Christians! Do you believe Mohammed's prophethood?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Friend!

What Q says is true, concerning Revelations and the other prophecies dealing with the end times.

I would add that the part you quoted about selling a cloak to purchase a sword was told to those He sent out to teach the Word.

Now, to better understand, one must look at the time and place. Bandits (not our Bandit) and highwaymen roamed certain parts of the countryside, and the threat of robbery or worse was always present. One carried a sword for personal protection. Now, one could claim God should be their protection, and they wouldn't need a sword. Perhaps, but that would be a foolish move in my mind. I am reminded of a story told as a joke, but it has a moral.

A flood came and a man was stranded in his house. Some rescuers came by in a boat and offered to save the man. "No thanks, God will save me." The boat left, and the waters got higher. The man climbed to his roof. Another boat came by to rescue him. "No thanks, God will save me." The boat left, and the water got even higher. The man was clinging for his very life, and a helicopter came to rescue him. "No thanks, God will save me." The helicopter left, the waters got higher, and the man drowned. When he got to heaven, he asked "Why didn't God save me?" And he was told "I sent two boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?"

An old folk proverb goes "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Carrying a sword while travelling in that day and age was common sense. It was helping God help you.

It was not, as I seem to gather from the source you draw from, a call to arms against other religions.

I hope this helps.

 

[iBrian]

I would add that the part you quoted about selling a cloak to purchase a sword was told to those He sent out to teach the Word.

Now, to better understand, one must look at the time and place. Bandits (not our Bandit) and highwaymen roamed certain parts of the countryside, and the threat of robbery or worse was always present. One carried a sword for personal protection.

In fact, Josephus in his book "War with Rome" describes Galillee as the most violent area in Roman Judea, possibly in part because of the main roads going north being particular targets for bandits.

 

[Quahom1]

In fact, Josephus in his book "War with Rome" describes Galillee as the most violent area in Roman Judea, possibly in part because of the main roads going north being particular targets for bandits.

Interesting. If a disciple were told he was not welcome in a town, he was to acquiesce, and upon leaving the town, shake the dust from his scandals. However, if he were attacked, he was to defend himself, and depart immediately.

Not strike first, but not sit there like a bayonet dummy either. Funny how the "little details" get forgotten as time goes on.

v/r

Q

 

[Saltmeister]

I am sorry, I didnt intend to start any kind of debate between Islam and Christianity but once someone said something about Islam and compared it to Christianity, well i just could not sit idle could i? I was not trying to convert anyone on here, nor tell them what not to believe, I was just trying to understand your religion. If this has been brought up in past threads, I apologize, as I am new to this forum. I guess I will never understand the Trinity. We do not call Isa (AS) only a Prophet to belittle him, (we call him a Man, a Prophet, a Messiah, and the Word of Allah), but we do it to Glorify Allah, to proclaim His Majesty.

“So (it will be). Allah creates what He will. If He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is. (Qur’an 3: 45, 47).


“Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said unto him: Be! and he is” (3:59).
It's as simple as that for us.

As I lurk around Islamic sites I become more and more aware of what Muslims think about us Christians. The Trinity obviously is a very bizarre concept to them. The question is God one or three, or three-in-one, one-in-three is a recurring question.

Galatians 3:19-20 says, "The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party: but God is one."

I am aware there are many different views on the Trinity. There are many different definitions of it. The idea is that if you get the wrong idea of the Trinity, or even if you believe in the Trinity, you're a heretic, false believer, blasphemer, etc. Basically the idea is if you get the wrong idea of God, you're in the wrong.

The question, "are Muslims right?" is a very tempting one. On the other hand, the decision was already made early in the forum that (from the Christian point of view) Mohammed could not have been sent by God . . . Or, Mohammed is not for Christians.

If Mohammed was right, then basically the New Testament could not have been the inspired Word of God, because the concept of the Trinity is a theme that is found all over the NT.

If he was wrong, we might well be entitled to believe in the Trinity, and it is not blasphemous.

Ok, so why should Christians continue to believe in the Trinity? Is the Trinity really that complicated? Is it irrational to believe in the Trinity?

I believe that the Trinity is a really simple concept. It's just that people try to make it fit into a model that they like, one that only makes sense to them. This makes it appear complicated.

The Christian teaching is that Jesus Himself is the Word of God, the Revelation that God sent down to the human race. The Islamic teaching was that the Revelation/Word of God was not only given to Mohammed, but that it was also a book or an Ideology.

