Trinity
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238
Printed Date: 22 November 2024 at 2:16am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Trinity
Posted By: A-Tirawi
Subject: Trinity
Date Posted: 26 March 2005 at 8:15am
|
I have often been confused with how the trinity of the christians and their views on Jesus son of Mary. 1. If Jesus is God (3oothobillah), as is God, God and the spirit God how does this work? I count 1,2,3. Could someone please explain this to me?
2. If God (swt) for some reason wanted to have a son or to reincarnate himself into some other form, why would he pick a lowly human-an animal? If you think about it, we are animals- we become tired, angry , hungry, horny, jealous, we must eat and dring therefore defacate and urinate. Why would the Most High want to do that?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bosnian
Date Posted: 26 March 2005 at 9:34am
|
The Nicene Creed and Truth about the Trinity "God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity) In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The Church of Rome . . . changed the pure Deism of the first Christians, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." "Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64). The Pagan Trinity "The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned genocidal on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul) Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopedias and reference works don't use scriptures when discussing the Trinity? Why is that? Because they don't prove a trinity. For a trinity you need "THREE". But if the Trinity is not in the Bible, then where did we get it from? Welcome to the Nicene Creed Also see Arius The Issue: The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God? Or did God create him? Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius, a native Libyan, went to school in Antioch. He argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text. In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualize the text so they could explain away (make excuses, reject reason) any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical. They both relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism. Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man. Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain stupid, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea. For more on the Christian/Egyptian connection see Christianity in Egypt The Players Alexander of Alexandria: Bishop of Alexandria. Said Christ was the 'same substance' as the Father. Convened a council of bishops from Egypt and Libya to anathematize Arius and excommunicate him and his followers. Athanasius: served as a deacon at the Council of Nicaea. He was strongly opposed to Arianism. He helped the Council decide against Arianism, and was later exiled. Also see Arianism Constantine: Emperor of Rome. He called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute over Arianism. He was the Emperor who recognized Christianity as a legal religion and later tried to make it the state religion. Eusubius, Bishop of Nicomedia and a supporter of Arius, would later baptize Constantine. Contrary to popular Christian myth, Constantine was a pagan and was baptized on his deathbed. He also never really made Christianity a state religion because Christians couldn't even agree on anything. The power grab of the pagan Trinitarians would be completed after his death. From Brittanica.com, "In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonic influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Napoleonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA 325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'." The American Academic Encyclopedia states: "Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria. 328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria. 328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Elyria. 335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier. 337 AD - A new emperor, Contentious, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria. 339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled. 341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed. 343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius. 346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria. 351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium. 353 AD - A council is held at Aries during autumn that is directed against Athanasius. 355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned. 356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile. 357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. 359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father. 361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions. 380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire. 381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. It was a theological power grab by a faction of the church. A major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved and directed the outcome. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. In 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up with force. For the most part, the Trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought. In the 1670's, Isaac Newton quietly studied the Trinity and came to the conclusion that Athanasius in order to foisted the doctrine on the Church swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the Bible had prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", the cult of 3 equal gods) as the abomination of desolation. -- The Rise of Science and Decline of Orthodox Christianity. A study of Kepler, Descartes and Newton. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg Walch, Giovanni But, Henry Noris and Hermann Samuel Reimburse argued Aryanism (Unitarianism) and opened up a new era of criticism. It is only logical for people to argue after this, "What else has the Church lied to us about?" This unfortunately led to Higher Criticism of the bible in the 19th century which in turn, paved the way for evolutionism and Nietzsche's death of God. Is it not logical that to replace a polytheistic trinity, man would have to become gods themselves. Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89) saw the Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien "layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks," and it had nothing to do with early Christianity. "The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The councilor definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present and future...He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with." To Know and Follow Jesus, Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart (Paulist Press, 1984), 46. Historian Will Durant: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." "The doctrine of the Trinity has in the West come into increasing question...there has for long been a tendency to treat the doctrine as a problem rather than as encapsulating the heart of the Christian Gospel." The Promise of the Trinity, Gunton, p.31 "Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged." Karl Rainier, The Trinity, J. Donceel, trans, p.10 "But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult and so abstruse a doctrine as this [the Trinity], in the explication and defence whereof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtleties of dispute and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going up to make one true God be so necessary and important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings." William G. Eliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (American Unitarian Association, Boston,1877), pp. 97, 100 The Eastern Theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749) once used a very curious argument in favor of icons...John replied to the criticism are unscriptural by admitting the fact, and adding that you will not find in scripture the Trinity, of homousian or the two natures of Christ either. But we know those doctrines are true. And so, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John goes on to urge his reader to hold fast to them as venerable traditions delivered to us by the Fathers...He was not the only one to use this argument: Theodore the Studite (759-826) adopted it too. It brings out an odd feature to Christianity, its mutability and speed with which innovations come to be vested with religious solemnity to such an extent that anyone who questions them find himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and heretic." The Christ of Christendom by Don Cupitt, as used in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 133 "In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia "No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822 For more Letters from T. Jefferson Click here "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father" -- MS Encarta 99 "The word itself does not occur in the Bible...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still earlier (to the Old Testament literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments." The Harper Collins Study Bible Dictionary "We are judged to be heretics because we can no longer believe in essence, person, nature, incarnation, as they want us to believe. If these things are necessary for salvation, it is certain that no poor peasant Christian be saved, because he could never understand them in all his life." -- Francis David (1510-79) Catholic theologian Hans K�ng in Christianity and the World Religions, "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?" "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary The Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that others to describe the Trinity later used some of Tertullian�s words. But then it states: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology." The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about It." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion. Tom Harpur states, "As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." -- For Christ's Sake. Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4 . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Microp�dia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976) The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] Conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lach�tre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk. philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, "The councilor decisions plunged Christianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with constant entanglements in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics unique in the history of religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority persecuting others." "Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." -- Robert A. Heinlein �Just as the ocean cannot be contained in the tea cup, so the infinite god cannot be contained in a finite man.� �Steven Johnson � convert The Trinitarian might be compperas to one of those cells in the honey comes, where a drone is bread to be a plague. Arnold Toynbee - historian |
Posted By: A-Tirawi
Date Posted: 26 March 2005 at 10:00am
|
Thank you for your response. It was very very thorough on explaining how the trinity arose, which i already knew. What i was looking for exactly was a christian's personal view point on how they can actually say this in light of the beautiful history that you have compiled for us.
|
Posted By: yesha`
Date Posted: 26 March 2005 at 11:36pm
1. Trinity doctrine, as I see it, is best understood by looking at mankind, which the bible says was created in the image of God. This generally means that man is a spiritual being, but it is also useful for understanding how three is one. A person is made up of 1) body, 2) soul, 3) spirit. The body is flesh, and used interchangable with our soul. Our soul is our spiritual person. The spirit, as I understand it, is something that comes from God, and though it, God influances us to know morals. It's what makes us in his image. The spirit and soul are used interchangeable, but spirit and body is not. Thus our soul is both worldly and spiritual. We are spiritual beings with a worldly body. If one part of our triune makeup is missing we are not whole. We need all three to be one. Trinity, places this kind of idea on God. It does this because scripture identifies three persons of God as God. Their relationship may be analagous to our own makeup. For the example, our body is that through which we interact with physical matter. We communicated through our body. This is analagous to the Word of God, aka, the Son of God. It is through the Word that God creates, like it is through our bodies that we do things. The Word is the wisdom and power of God. It is through the Word that one communicates with God, which is why you must go through Jesus, the incarnate Word, to know the Father. The Holy Spirit, probably is like the rightouness, and all other qualities of God's character. The Holy Spirit, which is given to believers, is what makes a Christian a Christian. It is a perfect influance from God allowing us, if we are submitted to act fully according to his will. Note this is different then the spirit which all people posess. The Father, is like the person of God, like the soul is the person of us. So why then are the Word and the Spirit also called persons? It is like why our bodies are called our person. When a soul speaks to a soul, it is through the body, thus we recognize and communicate to someones body. That body, from our point of view, is the person. Likewise, the Father, doesn't not speak to anyone directly, but through the Word, or through the Spirit. Just as when the body speaks to someone we don't make a distiction that that one person of three is speaking, it is the same with the trinity. It's just a more advanced way of understanding the One God. But it still ultimately refers to the one God. Also, to clarify, Jesus has two natures. He is the incarnate Word of God, which has always been and THROUGH which all things are created. He is also fully human. The same as anyone, who must submit to God, and is suseptable to temptation. How can he have both natures. Because man has two natures, as has been said, we have a spiritual nature, and a physical nature. Jesus is no different, except his spiritual nature is in somewhy the Word of God. That is God through the Word, through the person of Christ, through his body communicates to the world. Christ is his own person, who was created, died, and was raised to life. His Spiritual nature however was never created, but through it Christ, the man, was created. Christ the man is fully submitted to the Father such that when Christ speaks, it is the Father speaking. Thus everything that Christ does, it is God doing it. Thus when you see Christ, you are in a way looking at God, because everthing that Christ does, is really God doing it. This does not mean that the body of Christ is God, it only means that you can perceive the invibible God through Christ in the same why you perceive the invible soul (the person) through their body. 2. God did not indwell in Christ to say he has a son. Son is just a title with several meanings. First of all, when Israel rebelled against God by saying that they wanted a king like other nations, when God was their king, to a person it might not make sence that God would not allow it. But God is not a person, and there is nothing we can do to frustrate His will. God reclaims his kingship by becomming the King, through the person of Christ. Second, it appears to be some divine decree that those who sin shall die. Because we have all sinned, the good and rightous thing for God to do is to destroy all of us in hell fire. However, again, God is not frustrated by the weakness of people or even the schemes of Satan. A price must be paid, our death, and we cannot pay this price. No one else has been tested, and found sinless, so no one else is capable of paying the price of this sin. Only God can do it, by forgiving us our sins. God demonstates that he takes the burden of our forgiveness upon himself, like a man forgiving a debt, takes the loss upon himself, and physically demonstates this in the person of Christ by Christ taking the sins of the world upon himself and dieing on the cross because of them. This act demonstates God love for us, that 'while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.' With our sins forgiven we are able to live in the presence of God, demonstrated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and ultimatly fulfilled by living with Christ. Christ also functions as a 'High Priest', a mediator between God and man, and for this reason, he must be like us in order to sympathise with our weaknesses, as descripted in Hebrews. Also, the Most High is humble. He is not ashamed to serve, all good things comes from him, and it is through weakness that power is best demonstrated. Also God wants us to be like him, morally, as much as we are able. Thus Christ is a perfect example of how we can be. God did this for us, that we can know Him personally, and physically as we can know a person. The reasons go on and on. |
A-Tirawi wrote:Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 27 March 2005 at 6:31pm
|
The closest present day religion, which has a Trinity, as its core belief is Hinduism. In the Hindu philosophy Lord Brahma is the Supreme God of Creation, Lord Vishnu is the Sustainer God and Lord Shiva is a God of Destruction. Hindus, who worship multiple deities, justify their dogma as monotheistic belief on the ground that each deity stresses one or more aspects of The One Supreme God, called Brahma. There are hundreds of gods and goddesses in various Hindu temples throughout India. But each has its own specific power and place in worship, depending upon a particular aspect or aspects of the Supreme God that he or she stresses or represents. This is very similar to the Trinity in Christianity; however, most Christians who view the Hindu religion will condemn it as Polytheistic. The question for Christians is why then do they not view their own religion as Polytheistic if they think the Hindu Religion is polytheistic? ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 27 March 2005 at 6:48pm
|
Rehmat good question... The trinity as Bosnian puts it derives its existence from the Nicene Creed which was a counsel which discussed the nature of Christ as who he was. Many Christian thinkers since that counsel have used various arguments to justify the logic behind the trinity and all of the them (yes even the brillant Thomas Aquinas) have failed in symbolically trying to separate the divinty of Christ from an and justify Christ distinct nature from man. Unfortunately for our Christian neighbor Yesha you do no justice in using the logic of the trinity. To answer why Christians believe in the trinity is a mystery but then again, not all Christians follow the trinity such as Unitarians for example. Yesha you have yet agin make logic of the Paganistic trinity by using these examples to show the logic of the trnity. As a Muslim Philosopher I cannot get over the fact that God in Christianity is of one person, one essence and yet has two other essence besides the one. That defies the rule of monotheism. God is of one essence and of one intellect and is unified as one person. There is no hierarchy in monotheism. Too bad the Jews do not believe in your trinity if it pertains to truth. |
Posted By: yesha`
Date Posted: 27 March 2005 at 8:56pm
I haven't studied hinduism. However, I thought that the monotheistic viewpoint that you are describing is not held by all, but only by a part. For the part that believes that they are worshiping an aspect of a single God, then that must be by definition a monotheistic religion, being possibly little different then meditating upon a single concept of God at a time. However, even if monotheistic, which doesn't mean anything ("Even the demons believe there is one God and shutter") due to the idols involved, it would be considered idolatry, and along with false ideas about God and man, it simply would not be embraced as acceptable. Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (NIV) |
Posted By: yesha`
Date Posted: 27 March 2005 at 9:20pm
Nicene Creed, is not the origin of the concept. I came to it from studying the bible, not this creed. It may be the origin of the 'word' trinity, but not the concept. When you say they 'failed' do you mean they failed to convince you, or that they failed to convince themselves? Have you considered that it is your 'own' definitions and preconceptions that cause you to not understand. For example 'you' define monotheism as God is of one essence and of one intellect and is unified as one person. If a person has several known intellects within their person, why should you 'presume' that God has only one? Isn't it reasonable to you that God who is infinitly greater then us should also be infinitly more complex. But your view of God is so simple in this regard, that even a man is too complex to fit it. |
Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 5:20am
|
That is historically incorrect statement. Jesus (as), even in his distorded message (NT) has never mentioned anything which could prove the dogma of Trinity. The true teachings of Jesus are not what St. Paul or other 'later-day' Gospel writers said - but what was recorded by Jesus' personal scribe - St. Barnabas.
No that's not true. There are hundreds of Christian theologians, who have accepted the fact that the 'modern Christianity' was not founded by Jesus but by St. Paul. I would highly recommend you and Muslim posters to study Barabara Thiering's thought-provoking book Jesus the Man.
That's such a "loose definition of God", which could even make Hitler or any other jerk "god" too! Have a nice day. ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 5:33am
|
1. Personally, being a graduate of Catholic Mission - I have no problem with Trinity - which is basically based on the Theory of Vegetation (Read Grant Allen's "The Evolution of the Idea of God"). It was practiced by Egyptian, Persians and Hindus. 2. The vast majority of Jews don't believe in Monotheism either. Some of their religious groups believe Ezra as "Son of God" - while the other believe in "race and nationality" as their "god". 3. The basic doctrine of Christianity is TRINITY. Anyone who doesn't believe in that - is out of the fold of Christianity. ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 9:40am
|
Fr. Michel has a good comparison if you are truly interested. http:/
/www.sjweb.info/dialogo/documents/doc_show.cfm?Number=8 - Mus lim/ Christian Dialog Modern Christian theologians speak about �the Trinity in God�s saving design.� God has a plan of salvation for mankind which God is actually carrying out in human history. But history is full of material, changeable events and sinful human individuals. How does the eternal, transcendent, holy God (the wholly �Other�) enter this concrete, changing world to save people? Does God remain distant from human affairs and deliver His message from afar, or does God get personally involved in the human situation? The Christian answer is that God has two ways (or modes) of performing God�s saving acts in human history. One way is by incarnating His message, fully and perfectly, in one man, who reveals God in all he says and does. In Jesus� victory over suffering and death, by God�s saving power, mankind finds the assurance of what God is doing and will do for each of us. Through him, God forms a community of people who will continue to bear witness to God�s salvation which was revealed in that man. This, Christians believe, is what God has done in Jesus. God�s second way of acting in the created universe is through God�s powerful presence in the natural world and in every man or woman. This activity of God�s is universal and touches every person. It is not limited to Christians, but is God present at the depths of each individual, who is active in the lives of Muslims, Jews, and others to teach, guide, and save. Christians call this the universal activity of God�s Spirit. For this reason, Christians do not claim that salvation is limited to themselves, but is available to very person who responds to God�s Spirit who speaks and acts in the heart of every man and woman. ����6. The Christian�s Encounter with the triune God For the Christian, the Trinity is not a mathematical or philosophical exercise, but shapes our personal religious experience. When we encounter God, in prayer and worship, in reading and reflecting on the Bible, even in the demands of daily life, we experience God acting in these �three modes of God�s being.� For the believing Christian, GOD is: 1) the transcendent Father (who made us, to Whom we address our worship and prayers, according to Whose will we strive to live,) 2) who speaks to us and reveals Himself through Jesus (whom we want to follow and to imitate, through whom we are reconciled to the Father, who transforms us to be like him) 3) and who lives and acts within us as the immanent Spirit. ����7. Trinitarian belief among Christians of Arabia Although, at the time of Muhammad, there were many Christians in Greater Arabia - the Syrian desert, Sinai, eastern Arabia, southern Arabia (Najran) - there were very few in the Hijaz. Mecca, being the sanctuary of the pagan religion in pre-Islamic times, resisted the spread of Christian ideas. The few Christians who were present in the Hijaz do not seem to have been well educated in Christian faith. There were no schools or institutes of Christian learning, and the Christian Scriptures had not yet been translated into Arabic. As a result, knowledge of genuine Christian teaching apparently was rather primitive. Archaeological researches in pre-Islamic Arabia show that Christians called upon God by the Arabic word Al-lah (literally, �the God,�) but their understanding of God often owed more to traditional Semitic concepts than to sound Christian teaching. In his book, Christianity in Arabia before the Time of Muhammad, Trimingham speaks of �the traditional Semitic trinity.� Although various Arab tribes gave different names to these pagan deities, the basic pattern was as follows: ����All�h (�the High God�) --- All�t (�the Great Mother�) ���� ����Ba�al (�the Lord�) In the pagan understanding, All�h, the High God, impregnated his consort, All�t, the Great Mother, with the divine seed and they produced a son, Ba�al, which means �the Lord.� We know that the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as other local pantheons in various parts of the world, had similar beliefs. Such an idea of God having wives and children is abhorrent to the faith traditions that descend from Abraham. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that the One God is far too holy and exalted to be involved in such mundane affairs. However, the traditional pagan concept seems to have been accepted by some Arab Christian converts who were poorly instructed in the Christian faith. They identified All�h, the High God, as the Father, Mary as the Great Mother, and Christ as the Lord who was the physically generated son of All�h and Mary. This is a distortion of the true belief of Christians, and knowledgeable Christian theologians and leaders have always condemned it. The Qur�an also condemns this belief as unworthy of the nature of God. Christians agree with the teaching of the Qur�an that God is far beyond generating a son, or that Mary and Jesus are two gods in addition to Allah, or that Allah is just one of three gods. As one Christian reader of the Qur�an, I do not discover in the Qur�an any reference to the traditional teaching of the orthodox Christian churches on the triune nature of God. There is nothing surprising in this, since the Qur�an was condemning the primitive belief of semiChristianized paganism found in Arabia at that time, a distorted belief which the Christian churches also reject. I raise this point, not to arouse controversy, but to point out that Christians today, like wellinstructed Christians at all times, do not hold that which is condemned in the Qur�an. Much dialogue will be necessary between Muslims and Christians to get beyond what has often in the past been a stumbling block to better understanding between the followers of Christianity and Islam. I do not say that Christians and Muslims hold the same view of God, or that both are saying the same thing in different words. There are differences, certainly, but it is only through honest dialogue that we will eventually be able to distinguish between apparent divergences, misunderstandings, and real differences. DavidC |
Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 12:20pm
|
A Christian is who believes whatever he/she is told to believe, without asking any question � Dr. Robert Funk, DDD In addition to Trinity, there are some other �myths�, which a Christian devout is expected to believe with question. For example: According to Samuel Sharps, an eminent Egyptologist � �The victims of human sacrifices were generally �crucified�, or else killed and then hanged on a tree until evening. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in Acts, the writer mistakenly speaks of Jesus as having been slain and hanged on a tree, as though this was common pharase coming readily to his mind; and the word �Hanged� is frequently used in Greek to denote crucification.� Since Jesus is purported to have been born like the rest of the other Sun gods, Bacchus, Apollos, Dsiris, on 25th of December, the day of the sun�s rebirth, i.e. the first day which obviously lengthens after the 21st of December. ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 6:03pm
|
