|
Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 5> |
| Author | ||||
honeto 
Senior Member 
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Holy Qur'an and Jesus' TrinityPosted: 29 March 2011 at 3:48pm |
|||
|
Jack,
in a conversation between you and Mansoor you wrote the following:
"
(Mansoor writes) "Common sense dictates that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God.
(Jack writes response) By posting the above, aren't you agreeing with Egwpisteuw when he posted the comment: "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately sperate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork?" You are serious I imagine supporting the fork example, I hope you re not.
I do not know where a fork fits or a spoon in an example, but someone has to hold and use that fork? by itself a fork is of no use. God on the other hand is not like a fork, of no use unless someone use it? I don't think so. So I would suggest to come up with a bit more comparable example. And Mansoor has said somthing that is very clear that there is a big differance between the one who gives and the one who is given. They are not the same. God is the only one that gives, and that is what the point is. Jesus (pbuh) was given, life and whatever he had, including the power to heal, or to give life to birds of clay, by the power of God. This he acknoweldged, which is a proof for those who needed it. Even though for those of us God fearing believers who will never equate anyone equal to God could not imagine such a blasphamy to creep into our minds or hearts, it was made clear to all that whatever powers he is given, note given, is given by God. The God is the only "Giver". What Chrsitians take as "holy ghost" is not God, in fact it is angel(s) under God's command. And as we know it is also given (whatever), given by God as clearly mentioned.
And that solves the mystry for Christians, if they make that clear and truthful distinction between the only Giver, Jusus and holy ghost on the recieving end make sense and solves that puzzle and mystry that they refer to as a "Mystry of Faith".
Hasan Edited by honeto - 29 March 2011 at 3:56pm |
||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Mansoor_ali
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 March 2011 at 5:22am |
|||
"...You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.� John 10:31-33 You remind me one of the articles written by Brother Sami. Brother Sami: The Jewish Accusations One common argument that Christians raise is that certain Jews accused him of committing blasphemy, making himself equal to God, and claiming to be God, and for this they wanted to stone him. As a result of this Christians therefore claim that since the Jews accused him of making such statements, then Jesus must have made these claims. Indeed such logic is very faulty and shows the sheer desperation of some Christians, for instance would a judge hold a defendant guilty simply based on someone else's accusation? Of course not! Just because someone accuses you of something does not mean the accusation is true, this is common sense, yet Christians want us to throw out or common sense and simply accept the Jewish accusation. What makes this more interesting is that Christians are very inconsistent, yes, some Jews accused him of blasphemy, but the Jews have accused Jesus of much worst, and we can find these accusations within the Talmud, for instance we read: R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a ****** of an adulteress." MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b) R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ?Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.' But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a) So notice, certain Jews also accused Jesus of being a ****** child, the son of Mary who committed adultery, and on top of that they claim that Jesus practiced magic! Why do Christians not accept these accusations? If Christians want to be consistent then they should also accept this filthy accusations about Jesus, but off course they wont, because Christians lack consistency and an honest method of argumentation, they will only pick and choose which Jewish accusations suit them. So with that said let us now quote the Jewish accusations against Jesus, the ones the Christians like to use, and the ones the Christians like to agree with, and they are as follows: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:29-33) So does this Jewish accusation hold any weight? Well as in any other case, whenever a witness makes a claim, the first thing you do is check if the witness is even competent enough to be trusted. So are these certain Jews even to be trusted in the first place? Well, let us let Jesus answer that question: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44) So Jesus calls his accusers LIARS, and the son of the devil, who is the father of liars! What else does Jesus say about his accusers: He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:6-9) So according to Jesus his accusers are hypocrites, they do not follow their Torah, rather they throw it away, and use their own man made traditions. So it is quite clear that these accusers are not competent enough to be trusted, nor is their speech to be taken as evidence, let us summarize what we know about these accusers so far:-They are Liars -They are hypocrites -They are the sons of the devil -They are murderers -They do not follow God's commands, rather they throw it away -They follow their own man made traditions in the place of God's commands Wow! And these are the people whom the Christians want us to believe?! I don't think so. Now having said all of this, why don't we go to what the BELIEVERS said about Jesus? The People who actually believed in Jesus, and were not against him, why don't go to what they said? I advise all readers to go and read the following links, which shows what the BELIEVERS were saying about Jesus: http://muslim-responses.com/Son_of_God_and_Messiah/Son_of_God_and_Messiah_ http://muslim-responses.com/Just_a_Prophet/Just_a_Prophet_ http://muslim-responses.com/Was_Jesus_God_according_to_Mary/Was_Jesus_God_according_to_Mary_Now with all of that said, why don't we look at what Jesus said in response to the accusations? You have to feel sorry for Jesus, these Christians who claim to love him do not even allow the man to speak and defend himself! They just listen to the accusations of liars, and then simply conclude the accusations are true, and send this innocent man Jesus to hang on the tree! Thank God that these Christians are not judges in real courts, or we would all be doomed, they would not even bother to hear you case, and listen to your defence! So let us see Jesus' defence, what he said in response to the accusations, and this is his defence: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:32-36) So this is Jesus' defence, as you can notice Jesus does not accept their accusation, rather he rejects their accusation, notice what he says: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? So Jesus rejects their accusation, rather he tells them I CALL MYSELF THE SON OF GOD, and as anyone knows, the term son of God does not make you God, rather it made you a servant of God. If you also notice, Jesus uses some irony with them, he tells these Jews that they are called gods, yet I call myself the son of God and you claim I am blaspheming and making myself God?! So this is what we have here: Pharisee: You Jesus made blasphemy! Jesus: Why? Pharisee: You make yourself to be God Jesus: I call myself the Son of God, yet you are called gods. Pharisee: stoneeeeeee him! This is not the only place where Jesus defends himself, there was another time where Jesus was forced to defend himself, and his defence was the following: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:40) Here Jesus defends himself again, and notice what he says, you want to kill me, A MAN who has told you the truth, the truth I HAVE HEARD FROM GOD! So Jesus does two things, he tells them that he is a man, and he makes sure to distinguish and separate himself from God! More interestingly the word for man that is used here is ANTHROPOS in the Greek, this specific word is used to distinguish man from God, basically when someone is called ANTHROPHOS, it is meant to separate him from the divine, and to let everyone know that this person is neither divine, nor is he God! So the word that Jesus uses is a specific word that is specifically meant to allow the people to know that Jesus is not divine, rather he is separate from the divine, and separate from God! So far we have seen that the accusers are not competent witnesses, and we have also seen that Jesus REJECTED their accusations. So let us now see the real reason as to why these certain Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, was it really for blasphemy, or was it for other reasons? Well let us let Jesus speak for himself: The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. (John 7:7) So Jesus gives the reasons as to why the people hate him, and as you can notice, it is not because he claims to be God, rather it is because he exposes their evils! If anyone has read the four Gospels, then one will see that Jesus time and time again exposed the Pharisees. Jesus exposed the Pharisees for their corruption, hypocrisy, and by doing so he essentially became a major threat against them. The Pharisees had money, power, and were in control of their people, yet Jesus' preaching was a major threat to them, and had the potential to destroy them, hence they had to get rid of Jesus. Now what better way to get of Jesus? Well, you accuse the man of false crimes, and for the Jews blasphemy was one of the worst crimes, it was even much much worst for a man to claim he was God, and then double that with accusing this man of being a false Messiah! In fact if we read the book of Acts, we will see that the Pharisees precisely did this! We read: Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. (Acts 6:11-14) As you can see, these certain Jews started stirring up the people against the apostles, making false accusations against the apostles that they were preaching that Jesus would destroy their place, and change the laws of Moses. Notice how these Jews also brought FALSE WITNESSES who basically made things up! So essentially these Jews did the same thing with Jesus, they set up false lies against him, they did so because he was a major threat to him, and they had to get rid of this threat, and the only way to get rid of this threat was by producing false claims against the man, thankfully Allah saved Jesus from their plans and saved him from the cross! So to summarize what we have: -Certain Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, making himself God -These Jews are not even competent to be trusted -Jesus rejected their accusations -Jesus said that the reason why they hated him was because he exposed their evils, not because he claimed to be God -Jesus was a threat against the Pharisees, hence they began to create lies against Jesus, so they could use these lies as an excuse to murder him -We have evidence that these Jews did create lies, and falsehoods against apostles of Jesus. So in conclusion the Jewish accusations mean nothing, rather the Jewish accusations serve as arguments against the divinity of Jesus as he rejected their claims, so I advise Christians to get better arguments. And Allah Knows Best! |
||||
|
||||
|
IssaEl999
Guest Group 
Joined: 10 March 2011 Status: Offline Points: 336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 March 2011 at 2:20pm |
|||
You Know People Like Yourself Are So Funny , If You Took Half The Time To Really Research / Study The Language And It's History And Not His -Story You'll Be Better Off . Trying To Compare Me To Anyone Here Is A Very Big Mistake . Now I Want To Go Get Your By -Bill And Read / Compare What's Written Below . And Try Again And Clean Up That Stillyness You Post Above . Ok Also Take It To You Teacher , Minister , Pastors , Socalled Religious Scholar / So-called Theologian And Ask Them To Explain What Written Below If You Dare Ok .