Yet somewhere else, if I remember correctly, Jesus (Isa) was "a Word and Spirit from Allah." This must mean that in Islam the Word revealed to Jesus and the Word revealed to Mohammed are not the same thing.

Another difference is that the Holy Spirit in Islam is the angel Gabriel. This is unacceptable to Christians because the Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit.

So, what about the Father then? The Father is God, however, what we really mean is that God is the Source of holiness and righteousness, that everything good comes from Him. The Son and Holy Spirit are elements that come from God, the Father and Source.

The writers of the New Testament used terms like, the Word, Son of God, Jesus and Christ to explain how God's Revelation did His work on earth. The Word basically means Revelation. The Son of God is a Person that has God's own character and personality. Jesus was the human being, the physical concept of the Word and the Person of the Son of God was in Him. Christ is a term that refers to the heavenly concept of the Word.

The term Holy Spirit refers to the fact that God's Spirit is the only Spirit we can trust. God is the only Holy Spirit.

There are many religions in this world that have their own definition of the structure of the cosmic order, and these definitions come from divine spirits. Paul often refers to the so-called "ruling spirits of the universe." Satan is refered to as the "prince of the ruling spirits."

Pagan idolatry is really the worship of evil spirits. 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, "No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons."

Every religion that has anything to do with spiritual and supernatural experiences always has something to do with spirits. These spirits are not human beings, but angels. False religions come from fallen angels, demons and evil spirits.

In the world today there are many cults and secret societies that can lead people away from what we believe is the so-called "Truth." 1 John 4:1 says, "test the spirits." True believers, followers of the Truth can tell from the teachings of a religion whether or not it is the Truth.

Jesus Himself said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." He basically declared that he was the Word of God, the Revelation God sent to us humans.

Perhaps we could look at it this way. Jesus says that on the Second Coming, he will come as "a Thief in the night." Actually, if you think about it, he was a Thief in the First coming. When a thief robs a house, a really vigilant person will notice. He performs the same tricks. Next time he comes, you're ready for him.

In terms of being a human being, no Jesus was not God. However, as a Person, He was God. People who belonged to the Truth saw His character.

God revealing Himself in a human being was like a Thief doing His own little tricks. This thief-like character I believe is a part of God's sense of humour. We often play tricks on those we love and those who love us. They know it's us.

Those who belonged to the Truth recognised Him. The others did not.

The term Holy Spirit therefore means that we are following "the Spirit of the right path." It means we should follow God and only God. God revealed Himself in Jesus, the Word of God.

So why does God need three Persons? Personally I think that's an invalid question. Christians believe the Ultimate Word of God was Jesus while Islam teaches that it is the Quran. For Christians, the Bible is the inspired Word, while Jesus is the Living Word. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the Living Word in heaven; it is a shadow of the Living Word.

According to Islam, the Quran has many "inner secrets." In Christianity, the "inner secret" is Christ, the Living Word that is now in heaven.

“Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said unto him: Be! and he is” (3:59).
It's as simple as that for us.

I have to explain why Christians will continue to believe what they believe, and why we don't "have to" believe in Mohammed.

I've seen this point being made by many Islamic web sites that Christians don't believe God was powerful enough to create another human being and therefore simply sent His Son into the world. This is not true!!!!

From a Christian point of view, there is a difference between the physical and spiritual. This means that when a divine being such as God, His Word or an angel want to interact to human beings on equal terms, they first need a body.

This view can be confirmed by what Paul says about physical and spiritual bodies.

This means that the divine being must create a body for himself, possibly from nothing. The Son of God was an uncreated Person, however, to gain entry into the physical universe, he needed a physical body. So the Word creates a physical body for Himself and puts it in Mary's womb.

I will conclude as a Christian that the Trinity is an acceptable concept. We don't believe in three Gods but one.

The Trinity is merely God (the Father), His Word (the Son of God) and His Spirit (the Holy Spirit). The Trinity is best understood as something spiritual rather than physical.

If you think in physical terms -- that is, God performing three different functions in three different forms, you certainly start thinking that Christianity is bizarre. However, if taken spiritually, you find that there is nothing wrong with the Trinity at all!!!!!

The three elements are just three different aspects of the same Being -- the Father/Source, the Word/Revelation and the Spirit.

