem stay in A.D. 35. Its says “I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and remained with him for fifteen days.” The word for “visit” there is actually a bad translation. The Greek word there is historeō where we get our English word “history.” According to the standard Lexical work of today, the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek-English Lexicon, [2000], p. 483 the Greek word historeō means to “to get information from.” It means to gain an account. Therefore, this 1st century data shows that in A.D. 35 Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem to inquire about the Gospel or gain a historical account of the Gospel and confirm that what he had previously received from the Lord through Revelation (Gal. 1:11-12) was the true account of the Gospel preached by the original Apostles. That at this time Paul received the 1 Corinthians 15 creed from Peter and James is the position of the majority of scholars – the creed which talks about Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead. In the verses just preceding the actual creed in 1 Corinthians 15 (15:1-3) we see technical rabbinic terms denoting the passing of previously received oral tradition which many scholars argue is in reference to Peter transmitting this creed to Paul in A.D. 35 – words like “delivered” or “handed on” (paradidōmi) and “received” (paralambanō) – the latter term being in reference to Paul receiving this creed from Peter and James in Jerusalem.

If Paul received this creed from Peter in A.D. 35 then Paul’s Gospel is traced back right to the beginning. This would mean Paul’s message is not some later innovation or novelty but is instead traced back to those who walked and talked with Jesus, the Apostles. This utterly refutes the modern Muslim claim that Paul came in later and corrupted Christianity with a new Gospel. Moreover, there is no 1st century evidence questioning this event with Peter and James or casting doubt on it. Scholars have much to say concerning this creed, its reliability, and its date in light of Paul receiving it very early.


Therefore scholarship is quite clear on the 1 Corinthians 15 creed being extremely early tradition formulated close to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. This utterly refutes the concept of “Pauline Christianity” and demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel and theology (Jesus dying for sins and raising from the dead) is the original early apostolic Gospel according to the 1st century data.

The Original Apostles confirmed Paul’s Gospel and Apostleship

The 1st century historical documentation on this issue also shows that fourteen years after the Jerusalem affair with Peter and James in Galatians 1:15-19 Paul then went back to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus. According to the 1st century data Paul says the pillars of the church (James, Peter and John) “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). This means that the original Apostles of Jesus added no correction to Paul’s Gospel message which he was preaching after the Jerusalem affair in A.D. 35. Hence, the original Apostles affirmed what Paul was preaching – namely Jesus’ crucifixion as a sacrifice for sins and His resurrection as orthodox theology. Moreover, James, Peter and John all extended their right hand of fellowship to Paul after seeing Paul’s grace (Gal. 2:9). This extremely early data (A.D. 49-54) is a severe blow to the anti-Pauline crowd since it adds one more attestation to the conclusive 1st century case for Paul’s reliability and apostleship. It must be stressed over and over, because it is important, that there is no clear 1st century documentation to the contrary asserting that Paul was not a true Apostle who was close to the original Apostles or that he had a false message.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 06:55:39 PM
Some additional color and continuation of snipnits from the larger article posted above:

Early Extra-Biblical Sources Affirming Paul’s Apostleship

Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-110)
Ignatius of Antioch was a 1st century pupil of the original Apostles.(23) This is important because if Paul was a false teacher and usurper, Ignatius, being a follower of the Apostles and their Gospel (he often quoted the Gospels of Matthew and John as well), would have pointed out Paul’s supposed theological errors or commented on Paul being a supposed false Apostle. However, this 1st century martyr Bishop offers early data in support of Paul’s association with the other Apostles as well as Paul’s rightful authority in the church. Ignatius wrote the following in A.D. 110 to the Christians in Rome:
“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”(24)

This extremely early material is affirming that Paul worked alongside Peter in leading and commanding the Christian church in Rome. Ignatius has other valuable remarks affirming the reliability of the Apostle Paul. For example, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus Ignatius relays that Paul accurately gave the Gospel to the Ephesians, that Paul was martyred for his faith (which also shows Paul’s reliability) as well as his deep respect and honor for Paul:
“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”(25)

We know that Ignatius was fed to lions in a Roman coliseum for his faith since Christianity was being persecuted by the Roman state.(26) This shows that Ignatius so firmly believed in his theology (which included Paul as a true Apostle with inspired doctrine) that he was willing to be martyred for it. If he knew Paul was an imposter or deceiver he would not be willing to be martyred for his faith. As the saying goes “liars make poor martyrs.”

Clement of Rome (A.D. ?-101)

Clement of Rome was a 1st century Christian secretary of the church at Rome responsible for correspondence with other churches.(27) There is also evidence to suggest that he was a prominent presbyter of the Roman church. Some believe he was the “fellow worker” Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. In his work Against Heresies chapter 3, book 3, section 3 Irenaeus, the 2nd century early writer, notes that Clement of Rome knew the original Apostles:
"...after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles."

In his letter The First Epistle of Clement also known as First Epistle to the Corinthians written in A.D. 96 Clement states the following about Paul:
“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee,and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”(28)

“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”(29)
Notice that Clement, in representing the beliefs of the 1st century Church at Rome, grants Paul’s reliability. He mentions Paul’s labours for the Gospel, his persecution for the faith, and his martyrdom. He states that Paul was a “striking example of patience” or in other words “endurance.” Notice also in the second citation that Clement attests to Paul’s reliability in that he calls him a "blessed Apostle," takes Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians as authoritative and valid with respect to Gospel truth, and states that Paul wrote his letter “under the inspiration of the Spirit.” This means Clement, and subsequently those in the 1st century Church of Rome, believed Paul’s letters to be inspired God-breathed Scripture - canon.

Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 69-155)

Polycarp was a 1st century Bishop like Ignatius. He was also a student or pupil of John and the other Apostles.

Therefore, in light of all of this early evidence which demonstrates that Polycarp knew the original Apostles, knew their original 1st century Gospel message, was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and suffered brutal martyrdom for his faith, it is indeed interesting that he would then affirm the Apostle Paul as genuine and sound theologically if Paul was a false Apostle. Polycarp states:
“For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, is the mother of us all.”(37)

“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.”(38)
“For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen. But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord? Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world? as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known him.”(39)

If Paul was an imposter, then Polycarp, knowing John and the other Apostles as well as their orthodox theology, would have spoken out against Paul. On the other hand if someone asserts that Polycarp was a liar or conspirator trying to mislead people to follow Paul for some nefarious absurd reason then Polycarp would not willingly go to his death for his faith. This evidence is a fatal blow to the egregious falsehood of anti-Pauline critics.

It's a good read.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 07:17:26 PM
A repost, but contains some of the information from above:

The bible is actually the inspired word of God which contains many writings put together, some included, some excluded with definite, deliberate, inspired purpose.

I addressed the "fabrications and forgeries" related to Mark and John in the other thread you started.

I can't speak to the story of the prostitute being a fabrication.

I like your shortcut approach in that you just deny all of Paul's writing as inspired from the outset and save yourself the trouble....no muss, no fuss.

Here'a 2+ hour discussion that you may review.  I enjoyed it, both speakers are very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7-uluKCDQ
 


I must say that Shabir Ally is a tremendous speaker...very impressed with him.   


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on September 13, 2012, 07:55:58 PM
A repost, but contains some of the information from above:
I must say that Shabir Ally is a tremendous speaker...very impressed with him.   


X2 - I've had the honour of meeting him several times, having lunch with him twice, driving him from and to the airport and delivering meals to his room while he was preparing for an interfaith dialogue the next day. This was all 10 years ago though. I can't see the video right now on my phone browser but will check it out when I'm at home.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 08:23:35 PM

X2 - I've had the honour of meeting him several times, having lunch with him twice, driving him from and to the airport and delivering meals to his room while he was preparing for an interfaith dialogue the next day. This was all 10 years ago though. I can't see the video right now on my phone browser but will check it out when I'm at home.

It's a great debate.  I love to watch William Lane Craig debate and I'm certainly a Christian, but I'm thankful for men like Shabir Ally that represent their faith in such a respectful manner.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 14, 2012, 03:50:05 PM
You realize people will not bother reading such a long copy paste and especially in blue which hurts the eyes?

You can't seem to argue point by point. And when I try to you just talk about 'i already found christ' or some other emotional response.

You can't seem to argue yourself using scripture.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: scottt on September 14, 2012, 04:02:04 PM
How do we know that the description of wisdom at Proverbs 8:22-31 applies to Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence?

The inspired description of wisdom found in the book of Proverbs reads: “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. . . . Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains . . . When he prepared the heavens I was there; . . . then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, . . . and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.”

This passage cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the wisdom that is here described was “produced,” or created, as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. God has always existed and has always been wise. (Psalm 90:1, 2) His wisdom had no beginning; it was neither created nor produced. It was not “brought forth as with labor pains.” Furthermore, this wisdom is said to speak and act, representing a person.—Proverbs 8:1.

The book of Proverbs says that long ago wisdom was beside Jehovah, the Creator, as “a master worker.” That certainly applies to Jesus. Long before he came to earth, Jesus worked so closely with Jehovah that God’s Word says: “He is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.”—Colossians 1:17; Revelation 3:14.

Depicting the Son of God as wisdom is appropriate, since he was the One who revealed Jehovah’s wise purposes and decrees. During his prehuman existence, Jesus was God’s Word, or Spokesman. (John 1:1) He is described as being “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30) What a beautiful description of the Son of God, whose fondness for mankind moved him to give his life as a ransom in their behalf!—John 3:16.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 14, 2012, 04:04:43 PM
No where does it speak of Jesus. You are just wanting to see that there.

From reading it and seeing it's title it clearly is dubbed wisdom.

Proverbs is mostly poetry/poetic and does not necessarily give realistic meanings entirely at times, but often times abstract, symbolic, you can say even creative descriptions of God's glory.

God's word, or word made flesh (command of God performed by men), means just thta. Prophets and messengers of God. Due to the pagan nature of romans and those surrounding Jesus' time... they saw these things in their pagan mentality and not for what they were... therefore they thought literally God became 'flesh' or a human. When clearly it has nothing to do with anything such.. as God cannot 'change', God is and that's the end.

Even in the qur'an it says "God says be, and it is". God's word. God's command.

Muhammad (pbuh) is called the walking qur'an sometimes... why? Because he was the embodiment of a believer and God's commands.

The same applies to all prophets and messengers of God.. At every given time when they came to their respective people, they were to be followed in order to reach a correct path towrads God and what God wants.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 14, 2012, 05:08:21 PM
Instead of chopping up verses take a look at the whole:

Quote
Proverbs 8
New International Version (NIV)
Wisdom’s Call

8 Does not wisdom call out?
    Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 At the highest point along the way,
    where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gate leading into the city,
    at the entrance, she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O people, I call out;
    I raise my voice to all mankind.
5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
    you who are foolish, set your hearts on it.[a]
6 Listen, for I have trustworthy things to say;
    I open my lips to speak what is right.
7 My mouth speaks what is true,
    for my lips detest wickedness.
8 All the words of my mouth are just;
    none of them is crooked or perverse.
9 To the discerning all of them are right;
    they are upright to those who have found knowledge.
10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
    knowledge rather than choice gold,
11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
    and nothing you desire can compare with her.
12 “I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
    I possess knowledge and discretion.
13 To fear the Lord is to hate evil;
    I hate pride and arrogance,
    evil behavior and perverse speech.
14 Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
    I have insight, I have power.
15 By me kings reign
    and rulers issue decrees that are just;
16 by me princes govern,
    and nobles—all who rule on earth.
17 I love those who love me,
    and those who seek me find me.
18 With me are riches and honor,
    enduring wealth and prosperity.
19 My fruit is better than fine gold;
    what I yield surpasses choice silver.
20 I walk in the way of righteousness,
    along the paths of justice,
21 bestowing a rich inheritance on those who love me
    and making their treasuries full.
22 “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,[c][d]
    before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
    at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
    when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
    before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the world or its fields
    or any of the dust of the earth.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
    when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
    and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
    so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30     Then I was constantly[e] at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
    rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world
    and delighting in mankind.
32 “Now then, my children, listen to me;
    blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise;
    do not disregard it.
34 Blessed are those who listen to me,
    watching daily at my doors,
    waiting at my doorway.
35 For those who find me find life
    and receive favor from the Lord.
36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
    all who hate me love death.”

Footnotes:
Proverbs 8:5 Septuagint; Hebrew foolish, instruct your minds
Proverbs 8:16 Some Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint; other Hebrew manuscripts all righteous rulers
Proverbs 8:22 Or way; or dominion
Proverbs 8:22 Or The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work; or The Lord brought me forth at the beginning of his work
Proverbs 8:30 Or was the artisan; or was a little child

It clearly has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 14, 2012, 08:39:47 PM
You realize people will not bother reading such a long copy paste and especially in blue which hurts the eyes?

You can't seem to argue point by point. And when I try to you just talk about 'i already found christ' or some other emotional response.

You can't seem to argue yourself using scripture.

I presented you a point by point answer in 2 different threads.....challenge presented, responded to and defended.  I just let far better academics and theologians answer on my behalf.   Plus given that you're such a student of history I assumed a short read such as this would present no problem whatsoever.  As you've indicated time and time again I'm a subpar intellect.  That said, this is about 60% of the entire read and I read it, summarized it and presented it in about 30 minutes....should be a cake walk for you.    Now if the font color is an issue no worries, I'm changing it to black.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 14, 2012, 09:12:04 PM
If you call this 'scholarly' work then I guess you don't know what a true scholar is.

It seems it's the same site you copy pasted from all the information. Someone who takes verses from teh qur'an out of context and conjures up their own meaning to mislead people is not a scholar but just another missionary islamophobe with ulterior motives of misleading people away from Islam and trying to persuade people about christianity's 'mercy' message (a bunch of emotional hoo haa far from reality). Orientalists call themselves 'scholars', yet they thought Muslims worshipped the moon. This is not scholarship, it's ulterior motives.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on September 15, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
You believe that you came from nothing and will perish  ::)

I don't think that's an accurate description. But then again, accurate descriptions and honest debating aren't really your cup of tea, are they?


I guess you are nothing now. It's all an accident, this post is an accident. it's all an illusion  ::)

Right, because without a supernatural influence and magical pixie dust, existence is not only impossible but meaningless  ::)


Stick to the atheist thread where I did not post.

No. I like posting here. What are you gonna do, go all jihad on me?



Muhammad (pbuh) is called the walking qur'an sometimes... why? Because he was the embodiment of a believer and God's commands.

So it was God who commanded him to fuck a 10-year old? I see... Does God also whisper such naughty thoughts in your ear too? Or are you not cool enough for some prepubescent hotness?



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2012, 09:35:20 AM
If you call this 'scholarly' work then I guess you don't know what a true scholar is.

It seems it's the same site you copy pasted from all the information. Someone who takes verses from teh qur'an out of context and conjures up their own meaning to mislead people is not a scholar but just another missionary islamophobe with ulterior motives of misleading people away from Islam and trying to persuade people about christianity's 'mercy' message (a bunch of emotional hoo haa far from reality). Orientalists call themselves 'scholars', yet they thought Muslims worshipped the moon. This is not scholarship, it's ulterior motives.

So you dismiss the refutation I posted because it came from a single source and because I originally posted it in blue.  Well.....ok.   But the Q is from a single source?  LOL, nevermind...forget that.

I didn't post the reference material because it was lengthy, but it references many of today's best theologians and their independent work.  Now, most likely they aren't part of ahmed's list of appropriate theologians, but that just doesn't make their position incorrect.

I agree that taking verses from the Q out of context is not an appropriate thing to do, but what I've presented above doesn't include any material from the Q.  It notes the Islamic objections but defends from scripture, history and external references outside of the bible.

You've found the website so I don't believe I need to provide you a link; fortunately all their text (or the majority of it) was in black.

 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 17, 2012, 02:05:10 PM
The copy pastes you made indeed did take verses of the quran completely out of context and fabricate meaning. That to me just annuls any validity of 'scholarship'.

I don't need priests to validate what the bible tells me. I have access to it. It's not like in the medieval ages where only those who knew latin and were in the high class were allowed to read the bible. I can read the bible and find out for myself what it says.

Every priest I went to had a different unique fantastical explanation of the trinity. You know what else? I had a philosophy teacher that was serving in the vatican but left the order. You know what he told me? The trinity is not true. Now will I use this against you as "hey this guy was in the vatican and he said this" no... but I will point to you what the bible says.

I posted this in another thread and yet again you avoided it. It just confirms in the absolute that the trinity is a lie:

Quote
A God that does not know? A God that dies? A God that commits suicide? A God that needs food and water? A God that eats himself as sacrifice? A God that needs human blood sacrifice? A God that is human? A God that changes his mind?

That is not God. God only changes the criterion for people, but He himself does not. All of the above are nothing but blasphemies by those that came after Jesus peace be upon him.

And Jesus.. was not God. Because what God does not KNOW?

"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. Mark 13:32

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."Luke 22:42

A God that has bipolar disorder?

You forge lies against God... and merely blaspheme. Just using the NT by itself and not quoting the OT... one can disprove the trinity and it's paradoxical nature.

God does not confuse or deceive, only men do. God gives CLEAR guidance with no error.

I don't have to take verses out of context. I just need to point them out to you. I don't need to post so called scholars essays.

The verses are quite clear in this distinguishing that God and Jesus are not the same.

I can go on hours and hours why Jesus is not God philosphically even (Jesus ate, slept, imagine God that sleeps?), etc... but I don't have to.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
The copy pastes you made indeed did take verses of the quran completely out of context and fabricate meaning. That to me just annuls any validity of 'scholarship'.

I don't need priests to validate what the bible tells me. I have access to it. It's not like in the medieval ages where only those who knew latin and were in the high class were allowed to read the bible. I can read the bible and find out for myself what it says.

Every priest I went to had a different unique fantastical explanation of the trinity. You know what else? I had a philosophy teacher that was serving in the vatican but left the order. You know what he told me? The trinity is not true. Now will I use this against you as "hey this guy was in the vatican and he said this" no... but I will point to you what the bible says.

I posted this in another thread and yet again you avoided it. It just confirms in the absolute that the trinity is a lie:

I don't have to take verses out of context. I just need to point them out to you. I don't need to post so called scholars essays.

The verses are quite clear in this distinguishing that God and Jesus are not the same.

I can go on hours and hours why Jesus is not God philosphically even (Jesus ate, slept, imagine God that sleeps?), etc... but I don't have to.

The copy and paste in this thread concerning Paul's ministry does not reference the Q at all.  

The copy and paste about the "Son of" reference in another thread included a single verse from the Q that compared a verse out of the bible.

The "Honour Killings" copy and paste include all kinds of verses from the Q, but as I already noted within that thread I used that as a definite example of taking things out of context or spinning verses as you have done time and again with the bible.

I'm used to any opponent of Christianity dismissing Christian theologians as "quacks" (so to speak)....that's par for the course LOL!

No, unfortunately I don't have the capacity to address all your posts point by point (please refer to avxo or syntaxmachine for that type of discussion).  They are excellent in that regard.  

I'll address the top level issues that alter the core of Christ as best I'm able (plus time permitting), but the secondary and tertiary minutia and conspiracy notions I leave alone unless I have time to review later.  Some stuff I've seen before and some stuff I haven't.  

Just don't assume that because I don't address all your minutia that you're correct and I "surrender defeat".  I make no wild claims about my abilities or knowledge and I know you dismiss "emotional appeals" altogether.   Doesn't change a thing about my experiences with the risen Christ though.

Ok, I've taken a lot of time out and have a ton to do now unrelated to Getbig....have a good day/night!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 17, 2012, 03:15:16 PM
Well you keep skipping and avoiding this because you know you cannot argue against it:

Quote
A God that does not know? A God that dies? A God that commits suicide? A God that needs food and water? A God that eats himself as sacrifice? A God that needs human blood sacrifice? A God that is human? A God that changes his mind?

That is not God. God only changes the criterion for people, but He himself does not. All of the above are nothing but blasphemies by those that came after Jesus peace be upon him.

And Jesus.. was not God. Because what God does not KNOW?

"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. Mark 13:32

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."Luke 22:42

A God that has bipolar disorder?

You forge lies against God... and merely blaspheme. Just using the NT by itself and not quoting the OT... one can disprove the trinity and it's paradoxical nature.

God does not confuse or deceive, only men do. God gives CLEAR guidance with no error.

It clearly shows God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God

This is the core of the debate. The trinity or rather the lack of it in the bible.

Jesus' own words work against you.

You don't want to acknowledge the above for that very reason. Either God is confused about Himself or you are confused about God or arrogant to admit it. Take a guess which it is.

