Try the Trinity.

[muhammad_isa]

I studied the New Testament and found it to be true and honest written by witnesses that knew Jesus Christ..

Well, you do not seem to agree with the majority of scholars on that..
Paul(Saul) of Tarsus, for example, was not one of Jesus' disciples .. he only "knew him" from an
experience he had while on a journey. A vision of some kind.
I do not say that Paul did not have this vision, but he can't have possibly known him, in the way that you imply.

..and then we have the Gospels ..

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses..
Canonical_gospels:_Matthew,_Mark,_Luke_and_John - Wikipedia

..written in Greek?
There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic. This is generally agreed upon by historians. Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first century AD.

I share your enthusiasm in gaining Knowledge about God / religion, but I think you need to look into
these things more closely.
..and what is it about "the trinity" that makes it so important to you?
Are you not satisfied with loving God through Jesus Christ, reciting the Lord's prayer as He taught us to do?

Why do we need to know the precise nature of Jesus, in order to worship God?
Why are others who worship God through Jesus not acceptable in the eyes of God?
In my opinion, those who war against others, on the basis that they do not believe Jesus is God,
are being misled by the devil .. God is far above mankind's sectarian dogma.

 

[wil]

You know what you call an orthodox
Jew who believes Jesus is part of a triune God?

A Christian! Just about the most anti interfaith thing I have seen is Jews for Jesus as the name implies one thing, but the intent is completely different

 

[powessy]

If we reason on what God can be and what He should be, we are making one hell of an error.
It is not up to us to tell God what He is, or how He should be revealed.

However,
It is also just as silly to think that one can make philosophies on God, from our reference point.

This is the steps.
There is a God.
He created Man.
Man does not know Him.
He reveals Himself to Man.

OK, so how did God reveal Himself to Man?

The Jews has the Tanakh, and the Christians also believes in it, but they go further, and they have the history of Jesus Christ in the 4 gospels and acts of the Apostles. Obviously they collected the writings of these apostles for future generations.

From the Christian perspective, they will utilize the Tanakh and the New Testament to formulate the attributes of God.
Which clearly demonstrates the Trinity from Genesis 1 to Revelations 21.

The Christians are Christians because of their belief in the Bible and the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.
Therefore they have the right to use their scripture as their historical evidence of revelation of God.

Anyone who does not believe in the Bible, has no right to tell them they are wrong.
Furthermore, Anyone who think they can use the Book of Mormon, or the Quran for that matter to deny the Trinity, are using external claims that has nothing to do with the Bible, in an attempt to try to argue against the Trinity.

Therefore, if you are a Muslim, and dont believe in the Trinitybecause something is in the Quran that denies it, then we can safely conclude that we need to compare apples with apples, and check up on the validity of our books.

I checked the TANAKH, and I accept it as the historical writings of witnesses to God's existence.
I studied the New Testament and found it to be true and hones written by witnesses that knew Jesus Christ.
Therefore the Triune God.

I studied the Quran, and found it one huge mumbo jumbo, incoherrent, fables, with zero scientific support, actually, one huge blunder compared with what science knows and what the Allah in the Quran knows.

I studied the Book of Mormon, and it was in error with history as well as with science.

I studied Jehovah Witnesses' teachings, and saw that they have a problem to get to heaven because of their belief that Man has no eternal spirit living within him. I saw their 144K will be some other creation in heaven, because no flesh and blood can enter heaven, and having no spirit, they are unable to enter heaven.

I studied the creation stories of the Bible, and science, and learned that Science plagiarized the origins of the solar system from Genesis 1.

Therefore, if we want to discuss the description of God, we will first have to establish the source of where it comes from.
We cant just say, I think it should work this way, or it cant be because some other book which some blasphemer wrote does not agree.
Greetings.

As minds say it, there is no one alive that can ever figure this out, there is no one alive that can ever know anything about anything here, there is no one alive that can teach you anything about anything here. To understand these words is to understand that all the knowledge and information you posses means absolutely nothing at all.