 

[Nusaybah]

This thread has been very intresting. however from reading it on emain thing all comes across. it seems that your actual knowledge about islam and the Life of the Prophet is very limited also at times about the bible.
the trinity is a very intrsting concept. one which i still don't undertand, but neways. its also intresting toi note that in some bibles the qoute about the trinity has actually been thorwn out as a fabrication. This was done bu 30of your scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating denominations.

 

[Nusaybah]

Also i think it was "faithful servant" who said that elohim is plural. it seems that you don't quite know hebrew. Hebrew and Arabic are very similar and are sister languages, both steming from one source, Abraham p.b.u.h. their are two types of plural. one of respect and one of numbers. Elohim as actually a plural of respect and NOT numbers. like royal proclamation. Therefore impling one and not three

 

[Quahom1]

Also i think it was "faithful servant" who said that elohim is plural. it seems that you don't quite know hebrew. Hebrew and Arabic are very similar and are sister languages, both steming from one source, Abraham p.b.u.h. their are two types of plural. one of respect and one of numbers. Elohim as actually a plural of respect and NOT numbers. like royal proclamation. Therefore impling one and not three

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Its exact significance is often disputed.
In some cases (e.g. Ex. 3:4 ...Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush...), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar (see next section), and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel. In other cases, Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Ex. 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.). This may reflect the use of the word "Elohim" found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) was found to be a word denoting the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god).
In still other cases, the meaning is not clear from the text, but may refer to powerful beings (e.g. Gen. 6:2 the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives..., Ex. 4:16 and you [Moses] will be as Elohim to him [Aaron], Ex. 22:28 Thou shalt not curse Elohim, or curse a ruler of your people, where the parallelism suggests that Elohim may refer to human rulers). See Sons of God for more insight into this suggestion...

...
In one view, predominant among anthropomorphic monotheists, the word is plural in order to augment its meaning and form an abstraction meaning "Divine majesty".
Among orthodox Trinitarian Christian writers it is sometimes used as evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
In another view that is more common among a range of secular scholars, heterodox Christian and Jewish theologians and polytheists, the word's plurality reflects early Judaic polytheism. They argue it originally meant "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being. They claim the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods of the Judean pantheon with their own singular patron god YHWH alone.

In the context of Islam, some scholars have highlighted that the divine name Allah, used in the Qur'an, has a cognate relationship with the word "Eloah (אלוה)".

Then again, perhaps we do...

v/r

Q

edit: Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family. Most members of this family have a recorded history going back thousands of years...

Once the Arabian penninsula was thought to be the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in Eastern Africa, probrably in the area of Ethiopia/Somalia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated linguistically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Ahmiric, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century C.E. (A.D.).

Hebrew on the other hand has recordings as far back as 1400 B.C.E (B.C).

 

[Saltmeister]

This thread has been very intresting. however from reading it on emain thing all comes across. it seems that your actual knowledge about islam and the Life of the Prophet is very limited also at times about the bible. the trinity is a very intrsting concept. one which i still don't undertand, but neways. its also intresting toi note that in some bibles the qoute about the trinity has actually been thorwn out as a fabrication. This was done bu 30of your scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating denominations.

You won't actually find the word "Trinity" in the Christian Text, and nor will you find it saying God is three. However, you will nevertheless find the terminology of the Trinity, particularly in Matthew 28:19-20.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:19-20

You will find this verse in the New International Version, one of the most up-to-date translations on the Christian Text. The terms Father, Son, Son of God, Son of Man, Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ are found throughout the New Testament. That terminology has not been removed. It's up to you to find out what this terminology means.

The Bible is a piece of literature. In can be understood best by studying other kinds of literature, including those that aren't religious. It can really enhance your ability to understand what the Bible is saying. Sometimes the expressions used in the Bible are either misunderstood or taken out of context!!! Understanding literature is an art not a science, same with the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the quote about trinity being thrown out." Perhaps you should list verses from the New Testament as examples.

 

[Quahom1]

One also finds the "Trinity" all present (and witnessed physically), at the same time, during the baptism of Jesus...

