Asalaamu alaikum

Please post your thoughts after reading some of this website. Seems the divinity of Jesus (pbuh) was not accepted by early Christians!

These are excerpts from this site:   http://barnabas.net/ - http://barnabas.net/

Seems that not all Christians followed the doctrine as defined by the Nicene council!

"The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E.  In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death."

  Barnabas was a Jew born in Cyrus. His name was Joses,
and due to his devotion to the cause of Jesus, the other apostles had given him the surname of Barnabas; this term is variously translated as "Son of Consolation" or "Son of Exhortation".
    "He was a successful preacher with a magnetic personality. Any one tormented by the clash of creeds found solace and peace in his company. His eminence as a man who had been close to Jesus had made him a prominent member of the small
group of disciples in Jerusalem who had gathered together
after the disappearance of Jesus. They observed the Law of
the Prophets, which Jesus had come, "not to destroy but, to
fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). They continued to live as Jews and
practiced what Jesus had taught them. That Christianity could
ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of
them."

"The question of the origin of Jesus, his nature and relation
to God, which later became so important, was not raised
among these early disciples. That Jesus was a man super-
naturally endowed by God was accepted without question.
Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them
to modify this view. According to Aristides, one of the earliest
apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic even than of the Jews.
    With the conversion of Paul a new period opened in
Christian Theology. Paul's theology was based on his personalexperience interpreted in the light of contemporary Greek thought. The theory of redemption was the child of his brain, a belief entirely unknown to the disciples of Jesus. Paul's theory involved the deification of Jesus."

Read this page to learn the origin of the concept of "trinity"

http://barnabas.net/lifebarnabas.htm - http://barnabas.net/lifebarnabas.htm

Thanks for the link, Maryah.

BMZ

Asalaamu alaikum: Peace to you.

The online engish translation of the Gospel according to Barnabas can be found here http://barnabas.net/chapter_index.htm - http://barnabas.net/chapter_index.htm

I do not know of what faith you are, but many Christians are in actuality practicing multitheism by Islamic standards.

Islam prohibits  the elevation of anything  that is of the creation of the One God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah as he is known to the various adherents of the Abrahamic or Semitic religions. Therefore, deifying Jesus and stating that he is the "son of god" is simply shirk and is considered seeing him as an object of worship.

The Quran states:

 7:191 Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?

 10:18 They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!

 16:3 He has created the heavens and the earth for just ends: Far is He above having the partners they ascribe to Him! - http://mediaserver.hadi.org:8080/ramgen/qurantts/16-3.rm?mode=compact"> English

The old testament states in Exodus 20:2-5 according to the current writings:

I am the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03068" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=03068'; return false - LORD your http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0430'; return false - God , http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0834" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0834'; return false - who http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03318" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=03318'; return false - brought you out of the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0776'; return false - land of http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04714" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=04714'; return false - Egypt , out of the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01004" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=01004'; return false - house of http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05650" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=05650'; return false - slavery .

You shall not http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06213" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=06213'; return false - make for yourself an http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06459" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=06459'; return false - idol , or http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03605" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=03605'; return false - any http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08544" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=08544'; return false - likeness of http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0834" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0834'; return false - what is in http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08064" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=08064'; return false - heaven http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04480" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=04480'; return false - above http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04605" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=04605'; return false - * or on the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0776'; return false - earth http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08478" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=08478'; return false - beneath or in the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04325" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=04325'; return false - water http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08478" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=08478'; return false - under the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0776'; return false - earth .

You shall not http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07812" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=07812'; return false - worship them or http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05647" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=05647'; return false - serve them; for I, the http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03068" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=03068'; return false - LORD your http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0430'; return false - God , am a http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07067" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=07067'; return false - jealous http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0410" target=_blank onclick="newsite'view.cgi?number=0410'; return false - God ,

As the website I quoted stated: "The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E.  In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.'

So how do you know that the current data as pesented in these scriptures are valid? Your are actually reading the gospel according and as interpreted by the Nicene council and the pagan emperor Constantine.

Therefore, if you visit the link I provided on the opening cut and paste, you will see the further explanation for the positions taken on the website. It will explain how many  of the earliest teachings  may have been distorted by Paul due to his personal beliefs and values. He was a Roman citizen and possibly thought as Constantine did when he rewrote the scriptures and doctrine: modify the teachings so that it would be more acceptable to the palates of the pagan Romans and they would be more accepting of the "Christian values". In Constantine's era and after, Mary was the successor of the goddess Hestia, patroness of the home and hearth. And other "saints" were elevated as intercessors and patrons of such things such as Jude for the sick, and the attributes of the roman pagan deities were ascribed to these new saints so that the practice of monotheims continued in post Nicene council church until the rise of protestantism. It is still practiced in the current Catholic Church. The trinity concept possible evolved from Indo Pak region religious influences, I would have to cruise through my links for the info. I invite you to look up such sites as the one for the dead sea scrolls, Nag Hamadi library, etc, for the translations of both the regular and apocryphic scriptures on the documents that were found. The Barnabas website was started by Islamic scholars and is a work in progress, however, the views and theories presented have not to date been disproved. I invite you to explore it.

How do I know of some of these things? My primary age of education was in an american school taught by turkish scholars in the city called Ankara, where I was born. We spent large amounts of our growing up time Exploring the nooks and hideaways in a city called Instanbul, formerly known as Constantinople. There are many things that a continent bound person may not know or see. It is wonderful to open one's eyes to other possibilities and remove the blinders that block your vision to a narrow path.