I don't want to copy paste long essays. I am copying to you verses of the bible the demonstrate the simple truth. That Jesus is a man serving God, created by God, but not God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 06:36:00 PM
Jesus' own words work against you.

You know that saying about people in glass houses? How does it go again?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 18, 2012, 03:51:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6ZlaKkeSzA


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on September 19, 2012, 12:11:18 PM
So ahmed, this guy in the video starts by saying he doesn't personally believe God became man and that he's researched the topic in order to believe as such.

Then he asks whether viewers belief Christ was also his own messiah/annointed one, high priest, mediator, prophet and son and then reads scripture defending each of those positions.  He then says he believes this is "truly ridiculous" and then concludes by asking viewers to provide via scripture (and only scripture) verses that defend that Christ was his own messiah/annointed one, high priest, mediator, prophet and son.  

That said......huh??  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on September 19, 2012, 12:13:17 PM
Mohammed was just a warmonger, caravan thief and mass murderer who made up the Koran and told a primitive desert people whatever they wanted to hear so he could gain personal power.

As if the God of the Universe and all creation would be so perverted and shallow as to give a dead man a whole bunch of virgins when he dies... ::)

If there is an afterlife you'd think we would at least have ascended to a better level where these types of petty perversions are irrelevant.

I have to say this here because Muslims around the world right now are showing what a plague to the human race they are.
Some might be offended, but the logic of thousands upon thousands of protesting people to a pathetic video on the internet and then targeting and killing anyone from that nationality or who is even just white shows a pathetic and primitive mentality not compatible with modern civilisation.

I would live quite happy if I never have to see a Muslim/Moslem/Muhammeden in my life again.



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:57:35 PM
So ahmed, this guy in the video starts by saying he doesn't personally believe God became man and that he's researched the topic in order to believe as such.

Then he asks whether viewers belief Christ was also his own messiah/annointed one, high priest, mediator, prophet and son and then reads scripture defending each of those positions.  He then says he believes this is "truly ridiculous" and then concludes by asking viewers to provide via scripture (and only scripture) verses that defend that Christ was his own messiah/annointed one, high priest, mediator, prophet and son.  

That said......huh??  

It's in the same way I was showing you. That God and Jesus are not the same 'person'. Unless you are to by modern standards claim God is bipolar. Remember the verses about "Not my will, but your will", and the prayer where Jesus prays to God? Etc... etc... Or that no one knows not 'even the son' but only 'the father in heaven' about the hour (end times/judgment day). The last which illustrates Jesus did not have unlimited knowledge, but God does.



It is to illustrate that jesus was called all those things. Then how can he be God or all those things 'to himself'.

The reality is... the trinity came after Jesus. Otherwise Jesus would have proclaimed "Hear oh israel your God is a triune God". Instead he said "Hear oh israel your god is one" Just like as we muslims say today in our proclamation of faith. There is no deity but God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 01:01:55 PM
Just like as we muslims say today in our proclamation of faith. There is no deity but God.

Saying it won't make it so :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 01:04:28 PM
Saying it won't make it so :)

You know, I decided I won't believe in you. You are not real. You are just a figment of my imagination, probably a bot on a computer network. Kind of pointless to talk to a computer.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 01:17:52 PM
You know, I decided I won't believe in you. You are not real. You are just a figment of my imagination, probably a bot on a computer network. Kind of pointless to talk to a computer.

It's a good thing I don't have feelings (that upgrade is coming in 2014) or I'd be really hurt right now!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 01, 2012, 04:14:31 AM
I just finishing reading the Koran from front to back and I really don't understand how Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God.

All major prophets according to Islam are equal and Mohammad is the last prophet, I can accept all this reasoning, I don't agree with it but I can understand where you guys are coming from

Now what boggles my mind is how a Muslim can believe Jesus had a biological mother but was NOT conceived by a biological father, in other words he was born of a virgin women, a clear dramatic distinction from the other prophets, yes all of them including Muhammad. This is more then valid proof that Jesus was in fact the son of God, how you would come up with any other conclusion is beyond me.

And don't bring up Adam and Eve cause they didn't have a mother or a father, big difference from having only a mother.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 01, 2012, 04:56:13 AM
I just finishing reading the Koran from front to back and I really don't understand how Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God.

Very simply - the same way you believe that he is.



Now what boggles my mind is how a Muslim can believe Jesus had a biological mother but was NOT conceived by a biological father, in other words he was born of a virgin women, a clear dramatic distinction from the other prophets, yes all of them including Muhammad. This is more then valid proof that Jesus was in fact the son of God, how you would come up with any other conclusion is beyond me.

Proof? You talk as if things like "proof" and "logic" are applicable when they aren't. Just like with Christians, Muslims disregard logic and substitute faith instead, believing in the absence of (or worse still, contrary to) any rational, observable, quantifiable evidence that supports their belief.


And don't bring up Adam and Eve cause they didn't have a mother or a father, big difference from having only a mother.

Interesting. Can you tell us more?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 01, 2012, 05:02:34 AM
Very simply - the same way you believe that he is.



Proof? You talk as if things like "proof" and "logic" are applicable when they aren't. Just like with Christians, Muslims disregard logic and substitute faith instead, believing in the absence of (or worse still, contrary to) any rational, observable, quantifiable evidence that supports their belief.


Interesting. Can you tell us more?
Bro I am not talking to you. This is something you wouldn't understand as you are not a man of faith. So stay out of it please and thank you.

He knows what I am referring to, anyone who believes in God knows what I am referring to. From your perspective this is not logical I understand but anyone who has faith in God finds what I am saying logical, it will be interesting to see Ahmed thoughts on this and also MOS. Not interested in seeing your mocking and ridicule.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 01, 2012, 05:10:39 AM
Bro I am not talking to you. This is something you wouldn't understand as you are not a man of faith. So stay out of it please and thank you.

He knows what I am referring to, anyone who believes in God knows what I am referring to. From your perspective this is not logical I understand but anyone who has faith in God finds what I am saying logical, it will be interesting to see Ahmed thoughts on this and also MOS. Not interested in seeing your mocking and ridicule.

Oh... well, ok then.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 01, 2012, 05:32:35 AM
Oh... well, ok then.
Sorry don't mean to sound like a jerk but put it this way...

Say there are two people who believe in the anunnaki, you know Zacharia Sitchin, planet Nibiru and all that BS. So here is one guy presenting an explanation and some logic behind a cylinder seal with cuneiform writing on it and both are in disagreement about what it says, this a valid discussion amongst them then comes someone that doesn't believe in any of this and from the outside is suggesting that both are out to lunch, see it doesn't work, both people will be like huh  ???.... BTW Wiggs  is an anunnaki/Nibiru fanatic lol ::)

lol.... I know you are itching for a good debate but let the theologians debate amongst themselves for once, BTW I see you enjoyed the Olympia, as I did aswell, who did you have? Kai? or Phil?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 01, 2012, 09:39:03 AM
I just finishing reading the Koran from front to back and I really don't understand how Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God.

All major prophets according to Islam are equal and Mohammad is the last prophet, I can accept all this reasoning, I don't agree with it but I can understand where you guys are coming from

Now what boggles my mind is how a Muslim can believe Jesus had a biological mother but was NOT conceived by a biological father, in other words he was born of a virgin women, a clear dramatic distinction from the other prophets, yes all of them including Muhammad. This is more then valid proof that Jesus was in fact the son of God, how you would come up with any other conclusion is beyond me.

And don't bring up Adam and Eve cause they didn't have a mother or a father, big difference from having only a mother.

Hey bro, I'm impressed you read the whole Quran.  I haven't read the whole Bible yet but did order a copy through Amazon which is currently on its way.

Regarding your question (I don't recall the exact verse) but the Quran explains that since God is All-Powerful He can simply make any being just by saying "Be!" (not by literally saying "Be" necessarily but the meaning is He can create anything/anyone He wants with or without parents or with just a single parent, since he can create anything in any fashion). 

I'm not really following the logic on why Adam/Eve is not a fair analogy.  Yes, they had no parents while Jesus had one mother, but why would having one human parent imply that there must be a a second divine parent whereas having no human parents imply no divine parent?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 01, 2012, 10:24:03 AM
Bro I am not talking to you. This is something you wouldn't understand as you are not a man of faith. So stay out of it please and thank you.

He knows what I am referring to, anyone who believes in God knows what I am referring to. From your perspective this is not logical I understand but anyone who has faith in God finds what I am saying logical, it will be interesting to see Ahmed thoughts on this and also MOS. Not interested in seeing your mocking and ridicule.

First off, sorry for the novel.

What I gather from the Muslim community is that their belief in Allah stems from the elegance, precision and "untampered" nature of the Quaran and the idea that Muhammed was illiterate and therefore could not possibly have fabricated the Quaran over a 20+ year period with his group of faithful scribes who also could not possibly take any liberties of their own.  Now certainly what I've just said doesn't encompass every reason for Muslim belief.  Muslims acknowledge the Torah, but deny the prophetic books of the OT (as they lead to Christ as Savior and God).  

Muslims cling to a platform of "tampered, corrupted scripture" when in fact the "tampering" is in the secondary and tertiary information (the minutia) and takes nothing from the core of Christ or his message.  In the vast majority of "forgeries" or "tamperings" the issue is around a single letter, a part of a word or a single word.  Now, there does exist contraversy over the end of Mark and the the story of the adulterous woman in John.  The story in John is not found in almost all of the earliest manuscripts (ahmed refers to this repeatedly despite the fact I’ve already responded in kind), but it is found in hundreds and hundreds of later manuscripts.  That said, the Muslim claims this is a “FORGERY!!”, but a little context helps this issue.  Not all the earliest manuscripts contain this passage, but at least one does and other manuscripts contain it in other forms; further, the earliest manuscripts are cited to not be considered independent attestations and often borrowed from one another.  Seems completely reasonable that the bulk of earliest manuscripts then borrowed from a version that didn’t contain it – an unfortunate situation, but doesn’t invalidate the passage at all.   In addition, the majority of the earliest manuscripts we’ve found don’t contain it, but some do (very few, but some).  What of the other manuscripts that haven’t been found?  Perhaps they all contain it, perhaps they don’t; regardless, some do contain it.  

Muslims completely deny Paul's writings as inspired by God and they deny his relationship with the risen Christ and his relationship with Christ's disciples who acknowleged and supported Paul's missionary work and theology as sound.  Muslims simply consider Paul's work heretical or Pagan in nature.  They must do this because Paul's works substantiates the Trinity and deity of Christ.  Muslims acknowledge Christ as a prophet of God, but not the divine son of God.......or as the risen God.  That said, they must deny the prophetic books of the OT that point to Christ, they must deny the resurrection of Christ, they must deny the Holy Spirit, they must deny the divinity of Christ and they must deny Paul and his Christian ministry as divinely inspired or supported by Christ's disciples as it substantiate the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Holy Spirit and Christ's resurrection.  

That said, a relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit is essential...the essence of Christianity.  It's why Christ came, to collect his church (his body of believers); in essence, to separate the wheat from the chaff.  God was born as a man, interacted with man, lived as a man and died as the perfect man whose death paid the debt for all our sins.  When Christ returned to the right hand of the father the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and indwelt Christ's believers via a personal, tangible relationship.  The Muslim doesn't have the personal relationship with Allah or the indwelling of Allah in them.  As it appears, there's a definite divide between Allah and Muslim believers that is completely impersonal.  I'm not saying a Muslim can't strongly belief in Allah or draw happiness from their belief, but the belief system can only exist if first Christianity is twisted, corrupted and denied.  Islam simply cannot exist on its own merits in my humble opinion.    

Most here have been presented with all the evidence for belief in Christ….both evidence via emotional appeals (ex: testimonies of believers) and evidence without emotional appeals (ex: history, archeology, philosophy).  All that’s missing is what I’ve said time and time again….the personal or experiential evidence…the faith-based evidence.  It’s the evidence that is laughed at and scoffed at and denied the most and is ironically the most important evidence and is typically the most convincing, most compelling evidence available to all.   Still, it doesn’t convince everyone because some folks had the opportunity to experience Jesus Christ right before their eyes and still denied him.....even Peter, one of Christ's most faithful, denied Christ in moments of weakness.  These folks could see him, speak to him, touch him, witness his divine works and still deny him completely.   Some folks refuse to belief no matter what…..those folks I don’t know how to help.  All we can do as a body of believers is represent Christ daily, share our experiences and beliefs as best we're able to and do our very best to live as examples for others.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 01, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
To shorten your efforts.

We reject the false and invented belief of the trinity. Paul is nothing but a fraud and a false prophet. The one that Jesus warned of, while Christians follow him and call Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet. If we compare the two clearly Muhammad (pbuh) stuck to what all the prophets said and did while Paul radically introduces things that Jesus neither said or did in his own writings. He also destroys his own credibility in so many of his writings. He was just rambling and forging beliefs. He condemned those as cursed amongst other things that did not follow 'his gospel'.

Jesus thought no such things. I already tried debating man of steel and he just goes silent and changes subject when the fabricated quotes such as the 'three in heaven' are mentioned. These are not 'minuta' differences or opinions... they are monolithic forgeries that dictate doctrine and belief. The bible as we know it is known as not God's word. That's it.

Last but not least I tired debating man of steel on various verses which prove Jesus is not God but again he side tracks or ignores or changes topic when they are brought forth. Jesus thought the same as all the prophets.

Hear oh Israel your Lord God is one. He didn't say hear oh israel your Lord is a triune God.

We believed in the revelations, the books, the angels, the prophets and messengers.

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allaah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." [Quran 2:79]


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 01, 2012, 06:08:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUmYCSN5y8M


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 01, 2012, 08:03:07 PM
To shorten your efforts.

We reject the false and invented belief of the trinity. Paul is nothing but a fraud and a false prophet. The one that Jesus warned of, while Christians follow him and call Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet. If we compare the two clearly Muhammad (pbuh) stuck to what all the prophets said and did while Paul radically introduces things that Jesus neither said or did in his own writings. He also destroys his own credibility in so many of his writings. He was just rambling and forging beliefs. He condemned those as cursed amongst other things that did not follow 'his gospel'.

Jesus thought no such things. I already tried debating man of steel and he just goes silent and changes subject when the fabricated quotes such as the 'three in heaven' are mentioned. These are not 'minuta' differences or opinions... they are monolithic forgeries that dictate doctrine and belief. The bible as we know it is known as not God's word. That's it.

Last but not least I tired debating man of steel on various verses which prove Jesus is not God but again he side tracks or ignores or changes topic when they are brought forth. Jesus thought the same as all the prophets.

Hear oh Israel your Lord God is one. He didn't say hear oh israel your Lord is a triune God.

We believed in the revelations, the books, the angels, the prophets and messengers.

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allaah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." [Quran 2:79]

Dude, I work full time, raise a family and have many other things going on right now.  I don't have time to entertain every one of your posts.  I get in once in awhile and post what I can.  In fact, I don't even read thoroughly everything that is posted.....yours and other posts.  At best I skim posts because that's all I have time for.  If you've posted something over and over again I may not have read it.  I know it's inconceivable, but I don't read every word of every ahmed post.  I actually invest more time praying for you than I do reading your posts.

I interact with one third of the "pagan trinity" every single day of my life.....you do not.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on October 02, 2012, 03:09:49 AM
Mohammed was just a warmonger, caravan thief and mass murderer who made up the Koran and told a primitive desert people whatever they wanted to hear so he could gain personal power.

As if the God of the Universe and all creation would be so perverted and shallow as to give a dead man a whole bunch of virgins when he dies... ::)

If there is an afterlife you'd think we would at least have ascended to a better level where these types of petty perversions are irrelevant.

I have to say this here because Muslims around the world right now are showing what a plague to the human race they are.
Some might be offended, but the logic of thousands upon thousands of protesting people to a pathetic video on the internet and then targeting and killing anyone from that nationality or who is even just white shows a pathetic and primitive mentality not compatible with modern civilisation.

The idea of the Trinity is also just an interpretation, Arian Christians on the other hand did not follow this interpretation.

But the Koran and Mohammed are the biggest sham here.
It's just a pick and choose combination of the Torah and Bible for Arabic audiences.
To refer to 'monolithic forgeries' well then look no further than the Koran.

The irony is that so much of your cult comes from the Jews, which you people hate. The early Christians were also Jews, now represented by the Israelis.
Mohammed became aware of the Torah and Bible from his travels.............then disappears into a cave to 'meditate' and miraculously comes out with a book with stories from Judaism and Christianity.

Also, what kind of sick demon cult its followers a huge amount of prostitutes and whores when they die so that they can have a huge orgy....?
Only a twisted demon would think like this.

The Mohammedan cult is clearly a sham designed for the ignorant and the weak-minded to support the political efforts of its war mongering leader.

It is anti-human and goes against nature.

They are against freedom and want to impose their intolerance and hatred on others.
And they are against the culture and history of Western Civilization.

Christians and most Jews are at least able to live modern normal lives, they are able to still live balanced lives, go out and have fun and live as part of a modern civilization.

Luckily these two faiths as well as secular people are generally united to protect the West from the medieval primitiveness, evil and oppression of the Mohammedan cult.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Hey bro, I'm impressed you read the whole Quran.  I haven't read the whole Bible yet but did order a copy through Amazon which is currently on its way.

Regarding your question (I don't recall the exact verse) but the Quran explains that since God is All-Powerful He can simply make any being just by saying "Be!" (not by literally saying "Be" necessarily but the meaning is He can create anything/anyone He wants with or without parents or with just a single parent, since he can create anything in any fashion). 

I'm not really following the logic on why Adam/Eve is not a fair analogy.  Yes, they had no parents while Jesus had one mother, but why would having one human parent imply that there must be a a second divine parent whereas having no human parents imply no divine parent?
They were created therefor they didn't require parents. Jesus was not created, but conceived through devine intervention. His birth came through a virgin, so one can only conclude that the spirit of God was working in Mary's womb, from a biological point of view there would of had to be a process of development in her womb that would require a male counterpart for fertilization, you need both male and female to carry out the task. So if the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of the male for the fertilization process then the Spirit of God is in fact the father of Jesus.

Now if you claim that Mary did not go through these steps in order to conceive then what activities where going on in her womb for 9 months? Nothing at all? was it just emptiness in her womb and all of a sudden a baby came out? Of course not, the 9 months of pregnancy had to be genuine otherwise why bother starting the miracle at the beginning of the pregnancy?

Now one more thing. Since Adam, according to the Koran/Quran (not sure which one you prefer) there has been only one human being that has been born of a human mother only. Out of billions and billions of people Jesus is the only one and when I started reading the Koran I was paying close attention if the Koran stated a reason for the Virgin birth of Jesus and I did not come across any, not even one reason, in the Koran the word used by the angel when he was talking to Mary was "decreed" I found this extremely fascinating because "decreed" means the highest order from God himself.

So you have a virgin birth that makes this man different then any other human to have ever walked the face of the earth according to the Koran and it was done this way through an order of the highest degree by God ("decreed") according to the Koran and yet the Koran can NOT give a reason for such a fascinating distinction, not even one.

Here is the reason; the scriptures says that man that come from Adam is Sinful, and sense Jesus is the Sun of God and cannot sin, he can not be born of a man that comes from Adam, very logical. He is therefor conceived by the Holy Spirit.

I'm curious as to why it is not important for a Muslim to know why Jesus was chosen for such an extraordinary and fascinating occurrence. After reading the Koran I felt like Muslims disregard this as no big deal and don't acknowledge the significance of it.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 02, 2012, 01:26:19 PM
They were created therefor they didn't require parents. Jesus was not created, but conceived through devine intervention. His birth came through a virgin, so one can only conclude that the spirit of God was working in Mary's womb, from a biological point of view there would of had to be a process of development in her womb that would require a male counterpart for fertilization, you need both male and female to carry out the task. So if the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of the male for the fertilization process then the Spirit of God is in fact the father of Jesus.

Now if you claim that Mary did not go through these steps in order to conceive then what activities where going on in her womb for 9 months? Nothing at all? was it just emptiness in her womb and all of a sudden a baby came out? Of course not, the 9 months of pregnancy had to be genuine otherwise why bother starting the miracle at the beginning of the pregnancy?

Now one more thing. Since Adam, according to the Koran/Quran (not sure which one you prefer) there has been only one human being that has been born of a human mother only. Out of billions and billions of people Jesus is the only one and when I started reading the Koran I was paying close attention if the Koran stated a reason for the Virgin birth of Jesus and I did not come across any, not even one reason, in the Koran the word used by the angel when he was talking to Mary was "decreed" I found this extremely fascinating because "decreed" means the highest order from God himself.