...Jesus, Dove, Voice from above...

v/r

Q

 

[Nusaybah]

Christians interpret the word "us" at the beginning of the bible to imply the existence of a combination of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" of their Holy Trinity. They fail to realize that in Hebrew as well as in Arabic there are two types of plurals. There is a plural of numbers as well as that of respect and honor. Here is a plural of honor which you might not have noticed: - the quotation from the Holy Quran about Jesus and his mother, observe the words - "SEE! HOW CLEAR WE MAKE FOR THEM OUR MESSAGES." No Muslim ever understood by these plurals, a plurality in the Godhead, neither did any Christian Arab or Jew. Ask any Jew who knows Hebrew as to the number of gods in his Hebrew "US" from the first chapter of his Torah, and he will confirm without any hesitation what I am telling you.

to be three in one the components should remain the same; the constituents remain the same - the forms keep on changing; there is no problem. Let us check with the concept of ‘trinity’- Concept of trinity – Father, son, and holy ghost – Form… they say… ‘Form changes.’ Okay for the sake of argument, we agree. Does the component change? God and holy Ghost are made of spirit - Human beings are made of flesh and bones - They are not the same. Human beings require to eat - God does not require to eat, to survive - They are not the same. And this is testified by Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, himself in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter No. 24, Verse No. 36 to 39. He says that… ‘Behold my hands and feet - Handle me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones.’ He says… ‘Behold my hands and feet - Handle me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones.’ And he gave his hands, and they saw, and they were overjoyed. And he said that… ‘Do you have any meat to eat ?’ And they gave him broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb - And he ate. To prove what? That he was God? To prove that he was not God. He ate, and he is flesh and bones - A spirit has got no flesh and bones. This proves that it is scientifically not possible that Father, son and Holy Ghost - Father, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, and Holy Ghost, is Almighty God. And the concept of ‘trinity’, - the word ‘trinity’ does not exist anywhere in the Bible. The word trinity is not there in the Bible - But it is there in the Qur’an. Qur’an says in Surah Nisa, Chapter No. 4, Verse No. 171, it says…. (Arabic)…. Do not say trinity…. (Arabic)…desist stop it! It is better for you.’ Trinity is also there in Surah Maidah, Chapter No.5, Verse No.73, which says …(Arabic)… They are doing ‘Kufr’ - They are blaspheming - those who say that Allah in 3 in one - Is a triune God. Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, never said he was God - The concept of trinity does not exist in the Bible. The only verse which is closest to the concept of ‘trinity’, is the 1st Epistle of John, Chapter No.5, Verse No.7, which says… ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word and the holy ghost, and these 3 are one. But if you read the Revised Standard Version, revised by 32 scholars… Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operative denominations, they say… ‘This verse of the Bible - 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5 Verse No.7 is an interpolation, is a concoction, is a fabrication’ - It was thrown out of the Bible. Jesus Christ peace be upon him, never claimed Divinity.

KING JAMES BIBLE
1 JOHN 5:7
​

AUTHORIZE VERSION​

REVISED STANDARD VERSION​

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth

Romans 1:20​

AUTHORIZE VERSION​

REVISED STANDARD VERSION​

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
According to the Catholicism!
"Father is a person, the son is a person, the holy ghost is a person, but they are not three but One!"

You have Theres 3 Distinct, mental Pictures, even if they are not clear! When you think about the Father, your not thinking about the Son, when you think about the Holy Ghost, your not thinking about the Father, Unless your Mind is Diseased!

No matter how much you attempt to superimpose them, they will always be 3, not One!

Father+Son+Holy+Ghost=1 is Illogical and an Impossibility!
1+1+1=1 is a Mathematical Error!
There is not a single unequivocal statement in the complete Bible, where Jesus Christ peace be upon him says… ‘I am God’ - or where he says… ‘Worship me’. Infect if you read the Bible, it is mentioned in the Gospel of John, Chapter No.14, Verse No.28 - he said…‘My Father is greater than I’; Gospel of John, Chapter No.10, Verse No.29…‘My Father is greater than all’; Gospel of Mathew, Chapter No.12, Verse No.28…‘I cast out devils with the spirit of God’; Gospel of Luke, Chapter No.11, Verse No.20…‘I with the finger of God, cast out devil’; Gospel of John, Chapter No.5, Verse No.30… ‘I can of my own self do nothing’…‘I can of my own self do nothing - As I hear, I judge and my judgement is just, for I seek not my own will, but the will of my Father.’ Anyone who says… ‘Not my will but God’s will’ - he is a Muslim. Muslim means the person who submits his’ will to almighty God. Jesus Christ peace be upon him said…‘Not my will but God’s will.’ He was a Muslim - and he was Alhamdulillah, one of the mightiest messengers of God. We believe…We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention. We believe he gave life to the dead, with God’s permission. We believe that he healed those born blind, and lepers with God’s permission. We respect Jesus Christ peace be upon him, as one of the mightiest messenger of God. But he is not God, and he is not a part of the trinity - Trinity does not exist. Qur’an says…. (Arabic)… ‘Say He is Allah, one and only.’

