Tanakh vs. NT - C&#111;nfirmati&#111;n or C&#111;ntradicti&#111;n?

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 October 2011 at 1:12pm

Since there has been no attempts at using Genesis 1:26 to prove that the concept of the trinity in present in the Tanakh, I will present the Christian side of the argument and then attempt to refute that argument. Here is the verse in question again:

"Then God said, �Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�"(Genesis 1:26)

Some Christians argue that the use of the "us" implies the trinity. They also argue that the word used for God is "Elohim" which is the Hebrew word for "God" in the plural. Hence, they argue that this verse is proof that the trinity concept is present in the Tanakh.

And now to determine if these claims do in fact constitute as irrefutable evidence of the presence of the trinity. First, the argument that the verse uses the word "us" implies that God must exist in three persons is a non-sequitur as even if it implies that God must exist in more than one person, there is no indication that the number of persons is specifically three. Why can we not instead argue that the verse implies that God exists in an infinite number of persons? The answer is that we cannot, because to presuppose that the word "us" immediately implies multiple persons is a hasty generalization. The reason for this is that the use of the word "us" may simply be to emphasize God's majesty. In that case, it would be an example of the "royal pronoun" or "majestic plural". The Qur'an also uses this style when referring to God (see 22:5 for example). In order to prove that the royal pronoun was used by the Jews, we would need to present other examples of its use in the Bible. As it happens, we do have such examples. In 2 Samuel 16, Absalom (the king of Israel) asks for advice from Ahithophel:

"Absalom said to Ahithophel, �Give us your advice. What should we do?�"

The fact that Absalom refers to himself as "us" and "we" shows that the royal pronoun was used by the ancient Israelites. Since it could be used for mere human kings, why not also for the King of the universe?

Second, what does the use of the word "Elohim" indicate? Christians argue that it is "obviously" referring to God existing in three persons, but is that truly the case? If we can show that the word "Elohim" and its derivatives are also used for pagan gods who were never known to exist in multiple persons, would that be sufficient to prove to Christians that there is no proof that "Elohim" was synonymous with a triune God? As it happens, we can show this using the Bible itself once again:

"Will you not take what your god (e�lo�hei�cha) Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the Lord our God (e�lo�hei�nu) has given us, we will possess." (Judges 11:24)

In this verse, derivatives of "Elohim" are used to refer to a pagan god (Chemosh) as well as the God of Israel. According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, "Chemosh" was a god of the Moabites [1]. There is also no evidence that he was believed to exist in multiple persons. As such, how can Christians insist that the use of "Elohim" to refer to the one true God means that He must be a "triune God"? The facts simply do not support such a contention. It is hence nothing more than a baseless assumption and a leap of faith. And God knows best.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Jack Catholic View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 369

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:16pm

Dear islamisPeace,

You wrote, "You didn't show anything. All you did was copy a Catholic apologetic article and pasted it here. The article failed to prove anything and even admitted itself that the concept is "obscure"."

What a pathetic response

. Most of the post is my own research into the modern and the first century teaching of the Catholic Church, and into the OT and NT. Only some of the OT verses, those that explain the Holy Spirit, come from some (more than one) articles. Are you saying that all I did was copy from an article because you are having trouble admitting that there is other intelligent individuals out there besides what you think you have

? Are you afraid to admit that maybe others might be right and you might be wrong in some very serious ways

. Incidentally, the article I did qoute (not copy as you pathetically claim

) from is not "Catholic"

. Can't you recognize what you are looking at

? Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you don't know what is Catholic and what is not

IslamisPeace, open your eyes, let some of your hot air out

, and take a look at reality and truth

. And then get with it, man

What you claim is "obscure" is what I already told you was "veague." I already told you, and the word "obscure," is your way of saying, "Duhhh, I can't see it. Where is it again? I don't get it, duhhhhhh."

As I told you, it takes a while to recognize what is right there before your nose. If you pray to Allah to reveal it to you clearly, He will show it to you. He did to me and to millions of others world wide for over 2000 years. Jesus told us that he spoke in parables so that those who didn't really care would remain blind and those who did would see and remember. Do you really care, IslamisPeace..., about the truth, I mean? If you do, be patient, and let Allah lead you to it.

Then you say, "So don't give me your BS."

Ah haaaaa! I've backed you into a corner

. Thats why you cuss and swear! You say those two letters because you are feeling cornered by the truth and don't know where to go with it

. You are a looser, Sir. You are showing with your vocabulary that you have lost your cool and can't regain controle or the upper hand.

