Author Topic: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)  (Read 47782 times)

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #50 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.

-_-

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #51 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #52 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

scottt

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #53 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #54 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.

scottt

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #55 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #56 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. :-/

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2012, 08:25:37 AM »

bigbobs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9677
  • Islam, Nasser and Corvettes.
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #58 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.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #59 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.


Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #60 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.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #61 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.


 


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

bigbobs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9677
  • Islam, Nasser and Corvettes.
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #62 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.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #63 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #64 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.

scottt

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #65 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #66 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #67 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.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #68 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.

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #69 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.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #70 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?


Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #71 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.

 

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #72 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.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #73 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!

a_ahmed

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Team Nasser
Re: The bible and the trinity (or lack of it)
« Reply #74 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.