 

[Quahom1]

Nusaybah,

Are you here to ask questions, or to condemn?

For every place you attempt to show the folly of Christian belief I/we can easily show dozens upon dozens of scriptural points to refute the attempt.

However, that isn't the point. If you wish to express how much in error Christians are and how perfect Islam is, there is the Islam thread for such discussions.

As a final thought:

While It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’ (Strong’s # 559), which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).

However, that is because it wasn't the "Trinity" that made man. The Word/Logos made man. In fact Logos made everything. So the syntax in Genesis is correct. In the beginning God was talking in the plural, but when man was created, it was by one of the Trinity, not all of them.

As for Jesus not claiming divinity...

(1) The early creedal formula "Jesus is lord [kyrios]": 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11

(2) The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as."): Mt 11:27; Mk 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk 10:22; 22:70; Jn 10:30; 14:9

(3) The NT calls him "God": Tit 2:13; 1 Jn 5:20; Rom 9:5; Jn 1:1

(4) Absolutely, universally supreme: Col 1:15-20

(5) Eternally preexistent: Jn 1:1; Phil 2:6; Heb 13:8; Rev 22:13

(6) Omnipresent: Mt 18:20; 28:20

(7) Omnipotent: Mt 28:18; Heb 1:3; Rev 1:8

(8) Immutable: Heb 1:11-12; 13:8

(9) Creates (only God can create): Col 1:16-17; Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:10

(10) Sinless, perfect: Heb 7:26; Jn 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21

(11) Has authority to forgive sins: Mk 2:5-12; Lk 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn 1:5-9

(12) Rightly worshiped: Mt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; Jn 20:28; Heb 1:5-9

(13) Speaks the unique, forbidden divine name: Jn 8:58

(14) Called "King of kings and Lord of lords": 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14

(15) One with the Father: Jn 10:30; 12:45, 14:8-10

(16) Performs miracles: Jn 10:37-38; and throughout all 4 gospels.

(17) Sends the Holy Spirit: Jn 14:25-26; 16:7-15

(18) The Father testifies to him: Mt 3:17; 17:5; Jn 8:18; 1 Jn 5:9

(19) Gives eternal life: Jn 3:16; 5:39-40; 20:30-31

(20) Foreknows the future: Mk 8:31; Lk 9:21-22; 12:49-53; 22:35-37; 24:1-7; Jn 3:11-14; 6:63-64; 13:1-11; 14:27-29; 18:1-4; 19:26-30

(21) Is Lord over the Law: Lk 6:1-5

Hope this helps.

v/r

Q

 

[BlaznFattyz]

One also finds the "Trinity" all present (and witnessed physically), at the same time, during the baptism of Jesus...

...Jesus, Dove, Voice from above...

v/r

Q

also, the burning bush (the presence of God the Father made the ground holy, the calling in Moses' heart and understanding Gods will and and spirit that rested with Moses is the Holy Spirit, and God wanting to have a relationship and to be known to Moses was the Son. Also, the holy of holies being where God rests, the temple being Christ, and the worshipping and coming to christ in spirit is throught holy spirit, which was the temple plan given to Moses at that time. Also, the resurrection (God the Father raised Jesus, the Holy Spirit raised Jesus, and Jesus raised Jesus, as he is creator of all things and has the power of life). whatever the father does, the son does, whatever the son does, the holy spirit does, as they are one.

The natures of God are for us to know him and understand him. God the Father is invisible to us as we have not the ability to see him because of how we are, yet he personally has a relationship with us and makes himself known to us through his Son so that we may have life. As God sent his Son, so do his Son send the Holy Spirit to be with us. Through the Holy Spirit, if we with a faithful and humble heart ask and seek his wisdom, then he makes himself known.

It is not wise to put limitations on God based on human reasoning or cultural tradition. It is not with human reasoning that we understand and speak with and worship God, it is through Spirit. However, for one that has not accepted the truth of God's nature that gets validated by the Spirit, it can be hard to understand, that is reasonable as it can be a hard concept for those that are taught concepts that go against how God has revealed himself through the the Son, the Holy Spirit, angels, prophets, disciples, and apostles.