My response to our Christian neighbors David C and Yesha. First I would like to point out to you David some things in your paragraph that I found interesting. First you said: ��But history is full of material, changeable Then you said: ��The Christian answer is that God has two ways (or modes) of performing Firstly and obviously this is a statement which is not universal but as you mentioned is the understanding by Christians. First off no matter how noble this point of view seems this limits God in a box, in a Christian box to be more specific. We know from doctrinal interpretation that the various elements contained in our Holy doctrines are examples of God��s intervention in such a changeable time. Many parables and stories we read and learn from within these Holy text we apprehend as God��s grace and mercy in this world. As you have mentioned you say that we can reach a ��spiritual�� salvation through God in the message (or form) of Jesus. Though I do not dispute this entire message I have to disagree that God with how he is presented in doctrine is not limited through Jesus. In Biblical and Quranic context God has always involved himself in communities with needing to descend in any form, so how is it that in a time which has lost its way, God needs to descend and transform into a man to reveal his message to mankind when he has used prophets to do this? This is actually a question that I hope you can answer. Secondly, if we are to assume that God indeed has transformed into man that defies the theological laws which Thomas Aquinas and many others have set which presents God as the ��unmoved mover�� or the one who has no change in form. This indeed would contradict the infinity principle of God so I��m interested in how you can explain God going from immortal to temporal. Also David you mentioned: ��God�s second way of acting in the created universe is through God�s This is compared to what I��ve stated before if in fact God��s activity is prevalant in our world why is it necessary for prophecy sake, that God has to ��descend�� (In this I mean in the symbolic way of his true essence from his absolute nature to temporal nature) if his presence is in every human? It is easy for man to redeem himself rather have a redeemer, if the nature of man is capable of redemption. David and lastly you mentioned: ��For the Christian, the Trinity is not a mathematical or philosophical David your presentation of the trinity based on what you mentioned here is quite unorthodox from mainstream Christianity and this what you have stated here reflects your thoughts about the trinity. I say this differs from other Christians because I can use Yesha as an example who has stated the very opposite in explaining the Trinity, I can also note many others but for the purpose of using convenient examples I used Yesha. Now in the following you have mentioned two contradicting points here in your example of the trinity please read the following: 1) The transcendent Father (who made us, to Whom we address our 2) Who speaks to us and reveals Himself through Jesus (whom we want to In point # 1 you mentioned that as we worship our worship and reverence and the like are towards the Creator in whose exemplary prophets we try to follow. But in the following in point # 2 you say that God speaks to us through a mediator in Jesus whom we are thus brought back to God. In speaking for the Christians who do not adhere to Orthodox Christianity as well as us Muslims it appears that God uses himself in the person of Jesus to communicate with us humans and to redeem humanity through his human form to establish again the relationship with humanity. The absolute person of God whom we should revere it seems through Jesus we must use as a mediator between us and God. I have to say that I question the Christian concept of God��s love. If God is so loving why communicate through Jesus and why not to God himself? Another point is that its impossible to say that we are addressing God through a mediator. First off in Christianity, Jesus being both God and mediator in his human person is indeed addressed by Christians in seremonial gatherings i.e. Sunday services. For example if my intent is to address you David my message is not aimed for your middle man but for you. But for the Christian its comparable to a boy trying to mail a letter to his father but instead of putting his fathers address on the letter uses the address of his uncle because he knows the uncle will give the letter to his (the boy��s) father. The trnitarian God is not absolute if there are three persons in which man must acknowledge to achieve spiritual apprehension of the one God. To say that there are other essences of God besides the one essence we are aware of is dividing God not unifying him. You later mentioned that the Christian Arabs really didn��t know true Christianity in the time of Muhammad hence the conflicts of Christian doctrine and the criticism of Muhammad. Actually David even if Muhammad was not born in Arabia or even within the vicinity of any Christian tribes God still has generalized his criticism in the Qur��an using the trinity principle or the Father, Son and Holy spirit concepts. Yesha you mentioned: ��Nicene Creed, is not the origin of the concept. I came to it from studying the bible, not this creed. It may be the origin of the 'word' trinity, but not the concept. First off the Trinity principle is quite simple, because it only involves three numbers but its not what I say is to make confusing bu the principle itself, because it divides the essence of God. As you tried to attempt to understand the concept of God��s essence let me help you. This concept refers to the absolute person of God the unchangeable, the infinite, the absolute, the needless, the sustainer all these are not positive of God��s attributes but are as defined as components of God��s absolution. Yesha you also said: If a person has several known intellects within their person, why should you 'presume' that God has only one? My response to this is that God is not like his creatures and not like a person who has several intellects. The problem with Christians defending the trinity principle is that Christians use humans or any type of creation to justify the trinity. In Islam as well as Judaism God is unlike his creatures and beyond any comprehensible form known to man. God is composed of not several but in infinite amount of knowledge, ability and so forth but we must not think of these as numbers and distinctions within God but as of one essence. This is why the trinity loses its appeal even with the non-religious believer because you are dividing an infinite being into 3 qualities when God logically cannot be divided. Sorry for the long response����. |
Posted By: yesha`
Date Posted: 28 March 2005 at 8:28pm
|
Israfil, In the way talk about the 'essence' of God. What is the essence of man? |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 4:42am
|
Israfil - the selection was by Fr. Michel not written by me. It is Jesuit and
is entirely orthodox even mentioning purely heretical views Of course God's manifestations can be elucidated. Al-Gazzali did it much better than the the Christians. Muslims primary purpose in assailing the trinitarian concept is to disrupt the faith of others. Consider your purpose - do you seek understanding or would you just settlel for a pyrric victory? Of course, if God has a letter for you friend Israfil he does not need mullahs or imams or Hajj or zakat or mosques or hadith either. He could give it to you directly. Why does Islam need five pillars or 99 names of God? Because they enable us to pass the word (Jesus or Qu'ran) - correctly - through generations. There is one world, but sometimes we see night, othertimes sunrise, othertimes rain. No one doubts it is only one world, but using different words for different aspects is vey useful. To say it is all one world may be correct, but a great deal of understanding is lost. DavidC |
Posted By: A-Tirawi
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 12:59pm
|
Israfil I very much liked ur post in reply to david. Very well said
|
Posted By: A-Tirawi
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 1:02pm
|
David Perhaps i am understanding you incorectly, but it sounds to me as if you are trying to justify a wrong with a wrong when you make statements such as these: "Of course God's manifestations can be elucidated. Al-Gazzali did it much better than the the Christians. " |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 1:30pm
|
No, I believe Al-Gazzali's 99 names of God to be far richer poetically than
the Christian trinity. But it is to be expected of a theological genius with an extra 500 years of background. DavidC |
Posted By: tawhid
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 2:18pm
|
you muslims better try harder than you are..... you need to see and slow down kind muslims.... they are not proclaiming the 'holy trinity' as if it is in the bible... they are simply claiming the one true god in the capacities of which He (the one true God) chooses to manifest Himself i wish i had the time to go more in debth...i recieved my degree in islam/christain relations from college...but am working full time so i simply do not have the time to go more in depth with this conversation.... but with each post of muslim rebuttles to davidc and yesha...only strengthens my faith in Christ the Son of God who was begotten by God while still retaining all divinity therin....it was simply a mansifestation of God rather than an impersonal God...he showed himself... "than why didnt jesus call himself God?" you muslims may ask.... well question to you muslim... why didnt God say he was God when Moses asked him instead of calling himself "hshm" (i am that i am)?? muslim friends....stop arguing over the chaff... the multituded that you will proselytyze to your man made religion is not measure of the authenticity of the trueness of your faith... numbers in your religion should not give you courage that your religion is the true one...but it is through God spirit...God's intercession in your life that you should be content...not the numbers of believers. the "holy trinity" is not in the bible...but in the quran...is spake of believers finding counsil in the enjeels...interesting...but not practiced in islam faith
please muslims...to the untrained ear and a heart lacking the holy spirit...your doctrine is almost like sweet fruit ripe for consumption.. but to the discerning heart...it is sinking sand... in Christ's name...my lord my God... thomas
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 6:54pm
|
I have two responses but first I will respond to Yesha since Yesha's question is the easiest. Yesha you said: "Israfil,
Yesha good question. The essence of man is unlike the essence of God, example, being that the essence of man is created and God is not. That can be one simple asnwer but if you are meaning accoridng to Christian doctrine it is possible to view the Biblical implication of "God's image" this is nothing more than a metaphorical way to say that man has the "free" intellect and the will to act upon the intellect in a free but limited way. The intellect, not the essence is comparable to God because man is the highest intellectual animal in the animal kingdom. God is however close to mankind in the sense that mankind's intellectual capacity is able to comprehend the signs of God's existence. So from this we must understand that man's essence is apart of creation which is way different from the essence of the Creator.
For David C you said:
"Israfil - the selection was by Fr. Michel not written by me. It is Jesuit and
David C, first and foremost my intentions was not to disrespect you, not your faith and if you got the impression my apologies. I highly respect you and your faith and what you stand for. You are an upright person and I truly believe in my heart that you are guided by Allah, even though our views are different. Secondly about what you mentioned my apologies for misunderstanding your post, however in the future it would be grammatically appropriate to use quotation marks in your post to note the difference between this person you quoted and yourself to avoid this misunderstanding.
Also you mentioned if my goal was to seek truth in the trinitarian principle or to have a pyrric victory. No, as I have mentioned befgore I was formerly a Christian and studied much of the trinitarian principle during undergraduate years at my university. In much of my medieval philosophy classes we did study the origins of the trinity and what they derive from and the metaphors associated with the trinity. I know that the trinity can be highly symbolic, as a way of a intellectual hierarchy to know the Creator through his messenger/Son Jesus Christ. et me remind you again that as a former Christian I was well aware of this yet I could not fathom its logic, perhaps such a principle is beyond my understanding. So my apologies if you feel I disrespected you as it was not my intention.
As for the 99 names of Allah and Imams and Mullahs you mention let me tell you that I do not follow a particular Mullah or Imam as even their views of the world are different. I follow the knowledge I apprehend through strict study and application of Quranic philosophy and if need be I do seek help in some its understanding. As for the 99 names of Allah these are attributes which signify Allah's infinite being and these are minute references to the essence of Allah but if you read the "Inadequate Language" forum I posted you'd see that I noted that even such attributes as the 99 names of Allah are inadequate seeing how its hard to not apply inadepquate language to Allah. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 6:58pm
| Tawhid from your last post it appears that you are not Muslim and if I'm wrong may you as well as Allah forgive me. Rather than using Tawhid which means Unity of Allah, I suggest using an appropriate name i.e. name, or even religious belief. But its highly disrespectful to Muslims as well as yourself to have an Islamic principle as a screename if you do not believe in Islam. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 29 March 2005 at 10:58pm
|
Isn't this a trinity ? -------------  ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 8:01am
It's very interesting for someone to write such a long post while keep saying 'he/she doesn't have the time to go into depth' Now to your question. Before the revelation of God's Final Testament (Holy Qur'an) - all earlier scriptures mention the Creator (God) as the Father. However, I am what I am was God's response to prophet Moses (as) question Who you're? Moses (as) being equipped with a tiny human brain did not have the capacity to comprehend Allah's Majesty. ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: tawhid
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 8:19am
|
salam aaleakum, that is to suppose that CHristians do not as well believe in the unity of allah....do we....? YES so no i will not change my name... it simply means unity in God....in the arabic language....that is it... it doesnt necessarily mean the islamic unity in god or the christian unity in god...it simply means: unity in god because i believe in tawhid which was given to us in the last book of the new testiment, im going to keep my name maybe you should visit america sometime...you will get use to getting disrespected...you grow stronger from it i can say the very same thing about screen names that say...true faith, or right religion...do i get desrespected, no
tawhid |
Posted By: Rehmat
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 10:04am
|
Here is my question to Christian posters (!) Do you believe that Jesus is divine son of God? Do you believe in Virgin birth and resurrection? And save me from the padre's respons - "Unless you repent, as it were, and believe the Gospel so to speak, you will be damned.' Because that.s the basic modern Christian problem - How Jesus so uniquely significant to allow the existence of Church, if he should not be divine? ------------- Know your enemy! No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late What You Don�t Know Can Kill You |
Posted By: tawhid
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 6:16pm
what? be more clear |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 6:51pm
|
Huh? Wasn't the church formed after Jesus?
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 30 March 2005 at 6:55pm
Why ask that when you know they do.
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: yesha`
Date Posted: 31 March 2005 at 9:14pm
well obviously.
But what I'm trying to figure out is how you can say that logically it
is impossible for god's person to be analagous to Body, Soul, and
Spirit. The persons of the trinity are all of divine
essence. They are also inseperable, like members of a divine body. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 April 2005 at 4:58pm
|
Angel said: "Isn't this a trinity ?" From the Muslim perspective on Christian theology and the Christian understanding of trinitarian philosophy--yes this is so. But from the Muslim perspective regarding the unity of God the trinity violates the unity within the person of God because the essence as well as the attributes as well as the person of God is not divided, even symbolically as two other persons. For example the 'Holy Spirit' in Islam is not apart of the essence of God, because the Holy Spirit in Islam is that of the Angel Gabriel. The so-called "Spirit" or "Messenger" in the Qur'an appears to be interchangeable based on their application between both Angels, and Prophets i.e. calling an Angel "a messenger" and calling Muhammad "the messenger." Also, obviously in Islam God does not have/need a son because we believe that to have a son to redeem the world is a "need" to fulfill a prophecy for God and God (praise be the Creator) does not need anyone. Hence the rejection of the persons the trinity exclaims are unified within God, this is of course refers to the Muslim understanding. Yesha said: "well obviously. But what I'm trying to figure out is how you can say that logically it is impossible for god's person to be analagous to Body, Soul, and Spirit. The persons of the trinity are all of divine essence. They are also inseperable, like members of a divine body."
Ok Yesha, hopefully this point can be much more clearer than the last one I posted for you. In the following are the logical reasons why God is not associated with Body, Spirit and Soul based on the following: 1. God being incorepereal is not associated with "body" because by doing so, nullifies the understanding based on doctrinal text that God is incorpereal and is not a physical being. Also, a being that is infinite does does not have physical form because to say, God has a physical body or is to occupy a body means that God is occupied by space when in the infinity principle that is quite the opposite. If we are to say that God is "Body" based on metaphorical terms such as "the universe is encompassed by the body of God only means to say that the universe is encompassed by the essence of God and of his divine presence. But in such translations we shouldn't use the term "body" because our first understanding is that a "body" is a physical being/object that occupies space and any object that occpies space being physically living or non-living is occupied by time as well.
2. God is not "a soul" in the sense of humans having a soul because God not being created nor apart of anything of this universe is not actuated through creation but is the one who creates the worlds by his will. Though the soul or "naf" is a term that is both literal and metaphorical in the Qur'an based on their application in the Islamic understanding of a soul it is never applied to God. Usually the understanding of the soul is, is the absolute being of each individual person and their personality. However the soul being without form, it is understood that the soul is immaterial. But it doesn't mean that because its immaterial that its like God who is incorpereal. Even though they are the same the theological understanding is that the soul is immaterial in nature but is also created as well. 3. The definition of Spirit is usually metaphorical applying in both the Bible and Qur'an as the essence of God. Such as "And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." But Spirit can also refer to a type of of an emotional state such as courage, or bravery. When applied to God we can only apply such a term as the essence of God but not as an essential of God. If it is an essential of God (like the trinitarian principle shows) then it is saying that apart of the essence of God is the spirit. This type of application is analogous to a Father whose son is essential to what it is to become a Father. This is an untrue statement because any male with a functioning reproductive system can have a child, but 'fatherhood' comes from mutual parental responsibility not child-bearing. So in this example we should say that the son is not essential to Fatherhood, whereas fatherhood becomes a learned trait of resposibility. In this long explanation of mine (again!) this shows our rejection to the trinitarian logic as it imposes additional qualities upon an infinite and unified being. Though if we tangle with saying these are attributes we still come to the same problem. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 April 2005 at 5:04pm
|
The Christian Poser says: "maybe you should visit america sometime...you will get use to getting disrespected...you grow stronger from it i can say the very same thing about screen names that say...true faith, or right religion...do i get desrespected, no." This is a very ignorant statement you made. First off, I am from America I was born and raised in California and have degrees in American-Academic Institutions. Funny how you "ASSumed" (notice the first three letters I captialized on how you sounded) I was not from America. Second, by being African-American ( not making this a racial debate) I know about being disrespected. Also, it is quite disrespectful and inappropriate and ignorant to use a screen name in which you have no knowledge of. If you are aware of Islamic belief system you'd know that Islam rejects Christianity on the concept of this discussion which is the trinity. Muslism as qell as the Quranic doctrine do not believe in the Trinity principle and is strict on Allah's Oneness, hence the Tawhid. However noble your attemt in reconciling Islam and Christianity I have to say you can do a much better job by changing your name and coming forth as who you are because many Christians in mainstream Christianity reject Tawhid as such a word relates to Islam which rejects the concept of God having a Son....Please reconsider. |
Posted By: tawhid
Date Posted: 02 April 2005 at 10:31pm
reconsider? no. that is like me asking you to "please reconsider [edited by moderator]" no simply you will not...and i simply will not tawhid means...the unity of God... the unity of god the unity of god (in arabic language)...what if i had my name "unity_of_god" in english? would you still feel the same about my name? or are you offended just because it is in your "holy" language? so what if i have that name as a christian?....as if christians do not believe in tawhid...please my friend... by you claiming the sole trueness of the word and concept "tawhid" is to disregard that christians believe in tawhid as well..and we do. well we beleive in tawhid...moreso...as much as the ummah - it is the ummah that have been forced to believe through years and decades and centuries of ignorant and decieving lies that chrstians believe in "three gods" that have somehow made you so offensive when a christian calls himself as a reprisentative of "tawhid" ....it is unfortunate that you have been dupped in your book and your muslim classes that christians believe that ther are 3 gods when christians have not and will never believe that....only one God
i have been asked to changed my name 5 times and ive changed it 4 because you muslims are to heartbroken to have a non muslim have a name that is disagreeable...please...i have been to over 6 christian forums and not once have i seen a christian try sooooo hard to get a muslim to change his or her name...moreover....more hatred/anger/oppression/slander/bigotted pride/lack of humbleness of God...has been spit out by your fellow muslim than i have EVER heard from a christian....does your faith tell you to hate the christian? a fellow believer of "the book"? (by the way...which "book" does your prophet talk about when he says that??? what book when he says "people of the book"....give me that name of that book...where can i find it? where is it? why isnt it published? why when i go to the local mosque and i aske for this mysterious "book" they do not have it?? ) the name stays...and my faith in the one god remains stronger through christ my lord... and my attempt in trying to reconcile christianity and islam?????? huh...who is the one ASSuming now? there is no way they can be reconciled my muslim friend...there is but one truth...there is only one way to the father and that is through the son...my belief is founded in that...therefore...why would i even try to reconcile the two when my bible (any translation, and version if you want to get picky) says that there is no way of reconcilation from true believers and the decieved...nice try .... and please...you did make it a racial debate....at least you can call your racial makeup one race...i am mixed of more than 4 races therefore i (unlike you) cannot hold claim to just one...and they are not all white ..more than half is asian and mediteranian...so dont play the race card cuz i get marginal love from any side of my multi racial brothers and sisters - you...you get full love from all blacks...cuz you are a purebread...hence...at least you are accepted wherever you go... disrespectful, inappropriate and ignorant because of my name...why? i believe tawhid and i believe the truness of tawhid is found in the christian faith...you dont believe that....so? welcome to disagreement....what will it do for you if i change my name? will it make you sleep better at night? i am an infedel to you...but i am love by my God in heaven who took away my sins...all praises to my lord the one God who sent his son and upon recieving his salvation via his blood was granted upon me his holy spirit to discern the spiritual battles that inchalla and allah's guidence i remain strong willed in his perfect wisdom and justice. and why in shariah law is the christian treated as lesser human simply because he does not believe in your prophet? what do you mean? you ask? - jizya...the most embarrassing thing i have ever heard of from another religion FORCING their religion on nonbelievers....i thought there was no compulsion in you religion...guess not see...my point to come here on a muslim forum proclaiming my faith and asking these uneasy questions...is that i have been here before when the old forums were in use...and i have witnessed the christian bashing...disrespect and un-honest lies that have been spit out about my faith...but once someone like me who comes along to reveal the unfairness and hostility that has been forced upon the church...i am called ignorant, disresptectful and innapropriate.... well please...look in the mirror....
allahu akbar, tawhid |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 03 April 2005 at 9:41pm
|
The Christian Poser said: "well we beleive in tawhid...moreso...as much as the ummah - it is the ummah that have been forced to believe through years and decades and centuries of ignorant and decieving lies that chrstians believe in "three gods" that have somehow made you so offensive when a christian calls himself as a reprisentative of "tawhid" ....it is unfortunate that you have been dupped in your book and your muslim classes that christians believe that ther are 3 gods when christians have not and will never believe that....only one God" You aparently are confused.. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 03 April 2005 at 9:58pm
Well, yeah
Why do you separate it, why do you think its two people, I think this is a mistake on muslims part, of course you are going to get 2 people / 3 Gods if you separate the concept and see it this way. Christians keep telling there is ONLY ONE GOD NOT THREE GODS but you never accept it (and its a bit of a contradiction when you also say they believe in one God). The understanding I have is that the trinity is not 3 people nor is the essence different (on a higher level the essence maybe different). What it represents {for me on a religious/theology sense} is the Oneness in "a" person, or if you what to take it for God - the Oneness in God. Now is the essence of water different when it is in the form of ice/solid, liquid and steam ? This is also a trinity. Is water three different people or one? While there are three aspects to water it is still one enity, namely that of H20. While water can be in 3 forms it still is water, it is still H20, is it not? As for people, the mind body and spirit/soul. Now is the essence of people different when they are in mind, body and spirit? This is also a trinity. Is a person three different people or one? We, humans, as individuals have three aspects to human being, it is still one enity one individual. We have 3 forms to being human while being one, being in Oneness with our humaness. (not sure if humaness is a word).
Ok You saying that the Holy Spirit is not from God but from Gabriel ? If so, I can understand that since Archangel Gabriel (supposdely) came to Muhammed, and this is perhaps why you see Gabriel as Holy Spirit, the One who spoke to Muhammed. (Aside question, even though the teachings came from God, did Gabriel came everytime to relay it?) Where does the spirit of Archangel Gabriel come from ? As I understand it, the Holy spirit resides in all of us, it is that which gives us life, life is holy, it is God's breath that he breathes in us.
I can see that but 'spirit' is different. and I'm not talking about ghostly or anglic spirit appearance.