Regarding the heretical Epistle of Barnabas:

There is a triple tradition of the Greek text of this document. Up to 1843 eight manuscripts of the Epistle of Barnabas were known to be in Western libraries. These manuscripts were all derived from a common source, and no one of them contained chapters i-v, 7a. Since then two complete manuscripts of the texts have been discovered that are independent of each other and of the preceding group of texts, namely: the famous Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible (fourth century), in which the Epistle of Barnabas and "The Pastor" follow the books of the New Testament, and the Jerusalem Codex (eleventh century), which includes the Didache. There is also an old Latin version of the first seventeen chapters which is, perhaps, of the end of the fourth century (St. Petersburg, Q., I, 39). This version is a very free one and can hardly serve for the restoration of the text. The same is true for the citations from the epistle in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, and others. The text authority for the text is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Contents

The Epistle of Barnabas contains no clue to its author nor to those for whom it was intended. Its aim is to impart to its readers the perfect wisdom (gnosis), that is an exact knowledge of the economy of salvation. It is made up of two parts, the subject of each being announced in verses 6 and 7 of the first chapter. The first part (ch. i-v, 4) is hortatory; in the evil days that are now at hand in which the end of the world and the Judgment shall appear, the faithful, freed from the bonds of the Jewish ceremonial law, are to practise the virtues and to flee from sin. The second part (ch. v, 5-xvii) is more speculative, although it tends, owing to the nature of the argument, to establish the freedom of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christians in respect to the Mosaic regulations. The author wishes to make his readers comprehend the real nature of the Old Testament. He shows how the ordinances of the Law should be understood as referring allegorically to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian virtues and institutions, and he pauses to make plain by a series of symbolical explanations, that are often singular, how the Old Testament prefigures Christ, His Passion, His Church, etc. Before concluding (ch. xxi) the author repeats and enlarges the exhortations of the first part of the epistle by borrowing from another document (the Didache or its source) the description of the two ways, the way of light and that of darkness (xviii-xx).

Use of Allegory

The epistle is characterized by the use of exaggerated allegory. In this particular the writer goes far beyond St. Paul the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. Ignatius. Not content with regarding the history and institutions of the Jews as containing types of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christianity , he casts aside completely the transitory historical character of the old religion. According to many scholars he teaches that it was never intended that the precepts of the Law should be observed in their literal sense, that the Jews never had a covenant with http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God , that circumcision was the work of the Devil, etc.; thus he represents a unique point of view in the struggle against Judaism. It might be said more exactly that he condemns the exercise of worship by the Jews in its entirety because in his opinion, the Jews did not know how to rise to the spiritual and typical meaning which http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God had mainly had in view in giving them the Law. It is this purely material observance of the ceremonial ordinances, of which the literal fulfilment was not sufficient, that the author holds to be the work of the Devil, and, according to him, the Jews never received the divine covenant because they never understood its nature (ch. vii, 3, 11, ix, 7; x, 10; xiv).

Intent

The Epistle of Barnabas is not a polemic. The author takes no notice of paganism. Although he touches on different points that had relations to the doctrines of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm - Gnostics , still he has no knowledge of these latter. The perfectly composed manner in which he expounds the wisdom he desires to impart shows that another, heretical wisdom (gnosis) is not in his thoughts. Moreover, the way in which he speaks of the Old Testament would not be explicable if he had known the wrong use that a Basilides or a Marcion could make of it. Besides, there was nothing in the Judaizing theories to alarm his faith. He speaks of Judaism only in the abstract, and nothing in the letter excites the suspicion that the members of his flock had been exposed to the peril of falling again under the yoke of the Law. No clear situation is described in the letter. In short, it should be regarded rather as the peaceful speculations of a catechist and not as the cries of alarm of a pastor. Consequently, it cannot be admitted that the author may have wished to take part in the struggle against the Judaizers either at Jerusalem or at Rome.

Date

This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time. Starting from this, some critics place the composition of the epistle in the reign of Vespasian, others in the reign of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm - Domitian , and still others in the reign of Nerva. But there is nothing to prove that the author considers the prophecy to be already accomplished. Besides, he might have taken the words of the prophecy to mean a series of kingdoms instead of a line of kings. It is necessary, therefore, to fall back on verses 3-5 of chapter xvi. Reference is here made to the command given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the reconstruction, in honour of Jupiter, of the Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Titus. Adrian had also forbidden the Jews to practise circumcision. The writer of the letter makes allusion to this (ch. ix, 4). The epistle must, consequently, have been written in A.D. 130-131.

General Characteristics

In what befell Jerusalem and the Temple the author saw the refutation by events of the errors of the Jews, or rather of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm - Ebionites , for it is the latter that he has in mind whenever his language grows more definite (ch. iv, 4, 6; v, 5; xii, 10; xvi, 1). His flock are not in danger of falling into these errors. Therefore, he never attacks them directly. He simply takes advantage of the opportunity that occurrences offer him to give his opinions as to the position and nature of Judaism and its Law. Hence the epistle, in its general character, is more like a treatise or a homily than a letter. However, the epistolary form is not entirely fictitious. The author is not writing to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christians in general, but to a particular church in which he has exercised the office of a didaskalos and from which he finds himself separated (ch. i, 2, 4; xxi, 7, 9).

From a literary point of view the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and incorrectness. The author's logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arise the numerous digressions. These digressions, however, afford no reason for doubting the integrity of the letter, or for regarding as interpolations either entire chapters, or a consecutive number of verses or parts of verses in each chapter. One scholar, Wehofer, thought that he had discovered, in the arrangement of the epistle, an adherence to the laws of the Semitic strophe. But the phenomena noted are found in all authors who work out their thought without being able to subordinate the argument to the rules of literary style.

From the dogmatic point of view the chief importance of the epistle is in its relation to the history of the Canon of the Scriptures. It cites, in fact, the Gospel of St. Matthew as Scripture (ch. 4:14), and even recognizes as in the Canon of the Sacred Books (gegraptai), along with the collection of Jewish writings, a collection of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian ones (ch. v, 2), the contents of which, however, cannot be determined. The author regards several apocryphal books as belonging to the Old Testament--probably IV Esdras (ch. xii, l) and without doubt Henoch (ch. iv, 3; xvi, 5). In his Christology, his soteriology and his doctrine concerning justification the author develops the ideas of Paul with originality. It has been wrongly said that he regards the pre-existent Christ as only a spirit in the image of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm - God . Without explicitly asserting the consubstantiality and the true sonship, he evidently acknowledges the Divine nature of Christ from before the Creation. The http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm - eschatological descriptions are decidedly moderate. He is a millenarian, but in speaking of the Judgment to come he simply expresses a vague belief that the end is approaching.