It Is A Scientific Fact That Archeologists Have Found Tablets Dated Thousands Of Years Before Your Actual Adam < Aramic > , A Name Merely Meaning Of The '' Dark Browish Red Ground '' And Eve ( Hawwah ) < Aramic > Which Means '' Life Or Living '' The Earliest Known Documents In Cuneiform Were Recorded In Sumerian . The Language Of The Inhabitants Of Southern Mesopotamia And Chaldea . These Documents Were Tablets Known As ; The Atra - Hasis , The Enuma Elish , And The Gilgames Epics . Tablets Of The Descent Of Ishtar To The Underworld , Tablets Of Nergal And Arishkegal , Tablets Of Adapa , Tablets Of Etana , The Akkadian Tablets And Many More , Cuneiform Was Used As Script As Well A Spoken Language By The Eloheem , And Later From This Language Came The Language Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) And Aramic / Phoenician ( Hebrew ) .
The Enuma Elish '' Means '' When On High , '' The Enuma Elish , Which Is The Babylonian Story Of Creation , Is Named After The First Two Words Of The Narrative Of The Babylonian Book '' Enuchus . '' These Tablets Were Recorded Way Before Aramic / Phoenician ( Hebrew ) Or Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Even Existed . The Ashuric Language Spelled Asshur Stemmed From Asshu , A Son Of Shem Who Was The Son Of Noah , Just Like Aram ( Genesis 10 ; 21 - 23 ) . Aramic / Phoencian ( Hebrew ) Genesis 10 ; 22 , Asshuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Genesis 10 ; 22 , Asshur Son Of Shem And Faatin / Aram Son Of Shem And Fattin .
Aramic Comes From A Man Named Aram , The 5Th Son Of Shem As Mentioned In Genesis 10 ; 22 . Aramic ( Hebrew ) Was The Language Of The Aramaeans , The Descendants Of Aram .
Ancestral Lineage Of Aram ; Aram Son Of Genesis 10 ; 22 ... Shem Sons Of Genesis 5 ; 32 ... Noah Son Of Genesis 5 ; 32 .... Lamech Son Of Genesis 5 ; 28 - 29 .....Methusael Son Of Genesis 5 ; 25 ..... Enoch Son Of Genesis 5 ; 21 .... Jared Son Of Genesis 5 ; 18 ..... Mahalaleel Son Of Genesis 5 ; 15 ..... Kenan Son Of Genesis 5 ; 12 ..... Enosh Son Of Genesis 5 ; 9 ..... Seth Son Of Genesis 5 ; 6 ..... Adam Son Of Genesis 5 ; 3 .....