In the dream worlds and within minds you can find many minds together to figure things out. The more minds needed to figure something out the further you get from the things your trying to understand. Minds will say I am many more minds then you are to figure things out, I am so much more time then you are to become something here, I am so many more thoughts then you are to figure things out. Many nothings together still equal nothing I will say to them. All the religions and all man’s books and teachings together still equal nothing I will also tell you.

I will ask you as I have asked many others, how can you figure anything out when you have nothing teaching you anything here? If you ever want to become something again you will need to figure things out knowing nothing about anything here. If Jesus is the one true god then why are there so many interpretations of who he is, why so many circles.

As far as the true god, he is himself only. Everything is inside of something to become something here. If you were able to become everything here in existence you would only then be able to find thoughts about him and still you could not figure him out. The rule of minds goes that you can figure out or become anything that is inside yourself to figure it out.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You do not need to respond I just wanted to share my thoughts on this topic.

Powessy

 

[Thomas]

The trinity is not god, and has nothing to do with god, this I know. God is himself only, the one and only and nothing else.

Hi powessy —

Always gets difficult here. The Trinity is God inasmuch as it represents, within the Godhead, the potency for otherness. The question boils down to, why, if there is a God, is there anything else?

Before anything can be, the potential for its existence must be in God first, and for that to be so, there must in some way be the pattern of 'I' and 'Thou', of 'Self' and 'Other', in the One, and this Self and Other must be undifferentiated, must be 'unity' and yet still 'one'.

The trinity refers to himself he is (me, himself and yourself) together...

This is a variation of the psychological analogy of trinity, it's a projection of our own position, as it were, after the fact, it's explaining God from where we are, using ourselves and our knowing as the model, or pattern.

 

[Thomas]

Paul(Saul) of Tarsus, for example, was not one of Jesus' disciples .. he only "knew him" from an experience he had while on a journey. A vision of some kind.
I do not say that Paul did not have this vision, but he can't have possibly known him, in the way that you imply.

One could argue that He knew Him in a way other than in the flesh ... and because the knowing was not a physical meeting, it was at a deeper level.

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses..
Canonical_gospels:_Matthew,_Mark,_Luke_and_John - Wikipedia

As I've said, wiki is a rough guide, but behind the curve on this.

There is strong arguments to suggest Luke followed John in the Passion narrative, which puts a written John before c. 85-90. Then there are arguments to suggest John and Mark were writing contemporaneously, which means John might have been writing c.65-70.

Nothing definite, of course, but nor anything strong enough to dismiss the possibility.

..written in Greek?
There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic. This is generally agreed upon by historians. Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first century AD.

OK, but Greek was the lingua franca of the wider world. I see no issue with the Gospels being written in Greek, nor do you actually raise any?

I share your enthusiasm in gaining Knowledge about God / religion, but I think you need to look into these things more closely.

The same might be said of the historical view of Islam's critique of Christianity.

Are you not satisfied with loving God through Jesus Christ, reciting the Lord's prayer as He taught us to do?

He said He would send another paraclete to make all things known (cf John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26). Are we supposed to ignore Him?

Why do we need to know the precise nature of Jesus, in order to worship God?

It's rather that the Holy Spirit reveals Him.

God is far above mankind's sectarian dogma.

Indeed He is, and we all have to look to ourselves on that one.

 

[Thomas]

As minds say it, there is no one alive that can ever figure this out ...

But God is higher than mind.

It's not a case of 'figuring it out'. It's rather knowing the mystery.

Divine Knowledge is an unknowing-knowing, it's paradoxical, but only because the mind has taken a pre-eminence over the soul, whereas Divine Knowledge resides in the soul, not the mind, and in that sense transcends it.

The problem for minds is that the Divine is a Darkness, not the darkness of emptiness, but rather that the Divine transcends all forms, and without form, real or mind-imaged, the mind stumbles.