The nature of God is the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. The nature of God is not a simple muslim math test. Rather it is the nature of God that enables him to reach to us, make himself known, and undertood from the highest and holiest of heavens down to the lowly, sinful man on earth.

To help understand where the 1+1+1=3 is wrong, simply look at Time. in Time there is past, present, and future. There is not 3 times, but 3 natures of time. Look at Space. There is height, width, and depth in space, not three spaces, but three natures of Space. Look at matter, there gas, solid, liquid. It is not three matters but three natures of matter. So it is with God, there is the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, three natures of the One True God.

 

[Nusaybah]

Neways sorry if i caused any offence to anyone. that wasn't my intention at all.
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).
Quran 3:64

 

[Nusaybah]

We should at least unite on our similarities
Thanks for the intresting discussion

 

[Quahom1]

We should at least unite on our similarities
Thanks for the intresting discussion

We believe in a Supreme Creator. We believe in family. We believe in parts of the Pentatuch, and in the existence of Jesus and Mary. We believe in some of the same prophets. We believe that Abraham fathered Arab and Israelite. We believe Noah is the biological father of us all, after the flood.

Am I missing anything?

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

Moved to Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Saltmeister]

The only verse which is closest to the concept of ‘trinity’, is the 1st Epistle of John, Chapter No.5, Verse No.7, which says… ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word and the holy ghost, and these 3 are one. But if you read the Revised Standard Version, revised by 32 scholars… Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operative denominations, they say… ‘This verse of the Bible - 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5 Verse No.7 is an interpolation, is a concoction, is a fabrication’ - It was thrown out of the Bible. Jesus Christ peace be upon him, never claimed Divinity.

Nusaybah,

Thanks for your curiosity. If you properly investigate the history of 1 John 5:7-8, you will find that the following verse was not found in the earlier Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

It was introduced in the Latin Vulgate. Since it was in Latin, it wasn't as authentic. Moreover, it came later. Quite obviously, someone extrapolated "Father, Word and Holy Spirit" to make it clearer.

Modern versions of the Bible now contain:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8

In some places in the New Testament, "water" is used to denote "flesh," as three-quarters of human flesh is water. An example is in John 3:5-7 where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." He makes a reference to "flesh" which suggests that "flesh" may be denoted by "water." I'd like to clarify to you that this isn't a "scientific" association, but a "literary" one. It's literature not science. The Bible is a piece of literature, not a science textbook.

Science revolves around definitions. Literature is about imagination. Literature is where you explain and describe the undefinable. Faith and beliefs require imagination, which is why the Bible is a piece of literature rather than a science textbook, legal document, or technical manual.

Understanding Christianity, therefore, requires not only the ability to understand literature, but also the ability to imagine and visualise. The two go hand-in-hand.

So let your imagination run loose, and have fun daydreaming, Nusaybah.

 

[cyberpi]

Thanks for your curiosity. If you properly investigate the history of 1 John 5:7-8, you will find that the following verse was not found in the earlier Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century.

Where does one properly investigate the history of earlier versus latter Greek manuscripts? How is it known someone did not remove it?

In some places in the New Testament, "water" is used to denote "flesh," as three-quarters of human flesh is water.

I disagree that water denotes flesh. Flesh stays with you, can be cut off and re-grown. Whereas water is required almost daily to transport ALL of your energy in the bloodstream and take away the waste information for what you did with that energy. Water and blood are fluids that will flow and can be pumped, whereas flesh is a solid that will not.

An example is in John 3:5-7 where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." He makes a reference to "flesh" which suggests that "flesh" may be denoted by "water." I'd like to clarify to you that this isn't a "scientific" association, but a "literary" one. It's literature not science. The Bible is a piece of literature, not a science textbook.

A science textbook is literature. Perhaps you mean fiction versus non-fiction? Subjective versus measured?

Science revolves around definitions. Literature is about imagination. Literature is where you explain and describe the undefinable. Faith and beliefs require imagination, which is why the Bible is a piece of literature rather than a science textbook, legal document, or technical manual.

False. Science revolves around measurement and theory to explain the measurement. Faith does NOT require imagination. In fact the opposite is better. I find that the bible (and Qur'an) are also legal documents and technical manuals too. For example, I would advise deriving a better understanding of the word 'Faith' from them rather than from Webster or common use.