The Country Aram Settled In Was Then Called '' Aram , '' Number 23 ; 7 . The Fact . The Language Was Named After Aram Himself , Proves That He Was A Leader , A Chief , Or A Mighty Man In His Tribe . When A Dialect Evolved , It Usually Was Named After The Most Powerful , Or Outsanding Member Of The Tribe , Or Clan , In This Case It Was Aram . The Name Of The Country Of Aram Appears In The Hebrew Scriptures Psalm 60 ; 1 As Aramnaharaim Meaning '' Aram Of The Two Rivers , '' It Was Called This Because It Was Located Between The Tigris ( Idiglat ) And Euphrates ( Firattu ) Rivers . Where The Atumiy ( Watusies ) Lived . Aram Was Also Called Pdan , Or Paddan - Aram Genesis 28 ; 2 , Meaning '' The Plain ( Flatlands ) '' Of Aram In Genesis 25 ; 20 , And Comes From The Word Paddan < Aramic > Which Means '' A Plateau . '' In The Aramic ( Hebrew ) . It Appears In The Feminine Form As Padana Which Means '' A Plateau , '' All Of The Syrians Are Arameans , Meaning '' The People Are Called Aramaeans '' And They Are Also The Assyrian Nation, But Speaking A Different Dialect . Don't Confuse The Aramaeans , Or Syrians Of The Past With The People Who Reside In These Areas Called Iraq And Syria Today . The Aramic ( Hebrew ) Language Evoled Into Different Dialects And Is Labeled As Ancient , Official , Middle , Late , Eastern And Modern Aramic ( Hebrew ) . However , Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Was A Late Dialect Of Aramic ( Hebrew ) , Written In A Number Of Flowing Scripts .
You Might Ask . Is Aramic ( Hebrew ) And Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) The Same Language ? What Is Called The Aramic ( Hebrew ) Tongue Is Translated As The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Tongue ; And Because These Languages Were The Most Ancient , And They Sounded Similar , They Were Sometimes Thought To Be The Same Language . You Can See That The Languages Aramic ( Hebrew ) And Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Came From Accadian Also Spelled Akkadian , One Of The Languages Of Sumer Was Also A Form Of Cuneiform . In Aramic ( Hebrew ) Accad , In The Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) , Acaadi Comes From Genesis 10 ; 10 , The Accadian ( Akkadian ) Language , Written In Cuneiform , Was A Semitic Tongue Related To Hebrew , Arabic , And Aramic . The Oldest Accadian ( Akkadian ) Cuneiform Inscriptions Date From The Old Accadian Or Early Accadian Period During The Inscriptions Of The Great Ruler Sargon ( 2334 - 2279 B.C.E. Isaiah 20 ; 11 ) . Excerpts From The Bible Were Extracted From These Tablets Which Help To Prove That The Bible ( Wasn't Divinely Sent By Some All Powerful Loving Deity Who Lives Up In Heaven ) .
Also The Torah Couldn't Originally Have Been Recorded In Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) Or Aramic ( Hebrew ) If The First Time The Languages Were Mentioned Were In Genesis 10 ; 22 . The Gilgamesh Epic Pre-Date The Bible . The Gilgamesh Epic , Is Considered One Of The Greatest Stories Of The Accadian Language . Gilgamesh , Is Said To Be The Fifth King Of Uruk ( Around 2600 B.C.E. ) A City In Mesopotamia In Genesis 10 ; 10 As Erech ( Uruk ) . The Tablets Themselves Are Not Named ; Just The Story On The Tablets . Epic Means '' Stories Or Fables '' . Theologians Call These Writings '' The Gilgamesh Epic '' . Which Is Really The Muniyr Tablets Or Tablets Of Light . Also Known As The Illumination Tablets , Because It Focuses On A King Whose Name Was Gilgamesh ( Iz Dubar ) ; The Name Gilgamesh Is From Cuneiform Or Chaldean , The Great Rules Of The Two Rivers Tigris ( Idglat ) And Euphrates ( Furattau ) Who Was 2 / 3 Eloheem And 1 / 3 Human .
They Also Give More Accurate Accounts Of These Events Concerning The Creation , Thus , The Story On The Tablet Of Gilgamesh , Parallels With The Story Of Noah And The Food . Noah's Real Name Was Utnafishtim And He Was Also Called Ziu Sudra And Kumarbi . In Aramic ( Hebrew ) The Name No - Akh Means '' To Rest Down Upon ( Genesis 8 ; 4 ) Describing What The Ark Itself Did , And If You Read It In The Original Language , It Tells You That It Not Only Floated , But It Also Flew , Or Lifted Up Off Of The Water ; The Word Is Naw - Saw '' To Lift , Bear Up , Lift Up '' When It Landed , And Not The Person Noah , But A Craft , So How Could That Be His Name Before This Yahuwa ( Genesis 7 ; 9 ) Called Him At The Age Of 600 In Genesis 7 ; 6 To Build A Tay - Baw , '' Ark Or Craft , Or A Vessel '' , In Genesis 6 ; 14 , Another Epic Written In Cuneiform Script Is Called The Enuma Elish Which Is The Babylonian Creation Epic , The Story Has Similarities To The Biblical Story Of Creation
By The Way Trinity Is Fakeeeeeeee . |
||||
|
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .
|
||||
|
||||
|
Egwpisteuw
Groupie 
Joined: 05 November 2010 Status: Offline Points: 75 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 March 2011 at 8:13am |
|||
IssaEl999 you suffer from the same disease as many Muslims, you throw in "everything but the kitchen sink" in your posts. Please make you points briefly and succintly with the goal of clarification not obfuscation.
First, the Torah was revealed in Hebrew not Aramaic--closely related languages but different nonetheless.
Second in John 1:18, the word for seen in the Greek is ὁράω (horao) which can mean not only
1. to see with the eyes
but also
2. to see with the mind (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
That it is this second meaning that is in view in John 1:18 is clear from the use of the word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) in the second part of the verse. ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai) means to declare, unfold, explain, draw out, it was specifically used in Greek "of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc."
Thus John 1:18 means that No man has ever perceived, understood, or come to know God expect through the Only Begotten God, who is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, The Lord Jesus Christ. Thus John 14:9 makes perfect sense:
Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?
The word for seen here is also ὁράω (horao). Thus again one perceives, understands, comes to know the Father through the Son, Jesus Christ. Edited by Egwpisteuw - 26 March 2011 at 8:28am |
||||
|
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us |
||||
|
||||
|
IssaEl999
Guest Group
Joined: 10 March 2011 Status: Offline Points: 336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2011 at 8:21am |
|||
Egwpisteuw The More I Read Your Post I See You Know Nothing About Your Bible / Why You Make Up Thing , That Are Not In Your Bible , You Also Make Claim That ( No One Has Seen God At Any Time '' Yes '' )
Your Wromg Again , According To El's Holy Torah Second Scroll Of The Law To The Israelites Exodus Revealed In The Year 1512 B.C.E. In Aramic
 Chapter 33 ; 11 , And I Quote ; And A ( Yahuwa ) < Dawbar > '' Spoke '' To Moses < Fawbeem > '' Face '' To < Fawbeem > '' Face '' , As A < Eesh > '' Male '' Living Being < Dawbar > '' Speaks '' To His < Rayah > Friend . And He Returned Again To The Camp ; But His < Sharath > '' Servant '' Of The People Joshua , The Son Of Nun '' To Resprout '' , A Young Boy Did Not Depart The Midst Of The < Ohel > '' Tabernacle '' . Another Trick SOME Christian Use . John 14 ; 9 , And I Quote ; Jesus Said Unto Him , Have I Been So Long ( Time ) With You , And Yet Hast Thou Not Known Me , Philip ? He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen The Father ; And How Sayest Thou Then , Show Us The Father ?
The Above Verse Is Written In Red , And Some Christian Minister / Pastors / Teacher Etc Say It Mean The Blood Of Christ / Jesus Is Talking
This Is Another Trick To Make Christian Believe It Saying Something It Not . Meaning In The Above Post Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Is -Not Calling Himself God ) . Being Christians Are Not Allow To Question Their Christian Minister / Pastors / Teacher Etc Because Of Being Call The Devil / Satan Etc And Kick Out Of Their House Of Worship And Only Believe / Accept What They're Told , No Man's Body Can Contain God . Now If You Mean That He Has The Essence Of His Father In Him , Then All Men Are God's Sons And Daughters , Read Genesis 2 ; 7 When God Breathe Into Man The Breath Of Life ; '' And The Lord God Formed Man From The Dust Of The Ground , And Breathed Into His Nostrile The Breath Of Life ; And Man Became A Living Soul ,
However , Getting Back To The Point , Whether He Incarnated Or Came Himself , There Still Wouldn't Be Any Need For Him To Pray Or Ask For Assistance From Anyway If He Was God , The Creator . Can't You See That ? Not Only Would He Not Need To Pray , He Would Have No Desire To Eat Meat ( Luke 24 ; 41 ) , Beg That Death Passes Him ( Matthew 26 ; 39 ) . Feared And Run For His Life ( John 18 ; 3 ) Which Means That '' God '' Has To Run From His Creations . It Seems Like You Totally Ignored All Of These Scriptures And Found One That Sound Good To You , And Built A Whole Doctrine From It .