So you have a virgin birth that makes this man different then any other human to have ever walked the face of the earth according to the Koran and it was done this way through an order of the highest degree by God ("decreed") according to the Koran and yet the Koran can NOT give a reason for such a fascinating distinction, not even one.

Here is the reason; the scriptures says that man that come from Adam is Sinful, and sense Jesus is the Sun of God and cannot sin, he can not be born of a man that comes from Adam, very logical. He is therefor conceived by the Holy Spirit.

I'm curious as to why it is not important for a Muslim to know why Jesus was chosen for such an extraordinary and fascinating occurrence. After reading the Koran I felt like Muslims disregard this as no big deal and don't acknowledge the significance of it.


We don't believe God has sexual function especially sexual function that's compatible with humans, such as having His own sperm that would fertilize Mary's egg.  God can "make" sperm that would fertilize without it being His own sperm, because God is above having human characteristics like dna.  That's why we believe God "made" Jesus but did not "beget" him.

It's not only Muslims who do not believe in the Trinity while still believing in the virgin-birth, there have been many Unitarian Christian movements, many were violently silenced.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Biddle_(Unitarian)

There's also lots of conceptual difficulties with the idea of the Trinity.  For example if God begot Jesus, that would by definition mean that Jesus did not previously exist, which woudl mean that they (God/"Father" and Jesus) are not the same entity.  Also, how can the created be equal to the creator, etc.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 02, 2012, 02:34:59 PM
I'll save you the trouble.

"God was in the womb for 9 months?"  ???

Of course not... it's blasphemy according to not just Muslims but the OT/torah. Jesus never thought such things, against to reiterate, it is later paul and later generations.

Indeed those who rejected the trinity were violently suppressed and trinitarianism prevailed.

Man of steel in another thread said God is male.

I tried to explain to him God created male and female gender. God is not his creation and is unique. Sex, male, female these are things that God created. Procreation, which is the sexual act of begetting is something God created for many and most of his creatures. Humans and animals. We continue to reproduce via this mechanism.

God is not a man, God is not male, God does not have sex as it is an act which He created for His creatures. Some creatures reproduce asexually for example. All these things are created by God but are not God


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 02, 2012, 02:58:57 PM
We don't believe God has sexual function especially sexual function that's compatible with humans, such as having His own sperm that would fertilize Mary's egg.  God can "make" sperm that would fertilize without it being His own sperm, because God is above having human characteristics like dna.  That's why we believe God "made" Jesus but did not "beget" him.

It's not only Muslims who do not believe in the Trinity while still believing in the virgin-birth, there have been many Unitarian Christian movements, many were violently silenced.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Biddle_(Unitarian)

There's also lots of conceptual difficulties with the idea of the Trinity.  For example if God begot Jesus, that would by definition mean that Jesus did not previously exist, which woudl mean that they (God/"Father" and Jesus) are not the same entity.  Also, how can the created be equal to the creator, etc.
Point noted, but when you put it altogether that the sperm used has no gyneology and is powered by the Holy Spirit, also you did not address why God would include a chosen individual out of all humanity to be honored and distinguished above all else, Mohammad included. Why?

Oh I am not arguing the Trinity, although i believe in the Trinity, but no one is going to believe in the Trinity without believing Jesus was the son of God first.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 02, 2012, 03:00:12 PM
"God was in the womb for 9 months?

The Spirit of God was


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 02, 2012, 03:12:49 PM
So parts of God are here some there? And then later God even commits suicide and is dead.

Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Aside from the fact it contradicts the OT entirely.. and.. even if you use the NT it proves that God is God and Jesus is Jesus. Separate. Not the same.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 02, 2012, 03:17:17 PM
Point noted, but when you put it altogether that the sperm used has no gyneology and is powered by the Holy Spirit, also you did not address why God would include a chosen individual out of all humanity to be honored and distinguished above all else, Mohammad included. Why?

Oh I am not arguing the Trinity, although i believe in the Trinity, but no one is going to believe in the Trinity without believing Jesus was the son of God first.

I understand what you're saying - there's definite uniqueness about Jesus as a prophet in Islam in that he was born from Virgin Mary and he is to return to fight the AntiChrist, however uniqueness does not elevate to divine / non-human status.  For example, Adam was a unique prophet in that he had no parents, Muhammad was unique in that he was the last prophet.  Why did God choose these certain uniquenesses we don't know.  

The reason I brought up the Trinity and Unitarian Christians was just to show that it's not only Muslims who believe that having no biological father implies Jesus must have been the literal son of God.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 02, 2012, 03:53:08 PM
Letting the "debate" happen without interfering and just reading what the "theologians" have to say has paid off in spades... ::)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: syntaxmachine on October 02, 2012, 06:22:48 PM
Letting the "debate" happen without interfering and just reading what the "theologians" have to say has paid off in spades... ::)

Well, the entertainment value is top-notch.  ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 02, 2012, 11:47:18 PM
So parts of God are here some there? And then later God even commits suicide and is dead.

Are you saying that if Allah wanted to do all those things he couldn't? Is he not omnipotent?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 12:12:44 AM
So parts of God are here some there? And then later God even commits suicide and is dead.

Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Aside from the fact it contradicts the OT entirely.. and.. even if you use the NT it proves that God is God and Jesus is Jesus. Separate. Not the same.
Putting restrictions on God sounds way more ludicrous


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I understand what you're saying - there's definite uniqueness about Jesus as a prophet in Islam in that he was born from Virgin Mary and he is to return to fight the AntiChrist, however uniqueness does not elevate to divine / non-human status.  For example, Adam was a unique prophet in that he had no parents, Muhammad was unique in that he was the last prophet.  Why did God choose these certain uniquenesses we don't know.  

The reason I brought up the Trinity and Unitarian Christians was just to show that it's not only Muslims who believe that having no biological father implies Jesus must have been the literal son of God.  
Simple cause Adam was the first, as far as Muhammad is concerned I don't believe he was the last prophet but even if he was you can't compare Jesus t o Adam or Muhammad his "uniqueness" is on an entirely different level here.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
Are you saying that if Allah wanted to do all those things he couldn't? Is he not omnipotent?
Wow I actually agree with your point for once  8)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on October 03, 2012, 03:10:46 AM
The concept of the Trinity is merely an interpretation, Arian Christians did not believe that all three Entities are one and the same.

A Christian does not to have to believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit or one and the same and all equal....nowhere does it explicitly say so in the bible, so is merely an interpretation.

Also, the argument by the Moslems that Mohammed is the 'last prophet' so his version is the final and right version doesn't hold water.

Then what about the Mormons? Or the Moonies....? Or Jehovah's Witnesses...?
They use the same argument as the Moslems.

One could then argue that Islam is merely an offshoot cult from Judeo-Christian religions.

And no-one seems to want to answer this little question:  ;D
What kind of sick demonic cult gives its followers a huge amount of prostitutes and whores when they die so that they can have a huge orgy....?
The Mohammedans are not allowed these types of sexual indulgences on Earth, yet such depravity is deemed OK when they're dead..?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 07:21:23 AM
I'll save you the trouble.

"God was in the womb for 9 months?"  ???

Of course not... it's blasphemy according to not just Muslims but the OT/torah. Jesus never thought such things, against to reiterate, it is later paul and later generations.

Indeed those who rejected the trinity were violently suppressed and trinitarianism prevailed.

Man of steel in another thread said God is male.

I tried to explain to him God created male and female gender. God is not his creation and is unique. Sex, male, female these are things that God created. Procreation, which is the sexual act of begetting is something God created for many and most of his creatures. Humans and animals. We continue to reproduce via this mechanism.

God is not a man, God is not male, God does not have sex as it is an act which He created for His creatures. Some creatures reproduce asexually for example. All these things are created by God but are not God

This one's simple....you deny Jesus Christ as God and you deny the trinity.  Of course you deny God being considerd a male.  Islam must attempt to refute anything that corroborates the trinity and/or Jesus as God.



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 08:48:40 AM
Simple cause Adam was the first, as far as Muhammad is concerned I don't believe he was the last prophet but even if he was you can't compare Jesus t o Adam or Muhammad his "uniqueness" is on an entirely different level here.

Yes, but like I said uniqueness alone does not suggest divinity.  To believe Jesus was God he would have had to say so himself, and something so significant likely would have been said so on many occasions. 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
This one's simple....you deny Jesus Christ as God and you deny the trinity.  Of course you deny God being considerd a male.  Islam must attempt to refute anything that corroborates the trinity and/or Jesus as God.



But it's not just Islam that denies the trinity, even many Christians do:  http://americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 09:39:27 AM
But it's not just Islam that denies the trinity, even many Christians do:  http://americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm 

Yes, there exist sects of nominal Christian churches and other denominations that also cherry pick scripture to form their own desired end. 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 09:50:34 AM
Yes, there exist sects of nominal Christian churches and other denominations that also cherry pick scripture to form their own desired end. 

Why do you call it "cherry-picking" and not interpretation?  One can argue that using the vague evidences of the Trinity within the Bible is also "cherry picking scripture to form their desired end." 

The majority of Christians today believe in the Trinity because that's what their parents, churches, etc. taught them, without actually having read the bible, knowing the history of when the Trinity concept was founded and that other interpretations exist.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 10:00:56 AM
Why do you call it "cherry-picking" and not interpretation?  One can argue that using the vague evidences of the Trinity within the Bible is also "cherry picking scripture to form their desired end."  

The majority of Christians today believe in the Trinity because that's what their parents, churches, etc. taught them, without actually having read the bible, knowing the history of when the Trinity concept was founded and that other interpretations exist.

Perfectly fine, swap "interpret" for "cherry picking".

Actually Christians today believe in the Trinity because they're indwelt with the Holy Spirit and a have a real, tangible relationship because of it.  A Muslim is no different from an Atheist in this regard.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 10:02:44 AM
Perfectly fine, swap "interpret" for "cherry picking".

Actually Christians today believe in the Trinity because they're indwelt with the Holy Spirit and a have a real, tangible relationship becaues of it.  A Muslim is not different than an Atheist in this regard.

Practically every follower of every religion believes they have a tangible relationship with God. 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 10:07:10 AM
Practically every follower of every religion believes they have a tangible relationship with God. 

Absolutely correct, but those non followers of Christ aren't indwelt with the Holy Spirit.  It's easy, the proof is in the pudding.  Truly desire to know the risen Christ and believe in him and the Holy Spirit will be made manifest in your life too.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 10:18:30 AM
You think they are non-followers of Christ, and they think you are.  Boils down to different interpretations of the Bible and of Jesus' quotes.  

However, if the Bible stated in black-and-white the Trinity, Jesus being God, etc. there would not be such contrasting interpretations.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 10:33:41 AM
You think they are non-followers of Christ, and they think you are.  Boils down to different interpretations of the Bible and of Jesus' quotes.  

However, if the Bible stated in black-and-white the Trinity, Jesus being God, etc. there would not be such contrasting interpretations.

That's why the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.  The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the difference for believers.  Unfortunately it's what drives nonbelievers to call Christians "arrogant" and "narrow-minded".  Christians are narrow-minded because Christ is the narrow gate and we are reassured in our faith because of the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Without the Holy Spirit you're simply left with exactly what you stated.... "contrasting interpretations".   


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
This one's simple....you deny Jesus Christ as God and you deny the trinity.  Of course you deny God being considerd a male.  Islam must attempt to refute anything that corroborates the trinity and/or Jesus as God.



If God is male according to you. Are you saying God has a ... I don't want to say it, what we have between our legs?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 02:23:43 PM
If God is male according to you. Are you saying God has a ... I don't want to say it, what we have between our legs?

God the Father and the Holy Spirit I can't say, but God the Son in Jesus Christ who lived as a man I would say definitely yes.

Again you're perspective on the gender issue stems directly from denial of Christ as God and the trinity.....my answer won't mean much to you because you object to the rationale.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 02:31:04 PM
If God is male according to you. Are you saying God has a ... I don't want to say it, what we have between our legs?
Your thoughts are way to basic and you seem to be putting God in a box, thinking he is restricted and saying God can't be, God has to be, let me tell you something. No man knows God, he is too awesome for you to comprehend and he can do everything you think he can't or shouldn't and at the end it will all be for the Good.

 As far has having a private part, probably not but the scripture says he made man in his image, so that would make him a man and the Torah refers to God as a man. In exodus the scripture says "God is a man of war, the Lord is his name" These are things we can not understand about God. but yes he is a man, and yes he is God almighty at the same time, he is not restricted to what your limited thoughts may have you believe. My understanding is the Angels have no private parts and the scripture refer them as males as well and they eat, sleep and drink, go figure.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Before saying that God is male you must be able to define "male."

Look it up in dictionaries and the definition revolves around sexual function and organs, so Ahmed's question is fair.  

We believe it's actually restricting to God to assign Him a gender, since having a gender in itself is a trait of mammals, beings He created who are below Him.  If you truly elevate God to the highest, don't you believe He is above having gender characteristics?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 04:13:25 PM
Before saying that God is male you must be able to define "male."

Look it up in dictionaries and the definition revolves around sexual function and organs, so Ahmed's question is fair. 

We believe it's actually restricting to God to assign Him a gender, since having a gender in itself is a trait of mammals, beings He created who are below Him.  If you truly elevate God to the highest, don't you believe He is above having gender characteristics?

I think that's fair to define the term "male", but from a Christian perspective Christ is the "Son of God" who referred to himself with the distinguished title of "Son of Man" and we also refer to "God the Father".  That said, the Holy Spirit and God the Father may not be considered males, but the terms "Father", "Son" and "Man" all point to a male gender.  Christ didn't produce offspring, but he lived as a man and died as a man so in that sense he was a male.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
I think that's fair to define the term "male", but from a Christian perspective Christ is the "Son of God" who referred to himself with the distinguished title of "Son of Man" and we also refer to "God the Father".  That said, the Holy Spirit and God the Father may not be considered males, but the terms "Father", "Son" and "Man" all point to a male gender.  Christ didn't produce offspring, but he lived as a man and died as a man so in that sense he was a male.

Have you considered that perhaps this is done not in a literal fashion but simply because the English language doesn't have words to refer to an entity that does not have a gender?  I use the word "He" as well when referring to God but I don't literally believe he is male.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 04:23:53 PM
Before saying that God is male you must be able to define "male."

Look it up in dictionaries and the definition revolves around sexual function and organs, so Ahmed's question is fair.  

We believe it's actually restricting to God to assign Him a gender, since having a gender in itself is a trait of mammals, beings He created who are below Him.  If you truly elevate God to the highest, don't you believe He is above having gender characteristics?
Wrong big time, there are different definitions of the word male. Some don't have anything to do sexual functions and only one of it's definitions does. So according to you guys a male plant has to have a penis?  lol, AH No, of course not.

Now, correct me if I am wrong but don't Muslims believe in the Torah?... Well the Torah says God is a male.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
Male plants spread their 'sperm' onto female plants. So whether its a penis or not. You are uttering that God is a human/man and male. Guess what all human male men have?

Mary is a human female woman with a vagina.

Muslims believe in the revelations that were given to Moses, but we know that the torah in it's entirity and the OT in it's entirety is not what was revealed to moses but includes other writings.

We believe in the torah (what was revealed to moses), the zabur (what was david's), jesus's gospel (injeel) and quran (as revealed through muhammad).

The bible consists of OT and NT... books... the OT apocrypha includes more books that are not included in the bible.. the NT apocrypha includes more books that are not included in the bible.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 04:58:33 PM
Wrong big time, there are different definitions of the word male. Some don't have anything to do sexual functions and only one of it's definitions does. So according to you guys a male plant has to have a penis?  lol, AH No, of course not.

Now, correct me if I am wrong but don't Muslims believe in the Torah?... Well the Torah says God is a male.

Lol well the words "male" and "female" are used for plants to differentiate between two types.  Since God is one, by definition there are no "two types/genders" that need to exist.

What then do you consider to be the definition of male that the Bible uses?  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 05:15:34 PM
Quote
male /māl/

Adjective:   
Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, esp. spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or...: "male children"

Noun:   
A male person, plant, or animal.

Synonyms:   
adjective.  masculine - manly - virile - manlike
noun.  man - he - mate - bull

Quote
male   [meyl]

noun
1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.
2. an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces a sperm cell or male gamete.
3. Botany . a staminate plant.

adjective
4. of, pertaining to, or being a male animal or plant.
5. pertaining to or characteristic of a male person; masculine: a male voice.
6. composed of males: a male choir.
7. Botany .
a. designating or pertaining to a plant or its reproductive structure producing or containing microspores.
b. (of seed plants) staminate.
8. Machinery . made to fit into a corresponding open or recessed part: a male plug. Compare female ( def. 8 ) .

Quote
be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1.(especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2.to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

Quote
procreate  pro·cre·ate (prō'krē-āt')
v. pro·cre·at·ed , pro·cre·at·ing , pro·cre·ates


 To beget and conceive offspring; to reproduce.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 05:23:07 PM
Male plants spread their 'sperm' onto female plants. So whether its a penis or not. You are uttering that God is a human/man and male. Guess what all human male men have?

Mary is a human female woman with a vagina.

Muslims believe in the revelations that were given to Moses, but we know that the torah in it's entirity and the OT in it's entirety is not what was revealed to moses but includes other writings.

We believe in the torah (what was revealed to moses), the zabur (what was david's), jesus's gospel (injeel) and quran (as revealed through muhammad).

The bible consists of OT and NT... books... the OT apocrypha includes more books that are not included in the bible.. the NT apocrypha includes more books that are not included in the bible.
Don`t be so naive bro, I am not uttering anything like you say. You are putting words in my mouth. I said God is male, the Hebrew term for male in the old testament is not a man with a penis, it is someone with masculine features and the O T states angels are male and they don`t have sexual organs.

But all this doesn`t matter cause guess what the 5 books of Moses that Muslims believe in that are in the Torah says God is a male. Bro I have read everything, every single manuscript known to man, The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Enoch, Jasher, The book of Jubilees and the Apocrypha books, every thing you can think of and they all say God`s a male, so maybe you have not read the Koran bro but here is a reminder.

He says, "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him." (42:11) And Surat al-Ikhlas, one of the first suras memorized by Muslim children everywhere, reads, " Say, “The truth is that Allah is One. Allah is Besought of all, needing none. He begot not, nor was He begotten. And like Him has never been any one."" (Quran, 112:1—4)


END OF ARGUMENT UNLESS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE kORAN


Lol well the words "male" and "female" are used for plants to differentiate between two types.  Since God is one, by definition there are no "two types/genders" that need to exist.

What then do you consider to be the definition of male that the Bible uses?  
Bro the argument is over  ;)   read above

To deny this is to go against the Koran  :)

No hard feelings  8)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 05:29:54 PM
lol if you read all those which i have too. You would be aware that in semetic languages there are two traits.

1.
a. We is used when God speaks of himself not because its multiple gods but as a royal we, when a king says "we have decided" when in reality the king has decided.

b. In hebrew God is mentioned by Ellohim. Notice Elloh in there. Elloh means god, Ellohim literally means gods, but it is the plural of respect yet again.

Even Muhammad when he is mentioned in the torah is mentioned as Muhamadim with a plural at the end.

2.
He is used whenever speaking of God as you are limited to what? He, she, it, we.

-If you say It, it's disrespectful and it is used merely for objects or strange things, no respect in it.

-We I already explained

-She, which means God could be impregnated

-He, is the only option left in our languages.

Jews never genderized God as male literally like you trinitarian christians do

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God


Why? Because there is nothing comparable to God in the creation. Everything within the creation is created by God while God is the creator and unique.

Jews like Muslims, and 'unitarian christians' hold the same view that nothing in creation resembles God and that we should not worship the creation but the Creator.

The only time this again became a 'debate' was amongst feminists who like yourself lacking understanding started arguing about God's 'male gender', and there are feminist books that change the bible to say "She". Pretty retarded.

Do please check out the verses in the bible where God is called a mother. Yet still Jews never literally attributed gender to God. So you are the only ones bringing about this, amongst polytheists.

Unitarian christians are a step ahead of you, abandon these fabricated later beliefs and return to the original message of Jesus.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 05:51:22 PM
lol if you read all those which i have too. You would be aware that in semetic languages there are two traits.

1.
a. We is used when God speaks of himself not because its multiple gods but as a royal we, when a king says "we have decided" when in reality the king has decided.

b. In hebrew God is mentioned by Ellohim. Notice Elloh in there. Elloh means god, Ellohim literally means gods, but it is the plural of respect yet again.