Understanding Christianity, therefore, requires not only the ability to understand literature, but also the ability to imagine and visualise. The two go hand-in-hand. So let your imagination run loose, and have fun daydreaming, Nusaybah.

A scientist has his eyes open and uses them to take measurements of the world we live in. You seem to advocate closing your eyes and wandering around blindly.

 

[Saltmeister]

Where does one properly investigate the history of earlier versus latter Greek manuscripts? How is it known someone did not remove it?

The earlier manuscripts had the phrase, "The Spirit, the water and the blood." The phrase, "Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" was substituted later as an attempt to make it clearer. Modern scholars were looking back at what happened during the sixteenth century and put the earlier phrase back where it belonged. It was never removed, just substituted for something else.

The process of investigating earlier and latter manuscripts and deciding which one is the authentic original is called textual criticism.

I disagree that water denotes flesh. Flesh stays with you, can be cut off and re-grown. Whereas water is required almost daily to transport ALL of your energy in the bloodstream and take away the waste information for what you did with that energy. Water and blood are fluids that will flow and can be pumped, whereas flesh is a solid that will not.

You're putting it too much in a physiological context. I was explaining why one might denote "flesh" with "water" for theological purposes. The "water" is probably used to describe "what drives life in the physical world" as opposed to "what drives life in the spiritual world" (the spirit). Hence, "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." Water and spirit are both substances that flow, but water is physical and spirit is spiritual. Water carries the nutrients of the physical world, while spirit carries the nutrients of the spiritual world. Water denotes the physical (hence flesh) and spirit denotes the spiritual (hence soul). That's what I was intending to say.

False. Science revolves around measurement and theory to explain the measurement. Faith does NOT require imagination. In fact the opposite is better. I find that the bible (and Qur'an) are also legal documents and technical manuals too. For example, I would advise deriving a better understanding of the word 'Faith' from them rather than from Webster or common use.

That depends on what you mean by faith. Your concept of faith seems to be science-oriented or "fact-oriented." It also seems to hang a lot on "methodical and systematic provability." I don't agree with that. While I would agree that faith is believing in something that you might be able to prove, I would disagree that faith is believing in something scientific. That seems to be your concept of faith . . . It is something proven through measurements, procedures, techniques, mathematics and logic.

I disagree with that because my concept of faith is that it's personal. If it's personal, then it must involve entities with personality. Because these entities have personality, they must have a mind of their own and must be self-aware. In other words, these entities are spontaneous.

Faith also implies trust. Trust is also something personal. Spontaneous entities may defy or even disobey science and logic. They have a mind of their own. They may lie to you and betray you. Can you trust something that doesn't follow railway tracks? Yes you can, if you understand how it thinks and feels. It is possible to tame spontaneous entities that have a mind of their own. Can you prove or be sure they are trustworthy if they don't follow logic or don't stay on the railway track? Yes you can, if you get to know them properly and get close and deeply personal with them.

Sure, proof requires reasoning. However, reasoning is not always scientific or logical. Scientific and logical reasoning can't explain or predict everything. In personal relationships with family and friends we use a different kind of reasoning. We use personal and sentimental reasoning. We do this everyday without even thinking about it. And yes, you can prove that someone can be trusted. Well, it's more like them proving it to you. Science isn't spontaneous and doesn't have a mind of its own. It isn't self-aware. Science is the kind of reasoning that you can manipulate. People, on the other hand, are spontaneous and can't be manipulated like science. No two people are the same.

While you may have a different view of faith, it doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. Faith can be viewed in different contexts. Faith is often about something that cannot be proven, or something of which there isn't absolute certainty. To me faith is personal. That's why I said that it may require imagination. When dealing with people, we often need to use some imagination. With regards to a Personal God, imagination can be powerful!!!

I guess we just see the Bible differently. For me, the use of words and the expressions used in the Bible suggest that it is more like a Journal of experiences and insights. I do, nevertheless, believe there is something in the Bible that is greater than the common journal and what some people may ascribe to it. The experiences of reading the Bible are like a journey and adventure in itself. The experience of this journey/adventure is what allows me to understand a personal God. Reduce it to a science textbook, legal document and technical manual and I will probably be left with nothing I can appreciate personally.