Nationality of the Author and History of the Epistle

The extremely allegorical character of the exegesis leads to the supposition that the author of the letter was an Alexandrian. His way of constantly placing himself and his readers in opposition to the Jews makes it impossible to believe that either he or the larger part of his readers were of Jewish origin. Besides, he is not always familiar with the Mosaic rites (cf. ch. vii). The history of the epistle confirms its Alexandrine origin. Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read. The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that, about the year A.D. 200, even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by everyone as an inspired writing.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

God's Peace and Understanding!

Hello Mauri,

Since you mentioned the "Jesus Only" believers above, may I safely assume you are a member of the Apostolic Church, aka "Oneness"?  Long ago I was engaged to an Apostolic....I will never forget the beliefs they follow.  But they are good, kind people.

God's Peace Always!

Dear Maryah,

Anyone can access the Vatican website to learn when, why, for what reasons, etc., some writings and documents were considered authentic and others were found not to be.  The explanations are quite indepth and do not serve to just "skim the surface to sway opinions".  They are very intellectual and extensively studied resources.  I would suggest anyone really wanting to know the reasons for decisions concerning any scriptures or Gospels go to the Vatican website and access the archives.

God's Peace.

Maryah: I do not know of what faith you are, but many Christians are in actuality practicing multitheism by Islamic standards.

Christians say the same thing about Muslims, and for the very same reasons. The Quran and the Bible both say that there is only one God, the Creator.  Christians and Muslims both teach and preach that.  Muslims say Christians deify Jesus; Christians say that Muslims deify Muhammed.   Each side points to the bloody history of the other side to prove themselves righteous and the others infidels.

Both sides teach and preach that there is only one God, the Creator.  Each side goes to its own holy book; they both come back with the same message and condemn the other side with it.  

It�s like a European using the metric system to follow a cake recipe that uses English measurements.  It�s not going to come out right. 

The Quran confirms that God does not have sons the way Muslims think of sons. But, it then confirms that Jesus is the son of God as the Bible teaches it.  (Sort of like converting the recipe from English to metric, so it can be used�[understood]).

The Barnabas website was started by Islamic scholars and is a work in progress, however, the views and theories presented have not to date been disproved.

I doubt it will ever be fully addressed, much less disproven.  I made no attempt to disprove it to you; I simply offered what I thought was sufficient to warrant further investigation.  Nevertheless, if I had known it was by Islamic scholars, out of respect, I would not have made the comment about finding websites with stronger arguments.  I apologize for any offense that might have caused.

I invite you to explore it.

If you had read my post all the way through, you would know that I had visited the site because at the end, I quoted  from the site something which you had not pasted on the board.

Guys, there are two open threads with much in them already

Since this is an on-going topic, I see many same things mentioned

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4365&KW=trinity - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4365& ;KW=trinity

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238&KW=trinity&PN=0&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238& KW=trinity&PN=0&TPN=1

I just posted this for the info and an invitation to open thought.

Thank you Mauri for the input and the links.

Apostolics are interesting people, very educated and well versed. Lets steer this thread back to the other open threads!

Subject closed

Angel,

Don't make me read 16+11 pages!!

An Explanatory Guide to worship Verses: Worshipped him in the following verses means "begged him".

"According to Aristides, one of the earliest
apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic even than of the Jews."

"When people fell down and worshipped him, Jesus never stopped them."

BMZ: Let us see what really happened! 

There is not much relevance in this verse. The Infancy Bible of Jesus has been declared an apocrypha, as such I do not see any justification of above by Matthew. Were the Magiis Jews? If they were Jews, they would not have bowed down and worshipped the child. In above verse, "and worshipped him" should have been "and worshipped Him (God)" and presented gifts to him (the child).

Note that the leper has not been cured or cleaned up by Jesus yet. If he had worshipped Jesus, he would have worshipped him after he was cured up. The act has not been done, hence the question of worship does not arise. The act of worshipping in above is not that of worshipping God.

Again note that she has not been resurrected yet. The ruler approaches Jesus and begs him to revive his daughter. Again no real worship.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat014.html#33 - Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Note "and worshipped him saying" which really means praising him for his efforts. They did not fall down in prostration.

Again, note that he has not yet helped her or done anything yet. Any act of worship, if there had to be one, should have come later.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Verse has been quoted out of context. The servant fell down begging in the parable.

Jesus did not say "All hail" to me.. He just said,"Greetings". The Matthew that I have says only "Greetings". They just clung to him. It was just an act of joy to see their teacher again.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat028.html#17 - Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

If that had happened, he would have told the doubters to worship him like others did. He did not say anything.

He did not worship Jesus, he fell down on his knees because his hands and legs were chained and he shouted at the top of his voice. That is no way to worship.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar015.html#19 - Mar 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing [their] knees worshipped him.

This is really crazy. Were the soldiers really worshipping him? They were mocking him.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk024.html#52 - Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

After "worshipping" him, they stayed continually at the temple, praising God. Mark's disciples did not know about this.

Bmzsp:  An Explanatory Guide to worship Verses: Worshipped him in the following verses means "begged him".

Me: The definition and origin of the word �worship� can be found at http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=11&strongs=4352&page - Worship precedes begging.  Worship does not necessarily precede asking.  Let me explain.  To beg, one must first esteem the other more highly than himself.  The �have nots� beg from those they perceive to be the �haves�. 

If you esteem someone to have less than you, why would you ask him for anything?  To humiliate him by exposing how poor he is? 

When men wanted to worship Paul and Barabas, they stopped them.  Why?  Because it not the power of Paul�s faith that healed the man, but the power of the man�s faith.  Acts 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,   10.  Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. 11. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

Compare that with:  Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed [them].  6. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Me: Read farther and see what happens when Jesus arrives at the ruler�s house. The people there did not worship (esteem) him,  Rather, they esteemed themselves so highly that they were amused at his foolishness.  Matt. 9:23 And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,  24: He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

Me: On the contrary, it has a great deal to do with Jesus.  Verse 22 says that it is Jesus speaking.  Verse 23 says that Jesus is comparing the kingdom of heaven to a king.  He tells the parable to illustrate how the kingdom of heaven �works� (remember, he came to show the way). for those who could see the evidence but didn�t know how they worked together (related to each other).   Jesus explains that here: Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:  12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

"Mark's disciples did not know about this." What I meant was the disciples in the book by Mark.  For example, John does not have twelve disciples. By that I mean, John names only a few.