Another Quality That Yashu'a Didn't Not Possess According To Roman 13 ; 1 And 2Corinthian 1 ; 23 Is The Power To Assign The Souls The Positions In The Hereafter . According To The Author Of These 2 Books Which Was Paul , Only The Heavenly Father Possess Such Power . Exalting Yashu'a Beyond The Truth Is Shown To Be A Form Of Idolatry .
Once Again In Matthew 7 ; 21 , Yashu'a Tells People To Do The Will Of The Father Matthew 7 ; 21 And I Quote ; Not Every One That Saith Unto Me , Lord , Lord , Shall Enter Into The Kingdom Of Heaven , But He That Doeth The Will Of My Father Which Is Heaven .
In Both Luke 4 ; 8 And Matthew 4 ; 10 , We Come Across An Incident That Clearly Contradicts The Concept Of Yashu'a Claiming Absolute Divinity . According To These Two References , Matthew 27 ; 46 And Mark 15 ; 34 . Yashu'a Was Put On The Cross Left To Die . Then According To Those Who Believe The Crucifixion Story , At That Time Yashu'a Cried In A Loud Voice . Matthew 27 ; 46 , And I Quote ; And About The Ninth Hour Yashu'a Cried With A Loud Voice , Saying , Eli , Eli , Lama SabacthanI ? That Is To Say , My God . My God , Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me ?
Now Read Mark 15 ; 34 , And I Quote ; And At The Ninth Hour Yashu'a Cried With A Loud Voice , Saying Eloi , Eloi . Lama Sabachthani ? Which Is Being Interpreted . My God . My God , Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me ?
If Yashu'a Was God He Would Not Have To Say Any Of These Things In The First Place . How Could You Possibly Forsake Your Ownself ? If He Was God Or Eli As It Is Used In This Quote , He Would Not Need Consent From Anyone . Overstand . This Could Not Possibly Be The Words Of A Person Who Saw Himself As The Controller Of All Life And Death Because He Cried Out
'' My God '' ... It Simply Isn't Logical . Yashu'a Never Encouraged Anyone To Worship Him . Instead , He Taught Others To Worship His Father As I Have Just Shown You By Using The Scriptures .
Edited by IssaEl999 - 23 March 2011 at 8:25am |
||||
|
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .
|
||||
|
||||
|
IssaEl999
Guest Group
Joined: 10 March 2011 Status: Offline Points: 336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2011 at 4:31am |
|||
Jack Catholic , I Mean No Disrespect Here And A Few Here Says My Post Are Long
. First And For Most It Was The Catholic Church , Were The Ones Who Created / Inserted The Trinity In The First Place Overstand . No One Here Is Side Steping Anything Here , What You Doing Is Adding / Making Up Thing , Suggeating The Verses Your Useing Is Saying This Or That , When It Doesn't . Here The Trick SOME Of The Christian Play . If you ask any Christian who are these Verse pertaining to they would Answer ( WithOut A Doubt In Their Minds ) . that these Verse are Speaking of The Messiah Yashua , Also Take A LQQk At The Many Titles Which Are Attributed To Him . < Biblical Names Attributed To The Messiah Yashua >
The seed of woman < Genesis 3 ; 15 > The caption of Savation < Job 5 ; 13 - 14 > Wonderful < Isaiah 9 ; 6 ; Judge 13 ; 8 > I am that I am < Ex odus 3 ; 14 > The mighty God < Isaiah 9 ; 6 > Emmanuel < Isaiah 7; 14 > The Rose of Sharon lilly of the valley < Song of Solomon 2 ; 1 > Theprince of pace < Isaiah 9- 6 > The Mediator < 1Timothy 2 ; 5 > The helper < Hebrew 13 ; 6> The Rewarder of Faith < Hebrew11 ; 6 > The Branch < Zachariah 6 ; 12 > A Man of sorrows < Isaiah 53 ; 3 > The Bringer of Good Tidings < Isaiah 41 ; 27 > The Chief Cornerstone < Isaiah 28 ; 16 > The Redeemer < Job 19 ; 25 > This is only a small list of the different names that are Attributed to The Messiah Yashua Without Even His Name Being Mentioned . I Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE . HowEver , You Have Christian Will Undoubtedly Tell You That These Verse Are In Fact Speaking About The Messiah Yashua I Again Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE ..