I don't understand the bit, to fulfill a prophecy ? I thought also in the Christian sense, it is not the need of God to have a son but for the need of the world/humanity. That is why God chose Jesus to redeem and know God and the way. (as for redeem I have my own issues about that but sticking to what is meant here). The Trinity: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, they are all connected, okay so that term the trinity was coined after Jesus, but look at on the deeper level, the spiritual level metaphysical level and not the material and surface level. The Father who is God - our creator. The son to me is not the son literally from God as you think Yes its meant for Jesus, he taught the way the truth, God spoke to Jesus. (Didn't Jesus say he was God? and say I am the way the truth, a small factor that muslims seem to over look when discussing the trinity) But also The Son is US, God's creation, humanity. Jesus represented who we can be of the highest level. And as Jesus is a son of God yes I can understanding why the 'Sonship' is there in the trinity, as said He did show us the way. The son is God's way. The Holy Spirit - life/energy that which resides in all of us including God and all other creatures. The essence of God is in all of US, what makes up God also makes us up. We are all connected, we are all one, we are made up of energy and matter, some say that matter is star dust, God is one, God is made up of energy (and matter). Sometimes I have to wonder what you understand of "Oneness". But that can be for another thread. The Trinity I think is not so hard to understand, if you take it literally as I see you do, then yes it can be difficult to understand and I would be with you since we are all God's sons and daughters NOt only Jesus. Okay I am going to put a twist on things: The Father - God, The Son - God in matter and the Holy spirit - 'Being'. One entity. ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 6:44pm
|
Angel since you have posted a long response I will break each individual paragraph up into sections so that you can get the fullest understanding from my response. In one instance you said in the following: ��Why do you separate it, why do you think its two people, I think this is a mistake on muslims part, of course you are going to get 2 people / 3 Gods if you separate the concept and see it this way. Christians keep telling there is ONLY ONE GOD NOT THREE GODS but you never accept it (and its a bit of a contradiction when you also say they believe in one God)." First off let me point out to you that there is no contradiction on Muslims when we say Christians believe in One God as we Muslims believe that God is the Creator of all people regardless of religious creed. Now that your point in that is refued we can move on. You mentioned if Muslims view the trinity we see this as literal (from the impression I get from this paragraph) that the persons existing within the trinity are persons other than God hence the impression of three gods. First off you never heard it from me that I considered the other persons in the trinity as "gods" you have made this mistake perhaps getting this impression from another Muslim, not me. However I did say that the essence of God's absolute being does not consist of two other persons. Reason? Because the essence of such an absolute being, such an infinite being is one because to say "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are contradictions to what Muslim Philosophers and even the Jewish Philosopher, Moses Maimonides says which is " Properties of absolute." Since we consider God as absolute and as one, if we say that he consist of two other persons unified under the absolute we are creating additional necessities to that absolute essence. We note that God has many qualities as the prime Artisan, the Creator, the source of existence. Even with these, these are only apprehensions through doctrinal understanding and in no necessitate the Oneness of God. For instance I may posses the properties of existence since I am a living being but it does not necessitate me being only one person which is Israfil get it? Qualities are superadditions aim to a person but do not reflect on the individuality of that person they are just qualities. For the Islamic perspective Son is denied under the impression of God's Sovereign state, and the power to not need a Son to do his will. God is not in need of a"Holy Spirit" even though God is Holy, God does not possess the properties of a spirit because he is the Artisan that wills "spirits" into existence. However the understanding of Holy Spirit comes from God's influence or will upon his creation. However true this is, being Holy and Spirit are additonal properties towards God to describe his will, or his presence which are not neededin Monotheistic theology. Angel you obviously are not fully knowledgable of the Trinity so let me give you some brief background. The Trinity consist of principles in a type of symbolic Hierarchy. With Father, being Allah or the Creator as the Godhead, Son or Jesus as the intermediary and Holy Spirit as the will of God. All these compositions under the trinitarian principle exist as one unity under the person of God. But as I have explained before in the principle of absolution this violates monotheistic theology. Again pesons other than God (Father, Daddy etc) are nothing more than additonal qualities of God that are not needed and are not logical. Angel you said: "Now is the essence of water different when it is in the form of ice/solid, liquid and steam ? This is also a trinity. Is water three different people or one? While there are three aspects to water it is still one enity, namely that of H20. While water can be in 3 forms it still is water, it is still H20, is it not?" Angel my science major LOL Water comes in three (CORRECT) forms solid, liquid and gaseous. You mentioned ice when ice is apart of being a solid. You mention steam which is partially correct but the correct term is gaseous which is Hydrogen and Oxygen. Regardless, the point is though Water comes in three forms you are making the impression that water by itself is of one form. But if one views the molecular level of water its compositions consist of one or more forms which is two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. Since to make water one needs both the gases its for our benefit to understand that the essentials of water are these two atoms because if by themselves results in just being a gas. though we are slightly off topic my point is that water is a bad example because it needs both Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms to become water. This is not the point you are not trying to bring up to defend your point in the case of the trinitarian principle because this is really a bad example. Unless, you are saying God needs the other persons within the trinity to become a unified being, if so then it contradict God's omnipotence. Angel said: "Is a person three different people or one? We, humans, as individuals have three aspects to human being, it is still one enity one individual. We have 3 forms to being human while being one, being in Oneness with our humaness. (not sure if humaness is a word).�� ��Ok You saying that the Holy Spirit is not from God but from Gabriel ? If so, I can understand that since Archangel Gabriel (supposdely) came to Muhammed, and this is perhaps why you see Gabriel as Holy Spirit, the One who spoke to Muhammed. (Aside question, even though the teachings came from God, did Gabriel came everytime to relay it?) Where does the spirit of Archangel Gabriel come from ? As I understand it, the Holy spirit resides in all of us, it is that which gives us life, life is holy, it is God's breath that he breathes in us.�� Angel you have a unique mind again, but sorry to see that you have yet to understand Islam truly I suggest going to amosque near you to get the fullest impression of Islam. *Sigh* Let me explain. The angerl Gabriel is from God he is considered a messenger or the Holy Spirit, Spirit in this concept can be interpreted as "Will of God" or "Spirit of God" depending on how you look at it. God's will and impression upon his creation comes in various signs, signs that include angels as well. As you say the Angel Gabriel (supposedly, which is not a hypothetical but truth) came to Muhammad but questioned whether it was the Angel or God speaking to Muhammad. Because Arabic and Hebrew are Languages that can easily become mixed up in certain words in english such as Holy Spirit e.t.c. the understanding is that God spoke through the Angel Gabriel such as an intermediary. Even when God spoke to Moses the Bible notes "The Angel of God in the burning bush" or "And Allah spoke to Moses through a veil" are symbolic references of some intermediary between God and man. Perhaps the understanding is that the mind of man cannot comprehend God in his entirety, nor could bare the sight of God, nor can comprehend the TRUE language of God. We should note that it does not contradict revelation that God uses intermediaries nor does it contradict God's ability to speak to man directly because we humans cannot identity what language God speaks in the first place. So in this respect we go with what revelation leaves us and our impression which is that God speaks to us in various signs, but more appropriately, through intermediaries. As you say the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, yes, the WILL OF GOD does reside in all of us because he willed for our existence and his glory is within all of life. PRAISE BE ALLAH LORD OF THE UNIVERSE! Angel said: I can see that but 'spirit' is different. and I'm not talking about ghostly or anglic spirit appearance. u don't see because the concept of Holy Spirit in Islam is different like the concept of soul is not like that of a spirit. For reference see what I have mentioned above. Angel: "I thought also in the Christian sense, it is not the need of God to have a son but for the need of the world/humanity. That is why God chose Jesus to redeem and know God and the way. (as for redeem I have my own issues about that but sticking to what is meant here)." The Father who is God - our creator. The son to me is not the son literally from God as you think Yes its meant for Jesus, he taught the way the truth, God spoke to Jesus. (Didn't Jesus say he was God? and say I am the way the truth, a small factor that muslims seem to over look when discussing the trinity) But also The Son is US, God's creation, humanity. Jesus represented who we can be of the highest level. And as Jesus is a son of God yes I can understanding why the 'Sonship' is there in the trinity, as said He did show us the way. The son is God's way. The Holy Spirit - life/energy that which resides in all of us including God and all other creatures. The essence of God is in all of US, what makes up God also makes us up. Angel with every passing paragraph you seemed more and more confused even though you try to make a logical defense for the trinity. The "Son" in the trinity is meant to be an essence of God. By Jesus being that word and God both (See ref. John 3:16) it was not intented in the council of the Nincene Creed that "Son" was also meant to mean humanity as well. You are just interpreting based on your own views since, of course your not religious nor belong to a religion. Please, if you plan to make a defense on a religious principle in which you, yourself are no an adherent of you should read on its history. You are also DEAD wrong to say what "makes up God, also makes us up." God is incorporeal and is composed of no physical substances nor is comprehensible to a degree to be composed of a substance. To do so would limit God in time and in space and is subject to decay and annihilation if God is like us, his creation. God is the infinite, the eternal, the Creator. Even TRUE Christians would argue that God is an incoporeal deity who has no form. But, if your point was intended for essence I would agree that we are apart of God's will because his essence exist within this world. But we are not linked with God in the sense that our essence is the same as his since the nature of our essence is created. The nature of God's essence is infinity and is not created so please be careful with your belief because you are picking and choosing.
Angel said: "God is one, God is made up of energy (and matter). Sometimes I have to wonder what you understand of "Oneness". But that can be for another thread."
|
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 8:29pm
|
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem, Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim, Assalamualiakum wa rahmatullah, I was requested to review this thread When, first I saw it there were 4-5 posts, and now there are 4 pages. Obviously it was not possible for me to read everything in detail. A few comments tho... 1. There is less disrespect thrown from the two parties, than is been felt, so please have a control on your feelings. When you voice your opinions publicly, please be brave enough to take critisisms. 2. If possible be mild and soft in your critisisms. Sometimes a mild tone has more emphasis than a harsh voice. 3. There is no need for anyone to change his/her screen names (unless one wishes to). You may be misleading, but your style is your signature, which people will decipher eventually. 4. When addressing Allah, please consider not saying "His person" he is not a human, thus does not have a personality. He is an entity, beyond perception and description (in totality) by moratals. 5. this is my favorite: Imam Ghazzali's interpretation of 99 names of Allah and the trinity - The name for God in islam is "Allah". This is very unique in the sense that it is not a linguistic derivative of any term in any language, it is all encompassing in expressing the attributes and qualities of the Creator,and much beyond these attributes. When one says ar Rahman, or ar Rahim, or as Sabir, or al Hayy, Awwal, akhir and so on, these names represent one of the attributes of God but not all. Some of the 99 names are such that these qualities can be found in humans as well, while others are exclusive to Allah. However, this does mean when one says As sabir, one is relating to something outside of the essence of Allah. It is the same and only one essence of Allah, which can be partially described as As sabir. The difference i see between trinity and 99 names is this .... for example if you say water, air, and soil, ...combined together, and it is this world. These three elements individually are not planet earth, but when combined together, make this planet ... one planet. This is trinity. When you describe the attributes of this planet, you may say - it is round. It revolves round the sun. It sees the change of days and nights. it has gravity. It is hot inside but cool on the surface .... do you see the difference? All these examples do not "combine" together to make the planet complete. instead their function is very different ... each of these describes one of the many qualities of the planet. The 99 names perform the same function to help explain the creator, who cannot be understood, or explained completely without these ... or rather I should say, who cannot be explained completely even with these. These are my two cents on the thread, which look like ten, am sorry for that Maa salaama, Nausheen ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 2:39am
hey that's good didn't I give some other examples similar?
Good, also
That's ok, afterall we are women, few words turn into a book ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 5:05am
|
Israfil, I have printed to read better off screen.
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 07 April 2005 at 5:45am
Thanks for the input Angel btw, I wanted to welcome you back, in the very thread which someone suggested should not have been there in the first place, but I dont know where its burried in the pile of all the "intellectual" talk from the opposite gender So I use this place instead to say to you ... am happy ur back. Hope u enjoyed ur short break Peace, Nausheen ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 07 April 2005 at 8:50am
|
Thanks Nausheen You talking about the thread: be back soon ?, that is in general dicussions ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 08 April 2005 at 11:48am
|
Hi,
Ok, but that is not what I see or hear, from many muslims.
Yes.
Yes.
yes.
If this is the islamic view, ok You say God does not possess the properties of a spirit because He is the Artisan/Creator that wills "spirit"/"other beings" into existence. Ok but God is a incorporeal being is He not ? And you say that God does not need a Holy spirit but He needed Archangel Gabriel as messenger (as you say Gabriel is considered a Holy Spirit) to visit Muhammed ? If God didn't need a Holy Spirit then why send / willed Archangel Gabriel to Muhammed, to impart His/God's wisdom and will for mankind ?
Your knowledge of the Trinity that you have imparted onto me, is slightly off the mark. This hierarchy is not of the Trinitarians' doctrine, which the Trinity has come from. It is believed that God is Father, God is Son, God is Holy Spirit but God is One, all existing as co equal & co existing, So where is the hieracrchy if all are equal ? What you have explained is the concept from the scriptures. But the Trinity is not in the scriptures. Anyway you would be right then for the hierarchy for that God our Creator is above all!, that God is the Father/Creator, Jesus as the intermediary -bringing the word of God into phyiscal existence (which is really no different to that of Gabriel giving the qur'an Muhammed) - the Holy Spirit - bringing the word of God into movement/animate, nature of God's will is shown, thru the actions of Jesus. So it said that if you follow Jesus then you are also following God's will and nature. Hence the saying: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". The unity under the person of God, the unity is still there, everything is of God, it still one deity. So it doesn't violate monotheistic theology, if it did, then Islam has a lot to answer for to, for it has Allah, Archangel Gabriel who by the way is also an intermediary, Muhammed who acted in God's will & showed God's will a.k.a Holy Spirit to people/muslims. And also Muhammad was an intermediary. All these compositions are under the unity of God/Allah, and you can't understand the issue in Christianity? Shall I'll explain: Allah = Creator Archangel Gabriel = Messenger who gave the qu'ran to Muhammed (as you say will of God, spirit of God ) Muhammed = who is also a messenger/Prophet who taught the qur'an to people/muslims ((Muhammed had 2 natures, like Jesus, his and God's which has to be also Holy Spirit, otherwise Gabriel would have possed Muhammed's body but I seriously don't think that is it.)) Holy Spirit = bringing the word of God into movement/animate, nature of God's will is shown, thru the actions of Muhammed. And all of this is under the unity of God, everything is of God, coming from God, it is still One deity, Allah! Israfil, are you going to tell me I am wrong in my observations here ? Jesus taught the word of God (the word became flesh) and showed the way, God's way - God's nature/God's will/Holy Spirit. This doesn't violate monotheism. The belief in One God. As I understand it, the Nicene Creed or the Trinity doctrine as taught by the Trinitarians, have it wrong, since they are coming from somewhere else, where I do not know (yet
I don't know, I thought I agreed with you. I need to go and get sleep, I am not finished, so if you want to wait before replying you can do so. Also I have a bone to pick with you, what you say about me, being confused "Funny how you stick with what still remains confusing to you" I am not confused person and I know what I speak of! whether what I speak of is right or wrong, to which I will try and correct, whether you disagree or not but that in itself doesn't mean I am a confused person. Nor am I taking certain things to justify my own beliefs this you are dead wrong! And also don't tell me that i am dead wrong about 'what makes up God also makes us up', do you even know why I said that? which is my own personal belief and that the essence of God is in all of us that bit I think is slightly inline with Christianity of the nature of God being in us that we choose to be in God's will or not. Our views about God is different but it doesn't make me wrong! nor you but It seems you sit there and think you know God, what God can and cannot do, what He should posses or not, Because any other concept that arises you shoot down and say it can't be. Now don't you think you are limiting God if God is all powerful, knowledge, and will anything to existence.
That said I'm going to bed the rest can wait. Here is something on the Trinity to read and you do need to read all, really: http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm - http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: blond
Date Posted: 08 April 2005 at 12:19pm
|
Don't try to bend the spoon.... that's impossible. Instead, only try to see the truth...
There is no spoon. |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 09 April 2005 at 4:38am
|
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem, Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim, Hey Angel
There is one fight on the boards, which always sounds harmless to me. That is, between you and Israfil. Probably it is because I have known both of you for quite some time now. I hope am not wrong It is stated in the Quran, when Allah created Adam, He breathed His Spirit into him. This is something of Allah that is in all humans. However, this does not mean Allah in His entirity resides in humans. This means we have an essense of God, (which is not just a christian concept). It is this essense that exercises an upward pull upon us (for lack of a better term), or you can say it influences us to incline to good naturally, develops a desire and longing to know Him, and helps one experience a sense of peace in drawing near Him. Again, my two cents Peace, Nausheen
------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 09 April 2005 at 12:30pm
|
My post will be small and not long as the first. Angel I don't need to really examine your post as you have said much, much that I agree and much I disagree. First off I'm not shooting your belief down as I mentioned my last post maybe you should review your belief as you mentioned in your last post (ref. post 3-4) you mentioned that "God is matter and energy." However poetic this example of God is, is not true in any form with God. Again the understanding of God is that God is unlike anything in this universe known and unknown nor is God composed of the things he willed (which includes matter and energy since these are elements in the universe that exist). Second you keep allocating the Angel Gabriel with Allah and Muhammad as this is something that relates to the Christian trinity or as if something similar. You have to understand Angel, that the Angel Gabriel has sent messages to many prophets not just Muhammad. As I have mentioned before Angels are intermediaries under the notion that the mind of man cannot comprehend the absolute nature of God, this includes his being and language hence it is said in doctrine that he shows his "light" or his "essence." In the Qur'an there is a verse where Moses invokes God to show his person but God challenges Moses by saying that if the mountains don't crumble (mind you Allah uses MOUNTAINS for his point example!) he can see his glory. When Allah showed part of his glory to the mountains it crumbled. My point is that Allah in respect with all I have said is not limited to what we say or do but this world limits our understanding of God. This is how God made this world full of signs and things to interpret to know his existence. In matters of revealing revelation God of course uses lower beings to communicate to other lower beings i.e. Angels. I hope you saw my last post regarding what these lower beings are. I also forgot to mention that Djinns and other nafs (souls) are also lower beings. More importantly and I quote Abu Bakr "Muhammad was only a human" and I quote true believing Muslims when I say Jesus was (I use the past tense sense both entities as of now with the exception of Jesus are dead) prophets are nothing more than God's instruments to communicate to mankind who is not always cognizant of God. You are right Angel when you say the "essence" of God is in all of us as you have mentioned that we are apart of his will whether we like it or not. In this I firmly agree with you. Angel apartly and unfortunately due to the words on a website I cannot convey emotional expressions to you so I am therefore limited with my words. But as I have mentioned before my intentions are not to shoot you down but if I disagree with you I will tell you nor will I sugar coat what I have to say, to do so only reflects my belief that you are an unintelligent being. I have to disagree with Sister Nausheen when she says we "fight" this isn't fighting. I have been in verbal debates with people who have "yelled" and used four letter words atr me when I prove them wrong. But my intentions aren't to prove you wrong save you mention something not in accordance to Islamic principles. However I don't doubt you believe in One God but I sometimes question that when you mention "physical properties" along with God I have to try to decipher what you mean sometime. BTW when I said: "Even with these, these are only apprehensions through doctrinal understanding and in no necessitate the Oneness of God. For instance I may posses the properties of existence since I am a living being but it does not necessitate me being only one person which is Israfil get it?" My apologies if this sounded confusing. What I mean to say is that we as human beings possess the abilities of life. Along with this are certain qualities and traits that make us unique. But what is "unique" is not limited to one person but is a trait that exist in all life forms. All of these abilities and character traits we have do not signify our individuality but how we act upon our traits is what makes us unique and as one person. For example if Tim likes to draw and laugh we can take from this example is that Tim is both Artistic and humorous but how he acts on these traits is what makes him a individual. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 09 April 2005 at 1:18pm
|
In addition to my last post I wanted to add from my recent post was that Tim who is both Artistic and Humorous acts as an individual based on his behavior in acting out his qualities. If there was a likeness of Tim such as one who is Artistic and Funny both cannot possibly act out the same emotions since these are different entities. Tim cannot be just defined as just Funny and Artistic either because he is composed of other qualities that makes him uniquie such as possessing life, brain emotional faculties. In my conclusion when we define the trinity as I had mentioned before its quite possible to say that the nature of God, Father and Son can have the same essence as God since the nature and essence of God is different than the same essence as the Son and the Holy Spirit. These elements in the trinity are nothing more than superadditonal qualities towards God. For the Islamic concept the attributes of god are different in respect to their quality but are unified under God through their essence since they emanate from God through action hence these qualities cannot be looked at apart from God as "individual" elements of God. My presumption of the Trinity being nothing more than composed traits based on Biblical doctrine are nothing more than hypotheticals based upon the Trinitarian Principle. How the Trinity is applied from mainstream Christian appears to be what I have mentioned thus far--nothing more than traits of God not truths of God's essence. Again as I have mentioned in the other forum "How is Jesus both man and God?" I ask the question of the nature of Jesus in accordance to Christian theology how this individual, this man is God. Angel you said: That you haven't seen nor heard from any Muslims that Christians and Jews worship the same God as Muslims. This quite frankly is alarming since our doctrine states that the people of the Book worship the same God. Not in my exact words of course but the understanding behind Islamic doctrine is that regardless whether one is cognizant of the Creator Allah is still their lord. I believe since we are Abrahamic faiths its quite important to bridge the belief system so cordial dialouge can commence. Angel many Muslims do not think like me nor do I think like many Muslims. I'm hoping that we can have a better understanding. You also need not to be so sensitive to what I say to you as it is only peer constructive criticism. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 13 April 2005 at 4:43pm
|
Hi, sorry for not being here, had some issues to deal with. Will be back later tonight to post more of my response that I couldn't finish in one go. Israfil, haven't read your reply thoroughly but you have go onto things that I haven't even replied to yet. And again you are wrong on somethings about me ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
.Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 13 April 2005 at 4:46pm
| I am always wrong....How about this I just keep my big mouth shut! |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 14 April 2005 at 10:33am
|
Second half of my response. I'don't know if you're still interested. And by the way my first half took me 5 hours to do and a couple of days reading! so thanks for not examining it
Angel you said: "Now is the essence of water different when it is in the form of ice/solid, liquid and steam ? This is also a trinity. Is water three different people or one? While there are three aspects to water it is still one enity, namely that of H20. While water can be in 3 forms it still is water, it is still H20, is it not?" Angel my science major LOL
your welcome
I know it as both terms
'water' I think is not technically a 'form' it is a label applied to the liquid form, as ice is given to the solid form and steam is given to the gasous form. We have 3 forms that make up one entity "water"
Why do you think I'm making water as if its one form?
Ok, even here as you say there needs to be two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom to be water. Is it true that at a given moment that water can become all 3 ?
Father, Son and Holy Spirit is One entity - God
You say water is a bad example, I say water is an ok example For your last sentence, I agree God doesn't need others to be unified - having 3 people to be unified, if this is what the trinitarians believing. Since you now more about the trinitarians, then tell me is it actual 3 people or 3 traits that are called personalities like: for me for instance have a shy personality and an outgoing personality etc but all is still me. If its the first - 3 people then I would say I agree with you that water is a bad example but if its the latter, then all three is God if my point above about water becoming all 3 at a given moment.
But from my understanding, according to scriptures, the trinity concept is still liken to water.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit is One entity - God. Liquid, solid and gaseous is one entity - water.