The main point of my exegesis was that Jesus was not really worshipped as a god or God, when he was alive.

Bmzsp: The main point of my exegesis was that Jesus was not really worshipped as a god or God, when he was alive.

Me:    Imagine this.  Tommy comes home from school one day, and his mother isn�t home.  Mr. Jones, a trusted neighbor, comes over and explains that there was an emergency, and she had to go out of town.  She will be gone for a week.  Meanwhile, Tommy is to stay with him.  When Tommy obeys what Mr. Jones says, it is the same as obeying his mother.  Or, however, Tommy responds to him, it is the same as if he responded to his mother that way.

Now, Tommy doesn�t have to physically bow down to Mr. Jones, but if he doesn�t bow down spiritually to him (submit his will to Mr. Jones because he is telling Tommy what his mother said) Tommy will have to face the consequences when his mother gets home.

Some neighborhood kids ask Tommy to go to the playground after dinner.  Mr. Jones says that he has to stay there and do his homework.  When he tells the other kids, they tell Tommy that Mr. Jones isn�t his mother.  When Tommy persists in esteeming (obeying, honoring, worshiping) Mr. Jones as he would his mother, they say that he doesn�t know the difference between his mother and Mr. Jones.  Some say that Tommy dishonored his mother by honoring Mr. Jones as his mother.  Some are convinced that Tommy actually thinks  Mr. Jones is his mother.

What do you think?

Mauri,

What do I think?

Mr. Jones was the baby-sitter for the day.

Mauri wrote: bmzsp: Mr. Jones was the baby-sitter for the day. Me:  Yes. Now, imagine that you are the parent. You hear of the conflict going on between Tommy and the neighborhood kids.  What would you do? Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?

mauri, you went off track after the question what would you do, I don't think it happens that way, infact i don't recall it happening at all. Not when one is babysitting a child, normally the babysitter has a set of instructions and so does the child, and if the child is being unruly and not listening and the babysitter cannot do anything else, the babysitter will more likely to ring the parent or the child might get in and ring the parent/s in defiance of the babysitter, reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child  

What would i do if i was the parent, ring up my child and tell him, not send another messager to confirm the first which is Mr Jones. I would not be gone a week and not ring/speak to my kid.

And, foreseeing that they would protest that there are two, indeed, for surely, Mr. Jones is not you, would you not have the messenger to instruct them to "say not three" ....."say not trinity", but to see the oneness (the unity) rather than the separateness (division) of you, your message, and the one who delivers your message?

This does not compute with reality. sorry.

Your analogy is a bit incorrect, needs to change

Angel,

Thanks for carrying my baby!  Oh! What the hell did I write! Anyway, I agree with you.

Mauri, are you going to quote me the example of egg, later?  I mean the white, the yolk and the shell all in one, so distinct yet one in an egg-shell. Was that a prelude to this?

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: Angel, Thanks for carrying my baby!  Oh! What the hell did I write! Anyway, I agree with you.

lol!  

and your welcome, i think

Mauri, are you going to quote me the example of egg, later?  I mean the white, the yolk and the shell all in one, so distinct yet one in an egg-shell. Was that a prelude to this? BMZ

egg ?? haven't heard that one before  

Angel,

From you: "egg ?? haven't heard that one before  "

The egg is used to describe Trinity. It is the easiest and so far one of the "best" examples to make anyone understand Trinity.

The egg has a shell, yolk and the white. All are distinct, yet one and all are "co-equal". Yet the egg is One.

bmzsp wrote: Angel, From you: "egg ?? haven't heard that one before  " The egg is used to describe Trinity. It is the easiest and so far one of the "best" examples to make anyone understand Trinity.

but i haven't heard of it before, and this is coming from one who used many triuine examples in my talks of the trinity, including mind, body and spirit = human being  

the egg has a shell, yolk and the white. All are distinct, yet one and all are "co-equal". Yet the egg is One.

oh your poor little confused faced   yes the egg is one, until you crack it,  you cannot have one without the other otherwise it wouldn't be an egg  or a whole egg  

umm i think its still called an egg with just the yolk and the white thou  even when you beat it  

Angel:  mauri, you went off track after the question what would you do, I don't think it happens that way, infact i don't recall it happening at all.

You cannot be expected to relate to something without first seeing it, much less recall it ever happening.  You have found error in my reasoning.  Let�s examine yours.

Angel: Not when one is babysitting a child, normally the babysitter has a set of instructions and so does the child,

Do you see the scenario as an �abnormal� situation?  Is there anything to indicate that either Mr. Jones or Tommy do not know what is expected of them (i.e., do not have instructions)?  Rather, wouldn�t the fact that there is no conflict between Mr. Jones and Tommy indicate that they did have the same �set of instructions� moreso,  than that they had none?

Angel: and if the child is being unruly and not listening and the babysitter cannot do anything else, the babysitter will more likely to ring the parent or the child might get in and ring the parent/s in defiance of the babysitter, reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child  

I agree.  But, I must ask where you got the impression that Tommy is being anything but obedient to Mr. Jones.  Why do you superimpose a different scenario?   

Angel: reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child  

Okay.  But where do you see a mention of sending a new or second messenger to Tommy?

Even in your scenario, you provide a new or second messenger�the voice heard over the phone-- unless, of course, the original set of instructions were the same voice over the phone.  In that case, yes, it would be the same messenger, coming again, rather than a new or second messenger.

Granted, you specify that the child or baby sitter would use the telephone wire to request a clarification/confirmation (second messenger).   I did not specify how the parent heard of the conflict that required a second message or messenger to resolve it.

You did not see the scenario I was addressing.  (You saw one in which the conflict was between the babysitter and the child rather than between the child and other children.)  Yet, you condemned me for being offtrack in the way I addressed the conflict.   Ironically, when you set up a different scenario to support your condemnation, you followed the same track you had just condemned, thus, condemning yourself!