An analogy from the Bible: In John 20, there is the account of the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene tells the eleven that the stone has been rolled away, that He is not there. Peter and John run to the tomb. Just those two. In a long tradition of figurative symbolism, Peter represents the Will, John the Intellect –
"... And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter (the Intellect ranges ahead of the Will), and came first to the sepulchre. And when he (John/Intellect) stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in (because it is a mystery the intellect cannot comprehend) Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre (the same fear, but an act of Will drove him on) ..." (verses 4-5)

And crucially verse 8: "Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed."
The intellect follows where the will takes/drives it, and then makes sense of what it perceives – for John, in this instance – the will having made a leap of faith, the intellect begins to shed it's own light on everything it has been told, in the face of this new evidence.

, there is no one alive that can ever know anything about anything here, there is no one alive that can teach you anything about anything here. To understand these words is to understand that all the knowledge and information you posses means absolutely nothing at all.

Spoken like a true mystic!

In the dream worlds and within minds you can find many minds together to figure things out. The more minds needed to figure something out the further you get from the things your trying to understand. . .

Sadly, I rather disagree. Mind is not quantitative in that sense, it's qualitative. The same as 'breakthroughs' in the physical world, it's often one mind, sometimes a few, but rarely have committees produced anything of significant value as the staggering insights of individuals ...

... and so often they speak of that moment of enlightenment as happening when the mind is disengaged, they come 'out of the blue' as it were.

If Jesus is the one true god then why are there so many interpretations of who he is, why so many circles.

Because every mind is its own cosmos?

Again ... not trying to sway anyone ...

 

[wil]

Omg, my morning wakeup, I may be a trinitarian (well not according to most sorts like I don't fit the standard Christian definition, but still consider myself a follower of Jesus)

So my belief is G!d as principle, and G!d is all there is, not as creator, but just as everything, the essence that holds everything together without which...we wouldn't be.

So sure I believe in the triune G!d, like I believe in a dozen eggs, it just ain't the only dozen. In my world "we is all one" is proper English, we are single entities but all connected to one like ankhs. So yes there is 3 in 1 and the infinite allness in the three, we are all manifestations of G!d expressing and our limited vision of G!d is our manifestation.

Ya'll may not agree with any of this, but this just woke up not fully explored revelation allows me to agree with you (trinitarians)

 

[muhammad_isa]

One could argue that He knew Him in a way other than in the flesh ... and because the knowing was not a physical meeting, it was at a deeper level.

One could argue that .. and one could also extend that to Paul's writings being more authoritative than the Gospels,
which would merely have been written by "disciples", who had not seen "God" in a vision.
i.e. Paul has "prophet status", but the disciples didn't

..but one could also wonder why Jesus had decided to join His Father in heaven, and then send Paul as a prophet to do his bidding.

As I've said, wiki is a rough guide, but behind the curve on this.

I know that wiki is not always accurate .. but it quotes refs. One needs to be more specific in its criticism.
..not just cast it aside with a sweeping brush..

OK, but Greek was the lingua franca of the wider world. I see no issue with the Gospels being written in Greek, nor do you actually raise any?

It depends who you are claiming wrote them. Who, amongst these "eyewitnesses" in the Bible, were scribes, and fluent in Greek?

It's rather that the Holy Spirit reveals Him..

That is merely avoiding to answer the question..
"Why do we need to know the precise nature of Jesus, in order to worship God?"

 

[powessy]

Hi powessy —

Always gets difficult here. The Trinity is God inasmuch as it represents, within the Godhead, the potency for otherness. The question boils down to, why, if there is a God, is there anything else?

Before anything can be, the potential for its existence must be in God first, and for that to be so, there must in some way be the pattern of 'I' and 'Thou', of 'Self' and 'Other', in the One, and this Self and Other must be undifferentiated, must be 'unity' and yet still 'one'.