"Is a person three different people or one? We, humans, as individuals have three aspects to human being, it is still one enity one individual. We have 3 forms to being human while being one, being in Oneness with our humaness. (not sure if humaness is a word).�� Angel no offense but you have a unique and yet, strange mind
That's me
well yes if you didn't consider the top section that you missed from the quote
""As for people, the mind body and spirit/soul. Now is the essence of people different when they are in mind, body and spirit? This is also a trinity. Is a person three different people or one? We, humans, as individuals have three aspects to human being, it is still one enity one individual. We have 3 forms to being human while being one, being in Oneness with our humaness. (not sure if humaness is a word).""
I wasn't exactly talking about qualities. I was/am talking about the three (I don't know if I should use this word) sections: Mind, Body and Spirit,, all three make up (=) the entity of 'human being'.
Mind - our concepts/ideas/thoughts/thinking/instructions. Body - acts out these concepts/thoughts/instructions. (Our thoughts become our actions). words become flesh, we speak our thoughts etc and act out actions / movement. Spirit - is our nature, who we are.
Now I will put it in the Trinity, according to concepts in scriptures:
Father - the word - thoughts/concepts/instruction, coming from God. Son - Jesus - the word becomes flesh, Jesus acts out 'the word', speaks the words of God, and demostrates how to live the way of truth. Still coming from God but Jesus is "no way" God nor like God, he simple provided the instructions from God. Jesus being the intermidary. Holy Spirit - (according to religious theology there is 2 natures/wills - our self nature and God's) God's will or God's nature, which ever one you want to use, now Jesus instead of acting out his nature, he acted out God's nature. And since this nature is of God, it is I believe considered Divine / Divinity and anything coming from and/or pertaining from God is of Divine nature which is considered Holy.
Now if I was being Christian, believe in scriptures and adhere to it, this above would be, I guess actually believe in for me as it is accordance with scriptures, but I am not.
I do have my own thoughts, take on it for me alone and I am not even going to go there!
Since we (I) are not talking about qualities, i don't think this applies.
well, if you add your spirit/soul it might tell your individual self
I don't remember reading
Who's putting God on the scale of humans? Yes I will agree that God is unlike his creatures and not on the scale of humans but then again we are suppose to be made in His image (I'm not talking looks)
I think I understand you here.
��Ok You saying that the Holy Spirit is not from God but from Gabriel ? If so, I can understand that since Archangel Gabriel (supposdely) came to Muhammed, and this is perhaps why you see Gabriel as Holy Spirit, the One who spoke to Muhammed. (Aside question, even though the teachings came from God, did Gabriel came everytime to relay it?) Where does the spirit of Archangel Gabriel come from ? As I understand it, the Holy spirit resides in all of us, it is that which gives us life, life is holy, it is God's breath that he breathes in us.�� Angel you have a unique mind again, but sorry to see that you have yet to understand Islam truly I suggest going to amosque near you to get the fullest impression of Islam. *Sigh* Let me explain. The angerl Gabriel is from God he is considered a messenger or the Holy Spirit, Spirit in this concept can be interpreted as "Will of God" or "Spirit of God" depending on how you look at it. God's will and impression upon his creation comes in various signs, signs that include angels as well. As you say the Angel Gabriel (supposedly, which is not a hypothetical but truth) came to Muhammad but questioned whether it was the Angel or God speaking to Muhammad. Because Arabic and Hebrew are Languages that can easily become mixed up in certain words in english such as Holy Spirit e.t.c. the understanding is that God spoke through the Angel Gabriel such as an intermediary. Even when God spoke to Moses the Bible notes "The Angel of God in the burning bush" or "And Allah spoke to Moses through a veil" are symbolic references of some intermediary between God and man. Perhaps the understanding is that the mind of man cannot comprehend God in his entirety, nor could bare the sight of God, nor can comprehend the TRUE language of God. We should note that it does not contradict revelation that God uses intermediaries nor does it contradict God's ability to speak to man directly because we humans cannot identity what language God speaks in the first place. So in this respect we go with what revelation leaves us and our impression which is that God speaks to us in various signs, but more appropriately, through intermediaries. As you say the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, yes, the WILL OF GOD does reside in all of us because he willed for our existence and his glory is within all of life. PRAISE BE ALLAH LORD OF THE UNIVERSE!
I have nothing to say here, except that Holy Spirit usually pertains to God in Christianity.
I will agree with this.
As for my 'supposedly' in brackets, its not truth to me personally, i don't believe in it thats why I had the word in brackets, I know that its truth for you
I can see that but 'spirit' is different. and I'm not talking about ghostly or anglic spirit appearance. u don't see because the concept of Holy Spirit in Islam is different like the concept of soul is not like that of a spirit. For reference see what I have mentioned above.
You might like to break that down for me, you lost me after 'the concept of soul is not like that of a spirit'. Think I've been too much on this trinity issue, that my minds gone
I understand that Angel Gabriel is from God, all Angels / and other spirit beings are from God and are all messengers, since they all come from God, they are also Holy spirits, they come from the Divinity of God. Of course Gabriel is a spirit of God doing God's will - will of God. But that does not mean you can not ask help from the angels - they all do God's work or will. I don't think I've misunderstood much but I'm sure you will tell me
"I thought also in the Christian sense, it is not the need of God to have a son but for the need of the world/humanity. That is why God chose Jesus to redeem and know God and the way. (as for redeem I have my own issues about that but sticking to what is meant here)." Funny how you stick with what still remains confusing to you again you have a unique mind, LOL.
Yes I have unique mind, thanks
Now I told you earlier about this 'confusing' issue
Let's use Ockams Razor which is the simplest explanation is usually the best, and in this which one would you choose? I'd choose the latter. It's much simpler and much more consistent with God in the Old Testament and the Qur'an. Because in essence regardless whether the sins of man are redeemed in Christian theology man still has the will to sin again so its quite pointlesss to redeem what can be a perennial sin.
Hey, I never said that I had all the knowledge/understanding What you say is why I don't really believe.
All I can say, God had a plan ? that's why He never sent a person like Jesus or Jesus himself to Sodom and Gamorrah, and Noah and etc. And anyway God destroyed (supposedly) Sodom and Gamorrah for what they did, so why whould God Send Jesus or a person like jesus ? People at Jesus's time obviously did not need to be destoyed.
I don't know enough here in this section, all I know is that God chose Jesus at the particular time He did.
And honestly I don't understand the redeemation, redeem from what? I don't believe in the original sin.
The Father who is God - our creator. The son to me is not the son literally from God as you think Yes its meant for Jesus, he taught the way the truth, God spoke to Jesus. (Didn't Jesus say he was God? and say I am the way the truth, a small factor that muslims seem to over look when discussing the trinity) But also The Son is US, God's creation, humanity. Jesus represented who we can be of the highest level. And as Jesus is a son of God yes I can understanding why the 'Sonship' is there in the trinity, as said He did show us the way. The son is God's way. The Holy Spirit - life/energy that which resides in all of us including God and all other creatures. The essence of God is in all of US, what makes up God also makes us up.
I must admit some of my personal concepts have slipped in here but... it seems after checking more into the trinity and from scriptures I'm not that far off but far enough and as said I will not go there.
Why is it me that I'm confused Have you ever thought that you don't understand me instead of I being confused!
And the Nicene council didn't do that!? interpreting based on their views. SInce I've been looking into it, it seems that the Trinity doctrine is false.
And so then I cannot interpret then?? what's that got to do with the price of fish?!!
Thanks for the tip
Actually I'm going to make a new thread and put my response there, this has nothing to do with the trinity
Well, I really didn't have any questions about islam here and we weren't discussing islam alone we were discussing the trinity mostly. I posted what I come to know about the Trinity in Christianity and perhaps in my words there would be a better understanding, I don't know if I did this or not. When reading and going over my first response, i didn't like it and so now it is better.
Also I wasn't aware I had to go by email only, the use of email was for a discussion we had a while ago and for personal stuff because that is what you wanted, i'm quite happy with the boards. I did say in an email I will give you a copy of my revised/questions post as well as post it here as I want others to join in. If I am going to pose to you personally about something I will use email. I also don't see the sense when you are in discussions publicly that I need to shift to email. If you need to or want to explain to me something that you don't want to on the boards, you know you can email me
And this second half took me like 4 hours! ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 14 April 2005 at 10:44am
|
Israfil, your two post: Posted: 09 April 2005 at 12:30pm and Posted: 09 April 2005 at 1:18pm. I have responses but they will have to wait till tomorrow night, I am tired and need to go to bed.
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 14 April 2005 at 7:32pm
|
I see where you are going with this and pbviously this is turning into I disagree to disagree with you. It is obvious that our differences come from the "essence" of our beliefs and this is just fine. I wanted to make clear what I was implying through my continuously repetition. Let me conclude by saying that in regards with the Trinity, it is quite appropriate to allocate symbolism and spirituality with respect to Christian theology. To see the elements (See ref. Water example) in the minute form and relating them to Christian Trinity is purely dialetical, with no bearing on the logical standard set by theologians both Muslim and Christian. The Trinity for example is a metaphor set to appreciate the essence of God using metaphorical examples from the Bible. However, for the Muslim, the nature of God is absolute, infinite and does not have any excess or recess of any kind. This whole conversation (or argument whatever you see it) is nothing more than how we see things and obviously for a long time we see things differently and perhaps by God's will that is how its supposed to be. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 15 April 2005 at 5:51am
|
Sorry for replying little bit at a time, I am playing catch up amongst my other stuff, and I can't go so fast
Yes.
yes
Yes ok But you haven't told me I am wrong in my observations when comparing.
Yes, according to the beliefs of islam.
yes/ok
Ok. Thanks. ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 15 April 2005 at 6:08am
because you view Holy spirit different and not the same as Christianity.
Ok
alright
Umm...something is missing, what did I say ? Mind you I haven't been to the other forum "How is Jesus both man and God?" since posting as I was away from the boards.
As I know about you Me being so sensitive, its not that as such - (I've learnt not to, being here has taught me that) - but angry and frustrated with you and yes upset also on some of the personal issues, not about the discussion on the trinity nor the islamic principles. But the things you have said about me - you would too feel the same. The rest I'll put in an email. ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 16 April 2005 at 6:31pm
| I think for now I will not respond in Islamicity.... |
Posted By: trey02000
Date Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:18pm
|
hello. the trinity is not 3 members but rather 3 offices. the reason god chose to become flesh is because without blood there is no sacrifice for the remision of sin. |
Posted By: blond
Date Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:24pm
By god, you mean the Rabinical scholars who made up that story during the Eccuminical Coulncils of Nicea and inserted it into the first Greek translation from the original tongue, right? |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 10 May 2005 at 6:24am
| It not a story blond. Please dont be rude. Be sincere for God has given us a brain to think with. Now from my point of view the conept of Trinity is not created. There are many occasions in the Holy Bible where God is expressed in 3 ways ( God his word and his spirit). Maybe the word is but the reality has been presented by God ( may he bless us). |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 10 May 2005 at 1:14pm
|
Though your reply is towards Blond, however, I would also like to share few sentences here without being rude or any thing like it. If you say concept of trinity is not a story, then you would like to provide some evidence to support your point. Isn't it? Secondly, which "Holy Bible" are you referring to? If I can guess it on your behalf, it must only be the "NT" only. Isn't it? Can you provide any reasons for so much division of concepts between the two parts of the same (according to Christian beleif) book i.e. NT and OT concernging Trinity? Yeah, ofcourse now you may provide extrapolational theories to justify the purpose from the evidence of word "three" appearing anywhere in OT and relating it to trinity, but the fact remains, the same book (OT) is also read and believed by the Jews as well without attributing anything of trinity to them. |
Posted By: Fuhad
Date Posted: 10 May 2005 at 2:18pm
|
Jews adhere to Old Testment and the concept of God is ' Oneness', which is categorically stated in their 'Shama' ( or the first commandment of faith) The idea of trinity started from New Testement and it is from St Paul (orginally a Jew, Saul) started Pauline version of Christianity. Here in UK we still have 'Unitarian Church', who profess the 'unity' of God and not the trinity. Also the orthodox church explains it in different way when compared to Roman Catholics. Now since Roman Catholic are greator in number and also this idea became the offical creed of 'Christianised Roman Empire', this idea has become the dominant creed. Lot of Aristotelan logic and Platos theory are used to support the creed and also the way New Testements is interpretated. Regards Fuhad
|
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 2:19pm
|
Though your reply is towards Blond, however, I would also like to share few sentences here without being rude or any thing like it. If you say concept of trinity is not a story, then you would like to provide some evidence to support your point. Isn't it? Secondly, which "Holy Bible" are you referring to? If I can guess it on your behalf, it must only be the "NT" only. Isn't it? Can you provide any reasons for so much division of concepts between the two parts of the same (according to Christian beleif) book i.e. NT and OT concernging Trinity? Yeah, ofcourse now you may provide extrapolational theories to justify the purpose from the evidence of word "three" appearing anywhere in OT and relating it to trinity, but the fact remains, the same book (OT) is also read and believed by the Jews as well without attributing anything of trinity to them.
The above is what Ajmad said. It is strange how you presume how i might resort to explaining the trinity. Please refrain from doing so because it is wrong to assume. Just as it wrong for others to assume beleifs about Muslims. Now if we look at the old testament there are many clues about the trinity. It states in Genesis that God uses the plural form of 'WE' when he created the universe. As for the NT, please look at the baptism of Jesus where the Holy spirit ascended upon him and God showed light. It is written in the N.T. This for me, clearly shows how the Triune God works in harmony. Also after Jesus resurrected and appeared to his disciples and especially to THOMAS where he didnt beleive the miracle , the word of god said go and baptise in the name of the father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Again Jesus knew he was not talking about THREE GODS because this is WRONG. INSHALLAH!
Maybe you havent read the Bible in its totality, otherwise you would never have stated that the oness of God only exists in the OLD TEST. but also in the latter,but you should because it provides the answers for me. Just as the Koran is the final revelation for Muslims, i beleive the Bible is the true word of God for all humanity. God bless |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 16 May 2005 at 4:00pm
You just said many clues and yet we see only one such from the OT. Even this statement is based on assumptions and hypothesis. The very word "clue" is indication of how much my christian brothers are bent upon to stretch the fabric to suit their purpose. On the more, have you ever tried to find out the reason for this word 'WE' from people other than your clergies. We, the muslims, also find word "We" in many places where Allah is telling us something, but would that mean triune in divinity of god? No, not at all. One may understand that the use of plural pronouns for a singular person is quite frequently encountered in connection with grandness of an individual. e.g. the kings used word "WE" whenever they meant "I" in their conversations refering to themselves. Anyone considering the King as triune in nature would not be wise in his understanding. Then how can one assume triune nature of god just from clues like these? I hope you can provide some better example from OT and not just clues etc.
Its your interpretation with your specific mind set. From my perspective, as a muslim, I would say holy spirit could be an angel who brougth the message of God to Jesus. Isn't it a simple concept with simple meanings. How do you see this perspective to be wrong as compared with yours? Why to make three is to one and one is to three kind of confusion which you yourself don't understand it.
Probably you need to authenticate the source of your info before you start believing in them. How would anyone beleive in the anonymous sayings?
My dear brother, I don't have any doubts in the oneness of God. I think we can built on this commonality between us that can create much needed harmony amoung us. It is for this reason that I sometime suggest to my christian brothers to come to terms and lets pray togather to our one God, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, that He may guide us to the right path. Amen. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 17 May 2005 at 4:34am
From the NT: Luke 10:25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luke 10:26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. Luke 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 17 May 2005 at 4:51am
|
You just said many clues and yet we see only one such from the OT. Even this statement is based on assumptions and hypothesis. The very word "clue" is indication of how much my christian brothers are bent upon to stretch the fabric to suit their purpose. On the more, have you ever tried to find out the reason for this word 'WE' from people other than your clergies. We, the muslims, also find word "We" in many places where Allah is telling us something, but would that mean triune in divinity of god? No, not at all. One may understand that the use of plural pronouns for a singular person is quite frequently encountered in connection with grandness of an individual. e.g. the kings used word "WE" whenever they meant "I" in their conversations refering to themselves. Anyone considering the King as triune in nature would not be wise in his understanding. Then how can one assume triune nature of god just from clues like these? I hope you can provide some better example from OT and not just clues etc. I stated my response and from that you have written what you beleive about my religion. It doesnt work that way. I dont think you seem to understand, God adressed himself as WE. And also he said i am ONE. Finally for this section you said i assume. My points are direct from the bible itself and how god fulfilled its prophecies. And yes i agree because GOD IS ONE. God states about his spirit ( spirit of God) and his word ( the word of god) Now God, his word, and his spirit are all GOD because that is God. And we know that is god because anything that is NOT created has existed forever. And who is this?Only GOD (May we bless him) The bible teaches that God sent his word (jesus) whom was conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT. SO this miracle involved God in heaven, the Holy Spirit and the Word of god. The TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD all equal and perfect. This is what God teaches and this is what i beleive. This by your standards means 'assuming' no my freind.
Its your interpretation with your specific mind set. From my perspective, as a muslim, I would say holy spirit could be an angel who brougth the message of God to Jesus. Isn't it a simple concept with simple meanings. How do you see this perspective to be wrong as compared with yours? Why to make three is to one and one is to three kind of confusion which you yourself don't understand it. To tell the truth you are no -one to say it is my interpretation and my specific mind set. God is my way and this is what he taught. And as a Christian i could say its your specific way of thinking that makes you say these things.. but i dont. I do not need to resort to those remarks. I know in Islam the Holy Spirit is an Angel. But Angels are created by god.. God's spirit is not. As i explained before i do not beleive in three Gods, just one God. The bible teaches this and so does God. I understand it perfectly my freind, i dont know where you got the sentence that i dont understand it. Refrain from using past conversations with other Christians with mine. I havent with you and dont need to.
With my explanation there is no requirement of harmony. Everyone is obedient to God therefore performs their duty. No one has to explain through big philosophical arguements to understand such a convoluted solution through Triune nature of God.
I have never said for me it is a big philosophical argument so dont use it for me. I t has no basis. And yes i agree everything is obedient to God. The bible teaches this. And i dont need a solution.
Probably you need to authenticate the source of your info before you start believing in them. How would anyone beleive in the anonymous sayings?
Ok sure.Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing 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.(Mat. 19) Just to note also i do not want anyone to beleive me.. no this is wrong. Only through faith in God can one beleive. I am just merely stating out what God teaches. My dear brother, I don't have any doubts in the oneness of God. I think we can built on this commonality between us that can create much needed harmony amoung us. It is for this reason that I sometime suggest to my christian brothers to come to terms and lets pray togather to our one God, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, that He may guide us to the right path. Amen. I am really good freind with my Muslim freind born in England but from Pakistan. Just like me i am from another country but borm here. We discuss, i have been in his Mosque, he has been in my Church. But we do not beleive in the same God as both books contradict each other. You might say because the bible has been corrupted but the oldest manuscripts all state what a Christian beleives in. And finally yes Jesus did pray to God because he was human and had to show other sinners how to pray.Isnt the word of God about worshipping God only? And to tell the truth i could debate all day and night. God gives me strength. Im sure you do too. But i do beleive one thing.. that deep down you think you are right and that deep down in my heart i think i am right. And we will all know that when we are before God we cant escape anything. So you will not beleive what i beleive and i will not beleive what you beleive but we can all respect each other. Ami |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 17 May 2005 at 4:06pm
My Dear Brother, This is the crux. I can't agree more than what you have already stated. Let this be our point of convergence. Let's integrate our faith through the God of Jesus to whom he used to pray. Rest of the details in our relegions, as you have already suggested, be left to God to decide and we should not indulge in them to defile others. May God help us all in this direction. Amen!
|
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 18 May 2005 at 5:30am
|
No my freind for Jesus taught the only way through God is through THE WORD OF GOD ( JESUS). Basically the Bible teaches that GOD IS NOT CREATED. The BIBLE teaches that God has a SPIRIT ( SPIRIT OF GOD) and also that God has his Word for us sinners. So...everything that is not created is God for he has no beginning and no end. So ... GOD ( HIS WORD AND SPIRIT)= Not created, Earth, UNIVERSE, TIME = created so not GOD.
GOD in heaven sent the HOLY SPIRIT to give LIFE to the WORD OF GOD. Still ONE GOD which BIBLE HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT. Thus by worshipping Jesus is what God wanted because God's WORD is not CREATED but has always existed. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 18 May 2005 at 10:04am
First of all, I really couldn't understand your 'No' in your reply. Do you intend to say that Jesus never prayed to God or what? Do you have doubts that he did that despite that its through your own Bible? Secondly, I am not suggesting you to look through God through any other way or means other than what Jesus did and taught. He never said that he himself is worthy of worship and always directed his followers to the God who had sent him. Jesus during his time of ministry, being the true messanger of God, was the only way through which right path to God must be identified. I think there is no conflict on this. Isn't it. Since it was him who brought the message, therefore its a natural source of guidance for all his people. So why can't we agree on this basic and simple understanding? Other than this, whatever way you like to interpret your scriptures, I care least as its only you who shall be answerable to God about your deeds and same goes to me or for that matter with any other person or people.
Without arguing about them, suffice is to say that these are all philosophical human extrapolations. You may find tens of hundreds of them all varying one from another. So much church denominations is just one example of this. Therefore, I would always avoid discussing them.
Just to show you pitfalls of such philosophical arguements, you yourself has defined that anything created is not god. However this statement suggests that Holy Spirit gave life to word of God. Meaning thereby that somehow the word was not alive and was dead and this Holy spirit came out of god or proceeded from god and brought or created the word to life. Can anyone say such a thing? of course not. Probably you would provide yet another explanation of this to remove the apparant contradiction, but ofcourse it would be your own conjecture based upon extremely limited knowldge.