What would i do if i was the parent, ring up my child and tell him, not send another messager to confirm the first which is Mr Jones. 

Why would you send the message via another messenger (the phone) to tell your child what is already established with him?  To comfort him? 

I would not be gone a week and not ring/speak to my kid.

Is there anything to suggest that Tommy�s parent did not speak with him? 

Isn�t it just as likely that Tommy�s parent did speak to him through the phone or some other messenger, sending a comforter (assurance, validation)?  �or even telling (revealing to) him something he didn�t already know?

However comforted Tommy might be by hearing the same message again, it does not benefit the neighborhood kids.  Unless they hear it from a messenger whom they can receive, the conflict will remain with them.  �and Tommy will still feel the sting of the conflict.

This does not compute with reality. sorry.

I contend that it is your �computing� that is faulty, and not reality or what computes with reality. 

Your analogy is a bit incorrect, needs to change

If you had given any indication of grasping the analogy, (instead of giving every indication that you did not) I would be willing to consider your assessment.

As it is, I appreciate the opportunity you availed to illustrate the trinity.  I had not aspired to introduce the Holy Spirit (the comforter) at this point.  But, God knows best.

Bmzsp:  Mauri, are you going to quote me the example of egg, later?  I mean the white, the yolk and the shell all in one, so distinct yet one in an egg-shell. Was that a prelude to this?

No.  If you cannot conceive the oneness of the same substance, when it remains unchanged, it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to understand how different substances can be a unit. 

It would be like trying to explain the equivalency of a nickel and five pennies to someone who could not yet see that a dime received from a cashier is equivalent to a dime received from a vending machine.

But, if I were so foolish as to try, it would not surprise me (based upon what has just transpired) if Angel �proved� my error by explaining how, in reality, she would have looked for the three nickels she lost in the grass.  You, no doubt, would agree with her.  So, no, you do not have to endure hearing again the example of how pennies, nickels, dimes and even quarters can be the same as having a dollar.

I could endure the labor of explaining at length my perception and being ignored.  I could, at least, hope that you might consider what I had said and be able to respond one way or another, later.  I was willing to wait.  I was even willing to wait for you to decide what you would say about what you believe.

However, if you are so predisposed to condemning me that you will accept a corruption of what I say in lieu of what I have actually said, such hope is in vain.  No one can dispute that, if oranges are accepted as the fruit of the tree, then, it cannot be an apple tree.

I do not condemn you.  If you cannot distinguish between apples and oranges, then you cannot be expected to distinguish between an apple tree and an orange tree.  Whether you really are or just choose  to be deaf to my words, the volume of my speaking will make no difference.  Whether you are really blind or simply refuse to open your eyes, it will make no difference how closely I bring the picture.  If I attempted to pry your eyes open forcefully, you would only roll them back to avoid seeing.

So, I must simply bid you adieu. 

I came in peace, and I leave in peace.  I have offered no offense and done my best to avoid the appearance of such.  If you choose to see offense in me, it is my duty to remove myself lest I be found guilty of fostering that choice. 

God speed.

Hi Mauri,

Mauri, i had almost finished replying when my computer started to play up and lost it. For now: you have misunderstood much of what i said and you have twisted things around. A new reply will have to wait.

Also i did grasp your analogy & scenerio and i know exactly what you are attempting to do or at least trying do, to explain trinity.

And i did not condemn you for going off track, you missed the point.

Lastly, i did see you/were addressing the child and the other kids for which i did address rather short.

The rest later its 4am need some sleep.

bmzsp wrote: Angel is a good and a noble Christian but she is not a hardcore.  She sticks to her beliefs but is open to discussions. BMZ

why thank you.  except i'm not really christian, there are some things i don't believe in  If some things are talked about then i stick to that with what i know and not put my beliefs in unless i state so

Hi back now after some sleep and food

Mauri wrote: Angel:  mauri, you went off track after the question what would you do, I don't think it happens that way, infact i don't recall it happening at all.   You cannot be expected to relate to something without first seeing it, much less recall it ever happening.  You have found error in my reasoning.  Let�s examine yours.

Perhaps normally I would agree with you but in this instance, you did go off track as to what would you do. Perhaps my fault of not explaining fully. What would you do, your mention of: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?� Your what would you do is far too complex and complicated for kids. It does not happen and I can see the poor kids being confused and going, what pair/two?? What oneness?? What the??. As I said it does not happen - reality tells me so, my experiences and observations of kids also tells me it does not happen. The neigbourhood kids were simply being trouble makers and mischevious Your explanation of trinity is in this is quite incorrect, as I mentioned you need to change, find something else. I have been in many discussions on the trinity and I have used far more simplier ways.

The most like scenerio of what might happen is that, after the mother gets back, if she feels the need to speak and explain to the others that tommy had instructions that she wish tommy to obey, then by all mean she probably will, unless she feels the need to not to speak to them. There is no need to send another/new messenger, it is unnessecary.

Angel: Not when one is babysitting a child, normally the babysitter has a set of instructions and so does the child,   Do you see the scenario as an �abnormal� situation?  Is there anything to indicate that either Mr. Jones or Tommy do not know what is expected of them (i.e., do not have instructions)?  Rather, wouldn�t the fact that there is no conflict between Mr. Jones and Tommy indicate that they did have the same �set of instructions� moreso,  than that they had none?

Yes I did see that, and did see the situation as abnormal, why do you think I replied. I saw what you were doing and it (for me) simply was not a good example to use.

[quote]

Angel: and if the child is being unruly and not listening and the babysitter cannot do anything else, the babysitter will more likely to ring the parent or the child might get in and ring the parent/s in defiance of the babysitter, reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]--> 

I agree.  But, I must ask where you got the impression that Tommy is being anything but obedient to Mr. Jones.  Why do you superimpose a different scenario?[/quote]

No I didn�t superimpose a different scenerio , what I did was went straight into another situation (after mentioning it does not happen, my fault, sorry) pointing out that no new messenger comes forward and what normally happens in babysitting. I didn�t get the impression that tommy was being disobedient, I did see that tommy was being good and that there was no problem and no conflict, the issue was with the neighbourhood kids thinking that tommy does not have to listen to mr jones because mr jones is not his mother.