I feel sorry for your pathetic condition.

You said, "The trinity is not present in the Tanakh..."

But I have show that it is and where. Or can't you see it...?

You continued, "...nor was it ever recognized by the Jews."

Of course they did not see it. But Jesus did, and he taught a bunch of uneducated working class men how to see it. In fact, the articles I referred you to, which you admitted you were too lazy to read, will tell you that the references to the Holy Spirit are made throughout the OT and are connected to fire, water, and moving air or breath. Amazingly, in the NT, the Apostles recognize the Holy Spirit showing itself in these three ways. Only in the NT, the Apostles recognize there three appearances of the Holy Spirit for what it is. They couldn't have known what they new if it wasn't for someone like Jesus who taught them. I'm surprised that one as intelligent as yourself can't see it.

Hmmmmm, I wonder why

You said, "In order to disprove this, you would have to provide clear verses from the Tanakh which state that God is three in one."

Yeah, right. I'd have to for one with your intelligence and lack of patience to be able to see what is clearly there

. Open your eyes, blind man. Allah is the master of being always present, but often not visible to we humans. It only makes sense that His Holy Spirit would have similar characteristics. Your ability to see Allah is like a muscle. You must practice, pray, and exercise your vision in order for it to grow, mature, and get strong. Obviously, at the moment, it is a weak as a flabby muscle. Get up off your lazy computer chair and work hard at prayer and trying to learn how to see Allah. He is there all around you, always has been, but yo will not see him with your eyes. You will only recognize him with your heart. In 1 John 4:16, St. John the Apostles wrote, "God is Love." As it is only by the heart that you see love, as love is not visible to the eyes, one can also say, "where you find love, there you will also find Allah."

You ended with, "You have failed to do that." And you know what, it doesn't matter if I succeeded or failed. I can see it, and so can many others. Can you see what is there but not obvious, my friend?

Allah's blessings to you,

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 13 October 2011 at 2:47pm

Jack Catholic View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 369

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:55pm

Dear IslamisPeace,

You wrote, "Since there has been no attempts at using Genesis 1:26 to prove that the concept of the trinity in present in the Tanakh, I will present the Christian side of the argument and then attempt to refute that argument. Here is the verse in question again:"

Uh ohhh. There you go, arguing with yourself.

It's getting pretty bad, isn't it.

Jack Catholic

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 15 October 2011 at 3:51pm

Jack wrote:

What a pathetic response

? Are you afraid to admit that maybe others might be right and you might be wrong in some very serious ways

. Incidentally, the article I did qoute (not copy as you pathetically claim

) from is not "Catholic"

. Can't you recognize what you are looking at

? Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you don't know what is Catholic and what is not

Riiiight...All I see here is a lot of ranting typical of people with no answers. The one link you gave me (which is the one I was referring to) was a Catholic website. You even said so! Big%20smile

And surprisingly, that website proved my point which was that the trinity concept is not present anywhere in the Tanakh, although the website used the word "obscure" to divert from the truth.

Jack wrote:

IslamisPeace, open your eyes, let some of your hot air out

, and take a look at reality and truth

. And then get with it, man

What?

Do you mean "vague" Jackie boy? Anyway, so what you are saying is that the Tanakh conveniently forgot to mention the trinity in greater detail? Is that it? By the way, I didn't use the word "obscure". That was your "websight" (sic)! I was merely pointing out that your own source contradicts itself and proves what I have been saying all this time. You still have not proven that the trinity teaching is present in the Tanakh. It seems you are getting frustrated, so you are resorting to these hilarious posts which spend more time making you look like a fool rather than responding to my points. There, there Jack. It's okay. I know the truth hurts.

Jack wrote:

As I told you, it takes a while to recognize what is right there before your nose. If you pray to Allah to reveal it to you clearly, He will show it to you. He did to me and to millions of others world wide for over 2000 years. Jesus told us that he spoke in parables so that those who didn't really care would remain blind and those who did would see and remember. Do you really care, IslamisPeace..., about the truth, I mean? If you do, be patient, and let Allah lead you to it.