Do you mean a "dead" (opposite of live) word of God existed ever since before the event of "Holy spirit" giving life to it? With this you imply that before this event, though word existed and therefore is sufficient condition for having God, but then it was not live and therefore dead. Aren't you negating yourself the concept of infinite God? Now read on and see how this paradox can be resolved from another propective. Worshipping Jesus implies negating oneness of God. God is the one and the only one to whom Jesus also used to pray. However, you would definitely ask questions then how the Bible talks about Holy spirit and word of God etc. To answer this, I would always suggest that these two terms have been used as the titles for two different and seperate entities. "Spirit of God" could mean any spirit created by God (Viewing God in confines of a body and hence having a spirit in it to be a living God, is again a fallacy negating the concept of infinite God), however, specific to Bible it means the angel Gaberial. Similarly the "word of God" could mean any messanger of God (Veiwing God to have a physical medium to speak e.g. travel of sound wave through air etc, is again a fallacy negating the concept of infinite God), however, specifically with regard to NT, it means Prophet Jesus who brought God's word (a message) of God. Hence, in this way, we have retained the basic understanding of God to be one and only one without voilating other statements contained in the Bible. |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 18 May 2005 at 3:53pm
|
First of all, I really couldn't understand your 'No' in your reply. Do you intend to say that Jesus never prayed to God or what? Do you have doubts that he did that despite that its through your own Bible? Secondly, I am not suggesting you to look through God through any other way or means other than what Jesus did and taught. He never said that he himself is worthy of worship and always directed his followers to the God who had sent him. Jesus during his time of ministry, being the true messanger of God, was the only way through which right path to God must be identified. I think there is no conflict on this. Isn't it. Since it was him who brought the message, therefore its a natural source of guidance for all his people. So why can't we agree on this basic and simple understanding? Other than this, whatever way you like to interpret your scriptures, I care least as its only you who shall be answerable to God about your deeds and same goes to me or for that matter with any other person or people.
Not at all my freind.. i just beleive that Jesus being born from the Holy Spirit and himself saying he is the Living Word of God makes me say no that he is just merely a man. The above that is in bold shows that this is what your beleif says. Jesus said differently in the Bible : "esus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" 27"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ,[b] the Son of God, who was to come into the world." (John 11) And with the above Only GOD can raise the dead for this is GODS great power. A man cant do this. Especially wiuth the last section the word of god COMMANDS WORSHIP. Without arguing about them, suffice is to say that these are all philosophical human extrapolations. You may find tens of hundreds of them all varying one from another. So much church denominations is just one example of this. Therefore, I would always avoid discussing them. I do not have the need to avoid discussing them. And no it is not major issues. It is SIMPLE, everything not created is GOD. God is so powerful and the greatest ( God bless him). Simply dont you beleive in what you replied to, and if you dont why not? Just to show you pitfalls of such philosophical arguements, you yourself has defined that anything created is not god. However this statement suggests that Holy Spirit gave life to word of God. Meaning thereby that somehow the word was not alive and was dead and this Holy spirit came out of god or proceeded from god and brought or created the word to life. Can anyone say such a thing? of course not. Probably you would provide yet another explanation of this to remove the apparant contradiction, but ofcourse it would be your own conjecture based upon extremely limited knowldge. Please let us not be hyprocrytes. If YOU read carefully from the beginning the WORD OF GOD cannot be dead or alive for he has existed forever. Because he is the creator. But because GOD is so powerful the word of GOD can be shown in human form. It was prohecised. Jesus showed the power of God on earth. As i have it known, those who result in cheap insults that my knowledge makes me says these things rather than discussing what God taught shows that you canot have a sincere conversation? If i am wrong you would not ressort to my thinking, which you have done many times. God gave us a brain and a heart.
Worshipping Jesus implies negating oneness of God. God is the one and the only one to whom Jesus also used to pray. However, you would definitely ask questions then how the Bible talks about Holy spirit and word of God etc. To answer this, I would always suggest that these two terms have been used as the titles for two different and seperate entities. "Spirit of God" could mean any spirit created by God (Viewing God in confines of a body and hence having a spirit in it to be a living God, is again a fallacy negating the concept of infinite God), however, specific to Bible it means the angel Gaberial. Similarly the "word of God" could mean any messanger of God (Veiwing God to have a physical medium to speak e.g. travel of sound wave through air etc, is again a fallacy negating the concept of infinite God), however, specifically with regard to NT, it means Prophet Jesus who brought God's word (a message) of God. Hence, in this way, we have retained the basic understanding of God to be one and only one without voilating other statements contained in the Bible. Where do you gain your knowlegde for is you have read the bible the Angel is a MESSENGER OF GOD. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD. How can the Spirit of God be created when it is not created and thus a part of Him. God has said many times MY SPIRIT. Prophets are said to be INSPIRED BY GOD but are not directly his WORD. I though it was simple to understand. And maybe for the last time i said please refrain from making improper suggestions on my part. By worshipping Jesus you worship GOD because the BIBLE has always taught there is ONE GOD. GOD HIS SPIRIT AND WORD. ALL NOT CREATED for that is the POWER OF GOD.
|
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 19 May 2005 at 8:37am
This view of yours is not only limited in your own understanding of the scripture but also to the understanding of an infinite God as a whole. Once the God can create Adam from no father and mother, why do you feel it a necessary condition to create Jesus without a father, though he still had a mother. Taking a literal meaning out of this passage of the Bible is another big fallacy. Kindly go and consult some good christian theologian (not a typical pastor of your church) as how to comphrend an infinite God vis a vis this passage. Then ponder over it yourself as well.
Believes in him for what? Believes in him that he is telling the truth that he has been sent by the God as the messanger and therefore believes in his message that he has truely brought it from God. Don't you read your own scripture? I don't know how any sane person can say that it meant that Jesus is claiming to be God here? Even if you take literal meanings of his sayings in this passage, have you ever observed yourself about those who believed him as a God, ever remained alive after their death? No, certainly not. This passage can only be explained through allegorical explanations and not through literal understanding. Allegorically, this passage states that he who believes in Jesus and then follows him for what all he has said, shall attain a permanent life after his death (meaning thereby that he would go to the heaven and not the hell and live there for ever).
Ofcourse any one can see that this is not what Jesus is saying. Isn't it. This part of the passage can't be declared as the saying of Jesus. Why would you Lable Jesus to be god from the misunderstandings of the others.
I think you would also realize that the Bible calls all such things performed by Jesus as "miracles". Isn't it? The miracles are performed by the humans as for God, such things are not a miracle at all. Hence your logic fails by its own reasoning. However, this 'raising of dead' was not unique to Jesus only, kindly read OT and you would get surprised that how prophets raised the dead by the special powers given to them by God. In the same way, God gave special powers to Jesus. Yes, we believe that God gave Jesus many unique and special powers to make people believe in him that he was the true messanger of God. Commonly, these powers are called the miracles of the Prophets.
Brother, no blind faith can help. God has given us wisdom to recognise Him. Certainly, you said "God bless him". What do you mean here the word "him" if it doesn't refer to Jesus? So you yourself are wishing and praying God to bless Jesus. This is sufficient for anyone to understand that you are talking about two different entities. One who is the provider of blessing (i.e. The God) and the other is the reciever of the blessings (i.e. Jesus). I think you yourself are confused as what you say and what you trying to believe.
Excuse me my dear borther, its not me, but you yourself, who said that the Holy spirit brought life to the word. Here is your own quote "GOD in heaven sent the HOLY SPIRIT to give LIFE to the WORD OF GOD." So who is creating confusion here when at one time you say word cannot be dead or alive and yet in your previous quote you said the Holy spirit went and brought the word to life?
Brother, how would you consider word of God means God Himself? Even from purely literal point of view, as you tend to consider, how could any spoken word be a phsical object. To understand through your own reasoning, we know, God created everything. He also created His "word" into an human form. Therefore this human form can never itself be a God since he has been created by the God through His own Word. Hence with all of your own arguments this human can't be called God by himself. Therefore Jesus can't be a God even though, as you say, was created by God from his "Word".
My apology brother, a thousand time apology if I have ever insulted you in any manner. However, in a conversation, I always tried to present a logical view than a blind faith. The days for blind faith are over now. No one wants to go against his common wisdom and understanding. Everything must be known through proper references and not through anonymous sayings. I hope I have done my utmost to keep the same logical reasoning in my arguments. I would expect the same from others as well. In this time of ours, sentimental statements based upon blind faith are never encouraged. Rest God knows the best. May our God, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, may show us the right path. Amen.
Kindly read OT and you would recognise the working of angels, especially the angel Gaberial. Isn't OT your own Bible? You should have read it before asking this question.
I have just showed you that it doesn't imply that Jesus himself is a god. The word "WORD" could also mean a messanger carrying the message of God.
What do you know about spirit? We all humans have spirits. Do you call all of them to be part of God? Ofcourse any thing that God creates belongs to Him. So He has every right to call such a thing His own. Same as if I own a bicycle, I would say my bike. Would you argue that this bike is my part? Am I created with the bike etc. No certainly not. No literal understanding would work. Only wise people would understand that MY SPIRIT means a spirit from God.
Who said that? What is your source of info? Do you think inspiration is indirectly as compared with your allege "Word" directly? According to my Islamic belief, there are many channels of communication of God with Prophets. Most commonly, its through the messanger angel like Gaberail. Inspiration could be another one but not the only one.
Brother, my all suggestions are kind of logical deductions as what you have said. If you want to contradict these deductions then you have to present an alternate logic and not just blind faith declarations. I shall be happy to listen to any critique of yours based on logical arguments.
I would rather modify your statement to make it accurate by saying By believing in Jesus as the true messanger of God you worship God because the Bible has always taught there is ONE GOD. Amen. [/QUOTE] |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 20 May 2005 at 10:39am
|
This view of yours is not only limited in your own understanding of the scripture but also to the understanding of an infinite God as a whole. Once the God can create Adam from no father and mother, why do you feel it a necessary condition to create Jesus without a father, though he still had a mother. Taking a literal meaning out of this passage of the Bible is another big fallacy. Kindly go and consult some good christian theologian (not a typical pastor of your church) as how to comphrend an infinite God vis a vis this passage. Then ponder over it yourself as well. What did you just say? Infinite God? Of course.. thats what i have said if you look above my freind. I do not need to ponder.. it is mazing how Muslims ( you) refer to personal cheap shots instead of talking about what i say. May God have mercy on you. And by the way Adam and Eve was born from DUST. JESUS from the HOLY SPIRIT. THE WORD OF GOD EXISTED BEFORE ADAM AND EVE. FOR THE ONE GOD IS INFINITE.
Believes in him for what? Believes in him that he is telling the truth that he has been sent by the God as the messanger and therefore believes in his message that he has truely brought it from God. Don't you read your own scripture? I don't know how any sane person can say that it meant that Jesus is claiming to be God here? Even if you take literal meanings of his sayings in this passage, have you ever observed yourself about those who believed him as a God, ever remained alive after their death? No, certainly not. This passage can only be explained through allegorical explanations and not through literal understanding. Allegorically, this passage states that he who believes in Jesus and then follows him for what all he has said, shall attain a permanent life after his death (meaning thereby that he would go to the heaven and not the hell and live there for ever). wow what a thesis. No lets go over it againb. Jesus commanded worship by saying i am the life and resurrection. No matter how much you try to change these simple words you are wrong. Now.. Jesus never said i am a messenger of God. He stated that the FATHER AND I ARE ONE, which is what the Bible taught and teaches, that GOD, HIS WORD ( JESUS) AND HIS SPIRIT ARE ONE.
Ofcourse any one can see that this is not what Jesus is saying. Isn't it. This part of the passage can't be declared as the saying of Jesus. Why would you Lable Jesus to be god from the misunderstandings of the others. Actually to name someone that word who raised the dead ( ONLY GOD HAS THE POWER TO DO THAT) and Jesus never said you are wrong FOR THE WORD OF GOD CanT BE WRONG.
I think you would also realize that the Bible calls all such things performed by Jesus as "miracles". Isn't it? The miracles are performed by the humans as for God, such things are not a miracle at all. Hence your logic fails by its own reasoning. However, this 'raising of dead' was not unique to Jesus only, kindly read OT and you would get surprised that how prophets raised the dead by the special powers given to them by God. In the same way, God gave special powers to Jesus. Yes, we believe that God gave Jesus many unique and special powers to make people believe in him that he was the true messanger of God. Commonly, these powers are called the miracles of the Prophets. May God take Judgement. Only GOD CAN RAISE THE DEAD. FOR GOD IS THE CREATER. John at the very beginning stated "In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. In him was life" But Jesus stated this already.. I am the life and resurrection. No MUSLIM or anyone can change the truth of God's WORD.
Brother, no blind faith can help. God has given us wisdom to recognise Him. Certainly, you said "God bless him". What do you mean here the word "him" if it doesn't refer to Jesus? So you yourself are wishing and praying God to bless Jesus. This is sufficient for anyone to understand that you are talking about two different entities. One who is the provider of blessing (i.e. The God) and the other is the reciever of the blessings (i.e. Jesus). I think you yourself are confused as what you say and what you trying to believe. I do not have Blind faith. Why must you resort to such statements. Its wrong and shows how you cant talk about what i write without you attacking my faith. Now be sincere. I am not confused. In the BIBLE God says my Spirit and my Word. Simple. No confusion. Excuse me my dear borther, its not me, but you yourself, who said that the Holy spirit brought life to the word. Here is your own quote "GOD in heaven sent the HOLY SPIRIT to give LIFE to the WORD OF GOD." So who is creating confusion here when at one time you say word cannot be dead or alive and yet in your previous quote you said the Holy spirit went and brought the word to life? No need to be excused. Im surpised your English is good. For you just said the Holy Spirit which is God brought LIFE! On EARTH. For it has ALWAYS existed for nothing (God's word and Spirit) cannot be created. Brother, how would you consider word of God means God Himself? Even from purely literal point of view, as you tend to consider, how could any spoken word be a phsical object. To understand through your own reasoning, we know, God created everything. He also created His "word" into an human form. Therefore this human form can never itself be a God since he has been created by the God through His own Word. Hence with all of your own arguments this human can't be called God by himself. Therefore Jesus can't be a God even though, as you say, was created by God from his "Word". I dont think as a Christian or MUSLIM, no-one can claim to know who God is for we are finite and he is infinite. So what are you writing about?? Of course if the WORD OF GOD can be shown in such a human way, why do you say it is different from God?God cant be cut up into pieces. God as the Koran says sits on a kingdom on heaven and is also closer than the artery vein. This is what my great muslim freind told me. I agree in sentiment. God can be in two places at once and also be one. Its logical for God is most powerful and can do anything. He just says 'Be' to anything that isnt God. My apology brother, a thousand time apology if I have ever insulted you in any manner. However, in a conversation, I always tried to present a logical view than a blind faith. The days for blind faith are over now. No one wants to go against his common wisdom and understanding. Everything must be known through proper references and not through anonymous sayings. I hope I have done my utmost to keep the same logical reasoning in my arguments. I would expect the same from others as well. In this time of ours, sentimental statements based upon blind faith are never encouraged. Rest God knows the best. May our God, the God to whom Jesus also used to pray, may show us the right path. Amen. Of course and i have stated that i do not have blind faith, Thus for you to keep on saying it.... Yes May we be blessed by the ONE GOD. Through his word we know GOD, through his Spirit we are devoted to him. For GOD COMMANDS WORSHIP. Kindly read OT and you would recognise the working of angels, especially the angel Gaberial. Isn't OT your own Bible? You should have read it before asking this question. My freind i told you please show me where you got that, that an Angel is the spirit of God. That is wrong. An angel cant be a spirit of anything of God for he was not created. Hello my freind are you listening? I told you an angel is a messenger sent by God. In mathew he states Angel of the Lord. Angels belong to God for again they were created.
I have just showed you that it doesn't imply that Jesus himself is a god. The word "WORD" could also mean a messanger carrying the message of God. NO. Jesus IS the WORD. |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 20 May 2005 at 10:51am
|
What do you know about spirit? We all humans have spirits. Do you call all of them to be part of God? Ofcourse any thing that God creates belongs to Him. So He has every right to call such a thing His own. Same as if I own a bicycle, I would say my bike. Would you argue that this bike is my part? Am I created with the bike etc. No certainly not. No literal understanding would work. Only wise people would understand that MY SPIRIT means a spirit from God. Of course we are mortal and everything we are belongs to God. But God's Word which has never been created is God or he is infinite.Jesus taught that because he was from above ( the word of god has always existed) and we are from below ( earth) we cannot fully understand God with our minds. I shall get the holy writings for that. I do not have time for i am away from home i am revising for my exams tomorrow. Who said that? What is your source of info? Do you think inspiration is indirectly as compared with your allege "Word" directly? According to my Islamic belief, there are many channels of communication of God with Prophets. Most commonly, its through the messanger angel like Gaberail. Inspiration could be another one but not the only one. It is simple my freind. When prophets did miracles they say he is inspired by God. Or king Solomon who was said to be a wise man because of God. The story of the two mothers both alleging to be the real mother of a baby and through the wisdom of Solomon they realised he was inspired by God. I shall get quotes. But the distinction was the you can convey God's message and that God owns his own message. And if God wants to give birth to the Word directly by the Holy Spirit.. God is powerful he can and with Jesus he did. This immaculate conception included God in Heaven, His Spirit and his Word. Brother, my all suggestions are kind of logical deductions as what you have said. If you want to contradict these deductions then you have to present an alternate logic and not just blind faith declarations. I shall be happy to listen to any critique of yours based on logical arguments. The above would be true if you did not insult the way i thought, wouldnt it? So what you say above is not valid. And yes you lie for when we spoke about God being inifinite and not created you said i shall not discuss this. Look above if you must on your replies to my post.
I would rather modify your statement to make it accurate by saying By believing in Jesus as the true messanger of God you worship God because the Bible has always taught there is ONE GOD. Amen.
Yes as a Muslim you beleive this. But as a Christian i dont. By beleiving in the Word of God you will be granted heaven because you follow how God wants you to be. With this the Bible teaches there is ONE GOD amen. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 1:46pm
So infinite God can never be finite as Jesus was. Isn't it? Then your difference of Adam being made of dust and Jesus made of word also not valid as Jesus lived on earth as Adam; and both were humans, as long as they remained on earth. Who knows what happened to them went they went away from the earth? Then you say Jesus died on the cross, of course God can't die what to call it on the cross or whatever you talk about. Are all these traits of an infinite God? Certainly not. Merely speaking of infinite God doesn't imply that your concept of Trinity also imply the same infinitness of God, especially with Jesus being one member of it simply because people lived with him here on this earth.
wow what a thesis. No lets go over it againb. Jesus commanded worship by saying i am the life and resurrection. No matter how much you try to change these simple words you are wrong. Now.. Jesus never said i am a messenger of God. He stated that the FATHER AND I ARE ONE, which is what the Bible taught and teaches, that GOD, HIS WORD ( JESUS) AND HIS SPIRIT ARE ONE. "Life" and "Resurrection" doesn't imply God. This is no command for worship but the command for obeying him. Kindly use mind with logic and not with faith alone. He was the commander of the faithfuls and not the god of the faithfuls. He never commanded worship for himself since he wasn't a hypocrate. Your NT Bible tells us that Jesus was tested by the Satan. Wasn't he? Then saying that he commanded worship implys he tried to Bluff not only Satan but his followers as well. I think this is a biggest Blasphemy against prophet Jesus. On the more you say he died for your sins on the cross. How come your god can die? Yet you say he won over the death? How? It can only be if had not died on the cross without resurrection. It is this logic that people neglect to understand when they start asserting about Jesus on earth. It is for this reason the Christian theologians have adopted the view of his godhood only after his assention to heavens and not before. It is for this reason that I advised you earlier as well, that leave the indoctrination of your pastors and go to your well educated theologians. Only then you will understand what is meant by calling Jesus as god while he was on earth.
I don't understand a bit of your logic here. Kindly understand that we (muslims) do believe that God did gave various miracles to Jesus and one of them was to raise the dead. That doesn't imply that he was God himself as this was not a unique miracle with Jesus only but had been with other prophets according to your own OT.
Yes, true. However, the miracls are also from the God side and prophets don't claim it untill they specifically say that its only through their God who has given them this power (Miracles) as a token for you to understand and believe in them. Again, kindly read OT yourself to familiarize with miracles stuff.
As I said taking literal meanings out of this passage is a big fallacy that will contradict the infinitness of God. Hence it must be understood only through its implied meaning considering God to be infinite.
So here, aren't you taking an implied meaning of 'life' and 'resurrection' otherwise in its literal meaning it doesn't make sense at all. Simply because "life" and hence "death" are only with respect to finite beings like we, humans etc. Word "Life" has no meaning with an infinite one. Similarly "resurrection" implies life after death which of course has no meaning with the "infinite" one. Therefore, my dear brother, think before you start using such big words. Using words like "resurrection" in association with "infinite" implies inherrant contradiction in your own statement (As I can't dare to say this as having said by Jesus).
I already gave you an example of word 'my' usage in the earlier posts or elsewhere. They have to be understood without literal human understanding of 'spirit' attached to it. Otherwise, what do you say about my word? What is word and what do you understand about it? Isn't it a spoken word? So what is spoken word of God, the infinite? I would say its just "Be" and that is it; everything shall be done through this command. Even this 'Be' is just for our human understanding otherwise we even can't comprehend this much.
Is this the response for a simple question? I think one may have to improve upon his logical skills before considering such philosophical issues. Probably they are beyond one's comprehension...
Simply because finite is opposite of infinite. Jesus on earth was finite and you are bent upon making him infinite. This is a open contradiction as what you tell us and as what we observe as human beings. Its you who are trying to make 3 is to one or one is to 3 kind of theories for your clear contradictions while cutting god into 3 (coequal, coeternal, coexistant) pieces. I would never ever imagine doing that. It is for this reason, and only for this reason, lets throw our conjectures behind and just say God is one and only one. Can we say this? I think we can? Then why not say it without going into the details, just say God is one and only one. Period.
God as the Koran says sits on a kingdom on heaven and is also closer than the artery vein. This is what my great muslim freind told me. I agree in sentiment. God can be in two places at once and also be one. Its logical for God is most powerful and can do anything. He just says 'Be' to anything that isnt God. I would rather ask for the reference from the Quran to understand them myself. However, no sentimental arguments here would work, my brother. Its not logical to think in this way. There is a big fallacy in these kinds of arguments especially considering the infinitness of God. Therefore, I never take these concepts literally. Simiply stating infinitness can take care of all such concepts all by itself and hence no need to put theories into them.