Angel: reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->    Okay.  But where do you see a mention of sending a new or second messenger to Tommy?

Not to tommy but to the neighbourhood kids, your words: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them�����

Even in your scenario, you provide a new or second messenger�the voice heard over the phone-- unless, of course, the original set of instructions were the same voice over the phone.  In that case, yes, it would be the same messenger, coming again, rather than a new or second messenger.

Where do you get in my scenario that I provide another messenger?? There is no other/new messenger. The parent is simply the one that gave, so you last point is the correct one.

I can see the second coming of Jesus is about to creep in, lol!

Granted, you specify that the child or baby sitter would use the telephone wire to request a clarification/confirmation (second messenger).   I did not specify how the parent heard of the conflict that required a second message or messenger to resolve it.

Yes I know you didn�t specify, I wasn�t going on about tommy scenario for which there is no conflict.

You did not see the scenario I was addressing.  (You saw one in which the conflict was between the babysitter and the child rather than between the child and other children.)  Yet, you condemned me for being offtrack in the way I addressed the conflict.   Ironically, when you set up a different scenario to support your condemnation, you followed the same track you had just condemned, thus, condemning yourself!

Yes I did see the scenario you were addressing the issue of the neighbourhood kids. What I address was still in a babysitting scenario and what usually happens �if� a child was unruly.

I am not sure how you managed to twist things around or not hear what I was saying.

I don�t think tommy was in conflict, he was doing the right thing and there was no conlict between him and mr jones. There was no need to really comment, the issue is with the other kids and sending them a new messenger for which I see as not happening.

What would i do if i was the parent, ring up my child and tell him, not send another messager to confirm the first which is Mr Jones.    Why would you send the message via another messenger (the phone) to tell your child what is already established with him?  To comfort him?

How did the phone become a (another) messenger ??  

Many kids are told by their parents, and no new messenger is sent. Two things are more likely to happen, one: the kid wasn�t told first because the parent was unable to but told the babysitter and so later on when the parent/s rings, they mention it/the instructions to the child which does become a validation of what was given to the babysitter. Two: mostly all the time parent/s tend to repeat themselves of what was already said and given and the kid would generally go �yes I know you already told me� or just nod their head.  I'm in my early thirties and it still happens to me, i think its a natural innate thing amongst parents

I would not be gone a week and not ring/speak to my kid. Is there anything to suggest that Tommy�s parent did not speak with him?

You didn�t put it in, so people are left wondering, but I did assume that since tommy was respecting mr jones and his mothers wishes tommy knew what to do. Perhaps tommy did speak with his mum, perhaps he didn't, you did not indicate such a thing. A vital piece of info don�t you think ?

And besides you asked �what would you do� and I simply answered.     

Isn�t it just as likely that Tommy�s parent did speak to him through the phone or some other messenger, sending a comforter (assurance, validation)?  �or even telling (revealing to) him something he didn�t already know?

perhaps, again you fail to mention anything.

However comforted Tommy might be by hearing the same message again, it does not benefit the neighborhood kids.  Unless they hear it from a messenger whom they can receive, the conflict will remain with them.  �and Tommy will still feel the sting of the conflict.

What sting is that, that tommy is suppose to feel or be in conflict with? If tommy is obeying what conflict is there other than the others kids mentioning mr jones is not his mother therefore does not need to listen ?? that is not much of a conflict , obviously from what you put down tommy knows what to do and does not listen to the other kids.

This does not compute with reality. sorry.   I contend that it is your �computing� that is faulty, and not reality or what computes with reality.

Why is that my computing is faulty and not your reasoning and your trying to explain trinity that is faulty?

What I contended and saw fault with is a section of your concept which does not compute with reality: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?��

What has the second bit got to do with instructing oneness?? Certainly mr jones and tommy's mother are two people and not one as the trinity is suppose to be. There is no oneness here other than one message/instructions. The trinity is of one entity supposedly divided into 3: the father the son and the holy spirit, while being distinct its still that of one entity, God. Your attempt does not show that, you are clearly putting three different entities that are not one as per the trinity concept in Christianity.  

Your analogy is a bit incorrect, needs to change <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->   If you had given any indication of grasping the analogy, (instead of giving every indication that you did not) I would be willing to consider your assessment.

Well I hope I did a better job this time.

Mauri I know exactly what you are doing, you are trying to explain trinity and it is rather flawed and incorrect, not to mention too much complexities to.

As it is, I appreciate the opportunity you availed to illustrate the trinity.  I had not aspired to introduce the Holy Spirit (the comforter) at this point.  But, God knows best.

it is you that is trying to illustrate the trinity, in a rather bad way. What I did was (trying) pointing out your errors. Your scenario/analogy does not go nor does it benefit. And besides I�ve illustrated the trinity and given far better examples in the past, in past threads.

Lastly, I mean no offense. 

bmzsp wrote: Angel, From you: "egg ?? haven't heard that one before  " The egg is used to describe Trinity. It is the easiest and so far one of the "best" examples to make anyone understand Trinity. The egg has a shell, yolk and the white. All are distinct, yet one and all are "co-equal". Yet the egg is One.

Assalam Aleikum.

a quick note, as my time is limited...classes started up again.

I have yet to find a trinity analogy that does not prove modalism.

The egg analogy included.

The idea of trinity is a nasty concept that was invented from presumption (of the nature of Jesus, why he was here, what was his purpose, relationship with God, etc, etc) that tried to explain the various notions that were invented from the early church fathers.

ma'salaama

From Andalus,

"The idea of trinity is a nasty concept that was invented from presumption (of the nature of Jesus, why he was here, what was his purpose, relationship with God, etc, etc) that tried to explain the various notions that were invented from the early church fathers."

No, my friend.  The Holy Trinity is not a "nasty concept" evolving from the "presumption"...... Jesus Christ Himself told us who He was many times in the Gospels, and what He was here for.  "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."  Etc., etc.  I realize you've read them all before.  He tells many times that He is the Christ, he and the Father are the same. 