Even Muhammad when he is mentioned in the torah is mentioned as Muhamadim with a plural at the end.

2.
He is used whenever speaking of God as you are limited to what? He, she, it, we.

-If you say It, it's disrespectful and it is used merely for objects or strange things, no respect in it.

-We I already explained

-She, which means God could be impregnated

-He, is the only option left in our languages.

Jews never genderized God as male literally like you trinitarian christians do

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God


Why? Because there is nothing comparable to God in the creation. Everything within the creation is created by God while God is the creator and unique.

Jews like Muslims, and 'unitarian christians' hold the same view that nothing in creation resembles God and that we should not worship the creation but the Creator.

The only time this again became a 'debate' was amongst feminists who like yourself lacking understanding started arguing about God's 'male gender', and there are feminist books that change the bible to say "She". Pretty retarded.

Do please check out the verses in the bible where God is called a mother. Yet still Jews never literally attributed gender to God. So you are the only ones bringing about this, amongst polytheists.

Unitarian christians are a step ahead of you, abandon these fabricated later beliefs and return to the original message of Jesus.
I don`t remember such verse, I could be wrong but please show me the verse.

Also I believe what you are saying about God being the creator, this does not interfere with him being a male. See angels are not made of flesh, they can travel through space at the speed of light and they can kill an army of man by themselves, yet while they are here on earth they eat drink and sleep, these are thing we can not understand. The truth of the matter is they are not humans but can be as humans in human form if they want. So God has many forms not just 1 form how you guys limit him to.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
God created GENDER, God is not male or female.

Analogically according to the bible God compares himself to action of females, males and children, comparing himself in that sense. It's in the gender wiki.

None the less none of these mean God is either of these things. God created his creatures/creation and gave them gender.

For instance even in this verse if we are to take it as an example:

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

We don't believe this verse obviously and definetely not literally as christians do, as that would contradict the verses which indicate God not resembling his creation. Jews who Jesus was from and thought to, did not believe God was literally male either. All Jews reject this notion of God having literally gender.

Thus trinitarians are the only ones misinterpreting this whole issue because they are following Paul's teachings about God literally being a man, Jesus being God.

Jesus' followers knew very well that Jesus was a rabi and a prophet. Not God. Only Paul later brought this about.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 07:32:22 PM
Before saying that God is male you must be able to define "male."

Look it up in dictionaries and the definition revolves around sexual function and organs, so Ahmed's question is fair.  

We believe it's actually restricting to God to assign Him a gender, since having a gender in itself is a trait of mammals, beings He created who are below Him.  If you truly elevate God to the highest, don't you believe He is above having gender characteristics?

But you believe that he's not above being able to split himself in three? What else do you believe he's not above?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 07:39:39 PM
But you believe that he's not above being able to split himself in three? What else do you believe he's not above?

See that's funny. This is the kind of problem a christian would have we muslims don't have.

What I mean is, what you said is basically 'cant God do everything and anything'.

It's a typical question that confuses Christians.

For example: Can God create a rock He himself cannot lift.

To me this is easy to answer, to a christian it is not as they become stunned because they always use the God can do anything and therefore he became a human/etc...

However this question is invalid to begin with just as your question is invalid to begin with.

God is one and absolute. If he 'becomes' something else he seizes to be God. Therefore its an invalid question.

God would not 'create something he himself cant lift' that makes no sense, because weight is a limited function created by God in this universe. A law that we must obide by. Like many other limitations that remind us that we are dependant of God. Death for instance is by design decreed. All creatures have a beginning and an end, while God is eternal and as he brings us to life will bring us back again to life. This world is merely transitory for us.

We don't believe God is physically in this world or in this universe. We believe God to be above his creation, what that exactly means we do not know, but we certainly don't believe in pantheism but some christians like trinitarians do, they even believe that God 'dwells' in them.. I never accepted believing in this even as a christian even though we were thought this in christianity.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 09:19:25 AM
God is one and absolute. If he 'becomes' something else he seizes to be God. Therefore its an invalid question.

Why? cause you said so, lol. God can be anything he wants to be and he still doesn`t stop being God, he can be a human if he wants and walk here on earth if he wants. You`re logic is outrageous, according to you, no matter what God can`t come down to earth as a human, it`s impossible, there is no way he can do that, WOW, you got some issues bro, just cause you say he can`t does not mean he can`t.

You believe in the book of Exodus right? OK, quote from the Exodus...`

 `God is a man of war``


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 09:40:22 AM
In reference to your quote:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

You just prove that the bible is not God's word, not unchanged. I do not believe in the bible as it is today. I believe theoretically in what God revealed to Moses. We do not have that today. As a christian I believed in the bible, but I could see that it had men's words in them.

Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur’an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction! 4:82

Because by definition God is eternal, unique, absolute.

God is absolute and unchanging. There are several verses in the bible regarding that too:

Malachi 3:6: "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."


God changing, means changing from being God, into something else. Period.

Just think about it. He is the one who posesses all knowledge, is eternal, absolute, nothing compares to him.

It's through philosophical and theological monotheistic point of view an absolute. Unless you go away from monotheism and start believing in pantheism and polytheism... as from some things the trinitarian christians on here have professed.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 09:42:32 AM
God is one and absolute. If he 'becomes' something else he seizes to be God. Therefore its an invalid question.

Why? cause you said so, lol. God can be anything he wants to be and he still doesn`t stop being God, he can be a human if he wants and walk here on earth if he wants. You`re logic is outrageous, according to you, no matter what God can`t come down to earth as a human, it`s impossible, there is no way he can do that, WOW, you got some issues bro, just cause you say he can`t does not mean he can`t.

You believe in the book of Exodus right? OK, quote from the Exodus...`

 `God is a man of war``

Yes, God can do anything, but we believe God does not do inappropriate/humanly/imperfect things (like bare a child, live in a womb, talk to himself, etc.), He does Godly things instead  8)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 09:47:11 AM
Yes, God can do anything, but we believe God does not do inappropriate/humanly/imperfect things (like bare a child, live in a womb, talk to himself, etc.), He does Godly things instead  8)
Thanks bigbobs, I can live with that. At least you admit God can do anything, Ahmed on the other hand says it`s impossible.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 09:49:44 AM
Bigbobs doesn't say that God can become a human being. Bigbobs also does not believe that God changes God is. Eternal, absolute.

God becoming something else becomes something else. Is no longer God. Unless you're a pantheist or polytheist, which you and man of steel sound alot like, not a monotheist.

God is absolute and eternal. Changing means not being God.

You missed those verses about God being unchanging in the bible.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is that, God commands to not worship anything in creation in the ten commandments, then changes his opinion becomes a man and asks you to worship a man.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 09:52:51 AM
"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9

There is no one like God. There's alot of humans that are a lot like humans :)

"I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9


The above reminds me of someone who asked about the 'three in heaven' even though that's a well known fabricated verse and that person misunderstood the 'we' used in semetic languages, but it proves there is God... period.

Monotheism at it's finest.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 09:59:52 AM
Bigbobs doesn't say that God can become a human being. Bigbobs also does not believe that God changes God is. Eternal, absolute.

God becoming something else becomes something else. Is no longer God. Unless you're a pantheist or polytheist, which you and man of steel sound alot like, not a monotheist.

God is absolute and eternal. Changing means not being God.

You missed those verses about God being unchanging in the bible.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is that, God commands to not worship anything in creation in the ten commandments, then changes his opinion becomes a man and asks you to worship a man.
Yes he did, he said it was possible, but he said he wouldn`t


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:02:05 AM
You make no sense and you just lied against God. God said he wouldn't but could? What?

Here lets take another look at what the bible also says:

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' Psalm 82:6

Another proof that the bible cannot be fully trusted as it is not the word of God. That's why people differ. People who recognize the message of all the prophets which was the oneness of God.. and those that blaspheme against God contradicting the monotheistic belief with pantheism and polytheism.

This verse just keeps reverberating in my head every time I hear you speak and bring something new:

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! Quran 3.78 ( Surat Al-Imran , verse 78)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 10:11:22 AM
Yes he did, he said it was possible, but he said he wouldn`t

I made a general comment that God can do anything, but to take that general comment and question whether God can make himself imperfect (like a human) comes back to the question "Can God create a rock that's too heavy for him to lift?"

The "God can do anything" argument will say "yes" to that question, but then the "God can do anything" argument can not explain why he can't lift it. 

In other words using the "God can do anything" argument does not stand when applying it towards imperfections, such as "Can God become human?"


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:13:27 AM
You make no sense and you just lied against God. God said he wouldn't but could? What?

Here lets take another look at what the bible also says:

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' Psalm 82:6

Another proof that the bible cannot be fully trusted as it is not the word of God. That's why people differ. People who recognize the message of all the prophets which was the oneness of God.. and those that blaspheme against God contradicting the monotheistic belief with pantheism and polytheism.

This verse just keeps reverberating in my head every time I hear you speak and bring something new:

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! Quran 3.78 ( Surat Al-Imran , verse 78)
What are you talking about bro?     You said....  Bigbobs doesn't say that God can become a human    

and I said that bigbobs did say that God could become human, bigbob said God can do anything, then I said, but bigbobs said God wouldn`t, wooooooooooooosh

lol, I lied against God, what?  lol    


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Can God become a tree?

"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Exodus 20:1-17

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Deuteronomy 5:4-21

Humans tend to be on the earth, even in space now, even on the sea and under the sea... and there are plenty like us.

"there is no one like Yahweh our God." Exodus 8:10



So yes you lie against God by bringing forth lies and distortions.. introducing pantheism and polytheism


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:15:38 AM
I made a general comment that God can do anything, but to take that general comment and question whether God can make himself imperfect (like a human) comes back to the question "Can God create a rock that's too heavy for him to lift?"

The "God can do anything" argument will say "yes" to that question, but then the "God can do anything" argument can not explain why he can't lift it. 

In other words using the "God can do anything" argument does not stand when applying it towards imperfections, such as "Can God become human?"

Now we are arguing over non-sense. we are way off topic here


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:16:40 AM
Can God become a tree?
yes


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 10:16:48 AM
Like I posted earlier in this thread or in another one (can't recall now), have you considered that the "son of God" title is not meant to be taken literally?

Keep in mind there are countless quotes in the Bible where other individuals as well as whole populations are referred to as "son of God" or "sons of God."  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:18:56 AM
Now we are arguing over non-sense. we are way off topic here

No we're not. We are coming to understand how you worship like a pantheist or polytheist not a monotheist.

yes

So if I chop up that tree is that still God?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 10:19:26 AM
yes

And would that mean He would now be a tree and no longer God?  By definition you can't be two things at once.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
And would that mean He would now be a tree and no longer God?  By definition you can't be two things at once.
Yes you can be 2 things at once, there you guys go again making up your own rules.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 10:25:13 AM
Yes you can be 2 things at once, there you guys go again making up your own rules.

A tree by definition is not God, therefore if God became a tree He is no longer God.  Again, its just a play of words, can we move on to something closer to topic, like you suggested earlier?  How about my question below:

Like I posted earlier in this thread or in another one (can't recall now), have you considered that the "son of God" title is not meant to be taken literally?

Keep in mind there are countless quotes in the Bible where other individuals as well as whole populations are referred to as "son of God" or "sons of God."  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
A tree by definition is not God, therefore if God became a tree He is no longer God.  Again, its just a play of words, can we move on to something closer to topic, like you suggested earlier?  How about my question below:

How about why God chose Jesus above all others on the planet sense the beginning of time to have a virgin birth  ;)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:32:42 AM
A tree by definition is not God, therefore if God became a tree He is no longer God.  Again, its just a play of words, can we move on to something closer to topic, like you suggested earlier?  How about my question below:

In job it talks about ``the sons of God`` and in Genesis 6 also, referring to the angels. then there is children of God as a nation but you have to give me a quote where it refers to an individual human being as `the son of God`` cause I don`t know any of these verses you are referring to.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:33:22 AM
So how does a virgin birth make someone God? No human father  but a human mother.

Adam is even more awesome in that regard. He had no human father or human mother. God created him as the first human.

You still didn't answer my question.

If I chop up the tree is that still God?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:33:56 AM
In job it talks about ``the sons of God`` and in Genesis 6 also, referring to the angels. then there is children of God as a nation but you have to give me a quote where it refers to an individual human being as `the son of God`` cause I don`t know any of these verses you are referring to.

Quote
[God is being quoted as speaking to Nathan, telling him to say the following things to David.]

11: When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
12: He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.

13: I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,

14: but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'"

15: In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

Exodus 4:22 "Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my firstborn."

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."




Luke 5:16 "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."

As I said to man of steel, do you believe God is bipolar? It's disturbing.

Jesus indeed was a Muslim as he prayed to God as all the prophets prayed and as we today do... and he submitted his will to God which is the literal definition of a Muslim:

Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he (Jesus) fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me.  Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "

Matthew 26:42 "Again, for the second time, he (Jesus) went off and prayed, saying: 'My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.'"


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 10:45:52 AM
Exodus 4:22 "Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my firstborn."

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."




Luke 5:16 "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."

As I said to man of steel, do you believe God is bipolar? It's disturbing.

Jesus indeed was a Muslim as he prayed to God as all the prophets prayed and as we today do... and he submitted his will to God which is the literal definition of a Muslim:

Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he (Jesus) fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me.  Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "

Matthew 26:42 "Again, for the second time, he (Jesus) went off and prayed, saying: 'My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.'"
In both passages he is referring to the nation of Israel, sorry try again  ;)

I already stated in my post above that God refers to a nation, in this case the nation of Israel is God`s children, and that Psalm David wrote was when he became King of Israel, representing God`s children (Israel)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 10:46:11 AM
Jacob = Israel. Jacob was renamed to Israel. Israel's children such as Joseph and Benjamin and their offsprings which are the 12 tribes. Jews come from Jacob. None the less you are still deluding yourself. It's right in front of you hitting you head first, even David being called son of God, even 'begotten' (which again literally would mean sexually concieved).

Cute how you ignored the verses about Jesus praying to God, saying not his (jesus') will but God's will.

Matthew 26:44 "So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word."

And again you ignored my continuing question in response to your yes. If you say God can become a tree, what happens to God if I chop up the tree?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 11:05:37 AM
Jacob = Israel. Jacob was renamed to Israel. Israel's children such as Joseph and Benjamin and their offsprings which are the 12 tribes. Jews come from Jacob. None the less you are still deluding yourself. It's right in front of you hitting you head first, even David being called son of God, even 'begotten' (which again literally would mean sexually concieved).

Cute how you ignored the verses about Jesus praying to God, saying not his (jesus') will but God's will.

Matthew 26:44 "So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word."

And again you ignored my continuing question in response to your yes. If you say God can become a tree, what happens to God if I chop up the tree?
What are you in grade 2, who doesn`t know this bro. As far as the verse in Mathew we are not debating if Jesus is God, I won`t bother if you don`t even believe Jesus is the son of God why would I debate that Jesus is God?

Now as for the Psalm I just explained it to you, why do I have to explain it again, listen carefully bro. David wrote the Psalm when he was crowned, that is when God begot him as the head of a nation, his children, the children of Israel, the Bible makes this perfectly clear, next verse please


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Okay so I guess you are not willing to answer honestly and continue to delude yourself that God is a human being despite all the many verses I posted that nothing and no one is like God. Jesus praying to God. Jesus saying not his own will but that of God's will. And so on and so forth.

You seem to zig zag with your beliefs when it is convenient to you. Here you realize it is not literal, and all other examples, but then you insist on worshipping Jesus a human being sent by God, created by God, chosen by God.

He was only a prophet sent by God.

I recommend you check out the interview of Dr. Jerald Dirks who was a reverent, who has a doctorate in divinity from Harward, who went to seminaries studying THE actual original texts, history of the texts, etc... and who ultimately has alot more knowledge than you or I about scripture. He embraced Islam and denounced the trinity. He goes into great depth talking about the pauline christianity which ultimately over took and the original christianity such as the church in jerusalem the actual disciples of Jesus.

It's two parts, it's under people who became muslim the last video I watched/posted today.





Lastly you ignore the tree question which you answered as yes God can become a true. What happens to God if you chop up the tree? This is your words. Instead of saying it's 'grade 2', be honest and answer yourself. You know the truth but your pride and arrogance are holding you back.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 11:19:48 AM
Ya I am going to change my faith in my savior Jesus cause an internet guy showed me a few a versus that he interpreted in his own manner, bro Christian have read the scriptures and some of them are way more knowledgeable and smarter then you and I, you are going to educate them right? Good Luck


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 11:24:29 AM
Again ignoring the tree question. Why? Pride? I will keep asking until you answer it.

No that man embraced Islam, he studied the actual original texts, has a doctorate in divinity, was a reverent, maybe you should listen to him a little. He certainly did not preach pantheism like you do. You are the one interpreting what you want how you want. I have been giving you literal verses which debunk your pantheism and polytheism, and show the bible as erronous and contradictory in reference to distorted things that contradict themselves hence the confussion that leads some people to worship and believe as pantheists and polytheists and not as monotheists. If you do away with the pantheism and polytheism, you would be closer to the truth.

Jesus came to 'save you' by teaching you about God as all the prophets of God are meant to. Worshipping and obeying God will save you, not wishful thinking.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 11:28:30 AM
Again ignoring the tree question. Why? Pride? I will keep asking until you answer it.

No that man embraced Islam, he studied the actual original texts, has a doctorate in divinity, was a reverent, maybe you should listen to him a little. He certainly did not preach pantheism like you do. You are the one interpreting what you want how you want. I have been giving you literal verses which debunk your pantheism and polytheism, and show the bible as erronous and contradictory hence the confussion that leads some people to worship and believe as pantheists and polytheists and not as monotheists. If you do away with the pantheism and polytheism, you would be closer to the truth.

Jesus came to 'save you' by teaching you about God as all the prophets of God are meant to. Worshipping and obeying God will save you, not wishful thinking.
Why should I listen to him, his teachings come from a false prophet  ;)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 11:30:42 AM
Paul is a false prophet.

Muhammad (pbuh) did not contradict the teachings of Jesus or past prophets. Paul did.

Why? Because he knows alot more about scripture, original texts, how they were formed, how they came to be, their history, how the bible came to be. How christianity came to be. From original christianity to pauline christianity which ultimately dominated over the original followers of Jesus as time went on. The fact that he has a doctorate in divinity, the fact that he was a revrent. Things an internet dude like yourself has nothing on him.

He did not let his pride and arrogance blindly guide him to worship a human being.

In case you don't know what a doctorate in divinity is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Divinity

Quote
Historically, it identified one who had been licensed by a university to teach Christian theology or related religious subjects.

Hence he knows alot more than you do.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 11:38:40 AM
Quote
"There is some irony in the fact that the supposedly best, brightest, and most idealistic of ministers-to-be are selected for the very best of seminary education, e.g. that offered at that time at the Harvard Divinity School. The irony is that, given such an education, the seminarian is exposed to ... much ... historical truth. .. As such, it is no real wonder that almost a majority of such seminary graduates leave seminary, not to “fill pulpits”, where they would be asked to preach that which they know is not true, but to enter the various counseling professions. Such was also the case for me, as I went on to earn a master’s and doctorate in clinical psychology."

Dr. Dirks is a former minister (deacon) of the United Methodist Church. He holds a Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Denver. Author of "The Cross and the Crescent: An Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam" (2001), and "Abraham: The Friend of God" (2002). He has published over 60 articles in the field of clinical psychology, and over 150 articles on Arabian horses.

© 2002 (Abu Yahya) Jerald F. Dirks, M. Div, Psy. D.   Reproduced below with his permission and segmented into six sections without any alternation or editing in the text content.

One of my earliest childhood memories is of hearing the church bell toll for Sunday morning worship in the small, rural town in which I was raised. The Methodist Church was an old, wooden structure with a bell tower, two children’s Sunday School classrooms cubbyholed behind folding, wooden doors to separate it from the sanctuary, and a choir loft that housed the Sunday school classrooms for the older children. It stood less than two blocks from my home. As the bell rang, we would come together as a family, and make our weekly pilgrimage to the church.

In that rural setting from the 1950s, the three churches in the town of about 500 were the center of community life. The local Methodist Church, to which my family belonged, sponsored ice cream socials with hand-cranked, homemade ice cream, chicken potpie dinners, and corn roasts. My family and I were always involved in all three, but each came only once a year. In addition, there was a two-week community Bible school every June, and I was a regular attendee through my eighth grade year in school. However, Sunday morning worship and Sunday school were weekly events, and I strove to keep extending my collection of perfect attendance pins and of awards for memorizing Bible verses.