This is a variation of the psychological analogy of trinity, it's a projection of our own position, as it were, after the fact, it's explaining God from where we are, using ourselves and our knowing as the model, or pattern.

Happy new year Thomas.

My own personal view of why there is anything else, I think it all started with space and then time. I believe god was space at first and once this space became large enough time became part of it forming everything else. You see, we are all inside of space but we are not space, it is itself only and yet we are all inside of it.

The above is only my personal opinion based on the many stories I have been told, since minds started teaching me things.

I want to clarify the mind and brain are not the same thing. The mind is not yourself it is itself and not to be confused with ourselves or the brain. When I close my eyes minds will approach me as my inner eyes open. These minds range from very small pinpoints to city sized and even galaxy sized minds.

The mind is a yourself that you find time inside of this mind is made up of all things you are in life the time you bring across from this world. This configuration is yourself inside yourself, this teaches me who you are and where you are from and many other things.

Here is the story told. Many times before this universe was formed, everything started to become nothing there except for one mind. All of creation started to become nothing and sought out this mind to find it was still something here. Nothing found out they could not figure this mind out but could see god so they tried to figure him out and could not. God allowed nothing outside this mind to become something here as long as they tried to figure themselves out. All of creation entered into gods mind to become something here, this is why nothing at all resides outside his mind, and all creation is within him. If god were anything else other then himself only, nothing would have figured him out and ripped him apart.

Yes we are all the trinity within ourselves, the trinity only teaches us who we are all living things.

Powessy

 

[powessy]

But God is higher than mind.

It's not a case of 'figuring it out'. It's rather knowing the mystery.

Divine Knowledge is an unknowing-knowing, it's paradoxical, but only because the mind has taken a pre-eminence over the soul, whereas Divine Knowledge resides in the soul, not the mind, and in that sense transcends it.

The problem for minds is that the Divine is a Darkness, not the darkness of emptiness, but rather that the Divine transcends all forms, and without form, real or mind-imaged, the mind stumbles.

An analogy from the Bible: In John 20, there is the account of the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene tells the eleven that the stone has been rolled away, that He is not there. Peter and John run to the tomb. Just those two. In a long tradition of figurative symbolism, Peter represents the Will, John the Intellect –
"... And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter (the Intellect ranges ahead of the Will), and came first to the sepulchre. And when he (John/Intellect) stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in (because it is a mystery the intellect cannot comprehend) Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre (the same fear, but an act of Will drove him on) ..." (verses 4-5)

And crucially verse 8: "Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed."
The intellect follows where the will takes/drives it, and then makes sense of what it perceives – for John, in this instance – the will having made a leap of faith, the intellect begins to shed it's own light on everything it has been told, in the face of this new evidence.


Spoken like a true mystic!


Sadly, I rather disagree. Mind is not quantitative in that sense, it's qualitative. The same as 'breakthroughs' in the physical world, it's often one mind, sometimes a few, but rarely have committees produced anything of significant value as the staggering insights of individuals ...

... and so often they speak of that moment of enlightenment as happening when the mind is disengaged, they come 'out of the blue' as it were.


Because every mind is its own cosmos?

Again ... not trying to sway anyone ...

Again mind and brain are not the same thing. I also find that minds teach using analogies. I have many images they use to teach me with, some are even memories of times before this world.

The mind consists of all the things you have ever become and all the things you will need to figure yourself out, when not becoming anything here.

It is not the mind disengaged it is the mind becoming you to help you figure things out. When we are on the precipice or badly done to figure something out the mind will do anything to figure you out. I will go on to make this statement also only to explain this. First there are minds in the veil that will do anything to keep us from becoming ourselves again. The cost of your mind becoming you and these bad minds figuring you out, is your sanity. I figured my mind out not being badly done but this allowed minds inside my mind to teach me things. Others are not so lucky, they will suffer these voices and they will get ripped apart, hurting themselves or others. I will also say that your sin our thoughts will bring that kind of time to taunt you. I will also go on to say if anyone reading this suffers voices that taunt you, you need to forgive yourself and them to find peace again, easier said then done for anyone undergoing these torments.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

Powessy

 

[moralorel]

I never bothered to find out exactly how the Trinity "God" was, shall I say...constructed...
To the Christian it is not a problem to say God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
To them it is one God.