According To The Book Of Revelation It Speaks Against These Thing . Check It Out Ok
Al Injil ( The Evangel , Revelation ) 22 Chapters Of The Prophet / Messiah Jesus 22 ; 18 - 19 [ Revealed 96 A.D. } , And I Quote ; For Surely I Bear Witness To All Who Hear The Words Of This Prophecy In This Scroll . If Anyone Adds Unto These Things , So Allah Will Add Unto Him The Plagues Of The Things Written In This Book , And If Anyone Takes Away From The Words Of The Scroll Of This Prophecy , Allah Will Drop His Share From The Scroll Of Life And From The Holy City , And From What Is Written In This Scroll .
Now Back To The Point Here , Can You Expain What These Are Saying . John 14 ; 2 >> In My Father House Are Many Mansions .>>> Jesus Said In My Father's House , He [ Didsn't Say In My House ] Would It Have Made Sense To Say In My House [ If He Was God ? ]
Luke 2; 49 >> That I Must Be About My Father's Business '>> If Jesus Was God Why Did He Say I Must Be Of My Fathers Business , He Indicated . [ The Distinction Between Him And His Father .
Mark 15 ; 34 >> Jesus cried out with a loud voice My God , My God Why have thou Forsaken Me . <<< If Jesus was God who could he be praying to if he is the only God , and to cry is a human Weakness
Mathew 4; 1 >>Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil << If Jesus was God how could the devil Possibly be able to tempt him without him knowing >> And What Could The Devil Possibly Offer The Creator Of Everything .
Luke 14 ; 26 >> If anyman come to me , and hate not his Father And Mother And Wife And Chrildren And Brethren And Sister , Yea And His Own Life Also , He Cannot Be My Disciple . <<< If Jesus was God and he so loved the world why would you have to hate your family And even yourself , when it say in Leviticus 19 ; 1 That Hatred Is A Sin
Bottom Line Here This .
There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .
Like I Said Above The Catholic Church Created / Inserted The Trinity . I Have Been Explaing This In -Part In The Above Post's . I Say In Part Because A Few Here Say My Post Are To Long ,
But Everyone Here Know That Just Another Excues To Side Step It . Right Jack Catholic
|
||||
|
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 March 2011 at 6:40pm |
|||
|
Dear Mansoor_ali (and also IssaEl999), (Wonderful backup support, Egwpisteuw and AgnesDei!)
I asked if you weren't agreeing with Egwpisteuw when you posted the comment: "..the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs..." in that the prongs are definately separate, as you say, though the fork is but one fork? Rather than answer my question, you asked another, �Are you telling me that each separate prong is fork? We do not say that each specific prong of the fork is the fork! Your comment about not believing that each prong of the fork is the fork is more evidence of your belief being identical to the Catholic teachings. The fork is not a perfect representation of �trinity.� It is accurate only in that it clearly shows one fork having three prongs. One cannot say that each prong is a fork, though one can truly say that each of the three persons of the Holy Trinity are indeed fully God. Another analogy can be used to show what is lacking in the fork analogy, but it also has its flaws. One man can be three persons: a father, a son, and a grandfather all at the same time, each person having a different function, yet each being the same man. Another analogy with strengths where the fork and man analogy are week, but also having its own mix of weeknesses is that of water which when it is cold is solid ice, when warm is water, and when hot is steam. Water in all three forms appears and acts different as if not in any way the same material, yet atomically all three are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen � the same in substance. Doesn�t the Holy Qur�an say that nature reflects something of the truth of the God who created it? The verses in discussion here are the following: "In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."