Now this is the typical answer! The Christians know that the non-Christians who use their heads and their reason will not fall for the pathetic arguments the Church gives for its beliefs. So they say things like "you should pray" or "give it time". It is essentially the same as saying "in order to have faith, you need faith"! You can't answer a simple question like "where in the Tanakh is the trinity mentioned" so you resort to logical fallacies. As I have said elsewhere, what appears to you to be the "truth" is in fact fantasy. It is the result of the steady brainwashing that your have undergone in your life which has desensitized you to logic and reason. That is why you cannot answer my question. Poor, poor Jack. Whither hast thou gone? Come back to reality.

I ask again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?

Jack wrote:

Ah haaaaa! I've backed you into a corner

. Thats why you cuss and swear! You say those two letters because you are feeling cornered by the truth and don't know where to go with it

. You are a looser, Sir. You are showing with your vocabulary that you have lost your cool and can't regain controle or the upper hand.

I feel sorry for your pathetic condition.

Ah haaaaa! No answer as usual, just more ranting and raving. I am a "looser" (sic). Sure, whatever you say. At least I know how to spell the word correctly! Tongue

Again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at? Anyone? Come on, don't be shy.

Jack wrote:

But I have show that it is and where. Or can't you see it...?

You have shown nothing! You pointed to a few verses which mention the "Holy Spirit". So what? The "Holy Spirit" is only 1/3 of the trinity, dearest. Where is the rest of it? Where was the son in all those verses you mentioned? Off fishing?

Also, I showed that according to Jews, the Holy Spirit was created. You had no response to this except to ignore it. Who's afraid of the truth? Projection much Jack?

Is it that I cannot see or that you are seeing things that are not there? Ponder that for a while, dude...

And a third time: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?

Jack wrote:

Of course they did not see it.

Oh how convenient, "they did not see it". Yeah, that must be it, not the simpler explanation which is that it was never taught to them by the prophets nor by their scripture. Faulty Christian logic...I love it! Clap

But wait...are you not now contradicting yourself by saying that the Jews
"did not see it"? On October 9, you wrote:

"Indeed, only revelations from Allah that do not agree with the truth are those contained in the Holy Qur�an, but perhaps this is just that Muhammad did not really know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did..."

At first you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) did not know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did, meaning that trinity was accepted by the Jews. But now you say that the Jews "did not see it". Which is it?

Jack wrote:

But Jesus did, and he taught a bunch of uneducated working class men how to see it.

Riiight...and how was that? By getting high? LOL

I only say this because I can't imagine how anyone with an ounce of reason can "see" the trinity in the Tanakh. It seems like they want to see something that is just not there, sort of like a drug addict in a euphoric state.

Jack wrote:

In fact, the articles I referred you to, which you admitted you were too lazy to read, will tell you that the references to the Holy Spirit are made throughout the OT and are connected to fire, water, and moving air or breath.

Oh pardon me Jack for not having the time to read what you were too lazy to explain yourself. You know I could just give you a bunch of links to read too. But, I know better. Even when I do use links, it is only to provide the reference. Basically, when you give me links to read in response to my question, that just tells me that you are too ignorant to answer it yourself or too lazy.

Jack wrote:

Amazingly, in the NT, the Apostles recognize the Holy Spirit showing itself in these three ways. Only in the NT, the Apostles recognize there three appearances of the Holy Spirit for what it is. They couldn't have known what they new if it wasn't for someone like Jesus who taught them. I'm surprised that one as intelligent as yourself can't see it.

Hmmmmm, I wonder why

And amazingly, you have yet to provide any evidence of the trinity! You are stuck on the Holy Spirit, but have yet to provide a definitive verse which clearly says that "God is three in one". I need to laugh...wait for it...wait...wait... LOL

...ah there we go...

Let me just show you the sequence of your argument and why it is so foolish and laughable:

Islamispeace: Where in the Tanakh is the trinity mentioned?

Jack: Dah, well the Tanakh mentions the Holy Spirit. So it mentions the trinity, dah...

Islamispeace: But that doesn't answer the question. Where does the Tanakh state that God is three in one? Also, the Holy Spirit, according to Jewish sources, was created whereas the NT states that it is uncreated?

Jack: Dah, I already explained it to you. You just can't see. Pray and be patient, dah, and it will come to you. Dah...

Islamispeace: Riiight... LOL

/End sequence

Do you see how st**id your argument is? And... LOL

Jack wrote:

Yeah, right. I'd have to for one with your intelligence and lack of patience to be able to see what is clearly there

Aw, you hurt my feelings! Cry

Jack is trying very hard to make it appear as if the trinity is clearly taught in the Tanakh. But of course, when one wants to see something even if it is not there, one will still see it. And when one cannot get someone with a little more reason to believe him, he will question the other's "intelligence". Faulty Christian logic strikes again...I love it!