My concept of faith is based on what I find in the Bible. I used the dictionary definition just to check if my experience of "faith" from the Bible was compatible with what the word "faith" actually meant -- that I wasn't straying from its true meaning.

A scientist has his eyes open and uses them to take measurements of the world we live in. You seem to advocate closing your eyes and wandering around blindly.

Science doesn't and can't explain everything in life. Science isn't everything. You may open your eyes to a world of science and logic but close your eyes to a world of imagination and creativity. My eyes are open to both, but I see more value in a creative, artistic and imaginative experience rather than one based solely on science, mathematics and logic. You can't appreciate one without the other.

 

[cyberpi]

Regarding textual criticism: I think criticism adds but alteration removes from the eyes of others.

Regarding physiological context versus theological purpose: The verse discussed associates the physical and the spirit.

Regarding "born of water" and "born of Spirit". Do you think that you are in heaven? If you do there are a number of verses to read. If not, then I have a different read of John 3. Jesus (pbuh) says that people are born of the flesh, which is flesh, and of the Spirit, which is spirit. So do you say water is not water? But water without flesh is water, just as spirit without flesh is spirit... flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit, and water is water. To enter heaven again one must be born again, born of the water and born of the spirit. By John 3, a person can go to heaven again, the Kingdom of God, but must be born again to enter it. That is how I read it.

Regarding Faith: No… I maintain it is a very simple relationship between people with soul and spirit, and between people and God (swt). Your relationships may be private but a relationship is external… not personal. Consider a person on a deserted island with nobody in the flesh to have a relationship with. All of the personality, emotions, love, creativity, logic, literature, beliefs, scientific understanding, knowledge, truth, or wisdom in the world does nothing for the fact that there is no person to place Faith in and be Faithful to.

As a further example, if I choose to place Faith in you then it is NOT my personality, emotions, logic, or knowledge (etc) that are relevant. It is directing my eyes and ears to listen to you, to learn your definitions and place my heart, soul and mind into whatever you ask, teach, or command. I do NOT even have to pre-evaluate you, believe you, or find you trustworthy to place faith in you. Those are only pre-conditions one might apply. If I think of a good deed and do it for you, then I have placed NO faith in you, but if I listen to you tell me what a good deed is and do it your way, then I have placed faith in you. There is a monumental difference there. In this way an adult can place faith and be faithful to a young child just as the young child can place faith and be faithful to the adult.

I am happy to place faith in you, or anyone, but when it comes to the definition of the word ‘faith’ I wish to hold to the teaching of the prophets that I read in the Bible and the Qur’an. I see a growing difference in definition of ‘faith’ with Webster and society over the centuries. It seems that faith became believe, then a belief or religion, and then even the absence of measurable information or knowledge… which is a fully polar opposite definition. Back to my example of me placing faith in you, it requires me receiving information from you to place faith in you and yet even if I had complete knowledge of your every thought or feeling I could still choose whether or not to place faith in you. Some information is required and there is certainly no requirement for a lack of verifiable information. The information itself is not the faith and believing the information is not faith… believing in you and doing your will per the information you provided is faith. That is of course my viewpoint and if anyone sees a difference with a parable or word of God (swt) on the subject of Faith I would love to hear it.

Regarding ‘proving’ trustworthiness: A covenant, agreement, or law is not required to place faith but if I say that I will place faith in you doing something you ask, then you are by definition the one able to judge whether I comply and am trustworthy. I think faith and faithfulness are external, visible, and can thus be judged.

Regarding science: The aspect of science you describe is called determinism. You see that people are different and non-deterministic. The laws found and presented by measured science up until the last century have been deterministic, meaning in a closed system (without people) if you know the initial state of things you can accurately determine the outcome. However, if I pick up and read a science textbook believing what is said and following its advice then I am placing faith in the author of the textbook. As an example the author in a chemistry book tells me to NOT mix bleach and ammonia because it will create a fume that will kill me. So if I read this and then go out and duplicate the experiment anyway, then I placed no faith in the author. So where you have developed a separation between science and faith or between your eyes and your mind, I see no separation. Science is a written diary of measured experience and theory that is no different than a history book… because both the experiment and history can be repeated. If it pleases you to close your eyes and imagine gravity does not exist or that a part of history does not exist… that is not faith. You are welcome to challenge gravity whenever you wish and if gravity obeys you some day then God (swt) clearly places greater faith in you. New science and history books would soon be written.