By my junior high school days, the local Methodist Church had closed, and we were attending the Methodist Church in the neighboring town, which was only slightly larger than the town in which I lived. There, my thoughts first began to focus on the ministry as a personal calling. I became active in the Methodist Youth Fellowship, and eventually served as both a district and a conference officer. I also became the regular “preacher” during the annual Youth Sunday service.   


My preaching began to draw community-wide attention, and before long I was occasionally filling pulpits at other churches, at a nursing home, and at various church-affiliated youth and ladies groups, where I typically set attendance records.

By age 17, when I began my freshman year at Harvard College, my decision to enter the ministry had solidified. During my freshman year, I enrolled in a two-semester course in comparative religion, which was taught by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, whose specific area of expertise was Islam. During that course, I gave far less attention to Islam, than I did to other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, as the latter two seemed so much more esoteric and strange to me. In contrast, Islam appeared to be somewhat similar to my own Christianity. As such, I didn’t concentrate on it as much as I probably should have, although I can remember writing a term paper for the course on the concept of revelation in the Qur’an. Nonetheless, as the course was one of rigorous academic standards and demands, I did acquire a small library of about a half dozen books on Islam, all of which were written by non-Muslims, and all of which were to serve me in good stead 25 years later. I also acquired two different English translations of the meaning of the Qur’an, which I read at the time.

That spring, Harvard named me a Hollis Scholar, signifying that I was one of the top pre-theology students in the college. The summer between my freshman and sophomore years at Harvard, I worked as a youth minister at a fairly large United Methodist Church. The following summer, I obtained my License to Preach from the United Methodist Church. Upon graduating from Harvard College in 1971, I enrolled at the Harvard Divinity School, and there obtained my Master of Divinity degree in 1974, having been previously ordained into the Deaconate of the United Methodist Church in 1972, and having previously received a Stewart Scholarship from the United Methodist Church as a supplement to my Harvard Divinity School scholarships. During my seminary education, I also completed a two-year externship program as a hospital chaplain at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. Following graduation from Harvard Divinity School, I spent the summer as the minister of two United Methodist churches in rural Kansas, where attendance soared to heights not seen in those churches for several years.

You can read the rest here:

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/dirks2.shtml

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/dirks3.shtml

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/dirks4.shtml

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/dirks5.shtml

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/dirks6.shtml


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 12:08:26 PM
Okay so I guess you are not willing to answer honestly and continue to delude yourself that God is a human being despite all the many verses I posted that nothing and no one is like God. Jesus praying to God. Jesus saying not his own will but that of God's will. And so on and so forth.

You seem to zig zag with your beliefs when it is convenient to you. Here you realize it is not literal, and all other examples, but then you insist on worshipping Jesus a human being sent by God, created by God, chosen by God.

He was only a prophet sent by God.

I recommend you check out the interview of Dr. Jerald Dirks who was a reverent, who has a doctorate in divinity from Harward, who went to seminaries studying THE actual original texts, history of the texts, etc... and who ultimately has alot more knowledge than you or I about scripture. He embraced Islam and denounced the trinity. He goes into great depth talking about the pauline christianity which ultimately over took and the original christianity such as the church in jerusalem the actual disciples of Jesus.

It's two parts, it's under people who became muslim the last video I watched/posted today.





Lastly you ignore the tree question which you answered as yes God can become a true. What happens to God if you chop up the tree? This is your words. Instead of saying it's 'grade 2', be honest and answer yourself. You know the truth but your pride and arrogance are holding you back.

GOSPEL REFERENCES SPEAKING TO THE DEITY OF JESUS AND THE TRINITY:

Jesus claim that God the Father and God the Son are one:
Matthew 11:25-27
The Father Revealed in the Son
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Jesus affirms he is God:
Matthew 26:63-64
63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[a]

Jesus affirming his divine kingship and authority:
Luke 22:29-30
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The disciples acknowledged the deity of Christ:
Mark 10:37
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

Jesus claimed to be the wiser than the wisest Solomon who’s wisdom was a gift from God:
Matthew 12:42
42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

Jesus provided miraculous healing and forgave sins:
Mark 2:1-12
Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man
2 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Jesus claims that he is the only path to the divine kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 7:21-23
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Jesus sits on the divine throne in heaven and commands all the angels of heaven:
Matthew 25:31
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

Jesus claim as divine Lord and Messiah:
Matthew 22:41-46
Whose Son Is the Messiah?
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’[a]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Jesus again claiming divine kingship and divine authority to judge and approve judges:
Matthew 19:28
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus claiming to be the only way to divine salvation:
Matthew 10:34-39
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Jesus claiming his eternal rule and existence (OT reference in Isaiah 40):
Mark 13:31
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Isaiah 40 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
    but the word of our God endures forever.”

Jesus divine authority to command demonic spirits:
Mark 1:27
27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.”
Jesus divine claim as only way to eternal life and divine salvation:
John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

OTHER NT TRINITY AND DEITY OF JESUS REFERENCES:
John 1:1-31 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

2 Corinthians 13:14
14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Hebrews 1:1-5
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Romans 10:1-12
10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Acts 4:10-12
10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected,
    which has become the cornerstone.’
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

OT TRINITY REFERENCES:
Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Genesis 11:7
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Isaiah 6:8
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:14:59 PM
I started reading and was quite dissapointed. I don't see anywhere Jesus saying "worship me I am God"

Jesus being chosen by God does not make him God. He like other prophets was chosen by God.

Jesus doing miracles does not make him God. Just as Moses did not become God because he had 'powers'.

Jesus IS the only way to God. Why? Because all the prophets of God are the only way to God at their given time.

It's weird how in these things you see Jesus being God. Baffling.

Jesus commanding jinn, exorcism? Muslims do it too.

Quote
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

This itself is such blasphemy. It's like saying even if there are gods out there. This is not the word of God, or word of Jesus. Obviously writings of Paul

All the letters of the NT are Paul's writings. I don't believe in them as they are clear manifest human works.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 12:17:11 PM
Good job MOS, that seals the deal for Ahmed  8)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:19:15 PM
Good job MOS, that seals the deal for Ahmed  8)

I feel sorry for you. How you delude yourself.

Other than Paul's letters which have nothing to do with Jesus ultimately, but are Paul's own writings. There is nothing that says Hear oh Israel I jesus am your God. Israel worship me, Jesus. Etc...

I guess ignoring all the other verses is inspiring to you to be a polytheist and pantheist?

What about the contradicting verses that say there is NOTHING and no one like God?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
I started reading and was quite dissapointed. I don't see anywhere Jesus saying "worship me I am God"

Jesus being chosen by God does not make him God. He like other prophets was chosen by God.

Jesus doing miracles does not make him God. Just as Moses did not become God because he had 'powers'.

Jesus IS the only way to God. Why? Because all the prophets of God are the only way to God at their given time.

It's weird how in these things you see Jesus being God. Baffling.

Jesus commanding jinn, exorcism? Muslims do it too.

This itself is such blasphemy. It's like saying even if there are gods out there. This is not the word of God, or word of Jesus. Obviously writings of Paul
unfortunatly Muhammad was not one of those prophets


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 12:20:20 PM
I feel sorry for you. How you delude yourself.
I feel sorry for you for not accepting the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ  :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:21:02 PM
I feel sorry for you for not accepting the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ  :)

Gift? You mean lie? I was christian. I reject falsehood. I accept Jesus.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:21:33 PM
unfortunatly Muhammad was not one of those prophets

In case you didn't know we are 2 billion people today following Muhammad (pbuh) and growing.

Unlike the bible, the quran is the word of God. Unlike the bible, the quran does not contradict itself like the bible does over and over again. Hence your confusion.

Unlike Jesus (peace be upon him), we have details about Muhammad (pbuh) witnessed by tens of thousands. Your only witness is a fraud Paul who was in fact an oppressor and bounty hunter of the real followers of Jesus.

The teachings and beliefs of the original followers of Jesus have been lost, what we have are later beliefs by Paul which overtook the original christianity as in the church of jerusalem.



If a deacon, a reverent, a doctor of divinity, a seminary who studied and held the original texts, studied where, how, when, by whom these were written, added, manipulated, even the reasons why they were changed, can become a Muslim. So can you.

He like many learned christian theologians has a hard time living with himself inside himself preaching lies but knowing they are lies.

I may not have had a doctorate in divinity but i had the same problem studying and knowing the bible and its history, and the history of christianity


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 12:25:00 PM
In case you didn't know we are 2 billion people today following Muhammad (pbuh) and growing.

Unlike the bible, the quran is the word of God. Unlike the bible, the quran does not contradict itself like the bible does over and over again. Hence your confusion.

Unlike Jesus (peace be upon him), we have details about Muhammad (pbuh) witnessed by tens of thousands. Your only witness is a fraud Paul who was in fact an oppressor and bounty hunter of the real followers of Jesus.

The teachings and beliefs of the original followers of Jesus have been lost, what we have are later beliefs by Paul which overtook the original christianity as in the church of jerusalem.
That means nothing, there are 2 billion atheist as well


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:26:31 PM
Those atheists might have been christians. They left christianity because they could no longer live lies in worshipping a human being when they themselves are human beings. They might have become educated and learned the bible, yet they could not live with the innumerate contradictions. Knowing more about the bible, christianity and the church made them run away. I ran away the more I learned although I did not reject God.

And so there are amongst christians those who are not polytheists or pantheists. They will accept Islam when they learn about Islam.

So, how about that tree? What would happen to God if I chopped up the tree that you said "God could become a tree" I am going to keep asking you this wherever I see you try to debate until you answer.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 12:33:10 PM
In case you didn't know we are 2 billion people today following Muhammad (pbuh) and growing.

Unlike the bible, the quran is the word of God. Unlike the bible, the quran does not contradict itself like the bible does over and over again. Hence your confusion.

Unlike Jesus (peace be upon him), we have details about Muhammad (pbuh) witnessed by tens of thousands. Your only witness is a fraud Paul who was in fact an oppressor and bounty hunter of the real followers of Jesus.

The teachings and beliefs of the original followers of Jesus have been lost, what we have are later beliefs by Paul which overtook the original christianity as in the church of jerusalem.



If a deacon, a reverent, a doctor of divinity, a seminary who studied and held the original texts, studied where, how, when, by whom these were written, added, manipulated, even the reasons why they were changed, can become a Muslim. So can you.

He like many learned christian theologians has a hard time living with himself inside himself preaching lies but knowing they are lies.

I may not have had a doctorate in divinity but i had the same problem studying and knowing the bible and its history, and the history of christianity

I'm happy to share my faith with you anytime you would like.  The Holy Spirit has done a wonderful work in my life....a real, tangible, life changing work.  I'm no scholar or theologian, but I do know the absolute, reality of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus Christ transformed me and he can transform you to if you'll follow his example of submission (to the Father).  Christ is one with the Father and Holy Spirit, but surrenders to the Father in a divine example of how we should surrender to the will of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Believe in him, confess with your mouth and be saved....easy-peasy friend.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:35:28 PM
I submit my will to God almighty. I believe in all the prophets of God from Adam until Muhammad (peace be upon them all) and in between there of course Jesus (peace be upon him)

This 2nd god you refer to is meaningless to mention. Holy ghost? Holy spirit? Apparently according to your friend 'God', was in the womb of a woman for 9 months. He called this the holy spirit. Now that ghost is dwelling in you and you are FEEELING THE POWER. Your friend also believes that God can become a tree so I guess that would make the 'holy spirit' dwell in that piece of wood? Because "God can do anything"

You two utter nothing but your own conjectures and non-sense. Been there done that as a Christian. So Jesus was just trying to 'show us' how to be good believers by submitting himself to God while he jesus in fact is God. You make up things as you go.



No thanks.

You invite me to worship 3 entities and do away with God's law. What do we get from this? People who do whatever they like and are 'saved' and automatically get a free pass to heaven. Laughable at best, yet very very very disturbing and sad.

'Folowers of Jesus' who club Saturday night and attend mass Sunday morning? A leader of a nation who starts wars and kills millions but says he is saved and Jesus died for his 'many sins that he commits regularly on a daily basis'

I invite you to worship God alone. God is one. Jesus worshipped God and was created by God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
In job it talks about ``the sons of God`` and in Genesis 6 also, referring to the angels. then there is children of God as a nation but you have to give me a quote where it refers to an individual human being as `the son of God`` cause I don`t know any of these verses you are referring to.

1)  For starters if angels and a nation can be called son of God (I'm assuming you agree that this is metamorphical) then why is the "son of God" title for Jesus literal?  Sounds like selective translation.

2)  Secondly, regarding individual humans getting the same title here are two (Solomon and Adam):

1 Chronicles 22:10 "He (Solomon) shall build a house for my name.  He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever."

Luke 3:38 "Cainan was the son of Enos.  Enos was the son of Seth.  Seth was the son of Adam.  Adam was the son of God."


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 12:51:13 PM
I submit my will to God almighty. I believe in all the prophets of God from Adam until Muhammad (peace be upon them all) and in between there of course Jesus (peace be upon him)

This 2nd god you refer to is meaningless to mention. Holy ghost? Holy spirit? Apparently according to your friend 'God', was in the womb of a woman for 9 months. He called this the holy spirit. Now that ghost is dwelling in you and you are FEEELING THE POWER. Your friend also believes that God can become a tree so I guess that would make the 'holy spirit' dwell in that piece of wood? Because "God can do anything"

You two utter nothing but your own conjectures and non-sense. Been there done that as a Christian. So Jesus was just trying to 'show us' how to be good believers by submitting himself to God while he jesus in fact is God. You make up things as you go.



No thanks.

You invite me to worship 3 entities and do away with God's law. What do we get from this? People who do whatever they like and are 'saved' and automatically get a free pass to heaven. Laughable at best, yet very very very disturbing and sad.

'Folowers of Jesus' who club Saturday night and attend mass Sunday morning?

I invite you to worship God alone. God is one. Jesus worshipped God and was created by God.

ahmed, you can dispense with the "I'm a former Christian" notion.....the veils been lifted off my eyes - I know the difference.  This post alone speaks volumes.  That said, I'm happy to do my very best to share my faith with you and will do so willingly and happily.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
1)  For starters if angels and a nation can be called son of God (I'm assuming you agree that this is metamorphical) then why is the "son of God" title for Jesus literal?  Sounds like selective translation.

2)  Secondly, regarding individual humans getting the same title here are two (Solomon and Adam):

1 Chronicles 22:10 "He (Solomon) shall build a house for my name.  He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever."

Luke 3:38 "Cainan was the son of Enos.  Enos was the son of Seth.  Seth was the son of Adam.  Adam was the son of God."
Your first point is valid question, very good bigbob and I will address it later when I have time. As for Solomon, again he was a king of the nation of God's chosen people same as Dave and Adam was the first human so these are bad examples, you've yet to show me a man, a commoner, not a king of a nation that God refers to as his children.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:54:18 PM
ahmed, you can dispense with the "I'm a former Christian" notion.....the veils been lifted off my eyes - I know the difference.  This post alone speaks volumes.  That said, I'm happy to do my very best to share my faith with you and will do so willingly and happily.

No verily there is a veil over your heart:

{"Truly, We have set veils over their hearts so that they do not understand this (Qur'an), and deafness in their ears..."} [al-Kahf; 57]

{"They are those upon whose hearts, hearing, and sight Allah has set a seal."} [an-Nahl; 108]

{"Have you seen he who takes his own lust as his god, and Allah, knowing him as such, has left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight?"} [al-Jathiyah; 23]


Quote

Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus

Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from "revelations."

Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.

Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father

Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to

Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did.

Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing.

Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over!

Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's lying?

Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14,  something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.

Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"

Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples

Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?

In essence a big portion of the new testament is just paul's ramblings.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 12:55:25 PM
Your first point is valid question, very good bigbob and I will address it later when I have time. As for Solomon, again he was a king of the nation of God's chosen people same as Dave and Adam was the first human so these are bad examples, you've yet to show me a man, a commoner, not a king of a nation that God refers to as his children.

Jesus: "DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven"
(Matthew 23:9)

Confused yet? Let me make it simple for you. Stop worshipping a human being. Worship God alone. Jesus is not a god/demi-god/deity.

You are arguing now that it must be a 'king' or 'someone important' to be valid? So how does that change the fact that it's right there in the bible and that therfore jesus is not the 'only son of god'.

lies upon lies, heaps upon heaps of lies.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 01:01:55 PM
I am not arguing that it has to be a king, pay attention. Israel is God's chosen people. God calls the nation as a whole his children, when the nation crowns someone, God refers to the king (of Israel only) as his son, representing his children as his chosen nation, wow like talking to 12 year old. Any Biblical scholar knows this, hell even atheist know this.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 01:06:21 PM
Yes any biblical scholar knows it is not literal. I know that too, and knew that from the time i went to sunday school.. and from the religious classes I had since elementary to high school. So you believe God had sex with mary and say jesus is the literal son.

Didn't you see the phrase about David being the begotten son of God? Even dubbed 'even the first born'




So any time now? Please answer the tree question.

FYI a 12 year old will understand that a human being that can poop, get hungry and can die is not God. Yet you can't understand it? What's that make you.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:28:57 PM
Yes any biblical scholar knows it is not literal. I know that too, and knew that from the time i went to sunday school.. and from the religious classes I had since elementary to high school. So you believe God had sex with mary and say jesus is the literal son.

Didn't you see the phrase about David being the begotten son of God? Even dubbed 'even the first born'




So any time now? Please answer the tree question.

FYI a 12 year old will understand that a human being that can poop, get hungry and can die is not God. Yet you can't understand it? What's that make you.

Well God spoke to Moses through a bush:
Exodus 3:1-15
The Burning Bush
3 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

God all spoke of the tree of wisdom and tree of life:
Genesis 3
The Fall
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
    cursed are you above all livestock
    and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
    and dust you shall eat
    all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
    and you shall bruise his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.”

20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.


Is that what you mean?  Or are you just asking can God become a tree?  I suppose God could become a tree, but "God the Tree" couldn't be chopped down or burned up or washed out or destroyed in anyway unless he willed that as well.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:31:27 PM
So you think God became a bush? What if Moses put out the fire with water?

God didn't become a bush or a fire, he spoke to Moses through this apparition.

Don't you see you are trying to conjure up your own justification to your pantheistic and polytheistic beliefs?

It makes you no different than Hindus who are at least honest about their pantheism and polytheism.

Also the narrative of the tree eating, it seems to have clearly had human hands adding more entertainment to it. God inquiring about what adam did then adam denying it then the woman being questioned what have you done. Do you honestly think God would not know when they ate it? It makes no sense. Sorry. And then to top it off the woman gets 'cursed' as christians always believed.

That was the one thing for me when I was reading that as a kid. I never imagined God as a human there walking. However even back then I found it strange that the woman be 'cursed' and adam just kind of flying by.

Later of course the whole premise of 'original sin' turned me off even more. Even though it was a christian school, we had a sociology class. In it we studied a few different ways of viewing things. We observed the idea of being born pure vs being porn sinful/evil. The teacher 'encouraged' me to believe in the later, while I wrote an essay that babies are born pure and innoscent.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:44:27 PM
Proof that Jesus was not praying to 'teach us' how to be 'goodly' but he prayed to God almighty:

MATTHEW 14:23 NKJ
23 And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up on a mountain by Himself to pray. And when evening had come, He was alone there.


Why would he be alone to pray to God?

MATTHEW 26:53 NKJ
53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?"


Again pantheistic/polytheistic 'christians' in here saying that God is bipolar yet again...

Why do you think Jesus would have to pray to God to send him armies of angels?

Jesus was a mighty servant of God but certainly not God.



36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go and pray over there."
37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.
38 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me."
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."
40 Then He came to the disciples and found them asleep, and said to Peter, "What, could you not watch with Me one hour?
41 "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
42 He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."
43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.
44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.

They were asleep and impatient, fell asleep, Jesus still continued to pray.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 02:47:51 PM
Your first point is valid question, very good bigbob and I will address it later when I have time. As for Solomon, again he was a king of the nation of God's chosen people same as Dave and Adam was the first human so these are bad examples, you've yet to show me a man, a commoner, not a king of a nation that God refers to as his children.

Thanks :)  

I disagree that Solomon, Dave and Adam are bad examples because remember, I'm not saying that these three individuals are divine, my point of raising these three examples are to show that when the bible uses the term "son of God" its not meant to be taken literally.  Or if you disagree, then how do you differentiate between when "son of God" is literal vs. metaphorical?  It seems like selective translation to simply suggest that in Jesus' case it's literal vs. in all other cases it's metaphorical (I think it's metaphorical in all cases, as do Unitarian Christians).  