In this passage, you assert that Here are some questions which you didn�t answer: Can you show where in John 10:28-30 that the passage states word for word, "My Father, who gave them to me is greater than all of us..."? To this question, you did not respond. This means that you cannot show that the verse does indeed clearly state that all includes Jesus with the word, �us.� You simply say that it does: �All includes everyone even Jesus." Since you can�t prove that the word �all� clearly includes Jesus, then it is clear that your inclusion of Jesus in the meaning of the word, �all,� is simply your own private addition to the meaning of the verses of scripture. Further proof of this is in your answer to my next question: Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups which is identified by the words "any man?" The fact here is that you did not answer this question. The reason is because you cannot answer it without admitting that the word �all� only refers to �all men� not including Jesus, as he is connected to the group that is one with God and not with the group that is identified by the words, �all men.� Grammar itself proves that your argument is based on your own private misunderstanding. Or is it a misunderstanding taught you by others who themselves do not understand the meaning of the Holy Bible? Another logical question I had asked... Why would Jesus say "all" to include himself if the context of the passage is in reference to men plucking out of his hand what he had himself gathered to put in it intending to keep? This third question I had asked you also failed to answer. Is it because in the answering, your position might appear to clearly be private inaccurate interpretation? In your response, you wrote, �Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father, so why do you quote it?Are you quoting it to try and show that Jesus is equal to the Father?� Then you answer the question yourself, �Well that isn�t true, since the Gospel of John shows the opposite. I�m going to stop quoting you here because when you say �...that isn�t true,...� because it is not necessary. You are absolutely correct. I am a Trinitarian, a Catholic. I have never been taught that Jesus IS the same person as the Father. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that the Father and the Son are separate persons, though simultaneously they are one and the same God. This is exactly the same as the prongs of the fork, three separate prongs, but only one fork. You see, we are back to the original example proposed by our Christian brother Egwpisteuw. You are trying to say we are wrong when actually you are agreeing with us.
1-The fact is the Bible shows that the Father is greater than Jesus in essence, the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not. Now here you have started with a correct statement, that the Father is greater than Jesus, but then you make an assertion that is totally your own private interpretation: �the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.� Where in John 10 do you find this assertion? I do not accept your private interpretation as truth.
3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus. After considering the truth of the Christian faith which you show above that you recognize, adding to it a few minor misunderstandings that you seem to have, you then drawn a mistaken conclusion: �So therefore in conclusion, John 10:30 proves nothing in support of the divinity of Jesus, it does not show equality, since Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than him, so therefore Jesus is not equal with the Father.� About Biblical Unitarians, I do not accept their teachings as valid. Biblical Unitarianism was invented by personal surmizings 1600+ years after the death of Jesus on the cross. Unitarians do not even believe in any need to use the Holy Bible in their versions of the truth about God, nor do they agree with one another about what the real truth is. So don�t bother to tell me any of their opinions which one or two of them might call a doctrine. I�m not interested in their religious musings or fabricated assertions. You also had said in another previous post in this thread, "If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form."
My response is simply this: If you are speaking of three seperate names, then it is poor grammer to write the word name in the singular. Sorry, but this assertion just does not make gramatical sense. It is a poor argument to use in formulating ones personal personal religious beliefs...
So what about the Holy Qur'an and evidence that it is truly speaking of the Holy Trinity as Catholics have understood it for over 2000 years since Jesus taught it to us? Can you show quotes that are from the Holy Qur'an and not some other Islamic volume?
Asalam Alaekum Edited by Jack Catholic - 22 March 2011 at 6:46pm |
||||
|
||||
|
Egwpisteuw
Groupie
Joined: 05 November 2010 Status: Offline Points: 75 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 March 2011 at 5:15am |
|||
Nonsense. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming here. Jesus is saying in John 14:9 exactly what John said in John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jesus is "the only begotten God" the member of the Trinity who explains the Father. This is what Jesus means in John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Edited by Egwpisteuw - 22 March 2011 at 5:15am |
||||
|
Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν
Christ died for us |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 5> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Mansoor_ali wrote: