/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

 

Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 

 

What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?

 

Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,

 

Jack Catholic

Jack Catholic wrote: /passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&version=NASB - Matthew 28:19 " Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"   Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God.    What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?   Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,   Jack Catholic

 Matthew 28:19"... baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This passage is a forgery.

 

�All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later� (Tom Harper, For Christ�s Sake, p. 84)

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats" (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143). http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/mat2819.html - ( - online Source)  

There is no indication that �Father, Son, and Holy Spirit� is one essence, Matthew is not speaking of trinity.

 

 Visit: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=77 - Matthew 28:19 by biblicalunitarian

I find great discrepancies between the 27 and 28 chapters of Matthew. For example in 28:⁸So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. ⁹Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him".

People would worship him only if he was God. And God would say so, right?

But when we go back to the 27th chapter we see that there was no such claim, rather a different claim, far different than 28:9.

Let us see:

27:¹¹Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
      "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

If you notice here only thing Jesus is claiming is to be the 'king of Jews'. Jews had many kings, I have never heard of Jews had many Gods?

 

Here is another verse: ^{37 "}Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." See nomention of God or anything like that.

⁴³He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "

 

So again, all of these verses from the 27 chapter give a complete opposite picture, when it comes to be worshipping Jesus in the 28 chapter.

Very interesting, something to ponder on Jack?

 

Hasan

 

Thanks for sharing this.  I have not heard any of it before.  I'll research it out myself.

 

Thanks again,

 

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic

 

I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons.  First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah).  To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law.  The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome.  That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure.  That was really all that Rome was concerned with.  Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death.  The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy.  But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned.  So is the topic of chapter 27.

 

In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them.  That is why they worshipped him.  There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.  Praise be to Allah,

 

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic 

I do see discrepancy when I see one verse shows that Jesus was worshipping and calling someone God. Then one verse says that Jesus was worshipped, which is only for God. And another verse mentions that Jesus is son of God, when God does not have children, no son or daughter, no mother and no father.

When you just examine that with logic only, and you know those three ideas come from the same book, it becomes very clear that they are certainly not in agreement with each other. At least that's how I see them.

Hasan

it might me that Catholics believed in triune God for two thousand years, but that does not mean that they are right. Hindus will win over you on that basis if you mean the length of time proves anything.

God as One is probably the oldest teachings dating back to the Old Testament times, time of Adam (pbuh) to be exact, so Unitarians are not the first one to say that God is one of one. Triune God idea in Catholicism as we know now was never known to any prophets of the Old Testament. And at some point it was a new idea, as you yourself say its only two thousand year old.

Hasan

 

My point to all this is not length of time, accept to say that Catholics did not invent this belief some time after Jesus life and death.  The belief came directly from Jesus himself.  Muhammad says that Jesus was sent by Allah, but if indeed Jesus was "sent by Allah,"  why would Muhammad pick and choose what he would accept of what Jesus said?  This would make him exactly like the Protestant Christians who came so long after Jesus and also pick and choose what they wish to believe of what Jesus had said and taught.

 

As much as I respect Muhammad for trying to spread belief in Allah throughout the world (I'm sure this is what Allah wants), yet I would tend to believe the men Jesus personally chose and trained for over three years to know the truth whenever there is a discrepancy between their teachings and the teachings of someone 600 years later who disagreed with them and hadn't been taught either by Jesus or those who taught faithfully what Jesus taught.  I don't think the length of time that the belief has been held has anything to do with how true the belief is.  But when Protestants come along 1500 years after the death of Jesus and start teaching things Jesus never taught, I have to wonder where they got their ideas.  Same with Muhammad.

 

The Apostles blieved and taught that Allah was tri-une God.  They carried their messages to China, Russia, Europe and North Africa before the last Apostle, John, died in Egypt in 110 AD.  The Apostles were all put to death because they taught belief, love, and obedience to a triune God, accept for John who died of old age.  Why would someone agree to die a horrible, tortuous death for something they knew to be a lie?   There is ample evidence in the Old Testament for the Trinity, though the Jews and the Israelites before them could not see it.  Jesus pointed it out to his Apostles and made numerous references to it himself. The Catholic Church has documented these references in much of its literature since the days of the Apostles.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a resent invention as is the belief amongst Christian Protestants that Jesus is but a prophet or as some dare to say, a lesser God under the authority of Allah.

 

Don't you find some value in the logic of what I'm saying?  Please explain your answer with why.

 

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic

 

Regardless whether my house is composed of walls and floors its still one house (made up of a multiplicity of objects in the interior). Although God has no "interior" God is said to have many qualities such as all-powerful, good, etc which comparable to a house could have some relationship.

 

One scholar said that's the reason why there is a special discipline/subject named  "theology", because the difficulties to explain "trinity". 3 in 1, 1 in 3, god have son, god have father etc. It is confusing.

you admit that the concept of God as a triune God is tught by Jesus 2000 years ago. Even if we suppose for a moment that to be correct, even though it is not in my study of the scripture, the problem is that it still is a new concept. The OT extends beyond thousands of years before Jesus, and surprisingly it does not teach anything like that. And that in itself a living proof that this concept of God was never taught before, it was non-existant.