This thing you so casually refer to as a "nasty concept" was, in fact, told to us by Jesus.  He just did not coin the word "Trinity".  I guess he felt we were smart enough to figure out (after telling us) that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit were all the same, three separate entities in just ONE GOD.  That is what Jesus taught and it is found throughout the Gospels.  Christians believe every word He spoke and taught....our God is not a liar.

God's Peace to You.

Patty wrote: From Andalus, "The idea of trinity is a nasty concept that was invented from presumption (of the nature of Jesus, why he was here, what was his purpose, relationship with God, etc, etc) that tried to explain the various notions that were invented from the early church fathers." No, my friend.  The Holy Trinity is not a "nasty concept" evolving from the "presumption"...... Jesus Christ Himself told us who He was many times in the Gospels, and what He was here for.  "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."  Etc., etc.  I realize you've read them all before.  He tells many times that He is the Christ, he and the Father are the same.  This thing you so casually refer to as a "nasty concept" was, in fact, told to us by Jesus.  He just did not coin the word "Trinity".  I guess he felt we were smart enough to figure out (after telling us) that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit were all the same, three separate entities in just ONE GOD.  That is what Jesus taught and it is found throughout the Gospels.  Christians believe every word He spoke and taught....our God is not a liar. God's Peace to You.

Greetings Patty.

Let me begin by making an apology. It appears that my usage of the word �nasty� was not a wise choice, as I can see how it might be interpreted as derogatory. The usage of the word was intended to mean that the idea of �trinity� was an enormously controversial idea that has been the pivot point of debate, volumes of apologetics written by church theologians, and after 2000 years, Christian theologians still write volumes on the topic trying to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-re-clarify the nuances and the continued sticking points brought up by those who reject it. It is a never ending journey of re-clarifying. This is what I meant by �nasty�.

You stated, �The Holy Trinity is not a "nasty concept" evolving from the "presumption"...... Jesus Christ Himself told us who He was many times in the Gospels, and what He was here for.� If what you say is true, then one would find a continuous line of thinking that could be traced, without doubt, to the source, Jesus (for the sake of discussion, I will not bring up the need for a source that can be validated and verified). If the known sources were so explicit, clear, and repeated, then one should find a consensus amongst Christians. Obviously one might find differences regarding nuances, but this is very different from opposing beliefs on very basic tenets of a faith. In the first four centuries of Christianity, the group you inherited your beliefs from was not different than the multitude of other groups who also claimed to have the correct ideas regarding Jesus and the nature of God, and they considered the group you inherited your beliefs from to be �heretical�, as much as your founding group considered the other groups to be �heretical�. There was not a single element that distinguished your founding group from the others, meaning they did not have anything in their possession, nor were they privy to something that connected them directly to an authoritative source that the other groups did not have. The disagreements between these groups were as different as night and day, as they dealt with the very foundational tenets of your faith. Was Jesus the adopted son of God or was he born divine, was the nature of God �modalistic� or �triune�, was Jesus incorporeal, did his death wipe out all of Jewish law, or only some law, and which ones should be followed, what books should be in the Christian bible, and which not, etc, etc, etc. Bart Ehrman, a leading biblical scholar and Christian, has demonstrated that in the fourth century, these groups were even manipulating their MSS (manuscripts) so that they would appear to back up their own theological views. Come now Patty, historical study and biblical criticism show conclusively that the idea of the trinity and your posited idea of Jesus being clear in what he said are simply unsubstantiated. I cannot ignore that differing groups, each claiming to be Christians, had such diverse ideas about topics that are too fundamental and basic to have been fought about. What this tells me is that no one actually knew the details about Jesus or his relationship with God, and those that did, had their story in narratives that simply did not survive the centuries. Hence, we have people trying to fit the evidence to their assumptions, and as my evidence, I point out that all of the proof verses used to support Church doctrine are implicit verses. I have only found one verse that is the closest to �explicit�, and that verse, 1 John 5:7, has so much doubt placed on it (due to the evidence that it was a later insertion and not part of the actual MS witnesses), that one cannot use it.

I read the verses you gave me, and I must point out that these verses are �implicit�, and the sole reason for interpreting them as proof for the trinity and the divinity of Jesus is based upon the seed of assumption planted in your mind before you studied the verses without your believed notion. Simply put, if you were raised on an island without any church guidance, and you found the bible and read it from beginning to end, you would not draw the conclusion you are drawing now. You are simply reading the verses with the assumption planted in your mind. Take a look, �"Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."�. How is Jesus being about God�s business an explicit meaning that Jesus is God and God is triune? To make such an interpretation would require a huge leap in deduction, or a mind with the assumption already planted. �No one comes to the Father, except by me�, this is an example of an �implicit� verse. Your interpretation is no greater than suggesting that Jesus simply came with a path that would lead to God. In fact, my interpretation can be backed by �explicit� verses from the OT which states in no uncertain terms that nothing on the earth can house God. So for me, this verse does not have any real reason to be interpreted as proof for the divinity of Jesus. One must read that interpretation in.    

You also went on to say, �This thing you so casually refer to as a "nasty concept" was, in fact, told to us by Jesus.  He just did not coin the word "Trinity".� I have yet to find a single �explicit� proof verse that backs this claim Patty.

  �I guess he felt we were smart enough to figure out (after telling us) that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit were all the same, three separate entities in just ONE GOD. That is what Jesus taught and it is found throughout the Gospels.  Christians believe every word He spoke and taught....our God is not a liar.�

Well Patty, all I can do is point out that in the first 3-4 centuries of your faith; the ideas floating around about Jesus were pretty diverse. Would this suggest that there were a lot of st**id people who just refused to see the �clear statements� of Jesus? Or is a more rational conclusion one that tells us that the narratives have a lot of ambiguous, implicit verses that can take on various interpretations, depending on what you already believe? Even today, there are still Christian groups that disagree about the trinity, and I also find it interesting that another group of people, the Jews, read a bible similar to yours, and yet have a very different belief about God. How could this be if the statements of Jesus were so clear?

Kindest regards

Assalaamu Alaikum and Peace

Found this one on a google, it is an interesting site, the link to the complete article is below the pasted except below:

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

by Cher-El L. Hagensick

The Rabbi �s deep voice echoes through the dusk, �Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord�.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism�s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: �[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,� which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in �one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all� (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1

Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the �Father�, and the �King of the Gods�; Enlil, the �wind-god� was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the �lord of wisdom� (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of �three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures� (316).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, �In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day� (16).