Then I was confronted by Muslim, and realized, to my shock, that Christians have a hard time to explain the Trinity.

Well, I previously sumerized the Bible and read the Quran a few times, and I decided to see if there is an easy understandable way to explain the Trinity, and to also find out if the Trinity is false, or really a divine god.

Well, I did my learning and have to test my knowledge with religions that do not believe in the Trinity, to validate my understanding.
This is my main reason why I wanted to join this forum.
To test the idea of a Triune God.

Whats the use if I believe in something, and there might be facts I dont know about that will destroy these "Facts".

If anyone wants to ask questions or needs some clarification, I will be happy to have a serious but friendly debate.

What I have never understood is WHY do I have to refer to God, Jesus, and the holy spirit as a trinity? Nowhere in the Bible is this referred to as a trinity. Jesus says they are One. But I have had people tell me that I'm going to Hell if I don't believe in the Trinity. I can't find this anywhere in the Bible. So when Jesus opens up HIS books and starts judging, he's seriously going to send people to Hell simply because they didn't acknowledge Him and the Father as being part of a Trinity? I just don't get it.

 

[Thomas]

Again mind and brain are not the same thing.

Yes, I think I'm aware of the distinction you make ... doesn't alter my view, however ...

I also find that minds teach using analogies. I have many images they use to teach me with, some are even memories of times before this world.

That's how mind works, by creating narratives. Analogy is a narrative device.

The mind consists of all the things you have ever become and all the things you will need to figure yourself out, when not becoming anything here.

Much like the Logos?

First there are minds in the veil ...

Do you draw any distinction between mind and minds?

I ask because here you posit many minds, or types of minds, or perhaps types of mental acivity.

In reference to the Trinity, we're looking at the Unity that is 'above' multiplicity – the One, which contains all within Itself, without opposition, distinction, etc., which is why I said Trinity is higher than mind.

 

[EricPH]

Jesus prayed that we should be ‘One’ in exactly the same way that he is ‘One with the Father’. Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is One with the Father?

The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.

The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version( I have only seen this interpretation in the NIV)

Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Could the Father love the Son more than he loves himself? Can there be any greater relationship between the Father and Son? Could this be how we should strive to be as one with all our diverse neighbours. And love them as we love ourselves?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Cino]

Welcome to the forums, @EricPH and @moralorel !

Hope you like this place at least as much as I do. Make sure to read and agree to our Code of Conduct (you can find it in our top level forum list.

If you like, you can write an introduction in our introductions forum. It's always nice to get a little bit of background on people.

That's it, enjoy!

 

[powessy]

Yes, I think I'm aware of the distinction you make ... doesn't alter my view, however ...


That's how mind works, by creating narratives. Analogy is a narrative device.


Much like the Logos?


Do you draw any distinction between mind and minds?

I ask because here you posit many minds, or types of minds, or perhaps types of mental acivity.

In reference to the Trinity, we're looking at the Unity that is 'above' multiplicity – the One, which contains all within Itself, without opposition, distinction, etc., which is why I said Trinity is higher than mind.

I know what you are asking I am just having difficulty trying to explain this. God is himself only he is everything inside himself but he is also nothing inside himself. You see you are made of cells, trillions of them and yet you are a multiplicity of minds becoming you. God is just god and nothing else becoming him. Your yourself would be made up of trillions of minds to figure you out with. God only figures himself out, there is nothing to teach him about himself.

The other thing is god is first on every timeline this means there is nothing bigger then him or that became something before him. To be first means In order to enter into any timeline you have to figure him out first.

We are all inside his yourself which is god. The interesting thing is, for you to be you again you just have to become everything inside yourself to become you again. You see if god becomes everything inside himself to become himself again he is just god again. How is it that he is everything inside himself yet he is nothing inside himself to become himself again?

Powessy

Edit: The distinction between mind and minds are many. The more time you have the more you can figure out. Minds are many times nature in there understanding of themselves. There is a hierarchy of minds that persists depending on how much time you have figured yourself out. I am many more minds then you are to figure things out, I am so much more time then you are to become something here. The more time you have and the more minds you are the more places you can go.

Powessy

 

[Thomas]

I know what you are asking I am just having difficulty trying to explain this.

To be honest, I don't think you can – our paradigms are quite diffferent, or at least the 'mechanics' of them are.

God is himself only he is everything inside himself but he is also nothing inside himself.

Agreed. God is beyond forms, before all things; all things are in Him and from Him.

We are all inside his yourself which is god.

'In Him we live and move and have our being', as was said, but we are not Him. Were we Him, we could not fail to know ourselves entirely and without contradiction or error.

How is it that he is everything inside himself yet he is nothing inside himself to become himself again?

I'd say God doesn't. I'd say this assumes change in God, whereas the journey you speak of is of contingent being, not the Changeless, the Eternal. God is never anything other than God.

Edit: The distinction between mind and minds are many.

The point here for us is not the many, but the One.

The more time you have the more you can figure out. Minds are many times nature in there understanding of themselves.

As ever, for us God is beyond forms. As Dionysius writes:
"... the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath it that is above all."

In terms of the 'experience' of the Divine, he says:
"the mystic (plunges) into the Darkness of Unknowing, whence all perfection of understanding is excluded, and he is enwrapped in that which is altogether intangible, wholly absorbed in it that is beyond all, and in none else (whether himself or another); and through the inactivity of all his reasoning powers is united by his highest faculty to it that is wholly unknowable; thus by knowing nothing he knows That which is beyond his knowledge." (Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite "The Mystical Theology").

 

[Cino]

the mystic (plunges) into the Darkness of Unknowing, whence all perfection of understanding is excluded, and he is enwrapped in that which is altogether intangible, ...

Nice one. Did Dionysius write more on the topic of this non-experience?

In Theravada Buddhism, there exist similar "descriptions" of mind states, such as the wonderfully paradoxical "neither perception nor non-perception".

 

[powessy]

To be honest, I don't think you can – our paradigms are quite diffferent, or at least the 'mechanics' of them are.


Agreed. God is beyond forms, before all things; all things are in Him and from Him.


'In Him we live and move and have our being', as was said, but we are not Him. Were we Him, we could not fail to know ourselves entirely and without contradiction or error.


I'd say God doesn't. I'd say this assumes change in God, whereas the journey you speak of is of contingent being, not the Changeless, the Eternal. God is never anything other than God.


The point here for us is not the many, but the One.


As ever, for us God is beyond forms. As Dionysius writes:
"... the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath it that is above all."

In terms of the 'experience' of the Divine, he says:
"the mystic (plunges) into the Darkness of Unknowing, whence all perfection of understanding is excluded, and he is enwrapped in that which is altogether intangible, wholly absorbed in it that is beyond all, and in none else (whether himself or another); and through the inactivity of all his reasoning powers is united by his highest faculty to it that is wholly unknowable; thus by knowing nothing he knows That which is beyond his knowledge." (Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite "The Mystical Theology").

In terms of the ‘experience’. Do you know the most interesting thing about what he says here? “By knowing nothing he knows, that which is beyond his knowledge”. The only way I could find time here to learn and figure things out was to know nothing about nothing at all.

I follow no religion, I believe in no gods, I worship no idols, I have no super hero’s. I look into the Abyss with the curiosity of a child not knowing what to ask about. They say by not knowing who he is you can figure anything out not knowing anything at all.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and time.