So, if we really are representing logic and truth and not anything else, there is a link between God as One of the OT and God as One of the Final Testament, the Quran. In between you have something different, something inconsistent, if we assume you are right that NT teaches a tiune God.

My belief is that Jesus (peace be upon him) never professed triune God. According to the NT he always acknowledged God (who he is quoted to have called ABBA, or Father above himself.

Hasan

 

 

 

 

This is EXACTLY what the Trinity is, One God in three persons. Each member of the Trinity is a distinctive person and is God individually and the combination of the three is also God.[/QUOTE]


 To Egwpisteuw

 Let's look at the context.

¹⁸ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach ^b all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ²⁰ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 Note in verse 18 clear statement by Jesus that his power had been GIVEN to him.

 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.

Egwpisteuw wrote: This is why Jesus Christ could say:   I and the Father are one John 10:30 because Jesus Christ as the Son (Prong 2) is just as much God as is the Father (Prong 1).    This is the true oneness of God, and just as the Jews of Jesus' day did not understand this:   http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. http://bible.cc/john/10-32.htm - - 33 The Jews answered Him, �For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.� John 10:31-33

 This verse is  severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:30 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews.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."

 These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything.

 In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

 

I haven't posted to you in so long...  How are you?

 

I have been quite buisy with work and family.  But I just now looked up and saw a new post to an old string of postings.  I have some questions for you...

 

You posted: "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.

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?

 

Next in your post, you wrote:  "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."

You continued, "These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything."

Finally, you posted, "In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus."

Jesus is speaking of two groups in John 10:28-30:  1) a group that includes "any man" suggesting all men who might wishing to pluck the sheep out of Jesus hand, and 2) "I and the Father" as the second group.  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..."? 

 

Can you also show that the word "all" does not specifically refer to the first of the two groups identified by the words "any man" and not including either the Father or the one referred to by "I" who is Jesus in the second group?

 

Another logical question...  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 is in it, for would Jesus be plucking out of his own hand that which he had gathered in it intending to keep?

 

Just some questions to think about.  And yes, the questions are presented with the intention that they be answered.

 

I hope you are well and that God has blessed you since we last posted to one another,

 

Jack Catholic 

Nonsense. You obviously neglected to keep reading:

 

http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. http://bible.cc/john/10-32.htm - 32 Jesus answered them, �I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?� http://bible.cc/john/10-33.htm - 33 The Jews answered Him, �For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.� John 10:31-33

 

The Jews who were 1.) physically present; 2.) contemporaries of Jesus; 3.)of the same cultural and linguistic milieu as Jesus; took Jesus' statement in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" to mean that he was declaring himself to be God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

God's Peace to you!!

 

None Of The Above Verse Are Stateing Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus , Himself Claiming That He Is God Himself . Stop Adding Words To Verse That Are Not There . Doesn't Your Bible Speak Against Those Who Add Words To God Scriptures ? By Doing This Your Saying Your God Makes Mistakes !  

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 < NOT >
I Again Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE ..

 

 

Dear Mansoor_ali (and also IssaEl999),

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?  

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.

Then, after agreeing with the Catholic Trinitarian teaching which has existed for over 2000 years since before the death of Jesus on the cross, you start to draw some other conclusions.  You assert:

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. 

2-The Father gives Jesus everything from miracle to doctrine.

You are absolutely correct here, as this is both what the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church teaches.  John writes that Jesus comes forth from the Father, (not a creation) as does his doctrine and his miracles.  You are in agreement with the Catholic Faith here.

 

3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus.

I think here you are taking something that is in the bible and misunderstanding it.  Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.  Jesus is not a man�s own personal word, but God�s word.  One might translate this into a modern idiom by saying that Jesus is God�s Word in action.  Jesus� begging the father to save him from suffering is actually nothing more than Jesus teaching us by his example how we should be handling the threat of suffering.  He in other occasions taught us to imitate him.  Wouldn�t you advise another believer who was facing suffering to be honest with Allah in prayer and plead to be saved from the suffering to come, yet finish with the statement:  �Yet not my will but your will be done?�  Don�t Muslims claim that we must submit to the will of Allah?  Didn�t Jesus teach us by his example and words how to submit to the will of Allah?  Jesus� words and actions do not show him to be powerless in the face of life and death, as you mistakenly interpret into the passages of the Holy Bible, but rather simply constitute a teaching which I think both Muhammad and all Christians can agree with:  that we must submit willingly to the will of God (Allah), which in this case is to die a slow, horrible, suffering death on a cross.

 

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?

 

 

 

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    

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 .

 

http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm -

Egwpisteuw wrote: Nonsense. You obviously neglected to keep reading:   http://bible.cc/john/10-31.htm - - 32 Jesus answered them, �I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?� http://bible.cc/john/10-33.htm -   Jesus declared His Deity in John 10:30. To deny it is ludicrous.

 
 "...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!

 
 
 

 

"