But again the question - how can you conclude when "son of God" is literal vs. metaphorical and why?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 04, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
This quote-fest is so fucking funny. But what's funnier is that neither of the teams realize they're doing the exact same thing while calling the other teams' gameplay bogus.

Leaving this to the "theologians" was a good idea. So many lolz! ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:52:20 PM
This quote-fest is so fucking funny. But what's funnier is that neither of the teams realize they're doing the exact same thing while calling the other teams' gameplay bogus.

Leaving this to the "theologians" was a good idea. So many lolz! ;D

Go debate your end which awaits you by yourself. God awaits you as He awaits us all.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:53:14 PM
So you think God became a bush? What if Moses put out the fire with water?

God didn't become a bush or a fire, he spoke to Moses through this apparition.

Don't you see you are trying to conjure up your own justification to your pantheistic and polytheistic beliefs?

It makes you no different than Hindus who are at least honest about their pantheism and polytheism.

Also the narrative of the tree eating, it seems to have clearly had human hands adding more entertainment to it. God inquiring about what adam did then adam denying it then the woman being questioned what have you done. Do you honestly think God would not know when they ate it? It makes no sense. Sorry. And then to top it off the woman gets 'cursed' as christians always believed.

That was the one thing for me when I was reading that as a kid. I never imagined God as a human there walking. However even back then I found it strange that the woman be 'cursed' and adam just kind of flying by.

Later of course the whole premise of 'original sin' turned me off even more. Even though it was a christian school, we had a sociology class. In it we studied a few different ways of viewing things. We observed the idea of being born pure vs being porn sinful/evil. The teacher 'encouraged' me to believe in the later, while I wrote an essay that babies are born pure and innoscent.

The title of that verse said "God spoke to Moses through a bush".  He spoke through a bush....through a bush.....while it was on fire.....but not consumed.  So, no you couldn't put out the burning bush with water unless God allowed that.  Did God become a bush?  No, again, he spoke through a bush....through a bush. 
























































































































.....through a bush.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:54:32 PM
Finally we can agree on something. So therefore your argument is? That God became Jesus?

Or that maybe God commanded Jesus and Jesus was not God.

Like the bush, God commanded the bush to be on fire, God did not become a bush.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:54:47 PM
This quote-fest is so fucking funny. But what's funnier is that neither of the teams realize they're doing the exact same thing while calling the other teams' gameplay bogus.

Leaving this to the "theologians" was a good idea. So many lolz! ;D

Glad you're enjoying it!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:56:16 PM
Onetimehard said God can become a tree. I asked him what if I chopped up the tree or set it on fire? God seizes to exist? Makes no sense. It's pantheism not monotheism.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:56:53 PM
Finally we can agree on something. So therefore your argument is? That God became Jesus?

Or that maybe God commanded Jesus and Jesus was not God.

Like the bush, God commanded the bush to be on fire, God did not become a bush.

What argument?  I don't have an argument.  

You asked if God could become a tree?  I gave an answer...that's it.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
Onetimehard said God can become a tree. I asked him what if I chopped up the tree or set it on fire? God seizes to exist? Makes no sense. It's pantheism not monotheism.

Oh....good stuff.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 03:00:40 PM
No your friend was arguing that "God can do anything" you were missing in action.

He was trying to justify God becoming literally a human because "god can do anything"

So I said can God become a tree? He said yes.

So literally changing into a tree? I asked what happens if i chop up the tree?

According to the bible and quran, God is eternal and unchanging, and in fact there is a verse in the bible that says God is not a man that he changes or lies or not keep his promises. There are many verses regarding God being eternal and unchanging.

There are plenty of verses which say there is NOTHING comparable to God.

If NOTHING is comparable to God, how can objects in the creation be God?

If God becomes a man, he seizes to be God. If God becomes a 'tree' he seizes to be God.

God never changes or becomes any of these things. He is eternal and unchanging.

Oh....good stuff.

So you are proud of being pantheists like hindus? That God can become objects (idols), humans, animals, or can 'dwell inside you' or dwell in objects or creatures?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 03:07:02 PM
No your friend was arguing that "God can do anything" you were missing in action.

He was trying to justify God becoming literally a human because "god can do anything"

So I said can God become a tree? He said yes.

So literally changing into a tree? I asked what happens if i chop up the tree?

According to the bible and quran, God is eternal and unchanging, and in fact there is a verse in the bible that says God is not a man that he changes or lies or not keep his promises. There are many verses regarding God being eternal and unchanging.

There are plenty of verses which say there is NOTHING comparable to God.

If NOTHING is comparable to God, how can objects in the creation be God?

If God becomes a man, he seizes to be God. If God becomes a 'tree' he seizes to be God.

God never changes or becomes any of these things. He is eternal and unchanging.

So you are proud of being pantheists like hindus? That God can become objects (idols), humans, animals, or can 'dwell inside you' or dwell in objects or creatures?
Yeah, I did that part of the discussion.  Like I've mentioned before I don't read all the post all the time.

Yes, God indwells believers via the Holy Spirit.

Oh, I'm not a Hindu pantheist....I'm a Christian.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 03:12:55 PM
You're a false christian, because you are not following Jesus, you are following Paul. :) What you profess is pantheism (that God is in things, objects, people, creatures, even in yourself literally) and polytheism that God has multiple personalities in individual seperate creatures

So you still haven't answered this one, you looove avoiding these verses:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:36

This statement is true as we believe in it too. How can Jesus (pbuh) not know the time of the hour if he is God?

Muhammad (pbuh) asked Gabriel (pbuh) do you know the time of the hour to which Gabriel (pbuh) responded, the one who is asked does not know more than the one that is asking.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 05:06:41 PM
This quote-fest is so fucking funny. But what's funnier is that neither of the teams realize they're doing the exact same thing while calling the other teams' gameplay bogus.

Leaving this to the "theologians" was a good idea. So many lolz! ;D
I have to agree with you, we are going in circles here.


Now that's funny 'the tree" question,  turns out God was once himself and a tree at the same time after all, lol, "the burning bush"   ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 05:14:31 PM
Onetimehard said God can become a tree. I asked him what if I chopped up the tree or set it on fire? God seizes to exist? Makes no sense. It's pantheism not monotheism.
To answer your question since your so persistent and it's getting annoying. Go back and check my post I said God would be a tree and he would be God at the same time, he can be in 1000 places at once, he can be a 1000 different entities at once, your assumption is so stupid, you think he changes into a tree but stops being God, sorry but your God is pathetic. My God on the other hand is Omnipotent, a concept you don't understand even avxo has to correct you on this term. So you chopped up the tree, so what God is still God


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
To answer your question since your so persistent and it's getting annoying. Go back and check my post I said God would be a tree and he would be God at the same time, he can be in 1000 places at once, he can be a 1000 different entities at once, your assumption is so stupid, you think he changes into a tree but stops being God, sorry but your God is pathetic. My God on the other hand is Omnipotent, a concept you don't understand even avxo has to correct you on this term. So you chopped up the tree, so what God is still God

That's called pantheism. No prophet of God was a pantheist. Even Paul didn't really go this far in blasphemy as you are. It's truly incredible. Indeed you are closer to Hindus in your beliefs than you are to Jesus (peace be upon him).

And fyi God was not a burning bush. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush. God did not 'become' a burning bush.

Does an announcer become a speaker when he speaks through a microphone? Of course not. He just uses the microphone and speaker as a means to transfer a message.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 04, 2012, 05:39:21 PM
That's called pantheism. No prophet of God was a pantheist. Even Paul didn't really go this far in blasphemy as you are. It's truly incredible. Indeed you are closer to Hindus in your beliefs than you are to Jesus (peace be upon him).

And fyi God was not a burning bush. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush. God did not 'become' a burning bush.

Does an announcer become a speaker when he speaks through a microphone? Of course not. He just uses the microphone and speaker as a means to transfer a message.

Your fundamental ways have clouded your perception, it was a joke,  did you not see the grin I put there, a joke, hello.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 05:43:58 PM
I would never joke about God.

"You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22

"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10

'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6

"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 04, 2012, 10:38:19 PM
Still waiting on an answer to the below.  Can't have it both ways :)


Thanks :)  

I disagree that Solomon, David and Adam are bad examples because remember, I'm not saying that these three individuals are divine, my point of raising these three examples are to show that when the bible uses the term "son of God" its not meant to be taken literally.  Or if you disagree, then how do you differentiate between when "son of God" is literal vs. metaphorical?  It seems like selective translation to simply suggest that in Jesus' case it's literal and when used in Solomon, David and Adam's cases + all others it's only metaphorical (I think it's metaphorical in all cases, as do Unitarian Christians).  

But again the question - how can you conclude when "son of God" is literal vs. metaphorical and why?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on October 05, 2012, 05:19:02 AM
From a theological point of view the Bible states that Jesus was created from God via the Holy Spirit whereas man was created 'in God's image' from the ground of the earth. Jesus would therefore have been created from one and the same 'matter' as God and would form a part of that Entity.

The Bible also says that only Jesus will return, there will be no more prophets but there will be many false prophets along the way...

This is all of course from a totally theological perspective.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 05, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
Go debate your end which awaits you by yourself. God awaits you as He awaits us all.

Looks like we touched a nerve: little Ahmed is afraid of death and non-existence; so he believes in fairy-tales that make death more palatable by making it not-quite-so-final. ::)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 05, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
From a theological point of view the Bible states that Jesus was created from God via the Holy Spirit whereas man was created 'in God's image' from the ground of the earth. Jesus would therefore have been created from one and the same 'matter' as God and would form a part of that Entity.

The Bible also says that only Jesus will return, there will be no more prophets but there will be many false prophets along the way...

This is all of course from a totally theological perspective.

Thanks for not anwering my question.  Again, how do you know when it's literal or metaphorical? 

You say the bible said that Jesus was created "from" God which makes apparently makes him distinct from Adam, Solomon and David - without showing me a reference but I'll give benefit of the doubt so even entertaining that gets back to the original question - is the "from God" literal or metamorphical?

And also, how do you know the "son of God" is NOT literal in David, Solomon or Adam's case?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 05, 2012, 10:01:09 AM
There are two greek words - "pais" and "huios" that are translated as "son" in the Bible.  "Pais" is derived from Hebrew "ebed," which means servant or slave.  Therefore, the primary translation of "pais theou" is "servant of God" with "son of God" being the biased mistranslation. 

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament quotes "The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e. ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of "slave.""

However, Bible translators use "servant" for "Pais Theou" in some verses describing David and Israel, but "son" or "holy child" when referring to Jesus.  Same greek phrase, but selective English translations.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on October 05, 2012, 11:19:43 AM
Thanks for not anwering my question.  Again, how do you know when it's literal or metaphorical?  

You say the bible said that Jesus was created "from" God which makes apparently makes him distinct from Adam, Solomon and David - without showing me a reference but I'll give benefit of the doubt so even entertaining that gets back to the original question - is the "from God" literal or metamorphical?

And also, how do you know the "son of God" is NOT literal in David, Solomon or Adam's case?

Because the New Testament states that Jesus will be seated at God's right hand at Judgement Day.

Who else but God's Son would sit at his right hand, and why not Adam, Solomon etc if they are also his 'son'?

The New Testament also states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and as I mentioned Adam was created from dust of the earth and not of the same 'matter' as God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 05, 2012, 12:24:51 PM
Because the New Testament states that Jesus will be seated at God's right hand at Judgement Day.

Who else but God's Son would sit at his right hand, and why not Adam, Solomon etc if they are also his 'son'?

Very, very weak logic IMO - that someone seated next to God on Judgement Day must be no other than his son.  So I guess the best man at my wedding would automatically be my biological child since I considered him close to be next to me on my important day?

Would have been much much stronger if Jesus had simply said, "I am God" or "I am the son of God" but of course that's quoted nowhere in the Bible because he had no reason to say it.  On the contrary he kept saying that God/Father is "greater than I" and he prayed to him.

The New Testament also states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and as I mentioned Adam was created from dust of the earth and not of the same 'matter' as God.

Verse that uses the word "conceive?"  And even if there is one, the earlier question still applies as to whether it's metaphorical or not.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 12:47:18 PM
Because the New Testament states that Jesus will be seated at God's right hand at Judgement Day.

Who else but God's Son would sit at his right hand, and why not Adam, Solomon etc if they are also his 'son'?

The New Testament also states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and as I mentioned Adam was created from dust of the earth and not of the same 'matter' as God.
Wow Griffith laying the smack down, from a theological perspective of course, but pretty simple mathematics, 1+1 = 2 but for Islam it =3  :D

Perfect answer for bigbobs, he will be seated at the right hand of the father and he was born from a virgin, those 2 points is obvious enough for anyone to believe that when they say son of God it's a literal term.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 01:22:21 PM
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.



Cmon now bigbobs everyone knows this

Seated on the right hand of the Father, conceived of the Holy ghost, 600 pophetic verses of the Messiah, yes Jesus is the Messiah even the Koran calls Jesus the Messiah and only Jesus. His second coming as well. This is overwhelming that Jesus is the son of God.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 05, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Seated on the right hand of the Father, conceived of the Holy ghost, 600 pophetic verses of the Messiah, yes Jesus is the Messiah even the Koran calls Jesus the Messiah and only Jesus. His second coming as well. This is overwhelming that Jesus is the son of God.

Of the 5 items you mentioned, only the one of "conceived by the Holy ghost" can be considered as evidence IF it was stated by Jesus himself, BUT it was not.  Is it too much to ask for Jesus (who is quoted all over the Bible) to have just once said that he is God rather than others saying he is God?  In contrast Jesus called himself son of man 88 times. 

The other 4 items you mentioned show significance/uniqueness of Jesus but uniqueness does not imply divinity.  They do support that he was a great prophet, hence the great respect Muslims give him.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Of the 5 items you mentioned, only the one of "conceived by the Holy ghost" can be considered as evidence IF it was stated by Jesus himself, BUT it was not.  Is it too much to ask for Jesus (who is quoted all over the Bible) to have just once said that he is God rather than others saying he is God?  In contrast Jesus called himself son of man 88 times. 

The other 4 items you mentioned show significance/uniqueness of Jesus but uniqueness does not imply divinity.  They do support that he was a great prophet, hence the great respect Muslims give him.
lol, bro it's stated by Gabriel, the arch Angel of God, how much more credibility do you want, so now Angles lie?   ???


Title: (P ∧ ¬P) = LOLZ!
Post by: avxo on October 05, 2012, 01:53:14 PM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/principle_of_explosion.png) (http://xkcd.com/704/)


Title: Re: (P ∧ ¬P) = LOLZ!
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 02:03:31 PM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/principle_of_explosion.png) (http://xkcd.com/704/)

??? ??? ??? >:( :D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 05, 2012, 03:46:59 PM
Wow Griffith laying the smack down, from a theological perspective of course, but pretty simple mathematics, 1+1 = 2 but for Islam it =3  :D

Perfect answer for bigbobs, he will be seated at the right hand of the father and he was born from a virgin, those 2 points is obvious enough for anyone to believe that when they say son of God it's a literal term.

Actually islam 1=1

According to you 1=1+1+1

lol


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 03:48:40 PM
Actually islam 1=1

According to you 1=1+1+1

lol
Where have you been all day, we missed you  8)

Did you see how Griffeth shut the door on bigbobs?  ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 05, 2012, 04:00:55 PM
You shut the door to the truth and open yourself and others to pantheism and polytheism.

I have a life too, we all do, I'm not on here 247

You're blind deaf and dumb, you follow a fraud named Paul. Who lied, deceived, cursed and boasted about it. Never ever did he ask for forgivness for the oppression of Jesus' followers. He in fact in his 'letters' boasted about that too.

The new testament is a mixture of unknown authors and his 'letters'. He speaks out of his own, not through revelation. He even admits and boasts about that, admitting he speaks out of his own will and not by the Lord's.

The disciples of Jesus never accepted, he condemned them.

So you think upon all that.

He was a liar and a fraud and you are following a fraud.

Jesus warned about this man and he foretold of the one that would complete and bring understanding to it all and that indeed is Muhammad (pbuh).

Paul just brought about confusion.

The pauline christianity overtook the jerusalem original jesus' christianity.

I have posted hundreds of verses which prove Jesus was not God, but you rather take the word of a fraud Paul.

You are trying to prove to YOURSELF that God is Jesus, while Jesus never said "I am GOD" or "Worship me Jesus".

Have a nice day.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 05, 2012, 04:23:21 PM
Your blind deaf and dumb and follow a fraud in Muhammad, biggest fraud ever and the Koran is a complete mockery of Jesus, you guy try and act like you respect him, very clever deception, the whole time I was reading the Koran it was a total disgrace to Jesus, mockery after mockery, very arrogant text and nothing humble about the Koran. Also during my read I couldn't help but notice all the jealousy against the Jews.

Have a nice day  8)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 05, 2012, 06:57:18 PM
Oh you read the Qur'an? Mind posting those verses about Jesus that are 'mocking' Jesus?

Qur'an 5:116-120   Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
And behold! Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men 'worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

"Never said I to them anything except what Thou didst command me to say to wit 'Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things.

"If Thou dost punish them they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive them Thou art the Exalted the Wise.
Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are Gardens with rivers flowing beneath their eternal home: Allah well-pleased with them and they with Allah: that is the great Salvation (the fulfillment of all desires).

To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein and it is He who hath power over all things.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 05, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
Oh you read the Qur'an? Mind posting those verses about Jesus that are 'mocking' Jesus?

Qur'an 5:116-120   Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
And behold! Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men 'worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

"Never said I to them anything except what Thou didst command me to say to wit 'Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things.

"If Thou dost punish them they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive them Thou art the Exalted the Wise.
Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are Gardens with rivers flowing beneath their eternal home: Allah well-pleased with them and they with Allah: that is the great Salvation (the fulfillment of all desires).

To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein and it is He who hath power over all things.

Let me understand.  Within these verses you have Muhammad reciting a conversation between Allah and Jesus, but these verses came directly from Allah yet Allah speaks in the third person?  If the verses came from Allah wouldn't Allah say, "I will say....."?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 05, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
Muhammad (pbuh) was only conveying the message. God is the one talking to us and commanding Muhammad (pbuh).

God put the words into Muhmmad's mouth, it was not his own words. He does not speak of his own or of himself.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 05, 2012, 08:27:54 PM
Muhammad (pbuh) was only conveying the message. God is the one talking to us and commanding Muhammad (pbuh).

God put the words into Muhmmad's mouth, it was not his own words. He does not speak of his own or of himself.

So Allah speaks in the third person?


Title: Re: (P ∧ ¬P) = LOLZ!
Post by: avxo on October 05, 2012, 08:38:11 PM
??? ??? ??? >:( :D

I thought it was quite clear.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 05, 2012, 10:43:36 PM
So Allah speaks in the third person?

Through the Qur'an God spoke commanding Muhammad to utter words. God spoke of past events & people, then present events & people and future events & things to come. In this verse it is refering to what will happen on the day of judgment when God will ask Jesus if he told people "Worship me Jesus" or "I Jesus am God" to which Jesus will respond as quoted in the verse.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 06, 2012, 02:35:12 AM
Muhammad has a wild imagination  :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Griffith on October 06, 2012, 03:15:06 AM
Wow Griffith laying the smack down, from a theological perspective of course, but pretty simple mathematics, 1+1 = 2 but for Islam it =3  :D

Perfect answer for bigbobs, he will be seated at the right hand of the father and he was born from a virgin, those 2 points is obvious enough for anyone to believe that when they say son of God it's a literal term.

haha thanks!  ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Thick Nick on October 06, 2012, 06:22:54 AM
Through the Qur'an God spoke commanding Muhammad to utter words. God spoke of past events & people, then present events & people and future events & things to come. In this verse it is refering to what will happen on the day of judgment when God will ask Jesus if he told people "Worship me Jesus" or "I Jesus am God" to which Jesus will respond as quoted in the verse.

Can you imagine what this guy was smoking when he made all this shit up? I know it cause riots and shit... but The Innocence of Muslims is prolly close. All stoned and talking to goats and shit. And dummys like Ahmed still buying it all this time later. Classic.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
You are buying into worshipping a man that was created by God.

Oh and I don't do narcotics or haluconegenics, be it alcohol or marijauana.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 10:20:15 AM
You are buying into worshipping a man that was created by God.

Oh and I don't do narcotics or haluconegenics, be it alcohol or marijauana.
and you are buying into a man who lied and claimed to be a prophet with a wild imagination


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 10:33:12 AM
He didn't lie, he fulfilled prophecies and spoke not of his own but the words God put in his mouth.

He did not contradict any of the past prophets but reaffirms what was. Yes skipping the man made beliefs of Paul and the church, and this is where we disagree.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
He didn't lie, he fulfilled prophecies and spoke not of his own but the words God put in his mouth.

He did not contradict any of the past prophets but reaffirms what was. Yes skipping the man made beliefs of Paul and the church, and this is where we disagree.
He lied a lot and lots of contradictions in the Koran, tons, I just read it from front to back, very poorly written there is no flow and no chronology, also very arrogant, lots of jealosy towards Jews. Muhammad is a false prophet, dude wake up.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 10:39:27 AM
You just made a lot of statements that hold no weight.

You didn't read the qur'an front to back as you illustrated it through your statements.

Also it was the Jews who recognized Muhammad to be a prophet of God but the ones who rejected him rejected him out of jealousy and arrogance/pride. They did not want to accept him as he was not a Jew. There is no such thing as 'jealousy of the jews' in islam or in the qur'an. Your own made up beliefs.

You even claimed the qur'an has verses ridiculing or attacking Jesus. I asked you to provide them you ignored my request. You will only find such a thing in the Jewish Talmud.

The qur'an is the most beautiful thing in the world. If it were from a man it would indeed have contradictions. It has none. Only your lack of understanding and lack of reading continued by lying.

Allah says in the qur'an people like you will try to extinguish the light of Allah with your mouths but Allah will fulfill and spread the light even if you detest it. And indeed the more you attack Islam, the more people actually want to learn about Islam (Like I was one post 911) and embrace Islam.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 10:41:29 AM
Converted because his father told him that "Islam is of the devil" lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dqUO5ApGm0


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 10:50:53 AM
What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).
Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).
The first Muslim was Muhammad?  Abraham?  Jacob? Moses?
"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
"When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
"And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).
Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48).  Also 4:116
The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).
Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!  This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!"  So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).
Is wine consumption good or bad?
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).
 

This is 1% of the contradictions, actually less, but i will not waste my time anymore, I already wasted my time reading a pointless arrogant text made up by a wild imagination of a false prophet


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 10:54:30 AM
lol do you have a brain to think for yourself or do you go to islamophobe websites that spoon feed you ignorance and you copy paste huge chunks of ridiculous text?

All this shows me that you have not actually read the qur'an and are merely lying :)

The qur'an says we are created from water, ground/earth/soil, etc... from a sperm, none of these are contradictions. It's just your lack of thought. All are true if you think.

When God says to us that we are from the soil of the earth, it makes total sense, our bodies are composed of elements found in this planet. When God says we are created from water, we know all life stems from water and will not exist without water. Our bodies are majorly composed of water. When God says He created us from a drop of sperm, He is not lying. He reminds us that we began from something so insignificant yet we grow up to be so arrogant and haughty against God.

Likewise God reminds us that if we are made from soil, and when we pass away we will return to that soil. It is to humble us and remind us.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
lol do you have a brain to think for yourself or do you go to islamophobe websites and copy paste huge chunks of ridiculous text?

The qur'an says we are created from water, ground/earth, etc... from a sperm, none of these are contradictions. It's just your lack of thought. All are true if you think.

When God says to us that we are from the soil of the earth, it makes total sense, our bodies are composed of elements found in this planet. When God says we are created from water, we know all life stems from water and will not exist without water. Our bodies are majorly composed of water. When God says He created us from a drop of sperm, He is not lying. He reminds us that we began from something so insignificant yet we grow up to be so arrogant and haughty against God.
hahaha do you think I have time to spend writing this, lol, everyone cuts and pastes, including you, doesn't take away from the fact that these are real contradictions. The Koran is fake bro face it.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 11:17:10 AM
No I paste verses because they are not my utterance, however I think and I write on my own. You cannot think for yourself and you have not taken the time to actually read the qur'an. You let someone else an islamophobe website or blog think for you. The only thing that's fake are your fake premises.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 11:31:58 AM
No I paste verses because they are not my utterance, however I think and I write on my own. You cannot think for yourself and you have not taken the time to actually read the qur'an. You let someone else an islamophobe website or blog think for you. The only thing that's fake are your fake premises.
Look at you melting down, keep to the subject pal


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 07, 2012, 11:37:11 AM
hahaha do you think I have time to spend writing this, lol, everyone cuts and pastes, including you, doesn't take away from the fact that these are real contradictions. The Koran is fake bro face it.

There's not a single actual contradiction in there.  If you read the copy-and-pasted text you'll realize this.  Some apply to different situations, others are in addition to, but not in replacement of, other verses, and therefore both verses can be true.

I've seen anti-Christian websites but I never use their thoughts unless I read and understand them for myself first, and if they make sense to me.  One way of showing that it makes sense to you is to put something in your own words, and specifically to show a contradiction, you have to explain why it is unreasonable for both verses to be true.  For example here are a few which are clear, black and white contradictions and its not reasonable for both versus to be true:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8 ).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 11:47:33 AM
There's not a single actual contradiction in there.  If you read the copy-and-pasted text you'll realize this.  Some apply to different situations, others are in addition to, but not in replacement of, other verses, and therefore both verses can be true.

I've seen anti-Christian websites but I never use their thoughts unless I read and understand them for myself first, and if they make sense to me.  One way of showing that it makes sense to you is to put something in your own words, and specifically to show a contradiction, you have to explain why it is unreasonable for both verses to be true.  For example here are a few which are clear, black and white contradictions and its not reasonable for both versus to be true:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).


lol, shows how much you know, lol, Goliath is a last name and Goliath had 5 brothers they where all called Goliath, LMAO


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 07, 2012, 12:03:56 PM
lol, shows how much you know, lol, Goliath is a last name and Goliath had 5 brothers they where all called Goliath, LMAO

And you know these are referring to two different Goliath's or is that just a guess?  I can look further into it to check myself as well.

There are also three others that I included in my post, and many others that I could have.  However, my point was simply to show the difference between a clear-cut contradiction where its logically impossible for both verses to be true, versus the type you pasted from the anti-Islamic website that are not even actual contradictions but a weak, desperate attempt by an Islamophobe :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 12:12:00 PM
And you know these are referring to two different Goliath's or is that just a guess?  I can look further into it to check myself as well.

There are also three others that I included in my post, and many others that I could have.  However, my point was simply to show the difference between a clear-cut contradiction where its logically impossible for both verses to be true, versus the type you pasted from the anti-Islamic website that are not even actual contradictions but a weak, desperate attempt by an Islamophobe :)
Bro I study ancient text and I am a historian, have studied every thing from the Summerians, Egyptions, Babylonions, Assyrian, Persians, Greeks and Romans and have read every major manuscript from antiquity, trust me Goliath had 5 brothers and they where all called Goliath. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, this is a fact, not even up for debate.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 12:13:19 PM
“Forty and two years old” or “Twenty-two years old” in 2 Chronicles 22:2?
The KJV follows the Masoretic reading. Most modern translators speculate that the Masoretic text is in error, seeing that 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. However, Kings is known to focus on both Israel and Judah whereas Chronicles is known to focus primarily on Judah. A startling fact is that Chronicles rarely mentions the infamous reign of King Ahab of Israel except only in passing. Queen Jezebel of Israel is never mentioned in Chronicles. Since Chronicles focuses on Judah, Chronicles gives the age (forty-two) at which Ahaziah began to reign from the time that he was the king of Judah. However, Kings, which focuses on both Israel and Judah, gives the age (twenty-two) at which Ahaziah began to reign from the time that he was the co-regent of Israel. Since Chronicles does not focus on Israel, its account neglects the twenty years of Ahaziah’s co-regency in Israel.

The different focus of each author

2 Kings 8:26 says,
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says,
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."
Both accounts specify that he reigned one year "in Jerusalem" but neither specify where he "began to reign." Thus we must gather from the context where exactly Ahaziah began to reign in each of these accounts. In 2 Kings the focus is on Israel, so Ahaziah "began to reign" (as co-regent) in Israel at the age of 22. In 2 Chronicles the focus is on Judah, so Ahaziah "began to reign" in Judah at the age of 42.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 12:27:20 PM
Now the second one on you weak list  ;D  is simple

A chariot consists of 9 horsemen, so 1000 chariots = 6300 horsemen + the 700 single horsemen = 7000 horsement

2 different authors

one said 1000 chariots and 700 horsemen (this author didn't feel the need to include the horsemen on the chariots)

The other said 1000 chariots and 7000 horsemen ( this author felt the need to include each of the 9 horsemen on the chariots)

What makes me laugh here is you obviously lack some historical knowledge and this is where my history pays off. See, these book where written nearly 400 years apart, that would make 2 different era's, in one era when they talked about chariots, everyone knew to assume the man power automatically. in the other era it was not common knowledge at the time to assume the number of men on each chariot so one has state the number of chariots and also the number of men.

The author always caters to the time they are living in.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 07, 2012, 12:27:34 PM
You know you open a can of whoop ass when you start talking about 'contradictions', the bible is the biggest contradiction as it is not revealed through God as the qur'an was.

All that you posted about the qur'an are not contradictions I just touched on the water/soil/sperm/etc... example.

When it comes to the bible... apparently God can't do simple arithmetic. I have somewhere in my email scans of my bible where I highlighted contradictions in the same paragraphs, forget different chapters.

Anyways... don't waste your time bobs. Clearly this guy is not willing to read the qur'an.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 12:35:28 PM
You know you open a can of whoop ass when you start talking about 'contradictions', the bible is the biggest contradiction as it is not revealed through God as the qur'an was.

All that you posted about the qur'an are not contradictions I just touched on the water/soil/sperm/etc... example.

When it comes to the bible... apparently God can't do simple arithmetic. I have somewhere in my email scans of my bible where I highlighted contradictions in the same paragraphs, forget different chapters.

Anyways... don't waste your time bobs. Clearly this guy is not willing to read the qur'an.
You saying I did not read it does not make it so. The Koran has more contradictions then any other ancient text I have read and I have read them all. The Bible does not contradict itself but only a true historian will know this since the authors are in some cases 2000 years apart and it covers over 100 different nations and times, so it may appear to contradict itself but upon careful historical comparisons you will find no contradictions.

BY ALL MEANS, KEEP THEM COMING, i WILL ADDRESS THEM ALL

Bro these are friendly debates, stop letting your emotions get the best of you. It's making you look bad brother  :-[


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 07, 2012, 01:27:42 PM
Oh wow... this is getting funnier by the nanosecond. It's almost too much lolz!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 07, 2012, 01:35:16 PM
Oh wow... this is getting funnier by the nanosecond. It's almost too much lolz!

Right?!!  For the atheists it's like watching children......no.....dum b children argue over who's steaming dump stinks the most.   


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 01:42:05 PM
Oh wow... this is getting funnier by the nanosecond. It's almost too much lolz!
Give us some examples of what's making you laugh? be specific. I know what's making me laugh. Ahmed is so arrogant and obnoxious yet so emotional, but what's even funnier is he is trying to act like one of those arrogant preachers that say (pbuh) after the mention of Jesus and Muhammad.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 07, 2012, 02:56:36 PM
Now the second one on you weak list  ;D  is simple

A chariot consists of 9 horsemen, so 1000 chariots = 6300 horsemen + the 700 single horsemen = 7000 horsement

whoa, you lost me there.  If a chariot = 9 horsement, then 1000 chariots = 9000 horsement not 7000.  That puts your calculation off.

Also, I'll post the verses, English Standard Version:

1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen, we have two completely diffrent numbers here.  One claims 7000 horsemen + chariots, while the other claims 1700 horsemen and without any chariots.

There are also others I posted and many many more I can post.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 07, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Give us some examples of what's making you laugh? be specific. I know what's making me laugh. Ahmed is so arrogant and obnoxious yet so emotional, but what's even funnier is he is trying to act like one of those arrogant preachers that say (pbuh) after the mention of Jesus and Muhammad.

That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"
- "No! It's the other way around!"
- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"
- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"
- "You're following a false god!"
- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"
- "No! It's the other way around!"
- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"
- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"
- "You're following a false god!"
- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...

That's not really what's happening here, at least not from myself.  I'm saying their God is the same as mine, that Jesus' teachings in the Bible are for the most part accurate, but that the majority of today's Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings and instead follow what other people (Paul, Council of Nicea, etc.) said about him, and that our book (Quran) is a progression from the Bible as the New Testament is to the Old.  And yes the one thing you got correct is that I'm saying their book does contain human error, lost manuscripts, and disagreement over authenticity, luckily none of which are the case for the Quran. 


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 07, 2012, 04:24:17 PM
That's not really what's happening here, at least not from myself.  I'm saying their God is the same as mine, that Jesus' teachings in the Bible are for the most part accurate, but that the majority of today's Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings and instead follow what other people (Paul, Council of Nicea, etc.) said about him, and that our book (Quran) is a progression from the Bible as the New Testament is to the Old.  And yes the one thing you got correct is that I'm saying their book does contain human error, lost manuscripts, and disagreement over authenticity, luckily none of which are the case for the Quran.

In other words, you're saying that the particular god they follow (in the person of Jesus) is a false god, and cite, as your "proof" your book, which you consider an unerring source of truth, to prove their book (or at least their interpretation of it), which they consider an unerring source of truth, wrong.

What's happening here, bigbobs, is exactly what I described above. And that you don't see it makes it even funnier.

As for that last gem of sentence... the Quran contains more than it's share of blatant errors. In Surah 16:68, for example, Allah commands the bee to "eat of all fruits" but of course bees don't eat fruits. In Surah 51:49, Allah claims to have created everything in pairs, another clear error. Either these are human errors or they are errors by Allah. Which option do you prefer? Either is fine by me, since both shatter the assertions you make about the Quran.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Skeletor on October 07, 2012, 05:03:37 PM
There are two greek words - "pais" and "huios" that are translated as "son" in the Bible.  "Pais" is derived from Hebrew "ebed," which means servant or slave.  Therefore, the primary translation of "pais theou" is "servant of God" with "son of God" being the biased mistranslation. 

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament quotes "The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e. ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of "slave.""

However, Bible translators use "servant" for "Pais Theou" in some verses describing David and Israel, but "son" or "holy child" when referring to Jesus.  Same greek phrase, but selective English translations.

Please demonstrate the Hebrew roots in those words. "Pais" means child, "Huios" means son.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 06:37:49 PM
whoa, you lost me there.  If a chariot = 9 horsement, then 1000 chariots = 9000 horsement not 7000.  That puts your calculation off.

Also, I'll post the verses, English Standard Version:

1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers."

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen, we have two completely diffrent numbers here.  One claims 7000 horsemen + chariots, while the other claims 1700 horsemen and without any chariots.

There are also others I posted and many many more I can post.  

Yes ,sorry I was typing to fast and erased a paragraph and forgot to re-type it, anyway we don't go by the English standard version, we go by the king James and the king James says...

1000 chariots and 700 horsemen not 1700 horsemen, you follow;

so 1000 chariots = 9000 men and out of the 9000 men he capture 6300, the author wrote the chariot he capture including the men that where part of the chariots

the other author wrote the chariots then he included the men on the chariot  and the 700 horsemen to = 7000. If you study your history you would know that the 700 men where back up men on horses to replace any injured horse and or men from the chariots. In this case they would sent out 1000 chariots( =9000men ) and then they would send out 1000 men on horses as  back up.

Lmao;  oh you don't think that when that many people surrender, they all surrender do you? lol, obviously not, you have some cowards that run away and some that won't like the idea.

So regardless of the author or time, or the conversion of chariots to horsemen

Are you out of your mind?  this is very important to any meaning, do you think the sayings of the 17th centuries are the same as today? Of course not, look, plain and simple 1 counted the men on the chariots and 1 didn't, simple, or do you think there was 1000 chariots with no men on them  ???


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 06:58:32 PM
In other words, you're saying that the particular god they follow (in the person of Jesus) is a false god, and cite, as your "proof" your book, which you consider an unerring source of truth, to prove their book (or at least their interpretation of it), which they consider an unerring source of truth, wrong.

What's happening here, bigbobs, is exactly what I described above. And that you don't see it makes it even funnier.

As for that last gem of sentence... the Quran contains more than it's share of blatant errors. In Surah 16:68, for example, Allah commands the bee to "eat of all fruits" but of course bees don't eat fruits. In Surah 51:49, Allah claims to have created everything in pairs, another clear error. Either these are human errors or they are errors by Allah. Which option do you prefer? Either is fine by me, since both shatter the assertions you make about the Quran.
lol, you just don't get it no matter how hard you try, that is actually funny to us, you see bigbob and I believe (100%) about the beginning, we believe Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Abraham Isaac and jacob where real men that played key role in humanity and we also believe in the flood. You see bogbobs has NOT told me what he believes because he does not have to.

 I already know because there is a pattern between the "theology" (for lack of a better term) on events that took place and you guys can't see this pattern cause you are blinded by your evolution theory. So these things are not necessary for us to argue cause we both know that these events took place. The funny thing is from your perspective we are arguing all kinds of things, but reality is we are in agreement about 90% of things, just not everything.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 07, 2012, 07:29:15 PM
lol, you just don't get it no matter how hard you try, that is actually funny to us, you see bigbob and I believe  (100%) about the beginning, we believe Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Abraham Isaac and jacob where real men that played key role in humanity and we also believe in the flood. You see bogbobs has NOT told me what he believes because he does not have to.

You're right about one thing: there is something I don't understand: why you think that your "beliefs" - which you cannot defend without resorting to circular reasoning and unprovable assertions involving hand-waving - merit any serious consideration.


I already know because there is a pattern between the "theology" (for lack of a better term) on events that took place and you guys can't see this pattern cause you are blinded by your evolution theory.

Ahh... yes... it's us who are blinded and can't see the pattern, because of evolution. ::) If only we had a little faith, our eyes would be magically opened by a mystical, magical ability, letting us see things for what they really are, behind the veil of reality and the confusion of logic.


So these things are not necessary for us to argue cause we both know that these events took place.

No. You don't know that these events took place. You believe that these events took place. That you and bigbobs agree they happened doesn't mean they did happen. There is a difference between knowing something and believing something. Especially in your case, where you believe certain things not only in the absence of, but actually contrary to observable evidence.


The funny thing is from your perspective we are arguing all kinds of things, but reality is we are in agreement about 90% of things, just not everything.

The funny thing is that your debates and arguments involve no logic, just specious reasoning based on unproven assertions and boil down to one thing: both sides yelling the same thing, back and forth, louder and louder: "My interpretation of my holy book says X. That contradicts yours. Therefore yours is wrong because my holy book is the divinely inspired, inerrant word of god! YOU'RE WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 07, 2012, 07:40:34 PM
^^^ lol, No bro there is a point to the points we are making. Actually bigbob has very good points and he always brings a valid discussion, Ahmed on the hand is just out to lunch, he just randomly babbles on and on with no valid points or logic, so I don't even like addressing him cause it is a one way discussion


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 08, 2012, 10:17:02 AM
That you're both doing the exact same thing - starting with assumptions you hold true but cannot prove and then quoting a book which you, again, assume but can't prove is true, to disprove the beliefs of those you argue with, who do the exact same thing:

- "My magic book is true, and yours isn't!"
- "No! It's the other way around!"
- "Baloney! My magic book says X which proves yours is false!"
- "Nonsense! My magic book says Y which proves yours is false!"
- "You're following a false god!"
- "No! You're following a false god!"

And what's funnier still is that you both agree that this qualifies as a rational debate...

Those crazy theists and their magic books!  Am I right?!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 08, 2012, 10:57:20 AM
He forgets he believes we come from monkies and that they come from rodents and that ultimately we all come from sea creatures that magically occured through an accident.

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this  ;D Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 08, 2012, 11:04:26 AM
He forgets he believes we come from monkies and that they come from rodents and that ultimately we all come from sea creatures that magically occured through an accident.

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this  ;D Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found :)
Don't forget that "nothing exploded" to create everything, lmao


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 08, 2012, 03:14:18 PM
Don't forget that "nothing exploded" to create everything, lmao

1400 years ago God also told us of the Big Bang and that the universe is expanding, which was not known to scientists until the 20th century :)

Quran 21:30 "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"

Quran 51:47 "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are its expander"  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 08, 2012, 03:56:24 PM
He forgets he believes we come from monkies and that they come from rodents and that ultimately we all come from sea creatures that magically occured through an accident.