Ok, I agree what you have stated here. So be firm what you have stated here and don't swing out from this statement. I think this is the crux of our mutual discussion. Let's pray to this one God and only one God, through His word we recognise Him and through His Spirit we are devoted to Him. Therefore He and only He is worthy of our all worships. Amen.
|
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 28 May 2005 at 9:56am
|
AhmadJoyia, your truly do have a good understanding. Your conclusions are
spot on regarding the physical/historical Jesus. The symbolic meaning of Jesus is worship of God with work, loving relationships, charity, etc. Zakat, Hajj, rejection of riba - these acts worship the one true God but are fundamentally different from salat. An introspe cive Christian instantly recognizes these acts as the lifestyle taught by Jesus. I know you appreciate this and have been doing such a good job in your discussion with Cypriot Boy I have stayed out of your fine discussion. The question comes does up often, so I thought this brief statement might be of interest to the lurkers. DavidC ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 10:30am
|
My Dear Bro DavidC, I really appreciate your farsightedness. There is no way I can summarize the way you have done it. Thanks. |
Posted By: Cypriot Boy
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:19am
|
So infinite God can never be finite as Jesus was. Isn't it? Then your difference of Adam being made of dust and Jesus made of word also not valid as Jesus lived on earth as Adam; and both were humans, as long as they remained on earth. Who knows what happened to them went they went away from the earth? Then you say Jesus died on the cross, of course God can't die what to call it on the cross or whatever you talk about. Are all these traits of an infinite God? Certainly not. Merely speaking of infinite God doesn't imply that your concept of Trinity also imply the same infinitness of God, especially with Jesus being one member of it simply because people lived with him here on this earth.
Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. He became fully man and God on earth. Of course you comparing the fact that Adam was human and Jesus as human mean that they are the same. No, only God can be fullyhuman and God at the same time for this is the power of God.
"Life" and "Resurrection" doesn't imply God. This is no command for worship but the command for obeying him. Kindly use mind with logic and not with faith alone. He was the commander of the faithfuls and not the god of the faithfuls. He never commanded worship for himself since he wasn't a hypocrate. Your NT Bible tells us that Jesus was tested by the Satan. Wasn't he? Then saying that he commanded worship implys he tried to Bluff not only Satan but his followers as well. I think this is a biggest Blasphemy against prophet Jesus. On the more you say he died for your sins on the cross. How come your god can die? Yet you say he won over the death? How? It can only be if had not died on the cross without resurrection. It is this logic that people neglect to understand when they start asserting about Jesus on earth. It is for this reason the Christian theologians have adopted the view of his godhood only after his assention to heavens and not before. It is for this reason that I advised you earlier as well, that leave the indoctrination of your pastors and go to your well educated theologians. Only then you will understand what is meant by calling Jesus as god while he was on earth.
First of all if someone declares that he is the life and resurrection that implies divinity. Now you tALK about being tempted by Satan. Please in your own time describe the conversation the word of God has with the Devil, you will then realise what you said before is not logical. Please state the conversation, do not merely say it without using it. As for the God head, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and also use the Transfiguration section in the Bible. Do not assume without reading the Bible in its entirety.
I don't understand a bit of your logic here. Kindly understand that we (muslims) do believe that God did gave various miracles to Jesus and one of them was to raise the dead. That doesn't imply that he was God himself as this was not a unique miracle with Jesus only but had been with other prophets according to your own OT.
So you beleive God gave his own infinite power to a human being? Yes we belive this too for Jesus was human and Jesus said many times that God gives him the power to do things. Because he came from the Holy Spirit and is the LIVING WORD OF GOD. Jesus said before existence of Abraham ,i am, ill get the reference. Only God exists forever and is infinate. The word of God said this to indicate that his origns are divine.
Yes, true. However, the miracls are also from the God side and prophets don't claim it untill they specifically say that its only through their God who has given them this power (Miracles) as a token for you to understand and believe in them. Again, kindly read OT yourself to familiarize with miracles stuff.
Of course i read the N.T, this is my Holy Book. I suggest you read the Bible too,especially this part " Jesus Walks on the Water22Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat was already a considerable distance[a] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. 25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. 27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." 29"Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" 32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." 34When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed." (Math)
As I said taking literal meanings out of this passage is a big fallacy that will contradict the infinitness of God. Hence it must be understood only through its implied meaning considering God to be infinite.
I do not beleive so. God from the beginning said his Spirit and my Word.Now to be a messenger of God like a prophet is possible and can happen as we have seen in the Book. But the actual word of God was conceived by the Holy Spirit , God was involved in all his power. Only God could do this.
So here, aren't you taking an implied meaning of 'life' and 'resurrection' otherwise in its literal meaning it doesn't make sense at all. Simply because "life" and hence "death" are only with respect to finite beings like we, humans etc. Word "Life" has no meaning with an infinite one. Similarly "resurrection" implies life after death which of course has no meaning with the "infinite" one. Therefore, my dear brother, think before you start using such big words. Using words like "resurrection" in association with "infinite" implies inherrant contradiction in your own statement (As I can't dare to say this as having said by Jesus). Amazing someone can twist the truth. Only God can give life. Only God has the authority to say these things. God's Word is life for he came and resurrected to show by beleiving we have eternal salvation. Life and being infinite is not a contradiction, foryou contradict yourself that only God can give life and take it away. I already gave you an example of word 'my' usage in the earlier posts or elsewhere. They have to be understood without literal human understanding of 'spirit' attached to it. Otherwise, what do you say about my word? What is word and what do you understand about it? Isn't it a spoken word? So what is spoken word of God, the infinite? I would say its just "Be" and that is it; everything shall be done through this command. Even this 'Be' is just for our human understanding otherwise we even can't comprehend this much.
As i said before Jesus is the living word of God, for that reason God tells us to listen to him... After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. 4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters�one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" 6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." 10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" 11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Math)
The first line underlined said listen to him. There is a distinction between being sent by the message of God and actually being God's word. The second sentence showed that Jesus knew what was going to happen and that he indeed resurrected.
Is this the response for a simple question? I think one may have to improve upon his logical skills before considering such philosophical issues. Probably they are beyond one's comprehension... Trust me, it wont take you far to insult one's way of thinking.I do need that because i dont do that with you. And Yes we as human do not fully comprehend God and is beyond comprehension. We beleive my brother on this point. Simply because finite is opposite of infinite. Jesus on earth was finite and you are bent upon making him infinite. This is a open contradiction as what you tell us and as what we observe as human beings. Its you who are trying to make 3 is to one or one is to 3 kind of theories for your clear contradictions while cutting god into 3 (coequal, coeternal, coexistant) pieces. I would never ever imagine doing that. It is for this reason, and only for this reason, lets throw our conjectures behind and just say God is one and only one. Can we say this? I think we can? Then why not say it without going into the details, just say God is one and only one. Period. Jesus origins are infinite, his human form came later but was supernatural for it gave birth to the the wordof God by the Holy Spirit. I am not hell bent on anything.Just what God has revealed to humans (God bless) I would rather ask for the reference from the Quran to understand them myself. However, no sentimental arguments here would work, my brother. Its not logical to think in this way. There is a big fallacy in these kinds of arguments especially considering the infinitness of God. Therefore, I never take these concepts literally. Simiply stating infinitness can take care of all such concepts all by itself and hence no need to put theories into them. I do nothing to work,just simplystating what my Muslim freind told me. Dont you realise that what you said above appliedto you, using parts of the Bible without understanding the theological aspects to it. Do not be a hypocryte. God is one and only one. Period. Agreed. But God is not simply by your human standards. Ok, I agree what you have stated here. So be firm what you have stated here and don't swing out from this statement. I think this is the crux of our mutual discussion. Let's pray to this one God and only one God, through His word we recognise Him and through His Spirit we are devoted to Him. Therefore He and only He is worthy of our all worships. Amen.
I do not know you but i respect you. I love my muslim freind. I agree, lets pray to the one God. Through his word we are saved and through his spirit we are shown the right way. Amen
|
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 8:11am
|
My dear brother CypriotBoy, This is strange but interesting that you can't even stay on with your own words. So what are we discussing here? Here is the difference what you said before (and I agreed to it) and what you are now making it. You even tend to remove the last part of your earlier statement in your new post.
and here is your new statement
Though, it is very obvious that the two statements of yours are not the same, however, you may still claim them to be equivalent, it is through your own perception. How good this perception is? Its not very difficult to analyse now. I would still hang on with your earlier statement than your later modified one and shall repeat it in my prayer: May we be blessed by the ONE GOD. Through his word we know GOD, through his Spirit we are devoted to him. For GOD COMMANDS WORSHIP. Amen!! |
Posted By: saalih
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 8:18am
| what kind of god needs a spirit to be devoted to, or in order to communicate with god you have to speak through a spirit frankly because god can't hear you without jesus intercession. that's a weak god. tell me what did the christians believed before the Nicean accord. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 8:41am
|
Shakur, God made us with bodies. We cannot worship purely in spirit.
I understand in salat, and in performing wudu, Muslims must make physical motions. These do not "interceed" with God, but they are essential and do not denote any weakness. Instead, they integrate mind, spirit and body and make prayer whole. DavidC ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 3:43pm
|
Greetings All, There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding Islam�s understanding of their very own book of faith regarding the Biblical concept of the Trinity. Let�s review what 4.171 tells us�
� You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, � �wa� and do not say on Allah except the truth, � but the Messiah, Jesus, � Mary's son � Allah's messenger � �wa� and His Word � He threw it away to Mary, � �wa� a Soul/Spirit from Him; � �fa� so believe with Allah, � �wa� and His messengers, � �wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, � but Allah (is) one Allah, � �yakoona� verily he shall be a child for Him � what (is) in the skies/space � �wa� and what (is) in the earth/Planet Earth, enough/sufficient with Allah (as a) guardian/protector. It is clear from the text that Jesus is both Mary�s and (in this case) �allah�s� son. Same theme copied from the Holy Bible. Observe that Jesus is not merely �allah�s messenger; but he is also �wa� his Word. Same theme copied from the Holy Bible. Furthermore, the �allah� of the Koran is shown to have a Spirit which is also imputed into Jesus. Same theme copied from the Holy Bible. Thus�.we have just witnessed three elements of �allah�. Now...look what is stated next� �do not say: "Three." Why should we not say that �allah� is three when we were just told of three elements that pertain to him�.? Here�s why� Because� �Allah (is) one Allah� What a novel idea. Sound familiar�.? It should, as it is lifted right out of the Holy Bible. Furthermore�look at what the text states after this� �verily he shall be a child for Him� Rock-solid Biblical confirmation that Jesus is God's son!!! I have to ask; can it really get much clearer than this for the die-hard Muslim�.?! Straight from their very own book of faith� No more excuses...
|
Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 5:45pm
|
Here is a good discussion of the evolution of the concept of the trinity: http://bismikaallahuma.org/Doctrine/trinity.htm - http://bismikaallahuma.org/Doctrine/trinity.htm ------------- Yusuf |
Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 5:47pm
"wa" in Arabic has numerous meanings; it does not simply mean "and" in every circumstance. You should learn the language before you attempt to interpret subtleties of meaning. ------------- Yusuf |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 5:57pm
|
Greetings Yusuf, "wa" in Arabic has numerous meanings; it does not simply mean "and" in every circumstance. You should learn the language before you attempt to interpret subtleties of meaning. Bring forth your references... |
Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 7:15pm
Penrice, John. A Dictionary and Glossary of the Kor-an with Copious Grammatical References and Explanations of the Text. London: Henry S. King & Co., 1873: p. 156. Thackston, W. M. An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic. Bethesda: IBEX Publishers, 1994. Various meanings of "wa" are discussed in different chapters of the text. Although frankly references are not necessary since any Arabic speaker knows these simple semantic rules. ------------- Yusuf |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 21 July 2005 at 8:03pm
|
Greetings Yusuf, Thanks for your reply�
Penrice, John. A Dictionary and Glossary of the Kor-an with Copious Grammatical References and Explanations of the Text. Thackston, W. M. An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic. I have Penrice�s Dictionary that you refernced�.and yes, it agrees with my other classical sources, as we can see below� �wa� definition: An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. Connects words and clauses as a simple coordinative �and�. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God). References: An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3049 A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 290 The Dictionary of the Holy Qur�an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 599 A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 156 Arabic English Dictionary, J.G. Hava, p. 845 - 846 Coordinative: To put in the same order, or rank; to bring into a common action, movement, or condition. Conjunction:
�Although frankly references are not necessary since any Arabic speaker knows these simple semantic rules.� As you can see for yourself, references of the classic Arabic are indeed an absolute necessity, as the colloquial Arabic is horrendously corrupted from that in which the Koran was penned and had as its intended meaning� Thanks� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 9:44am
My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". Hence, my dear brother, this is the core, unambigous, and clear message for you (my Christian brothers). Do you accept this? The decision is upto you as what you now believe or reject as on the day of Judgement Allah (God) shall make it clear for everyone of us about this matter. So why to bother about it. Let us agree on as what is clear in this verse and leave the things which are ambiguous to you. For us, this is not the only verse in Quran where oneness of Allah is described, for example in the follow chapter " 112.001 112.002 112.003 112.004 So, my dear brother, is there any more ambiguity left that indeed Trinity is not divine nature of God, but God is only One. On the more, even this very word "Triune" or "Trinity" doesn't exist in whole of the Bible but a later distorted human explanations of the scriptures you have.
|
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 10:40am
|
The trinity is a concept introduced by the Cappadocians in the fourth http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/early/stories/trinitarian.htm" _blank?> http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/early/s tories/trinitarian.htm |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 11:07am
|
Greetigns AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. If you feel that I have �distorted� the meaning of this ayah, then feel completely free to exegete the Arabic in which it was penned�instead of relying upon Islam to dictate its meaning to you� First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Please show us the Arabic of this ayah�.so that we can see who has the best comprehension of its content�.thanks� Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? The authors of the Koran quite clearly denounce (in sura 5) the �Triune� nature consisting of: � �Allah� � Jesus � Mary 4.171 informs us that the �Triune� nature should be: � �Allah� � Spirit � Jesus i.e. Son; i.e. Word I think that you can easily see this for yourself, even by reading the �popular� English translations� Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". Interesting that you totally and completely SKIPPED right on over �allah�s� triune attributes as if they were not even there�interesting indeed�! And so�you decided to settle on �allah� is one. Well�please tell us exactly how this is ANY different than what the Holy Bible tells us�? We will be anxiously awaiting your reply� Hence, my dear brother, this is the core, unambigous, and clear message for you (my Christian brothers). Do you accept this? Accept what�.? That the Creator God of the Holy Bible is Uniplural in nature�? That the authors of the Koran have also copied this very same theme over into your book of faith�? The decision is upto you as what you now believe or reject as on the day of Judgement Allah (God) shall make it clear for everyone of us about this matter. I think that you need to study your book of faith a little closer than what Islam has led you to believe� So why to bother about it. Let us agree on as what is clear in this verse and leave the things which are ambiguous to you. What is not clear to you in 4.171�? For us, this is not the only verse in Quran where oneness of Allah is described, for example in the follow chapter " And�.? How is this any different that what the Holy Bible teaches�.? So, my dear brother, is there any more ambiguity left that indeed Trinity is not divine nature of God, but God is only One. Your very own book of faith clearly shows a Uniplural entity�.same as the Holy Bible� Perhaps its time that you comprehend this for yourself� On the more, even this very word "Triune" or "Trinity" doesn't exist in whole of the Bible but a later distorted human explanations of the scriptures you have. Fact of the matter is, the word �trinity� does not appear in the Holy Bible NOR the Koran. Hence, since it does NOT appear in the Koran, you really have no scriptural authority to denounce the concept� Thanks� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 2:25pm
|
Kindly quote the authority/reference to your translation where you think it to be more correct than what you say "relying on Islam to dictate".
First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Please show us the Arabic of this ayah�.so that we can see who has the best comprehension of its content�.thanks�
The authors of the Koran quite clearly denounce (in sura 5) the �Triune� nature consisting of: � �Allah� � Jesus � Mary So do you think, this is the only form of Trinity being denounced? So you mean only those Christians who believe in this form of Trinity are wrong? Hmm!!! So what about the other forms of Trinities? I think there are several of them and all depends upon to whom (Christian) you ask to?
4.171 informs us that the �Triune� nature should be: � �Allah� � Spirit � Jesus i.e. Son; i.e. Word I think that you can easily see this for yourself, even by reading the �popular� English translations� Oh, I see. So this is your preferred form of Trinity my brother that you think is correct. So why not go and tell your own brothers who believe in the other forms of Trinity that they are totally wrong as the Allah of Muslims also testifies it. Wow!! What a manneover to link up the two verses to extract your own meanings. Well, my dear brother, are you reading the same passage of Quran (4:171) that you have posted above to extract this meaning {�Triune� nature should be...."}. This is totally a illogical explanation of the meanings. So you mean to say that Allah (or as you say authors of Quran) mean to negate one form of Trinity and to replace it with yet another form of it in this verse 4:171. This is indeed an extrapolational explanation to suit your own purpose. This is especially true when in the same very verse, with your own distorted translation, we read ""�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah".
Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". Interesting that you totally and completely SKIPPED right on over �allah�s� triune attributes as if they were not even there�interesting indeed�! Well my brother I have not skipped any of the attributes of Allah mentioned before this part of the verse. Your allegation is found baseless and lacks evidence. On the more, Prophet Isa is named as "ibn Mariam" and not "ibn allah" in this verse, so which attributes are you taking about? No evidence and of course without logic.
Well, it would be more interesting if you bring logic to your arguements instead of repeating my understanding, only if you have one.
Well�please tell us exactly how this is ANY different than what the Holy Bible tells us�? Holy Bible??? Which Bible or which part of Bible you think is Holy and how? This is indeed, yet another interesting story that you may not like to hear from me. So go and refer this question to your Christian scholars. Please don't take me wrong when I say this as I have great respect for your scripture whatever you consider it since it(NT) does contain some original teachings of Jesus. However, teachings of Jesus in the gospels is one thing and its extrapolational philosopy based upon St. Paul's teachings is yet another. Hopefully you know the difference between the two.
We will be anxiously awaiting your reply� "We" ?? Who all are "we" here? I thought I am simply responding to a single person and not the whole Church. Hmm!! I see. Nevertheless, surely and certainly my brother/s, sister/s. Hopefully, you must not have waited too long for this.
Hence, my dear brother, this is the core, unambigous, and clear message for you (my Christian brothers). Do you accept this? Accept what�.? Accept as what is being asked in this verse to you. Shall I repeat your own translation; again? To summarize, from your own translation that, Jesus was, without going into exaggeration in your religion,
That the Creator God of the Holy Bible is Uniplural in nature�? That the authors of the Koran have also copied this very same theme over into your book of faith�? I really don't understand this term "Uniplural"? Is this a new definition my brother has invented to justify the apparant mismatch in his understanding of God? The author of Quran is none but Allah Himself. The same God to whom Prophet Jesus also used to pray.
The decision is upto you as what you now believe or reject as on the day of Judgement Allah (God) shall make it clear for everyone of us about this matter. I think that you need to study your book of faith a little closer than what Islam has led you to believe� Thanks my brother for your advice and with Allah's will, I shall definitely follow it. No doubt. Nevertheless, one should not let go the logic out of our domain while studing these scriptures. It is only this attribute that Allah has given us to recognise Him from the falsehood. Hope you would also apply it whenever it comes to you to do it.
So why to bother about it. Let us agree on as what is clear in this verse and leave the things which are ambiguous to you. What is not clear to you in 4.171�? "ambigous to you" means "not clear to you" as opposed to asking me. BTW, I have already presented the clear view about Prophet Isa and see what is not obvious to you and then we can talk more on it.
And�.? How is this any different that what the Holy Bible teaches�.? Probably you haven't paid attention to this part of the verse otherwise you would not have asked this question.
So, my dear brother, is there any more ambiguity left that indeed Trinity is not divine nature of God, but God is only One. Your very own book of faith clearly shows a Uniplural entity�.same as the Holy Bible� Perhaps its time that you comprehend this for yourself� You haven't define what is "Uniplural". On the more you either have not read the chapter 112 that I have referred it to you or you are not very familiar with your own Bible, otherwise you would not have asked this question. Kindly do let me know if you still don't find the difference between Quranic teachings of Allah and what Christians think of Him.
On the more, even this very word "Triune" or "Trinity" doesn't exist in whole of the Bible but a later distorted human explanations of the scriptures you have. Fact of the matter is, the word �trinity� does not appear in the Holy Bible NOR the Koran. Well, aren't you falsifying your own reference of Quran both in this verse 4:171 and chapter 5 where "Trinity" is denounced?
Hence, since it does NOT appear in the Koran, you really have no scriptural authority to denounce the concept� Thanks� Since your basic premise is false, so does to your logic. Isn't it? For completeness, here is the relevent verse from Chapter 5 (a translation from 3 different people just to make sure translational errors are reduced for our overall understanding): 005.072 005.073 Hopefully, this shall be sufficient for today. Certainly, only Allah knows the best.
|
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 3:33pm
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� Kindly quote the authority/reference to your translation where you think it to be more correct than what you say "relying on Islam to dictate". Sure thing� ��� ������ ��������� ��� �������� ��� ��������� ����� ��������� ����� ������� ������ �������� �������� ���������� ������ ����� �������� ������� ������� ������������ ���������� ����� �������� ������� ������ ��������� ��������� ���������� ����� ��������� ��������� �������� ������� ������ �������� ������� ������ ������� ����������� ���� ������� ���� ���������� ��� ��� ������������� ����� ��� ��������� ������� ��������� ��������
Kindly confirm whether you agree or disagree and then ask for reference for authenticity. You stated that I �distorted� the meaning of this ayah�thus; it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate precisely where this occurred. You are evading your duty� BTW, the reference for the italicized bolded and underlined text is your own translation and none other. Again�show us the Arabic� Unless, as we can plainly see for ourselves, you don�t understand the mother-tongue in which you are entrusting your eternal soul towards�
So do you think, this is the only form of Trinity being denounced? Show us the word �trinity� in the Koran� So you mean only those Christians who believe in this form of Trinity are wrong? Hmm!!! What does your book of faith state�? So what about the other forms of Trinities? I think there are several of them and all depends upon to whom (Christian) you ask to? Other �forms� of trinities�.?
Oh, I see. So this is your preferred form of Trinity my brother that you think is correct. This is the �form� listed in 4.171� Why deny� So why not go and tell your own brothers who believe in the other forms of Trinity that they are totally wrong as the Allah of Muslims also testifies it. Again�what �forms� do the authors of the Koran mention�.? Wow!! What a manneover to link up the two verses to extract your own meanings. Do you evaluate ayahs in your book of faith in isolation from each other�.? Well, my dear brother, are you reading the same passage of Quran (4:171) that you have posted above to extract this meaning {�Triune� nature should be...."}. This is totally a illogical explanation of the meanings. So you mean to say that Allah (or as you say authors of Quran) mean to negate one form of Trinity and to replace it with yet another form of it in this verse 4:171. Does this surprise you�.? This is indeed an extrapolational explanation to suit your own purpose. Again�.instead of dancing endlessly around the issue at hand�.why not (if you disagree) come forward with your understanding of the Arabic of this ayah� You are stalling� This is especially true when in the same very verse, with your own distorted translation, we read ""�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah"." Again�.why are you completely SKIPPING over what precedes this: � �wa� and his Word � �wa� and a Spirit Don�t turn away from your scriptures�
Well my brother I have not skipped any of the attributes of Allah mentioned before this part of the verse. Your allegation is found baseless and lacks evidence. You just did it again�.why are you completely SKIPPING over what precedes this: � �wa� and his Word � �wa� and a Spirit Don�t turn away from your scriptures� On the more, Prophet Isa is named as "ibn Mariam" and not "ibn allah" in this verse, so which attributes are you taking about? No evidence and of course without logic. Perhaps you can define �yakoona� for us�. We will be waiting�
Well, it would be more interesting if you bring logic to your arguements instead of repeating my understanding, only if you have one. So�.now your own scriptures lack logic�?
Holy Bible??? Yes�.Holy Bible� Which Bible or which part of Bible you think is Holy and how? Since the Koran is 99% re-translated Biblical Hebrew and Greek, you tell us� This is indeed, yet another interesting story that you may not like to hear from me. So go and refer this question to your Christian scholars. Please don't take me wrong when I say this as I have great respect for your scripture whatever you consider it since it(NT) does contain some original teachings of Jesus. However, teachings of Jesus in the gospels is one thing and its extrapolational philosopy based upon You seem doubtful regarding the authenticity of the Holy Bible� Thus, I pose to you to pick ANY portion of the Koran that you feel is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence. If you decline, then your argument is completely one from silence�
Accept as what is being asked in this verse to you. Shall I repeat your own translation; again? To summarize, from your own translation that, Jesus was, without going into exaggeration in your religion,
Awesome� I thought that �allah� was one�? Now you are telling us that he is Spirit? Now you are telling us that he is Word?
I really don't understand this term "Uniplural"? Is this a new definition my brother has invented to justify the apparant mismatch in his understanding of God? Uni = one Plural = more than one Put them together, and you have an epithet that describes the Creator God of the holy Bible which was subsequently copied over to the god of the Koran� The author of Quran is none but Allah Himself. First of all, it is authors (plural). Secondly, the Arabic of your book of faith amply describes Jesus as God Almighty. Since you follow only the �popular� English translations; you are totally unaware of this� The same God to whom Prophet Jesus also used to pray. Jesus prayed to Himself�?
"ambigous to you" means "not clear to you" as opposed to asking me. BTW, I have already presented the clear view about Prophet Isa and see what is not obvious to you and then we can talk more on it. When did your �clear view� appear�? Was it from the �popular� English translations that you are so fond of�.? Tell us�.was the Koran written in English�?
Probably you haven't paid attention to this part of the verse otherwise you would not have asked this question. Jesus was �conceived� of the Holy Spirit�.not �allah�� This is stated both in the Holy Bible and then later copied into the Koran�
You haven't define what is "Uniplural". Done� On the more you either have not read the chapter 112 that I have referred it to you or you are not very familiar with your own Bible, otherwise you would not have asked this question. Kindly do let me know if you still don't find the difference between Quranic teachings of Allah and what Christians think of Him. Done�
Well, aren't you falsifying your own reference of Quran both in this verse 4:171 and chapter 5 where "Trinity" is denounced? Again�show us the Arabic word �trinity�� We will be waiting�
Since your basic premise is false, so does to your logic. Isn't it? You cannot produce the Arabic word for �trinity�. This is abundantly clear. Thus�you hold tenaciously to something that is not even mentioned in your book of faith�hence, YOUR premise is completely unfounded� You are a follower if Islam�instead of the Koran� For completeness, here is the relevent verse from Chapter 5 (a translation from 3 different people just to make sure translational errors are reduced for our overall understanding): Great�.more �popular� English translations�forget the Arabic�lol� Please tell us about �translational errors��.thanks� ������ ������ ��������� �������� ����� ������ ���� ���������� ����� �������� ������� ���������� ��� ����� ������������ ���������� ������ ������ ����������� ������� ��� �������� �������� ������ ������� ������ ������� ���������� ����������� �������� ����� �������������� ���� �������� ������� ������ ��������� �������� ����� ������ ������� ��������� ����� ���� ������� ������ ������� ������� ����� ����� ���������� ������ ���������� ������������ ��������� ��������� �������� ������� ������� Hopefully, this shall be sufficient for today. Hopefully� Certainly, only Allah knows the best. Allah who..? Take care� |
Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 6:15pm
applepie's arabic quotes don't even match the ayat boundaries. He's blindly cutting and pasting and pretending he understands it. To anyone who can read Arabic his complete ignorance of the language is truly hilarious  ------------- Yusuf |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 22 July 2005 at 6:42pm
|
Greetings Yusuf, Thanks for your reply� applepie's arabic quotes don't even match the ayat boundaries. He's blindly cutting and pasting and pretending he understands it. How would you even know�.as we are still waiting for you to reply to our previous discussion�. To anyone who can read Arabic his complete ignorance of the language is truly hilarious I guess this leaves you out of the picture� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 11:38am
|
Same greetings to you Bro Apple Pie
Sure thing� ��� ������ ��������� ��� �������� ��� ��������� ����� ��������� ����� ������� ������ �������� �������� ���������� ������ ����� �������� ������� ������� ������������ ���������� ����� �������� ������� ������ ��������� ��������� ���������� ����� ��������� ��������� �������� ������� ������ �������� ������� ������ ������� ����������� ���� ������� ���� ���������� ��� ��� ������������� ����� ��� ��������� ������� ��������� �������� Since I am not a linguistic scholar nor do I claim to have any knowledge of reading your coded Arabic, therefore your above reply is of no use me. Kindly come down to my level of common understanding of original Arabic script, if at all you need it. What has this to do with the source of your translation and is not a valid way of quoting a reference. Without any of this evidence, your translation (distorted one) is of no value here. Your words are against yours, if not supported by valid references. Isn�t it? It must also not be forgotten that if someone want to see as what Muslim must believe in Quran, then one has to bring evidence from within the Islam and not from outside of it. This is, of course, not unique to Islam and must be applied to other faith based religions e.g Christianity. Therefore, when the Bible is discussed, one shall abide by this rule of the discussions. Nevertheless, at this time, I have not yet applied this rule in responding to your preferable translation, but discussed it entirely from your own stand point of view. It is little na�ve, at this time to ask for the original Arabic of this verse, where my explanation is entirely based upon your own translation.
Kindly confirm whether you agree or disagree and then ask for reference for authenticity. You stated that I �distorted� the meaning of this ayah�thus; it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate precisely where this occurred. You are evading your duty� Well my brother, evasion is the last thing you would expect from me, though my other commitments may cause some delays in my posts. Secondly, it is you who have rejected all the normative translations of this verse and brought in yours. Do you really want me to bring these commonly used translations here and only then you would agree? (In the end of this post, I have even done that along with original Arabic script). Moreover, I am simply using your own translation and not from elsewhere, therefore, your avoidance of my question is meaningless. Here I repeat it again as it may not be lost in such long posts and see as what you have to say about it: �First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you.� And you responded as, �Please show us the Arabic of this ayah�.so that we can see who has the best comprehension of its content�.thanks� This reply of yours indicates your hesitation or avoidance to reply.
Again�show us the Arabic� Again, your demand is meaningless here as I am simply using your own translation. Isn�t this seems logical to you? I have not yet questioned, but merely commented to keep my reservations, about your translation.
Unless, as we can plainly see for ourselves, you don�t understand the mother-tongue in which you are entrusting your eternal soul towards� I hope now you would reconcile your comments by not assuming too much of my understanding.
So do you think, this is the only form of Trinity being denounced? Show us the word �trinity� in the Koran� Well again, my brother I am sorry to say that your question is meaningless since it is you and only you who used word � Trinity� by giving reference of sura 5 of Quran and yet you are asking me this question? This is totally uncomprehensible?
So you mean only those Christians who believe in this form of Trinity are wrong? Hmm!!! What does your book of faith state�? Sure, my brother, my book of faith denounces all forms of worship to anyone except to Allah and Allah alone, what to talk about just any form of �Trinity�. On the more I have provided you the evidence from chapter 112.
So what about the other forms of Trinities? I think there are several of them and all depends upon to whom (Christian) you ask to? Other �forms� of trinities�.? Count yourself the denominations of Christianities and you will not have to use �?� to understand other forms of it.
Quote: 4.171 informs us that the �Triune� nature should be: � �Allah� � Spirit � Jesus i.e. Son; i.e. Word I think that you can easily see this for yourself, even by reading the �popular� English translations� Oh, I see. So this is your preferred form of Trinity my brother that you think is correct. This is the �form� listed in 4.171� Why deny� If your monocle is just focused with your own presuppositions then how shall anyone even consider your interpretation of the verse to be as un-biased?
Again�what �forms� do the authors of the Koran mention�.? It is your own conclusion, so to test it, why not you go ahead proclaim them wrong, your own brothers of other denominations.
Wow!! What a manneover to link up the two verses to extract your own meanings. Do you evaluate ayahs in your book of faith in isolation from each other�.? Well my brother, we don�t first conclude and then collect evidence as you have done it, but opposite of it. On the more, I have specifically pointed out the fallacy of your maneuver in linking the two, but somehow, you divided my response in such a way that it does not reflect as what my objection was. Hmm!! Seem familiar tactics to cover up. Nevertheless the truth shall come out automatically.
Does this surprise you�.?
This is indeed an extrapolational explanation to suit your own purpose. Again�.instead of dancing endlessly around the issue at hand�.why not (if you disagree) come forward with your understanding of the Arabic of this ayah� You are stalling� My dear brother, there is no �stalling� or �un-stalling� of others over here with my discussions. I am not here to make people feel ashamed or feel low of their self. I am here to bring logical understanding of the issues, so that anyone who may like to use it, shall understand it from entirely of his own inner consciousness sooner or later. It is not (I repeat Not) to make people surrender or overcome them in any form of fight or duel etc. Specific to this part of your comments, suffice is to say that without evidence, your translation is meaningless, though I have also provided the actual Arabic script at the end of this reply.
Again�.why are you completely SKIPPING over what precedes this: � �wa� and his Word � �wa� and a Spirit Don�t turn away from your scriptures� Probably you didn�t realize that these are duly taken care of in the later part of my reply where the identity of prophet Isa is being defined. Probably one has to jump long to link this part of the passage with the identity of Prophet Isa, which only you can do. Hence no turning away but rationally reading the verse.
Quote: Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". Interesting that you totally and completely SKIPPED right on over �allah�s� triune attributes as if they were not even there�interesting indeed�! Well my brother I have not skipped any of the attributes of Allah mentioned before this part of the verse. Your allegation is found baseless and lacks evidence. You just did it again�.why are you completely SKIPPING over what precedes this: � �wa� and his Word � �wa� and a Spirit Don�t turn away from your scriptures� Alright my brother, let see what this {�wa� and his word} and {�wa� and a spirit} could mean as regard to Prophet Isa. Clearly these both are not a unique attributes that are given to him. For example, in the creation of the world, Allah simply say a word �Be� and that is it, whole world got created from this �word�. Same is the case with �a spirit�. For example, I do have �a spirit� like any other living thing on this earth. Don�t you also have �a spirit�? So, what is unique about this part of the scripture that you are trying to emphasis upon?
On the more, Prophet Isa is named as "ibn Mariam" and not "ibn allah" in this verse, so which attributes are you taking about? No evidence and of course without logic. Perhaps you can define �yakoona� for us�. We will be waiting� See at the end of this response for word-to-word translation of this verse.
Quote: And so�you decided to settle on �allah� is one. Well, it would be more interesting if you bring logic to your arguements instead of repeating my understanding, only if you have one. So�.now your own scriptures lack logic�? Have you provided any logic except your distorted translation, on which itself, I have clearly shown you through logical reading that Allah is One and only one.
Quote: Well�please tell us exactly how this is ANY different than what the Holy Bible tells us�? Holy Bible??? Yes�.Holy Bible� I respect your faith even if it is without logic.
Which Bible or which part of Bible you think is Holy and how? Since the Koran is 99% re-translated Biblical Hebrew and Greek, you tell us� Good answer, my brother! Thanks for your trust in Quran. So it is basically Quran that makes it Holy for you? Hmm! Thanks again for your respect. I am surely indebted as indeed Quran affirms the scriptures sent by Allah prior to it.
This is indeed, yet another interesting story that you may not like to hear from me. So go and refer this question to your Christian scholars. Please don't take me wrong when I say this as I have great respect for your scripture whatever you consider it since it(NT) does contain some original teachings of Jesus. However, teachings of Jesus in the gospels is one thing and its extrapolational philosopy based upon St. Paul's teachings is yet another. Hopefully you know the difference between the two. You seem doubtful regarding the authenticity of the Holy Bible� Thus, I pose to you to pick ANY portion of the Koran that you feel is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence. If you decline, then your argument is completely one from silence� Affirmation of previous scriptures doesn�t imply they would remain preserved in the annals of history. Rather, I would ask you to bring the original gospel (NT) of Aramaic origin (the mother tongue of Jesus) to prove your point. All you have is at most, Greek versions of unknown authorship. Your silence on the issue shall be the right answer for your own question, if nothing else.
Quote: Hence, my dear brother, this is the core, unambigous, and clear message for you (my Christian brothers). Do you accept this? Accept what�.? Accept as what is being asked in this verse to you. Shall I repeat your own translation; again? To summarize, from your own translation that, Jesus was, without going into exaggeration in your religion, Awesome� I thought that �allah� was one�? Now you are telling us that he is Spirit? Now you are telling us that he is Word? Again, instead of logically, either refuting the argument or accepting it, you resorted to the strategy of avoiding the answer. Is this the way you really solace your inner self? Allah and Jesus are two separate entities all by logic. If you wish to continue arguing based upon your faith alone, what do you expect then?
Uni = one Plural = more than one Put them together, and you have an epithet that describes the Creator God of the holy Bible which was subsequently copied over to the god of the Koran� So are you suggesting this self contradictory term a replacement of �Trinity�? You must have received a �Noble� prize for this hypothetic term from your Church or at least must have been counted in the honor role of �saints� for coining this term? So, should we call you St. Apple Pie in your honor? Well done my brother for pathetically patching up through the use of self-contradictory terminologies.
The author of Quran is none but Allah Himself. First of all, it is authors (plural). Secondly, the Arabic of your book of faith amply describes Jesus as God Almighty. Since you follow only the �popular� English translations; you are totally unaware of this� I have not used my �popular� English translation but purely from your own translation. Hence your point is totally invalid. Secondly, statements like �it is authors (plural)� are merely assertions without evidence which I can�t expect from my brother like you. Thirdly, you are unable to defend even single verse to suit your purpose as what to talk of �amply describes�.
The same God to whom Prophet Jesus also used to pray. Jesus prayed to Himself�? Again, your response reflects your narrow beam of thought. Instead of refuting or presenting any evidence to your point you merely questioned it based upon your own assumptions. So, here is the passage from your own Bible with your own (Popular Christian) translation; from Matthew 26 (New American Standard Bible): �The Garden of Gethsemane
36Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." 37And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. 38Then He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me." 39And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." 40And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? 41" Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done." 43Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. 45Then He came to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46"Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!" � So, my friend not only once but thrice it is mentioned clearly without ambiguity that Jesus prayed to God. All this from your own accepted (I assume, if not then let us know your preferred translation of this passage) version and translation of Bible.
"ambigous to you" means "not clear to you" as opposed to asking me. BTW, I have already presented the clear view about Prophet Isa and see what is not obvious to you and then we can talk more on it. When did your �clear view� appear�? Was it from the �popular� English translations that you are so fond of�.? Tell us�.was the Koran written in English�? My brother, I have totally relied upon your own provided translation and yet you accuse me of using �popular� english translation. This is what I say that one has to be more logical than typical.
Quote: And�.? How is this any different that what the Holy Bible teaches�.? Probably you haven't paid attention to this part of the verse "112.003 otherwise you would not have asked this question. Jesus was �conceived� of the Holy Spirit�.not �allah�� This is stated both in the Holy Bible and then later copied into the Koran� So, you mean Allah is separate from �Holy Spirit�. Hmm!! Hence you contradicted your own assumption.
Quote: So, my dear brother, is there any more ambiguity left that indeed Trinity is not divine nature of God, but God is only One. Your very own book of faith clearly shows a Uniplural entity�.same as the Holy Bible� Perhaps its time that you comprehend this for yourself� You haven't define what is "Uniplural". Done� Since you contradicted your own assumption, your self-contradictory terminology is useless for logical analysis of any kind.
Quote: On the more, even this very word "Triune" or "Trinity" doesn't exist in whole of the Bible but a later distorted human explanations of the scriptures you have. Fact of the matter is, the word �trinity� does not appear in the Holy Bible NOR the Koran. Well, aren't you falsifying your own reference of Quran both in this verse 4:171 and chapter 5 where "Trinity" is denounced? Again�show us the Arabic word �trinity�� We will be waiting� My brother, again I have simply alluded to your own statements to be self- contradictory here as well. So onus is onto you to clarify as what do they mean to avoid this apparent contradiction? Isn�t it?
Quote: Hence, since it does NOT appear in the Koran, you really have no scriptural authority to denounce the concept� Thanks� Since your basic premise is false, so does to your logic. Isn't it? You cannot produce the Arabic word for �trinity�. This is abundantly clear. Thus�you hold tenaciously to something that is not even mentioned in your book of faith�hence, YOUR premise is completely unfounded� You are a follower if Islam�instead of the Koran� Now over here, let us see what is your logic and see if it is really logical to conclude as what you have presented. According to you, since word �trinity� doesn�t appear both in Quran and Bible, hence one can�t use either Quran or Bible to denounce this concept from the scriptures. Is this what you mean? If yes, then others on this forum would well judge your logic as for me this is totally illogical. If the concept itself is foreign to the Bible, how it can be used to explain the Bible in the first place? Secondly, Quran denounces the concept of �Trinity� by alluding to it as �three� since the word itself is foreign to the Bible. So, how would someone expect specific word �Trinity� to be described in the Quran, if its not even mentioned in the Bible itself. Your questioning is flawed with logic.
For completeness, here is the relevent verse from Chapter 5 (a translation from 3 different people just to make sure translational errors are reduced for our overall understanding): Great�.more �popular� English translations�forget the Arabic�lol� Please tell us about �translational errors��.thanks� My dear brother, if you have any disagreement on anything, please present your evidence than simply laughing it away. This reflects avoidance from the facts. Secondly, about translational errors, only those who have the original, can understand its importance. Simply put, these are errors associated with any translation how accurate the translator may he try to be. These are inherent with any translation and not just specific to Quran. This mean, I do acknowledge the weakness of reading Quran from its translation as it implies reading it through human understanding of its translator, which of course is not free from un-intentional flaws. Usually, these kind of errors are minimized (to a certain level), by reading through more than one translations. However, this being said, one may also realize that since the original script is preserved, one may always refer back to it for more accuracy (if one is willing to learn the Arabic). So far so good with Quran, lets apply the same tests to your �Holy� Bible and see if it comes up with this merit. First of all, almost all Christian scholars, unanimously agree that the original teachings of Jesus have been lost. Hence, all they have now is �at most� first translation from the original. This necessarily implies that the knowledge about these translational errors is lost forever. All we read from NT is then based upon suspicion of these irrecoverable errors. It would be nice to see your point of view in this regard.
005.072 005.073 ������ ������ ��������� �������� ����� ������ ���� ���������� ����� �������� ������� ���������� ��� ����� ������������ ���������� ������ ������ ����������� ������� ��� �������� �������� ������ ������� ������ ������� ���������� ����������� �������� ����� �������������� ���� �������� ������� ������ ��������� �������� ����� ������ ������� ��������� ����� ���� ������� ������ ������� ������� ����� ����� ���������� ������ ���������� ������������ ��������� ��������� �������� ������� ������� Hopefully, this shall be sufficient for today. Hopefully� Brother, as I said this form of text is unknown to me. So, either provide original Arabic text or your own preferable version of its translation. Secondly, you haven�t commented upon this verse from chapter 5 which clearly shows, without ambiguity, that Allah is not Christ. Your same tactics to avoid the evidence or logic is not understood.
Certainly, only Allah knows the best. Allah who..? Take care� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 12:26pm
|
My dear brother Apple Pie, I am sorry, since I couldn't cut and paste the original Arabic text as a image file on this forum, so I am simply resorting to provide the link for this information. Following is the link for original Arabic text along with its translation: http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispTargam.asp?nType=1&nSeg=0&l=eng&nSora=4&nAya=171&t=eng - http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispTargam.asp?nType=1& ; ;nSeg=0&l=eng&nSora=4&nAya=171&t=eng and follwoing is the link for its word-to-word translation for verse 4:171: http://www.emuslim.com/Quran/Translation/English/juz6/06-01-07.pdf - http://www.emuslim.com/Quran/Translation/English/juz6/06-01- 07.pdf
|
Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 2:17pm
|
Assalamu alaikum, Akhi, you are truly wasting your time and effort. This individual has no idea what s/he he is talking about and no understanding of the Arabic language. The last set of "quotes" s/he provides are nothing but gibberish. ------------- Yusuf |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 2:44pm
| My dear Bro Yusuf, thanks for your advice. Yes, I know I am spending a lot time on this. But I think this sometimes becomes little unavoidable especially once you know that he is totally "gibberish" and can easily be guided to the truth. Hope and I pray that may Allah provide strenght and time to everyone of us to deal with such circumstances. Amin. |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 2:51pm
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your replies� It is most interesting that you spend the bulk of your reply admitting that you comprehend little to nothing regarding the classic Arabic (to which you are entrusting your eternal soul towards)�and then you repeatedly put forth several of the popular English translations in order to �normalize� and �compensate� for any errors that might still be in these same popular English translations. Even your �googled� links only show the Arabic script next to a Yusuf Ali translation � with absolutely zero information or references as to the reasoning behind his exegesis (as if he even performed one in the first place). Your other link goes one small step further by showing the Arabic script with a predetermined English rendering below it�not referenced to anything (surprise)�and to top it off, it does not match the English text to which it is summed. So�.please inform us regarding the popular English translation emanating from Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir�please show us the source references and Exegetical tafsirs that they used in the compilation of their opus� Good luck� �First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you.� And you responded as, �Please show us the Arabic of this ayah�.so that we can see who has the best comprehension of its content�.thanks� This reply of yours indicates your hesitation or avoidance to reply. Again�YOU are the one claiming a �distortion� of the rendering� Where is the �distortion��?