Egypt�s history is similar to Sumeria�s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a �transcendental, above creation, and preexisting� one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were �combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity� (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: �All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah� (Hornung 219).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that �from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity...� (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that �the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus� probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential �in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds� (128-129).

These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a �new idea to the Romans,� and yet it became so �typical of Rome� that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: �Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it� (Caesar 595).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church�s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called �Sibyllists� by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, �Dies irae,� which foretold the �coming of the day of wrath� based on the �dual authority of �David and the Sibyl�(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great�s words to a missionary: �You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity� (qtd. in Laing 130).

In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as �before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me� (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and �there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else� (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that �[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...� (Chumash 458). Even though �Word,� �Spirit,� �Presence,� and �Wisdom� are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2.

Read the rest at http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm - http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin% 20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

And another link:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm - http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

Below are excerpts:

"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity)

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren
Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages"

The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God? or was He created by God?

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius, a native Libyan, went to school in Antioch. He argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text. In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualize the text so they could explain away (make excuses, reject reason) any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical. They both relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism. Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man. Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain st**id, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea"

See the article at the link for more details.

Wasalaam

Mariyah

Andalus,

I have no hard feelings towards you (first of all) so please don't ever believe that I would have.  I have no hard feelings toward anyone on this site.....we're all trying our best to follow what we believe is the truth.  Yes, there is much disagreement, he said/she said, this was proven, no it wasn't, etc., but I believe a lot of it comes from Satan.  Oh yeah, I a BIG believer in Mr. Satan.  The Bible speaks of him as the "master of confusion", which he certainly is and always has been since his fall from grace!  He will do anything to put doubts in person's minds, to cause them to lose their faith and perhaps take a hop over to his evil side.  What a shame we can't all just sit down and say, "okay, I believe every word you tell me."  But we all know that day will never come....because we are intelligent, thinking human beings (thanks be to God), and because God also gave us free will to do what we choose, whether it be good or evil....it's our decision.

I have noticed (while not responding, as it's not my place here) that there is also great dissention among various tribes/sects of good Muslims.)  So it's not only Christians who bat around the possibilities of what is meant in holy documents, such as the Qu'ran and the Bible.

Maryah, what a dear lady!  I thank you for your attempt to offer additional clarification.  You are also "living your faith to the fullest."  I have read both of the links you offered, and they are well written, and excellent articles regarding Islamic beliefs.  They just don't sit well with my Christian beliefs.  What a surprise, huh?  I don't really take this lightly.  It is the most important thing on earth.....it concerns the very decision of what will eventually happen to our eternal souls when "our morning comes around".  And NOTHING is more important than that.

I enjoy very much our interactions, and especially these which are mature and free of malicious intent. 

May God of us All Bless You Both Always!

Peace dear Patty,

 I do not intend to disprove anyone, just to clarify why I as a Muslim honor Jesus
(pbuh) as one of the most important messengers of God. But faith, as we know, is a
"committed belief as to things unseen" and yes, what we are seeing here is smply mankind's
differing interpretation of spiritual writings. We live on faith on that which is unseen,
and is manifest by the amazing examples of the handiwork of God around us. If a point feels uncomfortable
to us, maybe it is time that we explore why that point that makes us uncomfortable causes
us to feel that way. For 2 years in Turkey we attended a parochial school (many Muslim girls
did, it was the only way to have a higher education in those days) and the nuns would tell the
muslim girls "now this is what we believe" when teaching the religious class, which we could
opt out of or attend just to understand the Dogma of the church. Much of it was not hard to understand.
So I do understand your religion, and I understand that you were taught not to question what
was not clear, to think of it as the "mystery" and shy away from it. Back then, your masses were
in Latin and, vita aut letum! (yes we had to take that subject too!) Faith is a personal issue, and what we believe will be clarified
to us by our Creator as we stand side by side in Judgement on the Last Day, that we can be certain
of!
With love,
Maryah

Dear Maryah,

I agree with everything you said.  And most certainly it will all be sorted out on Judgement Day.  Just as a side note, I do read all I can about Islam and the Qu'ran...how could I debate anything if I were so closed minded as to not be informed of both faiths?  Thanks again for your remarks and posts, Maryah.

Pax Domini!

DavidC wrote: Andalus wrote: I have yet to find a trinity analogy that does not prove modalism. Try this one: God the Father is the creator and how Christians describe the God we worship. This is the realm of our thoughts and intentions. God the Son is how we carry out the will of the God the Father on earth. This is the realm of our physical actions. The Holy Spirit is the flow between the two, and the connection between all people.  It is the realm of the emotional.

Bismillahirrahmanirraheem

Greetings David,

You might pull your hair out trying to explain this one to me.

My question: why does God need a son?

Peace.

Patty wrote:   I have noticed (while not responding, as it's not my place here) that there is also great dissention among various tribes/sects of good Muslims.)  So it's not only Christians who bat around the possibilities of what is meant in holy documents, such as the Qu'ran and the Bible.

Greetings Patty.

I would like to point out that the sectarian differences amongst Muslims is a very different "animal", than the theological differences that plagued Christians, especially in the first 4 centuries.

1) For Christians, the differences were about the very basic ideas that would make up the tenents of belief concerning Jesus. This would be the same as Muslims splitting into groups and fighting over the nature of Proohet Muhammad (saw), or his mission, or the nature of God, or the relationship between the prophet (saw) and God.

2) For Christians, the differences were about such fundemental topics, that the diverse ideologies are an evidence that the church doctors did more speculating about Jesus than conjuring facts. For Muslims, even when you look at the rift between Shias and Sunnis, you will find that the initial rift was not so cannonized, and the two sides held major concepts about God and prophet Muhammad (saw) to be the same. As time passed, the Shias did pick up some theolgical differences and methods for deriving religous law, but they still hold that there are five pillars, which sunnis hold to. So on a fundemental level, they do agree. 

Take care Patty!