The difference between my "belief" and yours is that mine is based on observed evidence and a theory that is falsifiable - i.e. one that makes predictions that can be tested and proven.

Clearly I am anti-science for disbelieving this  ;D Even though I can describe the make up and workings of a cell while Darwin only saw a blob. Oh and might I remind fellow atheists he said his visual observation belief 'theory' would fall apart if a complex organism were to be found :)

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 08, 2012, 04:41:55 PM
1400 years ago God also told us of the Big Bang and that the universe is expanding, which was not known to scientists until the 20th century :)

Quran 21:30 "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"

Quran 51:47 "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are its expander"  
Actually the Bible said this first  ;D,... over 17 passages where God says he is stretching out the Heavens, but even if it was clustered together, that's still doesn't qualify as "nothing"


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 08, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
The difference between my "belief" and yours is that mine is based on observed evidence and a theory that is falsifiable - i.e. one that makes predictions that can be tested and proven.

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!
Oh ya that's right you observe an ape change into a human. The theory is always say 'millions of years ago this', and millions of years ago that" ya you observed all that right?

Your theory is a form of religion. Time to face the facts.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 08, 2012, 05:13:24 PM
Oh ya that's right you observe an ape change into a human. The theory is always say 'millions of years ago this', and millions of years ago that" ya you observed all that right?

Direct observation isn't required. I haven't observed gluons either... and yet, the evidence for them is pretty overwhelming. There is a large amount of indirect evidence that agrees with the predictions the theory makes, and there is a ridiculously large amount of observations of evolution occuring in real time. But of course, you discount all that. You spout nonsense about "no transient forms" and "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't!" You can't justify those positions - but you have them nonetheless; you believe and preclude the possibility of anything contradicting your beliefs. And when something does come along, you draw arbitrary distinctions, or failing that, plug your ears and go "la la la ... I can't hear  you ... Jesus ... la la la ...".


Your theory is a form of religion. Time to face the facts.

Religion requires faith: the belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Science does not. Indeed, it is the diametrical opposite of religion. As I said before, I am open to the possibility that the theory of evolution is not only incomplete but perhaps even outright wrong. If new evidence comes to light that the theory cannot explain, I won't just say "NO! NO! I KNOW THE THEORY IS TRUE. SOMEONE TOLD ME IN A VISION! AND IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN BY OTHERS THAT IT'S TRUE!" But that's exactly what you and your ilk do when the evidence challenges your irrationally held beliefs.





Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 08, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
The difference between my "belief" and yours is that mine is based on observed evidence and a theory that is falsifiable - i.e. one that makes predictions that can be tested and proven.

No. You are anti-science because you believe that faith in the absence of evidence is a valid tools of acquiring knowledge. You are anti-science because you consider supernatural answers to natural questions as valid and proper. You are anti-science because you are not willing to even consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are anti-science because you consider "god did it!" to be an answer.

That you are able to google the description of a cell and paste it here doesn't make you pro-science. Even if you memorized it and could repeat it, word for word, on demand, that wouldn't make you pro-science, anymore than it would make you a scientist.

As for what you claim I said, can you provide the exact quote from me? I bet you can't and you're just making stuff up. Bad Muslim! Don't make me get the can of coins!

lol the magical evolution routine did it?

I don't believe in blind faith like these christians arguing in this thread about worshipping Jesus and being saved and 'feeeeling the power' even though they don't know the bible and what it says. I believe in God through observation and rational. I never bought into priests tell me "have faith and the holy spirit will guide you and bring understanding to the trinity". That's non-sense to me. Blind faith that is.

Through science I can believe in God, seeing how the human body is made up, how the various organs of the human body are functioning and together. Eyes, brain, liver, kidneys, heart, cardiovascular system, nervous system, bones, musculature, lungs, etc... etc... Cells and various other microscopic functions within our body, understanding how they work.

They lead me to believe in God. I use my fascilities of observation, my five senses and my brain through which i rationalize and think with. Either all this magically happened through some magical process called evolution or... it was designed and engineered by a greater power. Yes God. To me your explanations are hocus pocus non-sense make belief. To you me believing in all this to be by design and engineered as hocus pocus. To you your beliefs, to me mine. However both of us employ science as a means to ascertain our beliefs. To me yours is irrational, to you, mine is 'irrational'.

You on the other hand use your eyes, have a preconcieved notion that you reject God and try to find any means necessary to justify to yourself that everything was an accident and your best explanation is some magical drawings.

In the end your belief comes down to, we come from monkies who come from rodents who ultimately come from sea creatures that ultimately come from pretty much nothing and just a bunch of accidents. Your evidence? A bunch of drawings? A bunch of ridiculous assertions, a bunch of rare bone fragments that artists can use their imagination upon, etc...

Your prophet Darwin doubted himself :)

Quote
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Pretty much summed up. :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 09, 2012, 12:04:11 AM
Here we go again...

lol the magical evolution routine did it?

There's nothing magical about it. What's magical is talking ants (Surah 27:18) and a mightly deity sending "swarms of flying creatures" to deal with the owners of an elephant by pelting them with stones (Surah 105).


I don't believe in blind faith like these christians arguing in this thread about worshipping Jesus and being saved and 'feeeeling the power' even though they don't know the bible and what it says.

Yes you do. At the core, your religion, like all other religions requires a leap of faith to justify the beliefs that cannot be rationally sustained.


I believe in God through observation and rational. I never bought into priests tell me "have faith and the holy spirit will guide you and bring understanding to the trinity". That's non-sense to me. Blind faith that is.

Lie to yourself if you must, but your lies are transparent.


Through science I can believe in God, seeing how the human body is made up, how the various organs of the human body are functioning and together. Eyes, brain, liver, kidneys, heart, cardiovascular system, nervous system, bones, musculature, lungs, etc... etc... Cells and various other microscopic functions within our body, understanding how they work. They lead me to believe in God.

Oh absolutely. The eye is proof positive that God exists... why, it's so perfectly designed! It works across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, doesn't suffer from refractive errors, works in the dark and doesn't have a blind spot in the center. etc... etc... ::)


I use my fascilities of observation, my five senses and my brain through which i rationalize and think with. Either all this magically happened through some magical process called evolution or... it was designed and engineered by a greater power. Yes God.

Again with the magical stuff... you know what's even more magical? That you claim that we had to be designed and engineered, but your imaginary sky-friend doesn't have any such requirements; very rational and logical! You're using those two brain-cells like there's no tomorrow! ;D


To me your explanations are hocus pocus non-sense make belief. To you me believing in all this to be by design and engineered as hocus pocus. To you your beliefs, to me mine. However both of us employ science as a means to ascertain our beliefs. To me yours is irrational, to you, mine is 'irrational'.

The difference is that I don't have "beliefs" like yours. Beliefs like an earth that is fixed, and unmoving (Surah 27:61).


You on the other hand use your eyes, have a preconcieved notion that you reject God and try to find any means necessary to justify to yourself that everything was an accident and your best explanation is some magical drawings.

No, see you're confused: I don't reject God because of some preconceived notion. I consider "God" to be a meaningless word, that nobody has ever been able to define and provide attributes for that can stand up to rational scrutiny. The only preconceived notion that I have is that in order to believe, I must at least know what it is I'm supposed to believe in.


In the end your belief comes down to, we come from monkies who come from rodents who ultimately come from sea creatures that ultimately come from pretty much nothing and just a bunch of accidents. Your evidence? A bunch of drawings? A bunch of ridiculous assertions, a bunch of rare bone fragments that artists can use their imagination upon, etc...

Again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually says and the evidence that has been presented for it.


Your prophet Darwin doubted himself :)

Pretty much summed up. :)

No, he didn't doubt himself. You misinterpret what Darwin is saying and twist it to your own end. Let's examine what Darwin said, shall we? That if evidence surfaced that contradicted the theory he was proposing, then his theory would have suffered a blow, perhaps a fatal one. That's certainly true. A theory that cannot explain observed evidence is worthless. This attitude, along with falsifiability, are the cornerstone of science.

That you don't understand that, again, only serves to prove one thing: that you are ignorant of what the theory of evolution says in particular, and science in general.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 09, 2012, 08:16:13 AM
Okay magical man, you believe we come from monkies, who come from rodents that ultimately come from sea creatures that come from accidents. lol so cute.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Skeletor on October 09, 2012, 08:35:35 AM
Okay magical man, you believe we come from monkies, who come from rodents that ultimately come from sea creatures that come from accidents. lol so cute.

Brutal retreat, avxo demolished a_ahmed.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 09, 2012, 01:05:36 PM
I donated a Christian magic book today to a children's organization.....you know, in hopes that I can brainwash them now while they're young.

They need to understand the reality of the flying spaghetti monster and the almighty gnome.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 09, 2012, 01:16:17 PM
avxo, now you have to make up stuff in order to win an argument.

Please tell me when Ahmed, bigbobs, MOS or myself told you that science requires faith? That's right non of us ever said such a stupid statement so why pretend that we did.

Evolution requires faith bro, the theory is wrong, to much assumption, false assumptions, very stupid ones, the theory is no more science then religion. Any part of the theory that incorporates science I have no problem with, as with any theory out there, there are some truth to them, but the bulk of it is simply wrong and require faith in order to believe in it.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 09, 2012, 01:30:08 PM
I donated a Christian magic book today to a children's organization.....you know, in hopes that I can brainwash them now while they're young.

They need to understand the reality of the flying spaghetti monster and the almighty gnome.
Did you tell them about 127 billion 438 million 300 thousand 543 animals that where in the Noah's ark?  ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 09, 2012, 02:10:52 PM
Did you tell them about 127 billion 438 million 300 thousand 543 animals that where in the Noah's ark?  ;D
Yep, matter of fact, one of the more outspoken kids asked me where Cain's wife came from so I smacked him with the very bible I was gonna give him and threw holy water on him.  


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 09, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
avxo, now you have to make up stuff in order to win an argument.

Hey, us heathens can't help it... ;D


Please tell me when Ahmed, bigbobs, MOS or myself told you that science requires faith? That's right non of us ever said such a stupid statement so why pretend that we did.

I was contrasting "belief" in science with "belief" in religion. I never said that any of you said that, although


Evolution requires faith bro,

You keep repeating that. But repetition doesn't make the statement being repeated right.


the theory is wrong,

Oh... well if you say so! That changes everything! ::)


to much assumption,

Assumptions aren't bad. Scientific theories make assumptions all the time. Einstein, in formulating his theory of gravity, assumed that mass warps space-time, much like an object warps a sheet that it lays on. Frankly, Einstein's general and special relativity theories made a lot more assumptions that the theory of evolution does, and for many years could not be experimentally tested.


false assumptions,

Oh well... that's different. False assumptions are bad. But can you, perhaps, provide us with some of those assumptions? Remember, just because you think an assumption is false doesn't mean it actually is. You will have to prove that.


very stupid ones,

Such as? Again, remember, just because you think something is stupid doesn't mean it actually is. You will have to prove that.


the theory is no more science then religion.

Because you say so?


Any part of the theory that incorporates science I have no problem with, as with any theory out there, there are some truth to them, but the bulk of it is simply wrong and require faith in order to believe in it.

What leap of faith does "believing" that the theory of evolution is almost certainly true require? Please be specific.


Did you tell them about 127 billion 438 million 300 thousand 543 animals that where in the Noah's ark?  ;D

THERE WERE 127,439,307,543 ANIMALS! Yes, that's an odd number, because the Purple Hippo reproduces asexually by budding! ;D


Yep, matter of fact, one of the more outspoken kids asked me where Cain's wife came from so I smacked him with the very bible I was gonna give him and threw holy water on him.

Did he sizzle? I always like it when holy water sizzles and smokes upon contact with then heathens. ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: OTHstrong on October 09, 2012, 07:26:24 PM
Good to see you have a sense of humor unlike Ahmed, sorry Ahmed had to throw in my cheap shot  :D

OK avxo fair question, `what assumption``

how about the geologic column representing different periods in time. There are many parts of the world that have a younger layer over an older layer and how do you explain polystrate fossils going through 2 different layers, actually in many cases 3 different layers.

How about one species becoming another and don`t give me some lame example of one of 2 variations of one species but classified as 2 different species based on your biased classifications. That`s cheating and it`s fraud, I am talking about an ape becoming a human.

Lots and lots of micro evolution equals a macro evolution, that`s the biggest horseshit I have ever heard, plain stupid to think this. There are boundaries and limitations between species.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 09, 2012, 08:26:10 PM
how about the geologic column representing different periods in time. There are many parts of the world that have a younger layer over an older layer and how do you explain polystrate fossils going through 2 different layers, actually in many cases 3 different layers.

Let's take a tree, for example. A tree is, more or less, vertical, and extends upwards for at least a few feet. I think it's fairly clear how such a structure could extend through more than one layer. You'll have to do better than that.


How about one species becoming another and don`t give me some lame example of one of 2 variations of one species but classified as 2 different species based on your biased classifications. That`s cheating and it`s fraud, I am talking about an ape becoming a human.

It's unlikely that you will personally observe this, as the time scales over which such a process would occur, from start to finish, far exceed your lifespan. I'll explain by analogy: much like how the earth appears to be flat from any one point, examining two creatures at any one point in time won't show you the process of divergence.

Beyond fossils which provide credible evidence, it's hard not be convinced by the easily demonstrable fact that we share upwards of 90% of our genetic material with a large number of other animals. We share a whopping 97% with certain apes.

Lots and lots of micro evolution equals a macro evolution, that`s the biggest horseshit I have ever heard, plain stupid to think this.

Let's not forget that Galileo's proclamations sounded stupid to people of his time, from the uneducated peons, all the way up to Popes Paul V, and Gregory XV.

Why am I bringning this up? To remind you that a lot of scientific theories sounded stupid at first, even to fellow scientists educated on the topic, so you can imagine how they appeared to those with no rigorous scientific background, and to point out that while it may sound stupid to you, you should remember that what things sound like to you isn't the metric by which scientific theories are judged.


There are boundaries and limitations between species.

Can you tell us more about these boundaries?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Man of Steel on October 10, 2012, 07:42:07 AM
Did he sizzle? I always like it when holy water sizzles and smokes upon contact with then heathens. ;D

It was hard to hear with me beating him over the head with the bible.  And I wasn't using some pansy, pocketsized, NIV translation either....this was a real bible.....a rugged, hetero, Christian man's bible....an old, dusty, heavy King James version with thick raised lettering on the front so "Bible" was left clearly visible on his forehead.

I believe I changed a life that day.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 10, 2012, 09:46:16 AM
It was hard to hear with me beating him over the head with the bible.  And I wasn't using some pansy, pocketsized, NIV translation either....this was a real bible.....a rugged, hetero, Christian man's bible....an old, dusty, heavy King James version with thick raised lettering on the front so "Bible" was left clearly visible on his forehead.

I believe I changed a life that day.

Now, that's something I can believe in! ;D


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 11, 2012, 10:45:26 AM
Please demonstrate the Hebrew roots in those words. "Pais" means child, "Huios" means son.

The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the primary meaning of servant or slave (reconfirmed in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"

Ironically the phrase pais theou is selectively translated as servant of God regarding David (Acts 4:25, regardless of which version), but in many versions (King James, Webster's, etc.) translates pais theou in Acts 3:13 as "son of God" just because it refers to Jesus.  Can't have it both ways.

Many other examples of selective translation too, but you get the point - there's an agenda to emphasize that Jesus is the son of God even through mistranslation, since the Bible alone does not make a case for this interpretation, or I should say misinterpretation :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 11, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
Yes ,sorry I was typing to fast and erased a paragraph and forgot to re-type it, anyway we don't go by the English standard version, we go by the king James and the king James says...

And why is that?  Because one version mistranslated itself to hide an obvious contradiction while other versions don't?  I wonder if certain versions were also "updated" to hide other contradictions like the few I posted earlier.  :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 11, 2012, 12:23:09 PM
The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the primary meaning of servant or slave (reconfirmed in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"

Let's take a step back...

Are you claiming that the origin of the Greek word παῖς is Hebrew? If so, there's absolutely no justification for this claim.

Or are you only claiming that some translations, incorrectly in your opinion, use the Greek word "παῖς" when translating the Hebrew word "ebed"?


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 11, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
Let's take a step back...

Are you claiming that the origin of the Greek word παῖς is Hebrew? If so, there's absolutely no justification for this claim.

Or are you only claiming that some translations, incorrectly in your opinion, use the Greek word "παῖς" when translating the Hebrew word "ebed"?

Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek.  Old Testament was later translated to Greek, in which ebed was translated to pais.

Since Acts is in the New Testament the example I chose to quote above does not require anything to be translated from Hebrew anyway.  So we're still left with the question as to why Greek pais is translated as servant of God for David but son of God for Jesus.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 11, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
BAMMM!

BigBobs owns all :) mashAllah

I just might throw this in.

In arabic it is Abd. Servant/slave.

The reasoning behind it is to emphasize that we are all slaves/servants/belonging to God.

In the declaration of faith in Islam we say:

ASH-HADU ANLAA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH WA ASH HADU ANNA MUHAMMADAN ABDUHU WA RASUULUH.

"I bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness the Muhammad is His servant and messenger.''

Also worthy of note, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Latin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSG0YzlGB8

It's amazing listening to it how many words are the same in Arabic. SubhanAllah...


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: a_ahmed on October 11, 2012, 03:23:21 PM
And why is that?  Because one version mistranslated itself to hide an obvious contradiction while other versions don't?  I wonder if certain versions were also "updated" to hide other contradictions like the few I posted earlier.  :)

He believes the king james version is the 'most authentic bible' and all others are 'from satan'. Literally. I was showing him the differences in bible translations. King james version has like 40000 errors or something like that as per the preface of the new standardized revised version.

Alot of the forgeries are taken out, alot of the mistranslations are taken out. Some of the forged stories and additions remain but they are commented upon saying they were later additions and not in the oldest and most original parchments.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 11, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
BAMMM!

BigBobs owns all :) mashAllah

I just might throw this in.

In arabic it is Abd. Servant/slave.

The reasoning behind it is to emphasize that we are all slaves/servants/belonging to God.

In the declaration of faith in Islam we say:

ASH-HADU ANLAA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH WA ASH HADU ANNA MUHAMMADAN ABDUHU WA RASUULUH.

"I bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness the Muhammad is His servant and messenger.''

Also worthy of note, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Latin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSG0YzlGB8

It's amazing listening to it how many words are the same in Arabic. SubhanAllah...

Thanks bro, I learn from you :)  Servant, slave, ebed, abd - just shows how the description of prophets from the original teachings of the Old Testament are the same as in the Qur'an despite the difference in languages, and why wouldnt they be, since they are from the same God.  But most Christians don't see that.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: avxo on October 11, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek.  Old Testament was later translated to Greek, in which ebed was translated to pais.

Since Acts is in the New Testament the example I chose to quote above does not require anything to be translated from Hebrew anyway.  So we're still left with the question as to why Greek pais is translated as servant of God for David but son of God for Jesus.

You could have simply said "no, I am not claiming that the the Greek word παῖς is derived from Hebrew."



Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Skeletor on October 11, 2012, 09:45:38 PM
You could have simply said "no, I am not claiming that the the Greek word παῖς is derived from Hebrew."



That was my point, the Hebrew word is different that the Greek. "Pais" means "child" in Greek though, no "slave" or "servant" meaning.


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: bigbobs on October 11, 2012, 10:39:37 PM
That was my point, the Hebrew word is different that the Greek. "Pais" means "child" in Greek though, no "slave" or "servant" meaning.

Not according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Also, why isn't anyone responding to the main issue here:


Ironically the phrase pais theou is selectively translated as servant of God regarding David (Acts 4:25, regardless of which version), but in many versions (King James, Webster's, etc.) translates pais theou in Acts 3:13 as "son of God" just because it refers to Jesus.  Can't have it both ways.

Many other examples of selective translation too, but you get the point - there's an agenda to emphasize that Jesus is the son of God even through mistranslation, since the Bible alone does not make a case for this interpretation, or I should say misinterpretation :)


Title: Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
Post by: Skeletor on October 11, 2012, 10:51:26 PM
Not according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Also, why isn't anyone responding to the main issue here:


The Theological Dictionary might try to add or twist meanings to suit whatever purpose or context. Example, the "servant" translation.

I see your argument though. There are many such Bible inconsistencies and selective interpretations or translations. I think it is unavoidable when it comes to religious or "divine" texts (not just Christian) that people will twist the meaning if it is somehow contradicting.