Powessy

 

[OupaPiet]

A scholar's work should be guided by the subject matter they study, and by other scholar's work, not by personal beliefs.

You seem to muddle the two a lot, scholarly work and personal beliefs.



You mention this a lot. Why do you care so much whether other people believe the same as you?

I never cared at all.
This is only an anecdote to people making a claim that Jews dont accept the Trinity.
Such a claim is invalid as you see.
Show a Jew the real attributes of the Word, The Ruach and the YHWH, and they become a Christian.
Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[OupaPiet]

Well, you do not seem to agree with the majority of scholars on that..
Paul(Saul) of Tarsus, for example, was not one of Jesus' disciples .. he only "knew him" from an
experience he had while on a journey. A vision of some kind.
I do not say that Paul did not have this vision, but he can't have possibly known him, in the way that you imply.

..and then we have the Gospels ..

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses..
Canonical_gospels:_Matthew,_Mark,_Luke_and_John - Wikipedia

..written in Greek?
There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic. This is generally agreed upon by historians. Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first century AD.

I share your enthusiasm in gaining Knowledge about God / religion, but I think you need to look into
these things more closely.
..and what is it about "the trinity" that makes it so important to you?
Are you not satisfied with loving God through Jesus Christ, reciting the Lord's prayer as He taught us to do?

Why do we need to know the precise nature of Jesus, in order to worship God?
Why are others who worship God through Jesus not acceptable in the eyes of God?
In my opinion, those who war against others, on the basis that they do not believe Jesus is God,
are being misled by the devil .. God is far above mankind's sectarian dogma.

So what if we dont have concrete proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the 4 gospels with their own hands?
So what if it was written in Greek and not Aramaic?
There are many examples in the Bible that the prophets of old had scribes to write and record historical events,
Moses had scribes recording what he experiences.
Joshua, David, Solomon, and the 12 great prophets had scribes.
The whole Tanacha was recorded by scribes recording in the temple libraries on History we see in the OT.

Where on earth does it mean the Gospels is fake, because someone dont know who the writers were?

There is only one silly philosophy that came up with such a fallacy.

Islam and the Quran.
Muhammad was ignorant to the above facts, and thought that Allah gave Moses a Book (Torah). he did not understand that the Torah was the LAW, not a BOOK. He did not understand that the 5 books was a historical recording made by scribes here on earth.

He also thought that Allah gave David a Book, the Zabur.
Muhammad had no idea what the Psalms were.
It was definitely not a book from Allah, but psalms in the form of songs which David compiled here on earth!

Muhammad was also under the impression that the Gospel was a Book given to Jesus!
He never knew that YHWH spoke in person to these men, and the recordings was done as a historical record.

I mean, this is real evidence that Muhamad was totally ignorant to the facts of reality.
He heard of the Torah , and connected it to the Law that God gave Moses, thinking it was the same scrolls he saw with the Jews around Mecca.
He heard Jesus gave the Gospel, and thought it was a book God gave to Jesus.
Totally ignorant of this fact, Muhammad taught that every nation received a Messenger, from their own nation, and they all had a book coming from Allah, and he thought he was on par if he told people he is delivering a Book from God.

Therefore, there is no evidence that the Quran was a revelation to God, and the Quran is also clear that Allah never spoke to Muhammad in person.
There was this supposed angel, Gibriel, which came and spoke to Muhammad.
Matt 7:15 to 20 warns us of these false prophets and even tells us how to identify them.
By their fruit.
Now, I will never believe an man who raped, tortured, stole, cheated, had sex slaves, more than 13 wives, and cheated them with their slaves in their own beds, went on caravan raids, attacked innocent people, ripped an old woman into 2 pieces for critisizing him, killing people who did not believe his claims...
Such a man is not a prophet of God.
or he is a prophet of something else that pretends to be a god.