Sure, my brother, my book of faith denounces all forms of worship to anyone except to Allah and Allah alone, what to talk about just any form of �Trinity�. On the more I have provided you the evidence from chapter 112. Again�.demonstrate to us just how sura 112 is different than that of what is stated in the Holy Bible� Specific to this part of your comments, suffice is to say that without evidence, your translation is meaningless, though I have also provided the actual Arabic script at the end of this reply. Specifically, and without your typical generalizations, what �evidence� do you require�? Alright my brother, let see what this {�wa� and his word} and {�wa� and a spirit} could mean as regard to Prophet Isa. Clearly these both are not a unique attributes that are given to him. For example, in the creation of the world, Allah simply say a word �Be� and that is it, whole world got created from this �word�. Interesting��the whole world got created from this �word��.we thought that �allah� was an absolute one�.and yet we are informed that he consists of a Word�.! Same as we are told in the Holy Bible. However�.how is it used in 4.171�.? Same is the case with �a spirit�. The world got created from his spirit�? Again�we thought that �allah� was an absolute one�.and yet we are informed that he consists of a Spirit�.! For example, I do have �a spirit� like any other living thing on this earth. Don�t you also have �a spirit�? So, what is unique about this part of the scripture that you are trying to emphasis upon? Amazing� You don�t even realize what you have just admitted to� Your �one allah�, is composed of a Spirit and a Word. So much for his absolute �oneness��.!
See at the end of this response for word-to-word translation of this verse. What a cop-out� Show us the Lexical definition for the word �yakoona��.a definition that shows ALL the possible definitions�.
Good answer, my brother! Thanks for your trust in Quran. So it is basically Quran that makes it Holy for you? Hmm! Thanks again for your respect. I am surely indebted as indeed Quran affirms the scriptures sent by Allah prior to it. The Koran is a no more than a second-hand Arabic translation of Biblical Hebrew and Arabic�as such, we would predict that it will tell us basically the same information like that of the Holy Bible:
And�it does�.
I have not used my �popular� English translation but purely from your own translation. Please explain to us how Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, and Shakir are �purely� your own translation�? Hence your point is totally invalid. Secondly, statements like �it is authors (plural)� are merely assertions without evidence which I can�t expect from my brother like you. Since there are no original 1400 year old Korans in existence�.what evidence do you have to go on�.? Islamic Tradition�? Thirdly, you are unable to defend even single verse to suit your purpose as what to talk of �amply describes�. Which ayah is bothering you�?
Again, your response reflects your narrow beam of thought. Instead of refuting or presenting any evidence to your point you merely questioned it based upon your own assumptions. So, here is the passage from your own Bible with your own (Popular Christian) translation; from Matthew 26 (New American Standard Bible): �The 36Then Jesus came with them to a place called 37And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. 38Then He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me." 39And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." 40And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? 41" Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done." 43Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. 45Then He came to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46"Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!" � So, my friend not only once but thrice it is mentioned clearly without ambiguity that Jesus prayed to God. All this from your own accepted (I assume, if not then let us know your preferred translation of this passage) version and translation of Bible. Thanks for saving us the footwork� Why do you think that Jesus prayed THREE times to the ONE God�.?!
So, you mean Allah is separate from �Holy Spirit�. Hmm!! Hence you contradicted your own assumption. No. The �allah� of the Koran consists of a spirit. How can �allah� be absolutely one and still consist of a spirit�?! Now over here, let us see what is your logic and see if it is really logical to conclude as what you have presented. According to you, since word �trinity� doesn�t appear both in Quran and Bible, hence one can�t use either Quran or Bible to denounce this concept from the scriptures. Is this what you mean? If yes, then others on this forum would well judge your logic as for me this is totally illogical. If the concept itself is foreign to the Bible, how it can be used to explain the Bible in the first place? The word trinity is an epithet used to describe the way in which the Creator God of the Holy Bible has chosen to reveal Himself:
The word is not found in either the Holy Bible nor the Koran. However, the concept is indeed found in both the holy Bible and the Koran. For Muslims to use a popular English translation that use the word �trinity� are incorrect, as the word was never in the classic Arabic. However�the Koran does inform us (in sura 5) not to call �allah� Three. These three being Jesus, Mary, and �allah�... In 4.171�the authors of the Koran also list-off that �allah� consists of Word, and Spirit, in addition to himself�.and yet still do not call �allah� Three� The reason being that that the �allah� of the Koran has each of the triune entities equivalent to himself. Sound familiar�? Secondly, Quran denounces the concept of �Trinity� by alluding to it as �three� since the word itself is foreign to the Bible. So, how would someone expect specific word �Trinity� to be described in the Quran, if its not even mentioned in the Bible itself. Your questioning is flawed with logic. Excellent�! Thanks for admitting that the word �trinity� does not appear in your book of faith. Now�you need to acknowledge that while the word is not there�the concept still is� So far so good with Quran, lets apply the same tests to your �Holy� Bible and see if it comes up with this merit. First of all, almost all Christian scholars, unanimously agree that the original teachings of Jesus have been lost. Hence, all they have now is �at most� first translation from the original. This necessarily implies that the knowledge about these translational errors is lost forever. All we read from NT is then based upon suspicion of these irrecoverable errors. It would be nice to see your point of view in this regard. Islam 101 again� Let us once again put forth the challenge for you to pick ANY portion of your Koran that you feel is completely devoid of Jewish and Christian influence. By taking this challenge, you will see for yourself just how reliable the Biblical source material was for the authors who penned it � Thnaks� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 3:16pm
|
I think you have totally forgotten about you duty of providing the reference or source of your translation. Kindly do that so that one may proceed with your replies. Without this, rest assure, your replies, as someone has mentioned already, are nothing but "gibberish". Secondly, once again, go back and verify that if I ever used any other translation to prove my point. My sole source in those responses comes from nowhere but from your own provided translation. Hence you can't hide under the rhetorics of "popular" english translation. Regards |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 4:19pm
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� I think you have totally forgotten about you duty of providing the reference or source of your translation. Kindly do that so that one may proceed with your replies. Without this, rest assure, your replies, as someone has mentioned already, are nothing but "gibberish". I appreciate your concern for looking for a way out of this discourse by asserting ultimatums�however�I would at least hope that you would arrive at your own informed conclusions rather than riding the tailcoats of others opinions� Furthermore�please tell us the specific Arabic words that you want exegeted�if you can�.that is� Secondly, once again, go back and verify that if I ever used any other translation to prove my point. My sole source in those responses comes from nowhere but from your own provided translation. Hence you can't hide under the rhetorics of "popular" english translation. No problem�. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238&PN=1&TPN=9 - Your posts and links are riddled with the usage of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir�.have you already forgotten�? Please put forth some effort into your replies next time� Thanks� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 5:08pm
|
Since, my dear brother, your failure to provide reference to your translation of the verse 4:171 is clearly evident now. So, as far as I am concerned, your translation is lacking its authenticity and hence can't be used as valid way of translating Quran. So, if you are proposing any thing new, then don't waste our time here as we are not the linguistic scholars to evaluate and judge it here nor this forum is appropriate for this kind of job. Kindly refer your invention to appropriate journal for authenticating and only then referencing it to public. Your hypothesis "Your posts and links are riddled with the usage of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir" is totally wrong as I have shown it, repeatedly, from your own translation. Here is my initial post " My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". " So, my dear, one can't close the eyes to avoid the cat as truth can't be hidden. Now coming to another wonderful reference from another source discussing the same verse which supports the normative translations: Surah An-Nisaa 171
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَا 76;ِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُم 18; وَلَا تَقُولُو 75; عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِي 81;ُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَ 78;ُهُ أَلْقَاه 14;ا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ فَآمِنُو 75; بِاللَّه 16; وَرُسُلِ 07;ِ وَلَا تَقُولُو 75; ثَلَاثَة 12; انْتَهُو 75; خَيْرًا لَكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَان 14;هُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَا 08;َاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْض 16; وَكَفَى بِاللَّه 16; وَكِيلًا (171) O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of All�h aught but the truth. The Messiah ��s�, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of All�h and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit (R�h) http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - {1} created by Him; so believe in All�h and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For All�h is (the only) One Il�h (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And All�h is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - {2} {1} (V.4: 171) R�h-ull�h: According to the early religious scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and their students and the Mujtahid�n, there is a rule to distinguish between the two nouns in the genitive construction: a) When one of the two nouns is All�h, and the other is a person or a thing, e.g. All�h�s House (Bait-ull�h); All�h�s Messenger (Rasul-ull�h): All�h�s slave (�Abdull�h): All�h�s spirit (R�h-ull�h), the rule for the above words is that the second noun, e.g., house, messenger, slave, spirit is created by All�h and is honorable in His Sight, and similarly, All�h�s spirit may be understood as the spirit of All�h, in fact it is a soul created by All�h, i.e. ��s�. And it was His Word: "Be!" -and he was. (i.e. ��s� was created like Adam). b) But when one of the two is All�h and the second is neither a person nor a thing, then it is not a created thing but is a quality of All�h e.g. All�h�s Knowledge (�Ilm-ull�h); All�h�s Life (Hay�t-ull�h); All�h�s Statement (Kal�m-ull�h); All�h�s Self (Dhat-ull�h). Source http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm - http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm for complete discussion on the word "word" mentioned in this verse and elsewhere in Quran. I hope this shall be sufficient for now. |
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 5:49pm
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your �googled� reply� Since, my dear brother, your failure to provide reference to your translation of the verse 4:171 is clearly evident now. So, as far as I am concerned, your translation is lacking its authenticity and hence can't be used as valid way of translating Quran. Setting aside your opinion�where are your references to thwart my position�? So, if you are proposing any thing new, then don't waste our time here as we are not the linguistic scholars to evaluate and judge it here nor this forum is appropriate for this kind of job. Kindly refer your invention to appropriate journal for authenticating and only then referencing it to public. So�yet another admission that you don�t comprehend the mother tongue that you are entrusting your eternal soul towards� Your hypothesis "Your posts and links are riddled with the usage of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir" is totally wrong as I have shown it, repeatedly, from your own translation. Here is my initial post " My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". " So, my dear, one can't close the eyes to avoid the cat as truth can't be hidden. Interesting how you just took your post out of context�.just before your �popular� English translations appeared. Not to worry, here is the link again for others to verify for themselves� http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238&PN=1&TPN=9 - Now coming to another wonderful reference from another source discussing the same verse which supports the normative translations: Interesting�.you have moved onto yet �another� �googled� source�as your first �googled� ones obviously did not pan-out� http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238&PN=1&TPN=9 - Surah An-Nisaa 171
��� ������ �������� 76;� ��� �������� ��� �������� 18; ����� �������� 75; ����� ������� ������ �������� �������� �������� 81;� ������ ����� �������� ������� ������� �������� 78;��� �������� 14;� ����� �������� ������� ������ �������� 75; �������� 16; �������� 07;� ����� �������� 75; �������� 12; �������� 75; ������� ������ �������� ������� ������ ������� �������� 14;�� ���� ������� ���� ������ ���� ��� ��� �������� 08;���� ����� ��� �������� 16; ������� �������� 16; �������� (171) O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of All�h aught but the truth. The Messiah ��s�, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of All�h and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit (R�h) http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - Il�h (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And All�h is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - {1} (V.4: 171) R�h-ull�h: According to the early religious scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet ��� ���� ���� ���� and their students and the Mujtahid�n, there is a rule to distinguish between the two nouns in the genitive construction: a) When one of the two nouns is All�h, and the other is a person or a thing, e.g. All�h�s House (Bait-ull�h); All�h�s Messenger (Rasul-ull�h): All�h�s slave (�Abdull�h): All�h�s spirit (R�h-ull�h), the rule for the above words is that the second noun, e.g., house, messenger, slave, spirit is created by All�h and is honorable in His Sight, and similarly, All�h�s spirit may be understood as the spirit of All�h, in fact it is a soul created by All�h, i.e. ��s�. And it was His Word: "Be!" -and he was. (i.e. ��s� was created like Adam). b) But when one of the two is All�h and the second is neither a person nor a thing, then it is not a created thing but is a quality of All�h e.g. All�h�s Knowledge (�Ilm-ull�h); All�h�s Life (Hay�t-ull�h); All�h�s Statement (Kal�m-ull�h); All�h�s Self (Dhat-ull�h). Source http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm - http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm for complete discussion on the word "word" mentioned in this verse and elsewhere in Quran. I hope this shall be sufficient for now. You have just referenced sbwus� website�.lol�..! I have to ask: did you actually read the articles on his site before using them as a reference? I doubt it� Please�.put some effort into your replies�. Thanks� |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 8:08pm
|
Why would like to set aside my questions? Where is your reference authenticating your translation? Without providing such a reference, how would you support your translation to be better than the normatives. On the more, not to let you go away, I have also provided you the word-to-word translation of the same verse. How can you ask me the reference without you providing the same, though I do have it as obviously its not my own work. But for you, you have no footing to hold on. On the more, this is just a one aspect to bluntly refute your assumptions, there are yet more to come, for which you would not find any refuge.
So, if you are proposing any thing new, then don't waste our time here as we are not the linguistic scholars to evaluate and judge it here nor this forum is appropriate for this kind of job. Kindly refer your invention to appropriate journal for authenticating and only then referencing it to public. So�yet another admission that you don�t comprehend the mother tongue that you are entrusting your eternal soul towards�
My dear brother, there is nothing that I have to hide it from anyone. However, is this really hard on you to provide your authentication of your translation?
Your hypothesis "Your posts and links are riddled with the usage of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir" is totally wrong as I have shown it, repeatedly, from your own translation. Here is my initial post " My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". " So, my dear, one can't close the eyes to avoid the cat as truth can't be hidden. Interesting how you just took your post out of context�.just before your �popular� English translations appeared. Ah, my dear brother, I had not yet gone into chapter 112 before I explained away through your own translation. Later on mentioning of chapter 112 was to hammer it down right on it and yet you didn't provide your own translation of chapter 112 to logical refute it. This all sums up a big heap of pile awaiting your due responses, though you also have deliberately decided not to comment upon the my biblical comparision with Quran. Was that too tough on you? Never mind! Perhaps, you may never bring this topic again in the discussion.
Now coming to another wonderful reference from another source discussing the same verse which supports the normative translations: Interesting�.you have moved onto yet �another� �googled� source�as your first �googled� ones obviously did not pan-out� Well first of all, is this "googled" kind of action not accepted by you? Kindly do let me know what alternate do you have for your search other than internet search engines like these. This is second time that I have noticed your trying to redicule it through. On the more, brother, do you think, there are only these sources that can refute your translation? Certainly not. There are tens of other references that clearly negate your translation. Hence, absence of your authentication has proven to be major impediment in your argument which clearly mask any of your assertions. Isn't it?
��� ������ �������� 76;� ��� �������� ��� �������� 18; ����� �������� 75; ����� ������� ������ �������� �������� �������� 81;� ������ ����� �������� ������� ������� �������� 78;��� �������� 14;� ����� �������� ������� ������ �������� 75; �������� 16; �������� 07;� ����� �������� 75; �������� 12; �������� 75; ������� ������ �������� ������� ������ ������� �������� 14;�� ���� ������� ���� ������ ���� ��� ��� �������� 08;���� ����� ��� �������� 16; ������� �������� 16; �������� (171) What is this? From where you got it? This is not what I pasted? Hope you would not alter my posts while quoting it?
O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of All�h aught but the truth. The Messiah ��s�, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of All�h and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit (R�h) http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - Il�h (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And All�h is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/My%20Documents/Program%20FilesHarfHoly%20QuranDATAHQTemp%22%20l%20 - {1} (V.4: 171) R�h-ull�h: According to the early religious scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet ��� ���� ���� ���� and their students and the Mujtahid�n, there is a rule to distinguish between the two nouns in the genitive construction: a) When one of the two nouns is All�h, and the other is a person or a thing, e.g. All�h�s House (Bait-ull�h); All�h�s Messenger (Rasul-ull�h): All�h�s slave (�Abdull�h): All�h�s spirit (R�h-ull�h), the rule for the above words is that the second noun, e.g., house, messenger, slave, spirit is created by All�h and is honorable in His Sight, and similarly, All�h�s spirit may be understood as the spirit of All�h, in fact it is a soul created by All�h, i.e. ��s�. And it was His Word: "Be!" -and he was. (i.e. ��s� was created like Adam). b) But when one of the two is All�h and the second is neither a person nor a thing, then it is not a created thing but is a quality of All�h e.g. All�h�s Knowledge (�Ilm-ull�h); All�h�s Life (Hay�t-ull�h); All�h�s Statement (Kal�m-ull�h); All�h�s Self (Dhat-ull�h). Source http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm - http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm for complete discussion on the word "word" mentioned in this verse and elsewhere in Quran. I hope this shall be sufficient for now. You have just referenced sbwus� website�.lol�..! I have to ask: did you actually read the articles on his site before using them as a reference? I doubt it� Please�.put some effort into your replies�.
What a typical reply that can I expect from you? Laughing it away!! Keep laughing my brother, keep laughing it way. But keep this in mind that your inner concious would not be able to swallow it up so easily (if its still alive?). 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan and shall see what have you presented in your translation and what have been omitted. So if we compare this with your translation it becomes obvious that your translation is full of intentional/unintentional mistakes. For concentrating on major mistakes and neglecting numerous mistakes of ifs and buts, here is the full comparison with your translation. 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa �wa� and do not say on Allah except the truth, innama almaseehu Aaeesa but the Messiah, Jesus, ibnu maryama Mary's son rasoolu Allahi Allah's messenger Wakalimatuhu �wa� and His Word alqaha ila maryama He threw it away to Mary, waroohun minhu �wa� a Soul/Spirit from Him; faaminoo biAllahi �fa� so believe with Allah, warusulihi �wa� and His messengers, wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum �wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, innama Allahu ilahun wahidun but Allah (is) one Allah, subhanahu MISSING an yakoona lahu waladun �yakoona� verily he shall be a child for Him lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi what (is) in the skies/space (Missing the translation of wama fee) wakafa biAllahi wakeelan �wa� and what (is) in the earth/Planet Earth (extrapolation without the original Arabic) , enough/sufficient with Allah (as a) guardian/protector.
The presence of such mistakes, both additions and omissions, that too, within the paragraph of few lines, I don't know what can be said about your intentions, if not deception? Instead of comparing it with the standard word to word translation provided as a source of normative translation, you simply buffed it away and rather relied on asking for the reference, though they are duly available on the links from the main webpage of the referenced site. A simple matter of few clicks away, only if someone is interested in the truth, probably you are not the one in those. Ofcourse now your only tool to negate such falsification of the translation is through making such acts as "minor". But are they really "minor", though I have already taken away such "minor" errors such as word "only" translated as "but" etc, simply not to let you take the straw of "minor" errors. People on the forum shall judge themselves as how you changed the last but one sentence by omitting the translation of word of exclamation "Subahana" and wrote a simple sentence without it to appear to suit your deception. My dear is this the way you want to make people believe in you. I don't think so. Hence you have proved yourself as totally unworthy and unreliable. May Allah help all of us in recognizing and thus avoiding the temptations and deception of satan. Amin
|
Posted By: Apple Pie
Date Posted: 24 July 2005 at 8:46pm
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� What a typical reply that can I expect from you? Laughing it away!! Keep laughing my brother, keep laughing it way. But keep this in mind that your inner concious would not be able to swallow it up so easily (if its still alive?). Apparently�you are unaware of whom sbwus is� Remind me to tell you someday�. Now coming to your translation, here is the tranliteration of actual arabic text 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan and shall see what have you presented in your translation and what have been omitted. So if we compare this with your translation it becomes obvious that your translation is full of intentional/unintentional mistakes. For concentrating on major mistakes and neglecting numerous mistakes of ifs and buts, here is the full comparison with your translation. Finally� At least you are attempting the Latin transliteration� subhanahu MISSING If it is missing�then you should be able to tell us what is should be from your �googled� source�.right..? lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi what (is) in the skies/space (Missing the translation of wama fee) Again, if it is missing�then you should be able to tell us what is should be from your �googled� source�.right..? The presence of such mistakes, both additions and omissions, that too, within the paragraph of few lines, I don't know what can be said about your intentions, if not deception? Instead of comparing it with the standard word to word translation provided as a source of normative translation, you simply buffed it away and rather relied on asking for the reference, though they are duly available on the links from the main webpage of the referenced site. A simple matter of few clicks away, only if someone is interested in the truth, probably you are not the one in those. Ofcourse now your only tool to negate such falsification of the translation is through making such acts as "minor". But are they really "minor", though I have already taken away such "minor" errors such as word "only" translated as "but" etc, simply not to let you take the straw of "minor" errors. People on the forum shall judge themselves as how you changed the last but one sentence by omitting the translation of word of exclamation "Subahana" and wrote a simple sentence without it to appear to suit your deception. My dear is this the way you want to make people believe in you. I don't think so. Hence you have proved yourself as totally unworthy and unreliable. May Allah help all of us in recognizing and thus avoiding the temptations and deception of satan. Amin Should we laugh now�.or later�.? The most amazing part of your �exegesis��is that you in no way, shape, or form, even once negated my position�.! In fact, you confirmed it! You cannot even �clarify� the so-called �errors� that you supposedly found. Try again. |