Jack wrote:

Open your eyes, blind man. Allah is the master of being always present, but often not visible to we humans. It only makes sense that His Holy Spirit would have similar characteristics. Your ability to see Allah is like a muscle. You must practice, pray, and exercise your vision in order for it to grow, mature, and get strong. Obviously, at the moment, it is a weak as a flabby muscle. Get up off your lazy computer chair and work hard at prayer and trying to learn how to see Allah. He is there all around you, always has been, but yo will not see him with your eyes. You will only recognize him with your heart. In 1 John 4:16, St. John the Apostles wrote, "God is Love." As it is only by the heart that you see love, as love is not visible to the eyes, one can also say, "where you find love, there you will also find Allah."

Translation: The trinity is there if you believe it is there. Don't use your reason, which Allah (swt) gave you. Just believe and you will see it. Maybe take a little LSD too. That might help.

This sounds like Mulder from the X-Files: "I want to believe".

Jack wrote:

You ended with, "You have failed to do that." And you know what, it doesn't matter if I succeeded or failed. I can see it, and so can many others. Can you see what is there but not obvious, my friend?

What you see is a mirage, a result of you closing your mind to reason. If you are asking me if I will choose blind faith over reason, I say thanks but no thanks. I will choose reason. Sorry to disappoint you and your blind brethren.

Jack wrote:

Uh ohhh. There you go, arguing with yourself.

It's getting pretty bad, isn't it.

Well, I have to stimulate discussion, don't I? The silence on the subject is deafening. It seems to me that no one has any answers. Even then, I tried to play devil's advocate and presented a verse as "evidence" of the trinity to stimulate discussion. When no one answered, I presented the Christian side of the argument (which I have heard from Christians before) and then presented my side of the argument. I considered the other side's claims and tested those claims with the facts. It's called objectivity, Jack. Perhaps you should look it up, since I know you have never heard of it.

In any case, do you have anything to say regarding Genesis 1:26 and how Christians try to manipulate the facts in their hopeless campaign to prove that the trinity is present in the Tanakh?

And finally...

Tongue

...all in one!

Edited by islamispeace - 15 October 2011 at 4:00pm

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

honeto

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male Islam
Joined: 20 March 2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2487

Post Options

Quote honeto

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 17 October 2011 at 2:43pm

Jack Catholic wrote:

Dear Hasan,

Thank you. I appreciate your appreciation. Though I know we have sparred a bit, I do respect you for your self control. Though we do not agree on everything, yet I also respect your intellect and knowledge.

May Allah always bless you now and forever,

Jack Catholic

Thanks Jack, All Praise is Only for Allah.

Now do you care to show me a verse or two that declare God as a Trinity in the OT. Please only one or two verses will be enough, as you know I hate those pages long explainations. I am not intersted in explaination or commontary rather verses that just say it, plain and simple.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 17 October 2011 at 2:44pm

The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

Kish

Guest Group

Joined: 07 July 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 237

Post Options

Quote Kish

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 17 October 2011 at 8:04pm

**Again, you really have to scrutinize my posts before posting it, huh? Trying to find the answers islamispeace for a rebuttal? Even if one person like yourself reads it, it has been accomplished! This is just way to easy**

islamispeace wrote:

There are, of course, many places they agree, but the existence of even one place where they disagree would call into question the Christian claim that they are in total agreement.

If, such is the case the same would hold true with the Quran compared with the Tanakh, correct? Was Allah the God of Moses (Jahweh Elohim) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel? A resounding NO! Allah is lord of the Ka�ba who has no son.

Why then do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

A) A)All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad�s day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

B) A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

C) The Quran makes no distinction between God�s revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur�an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that,

"The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them,"

How convenient, right? And what an altered-Ego!

What I personally find interesting is that many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) accepted the Gospel texts

c. BUKHARI (810-870) accepted the Gospel texts (he gathered some of the earliest

tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible

Sura 3:72,78)

d. Al-Mas'udi (956) accepted the Gospel texts

e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037) accepted the Gospel texts

f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) accepted the Gospel texts (probably the greatest Muslim scholar

he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) accepted the Gospel texts (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not

accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us

Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced.

� accepted the Gospel texts

i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and

early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors

and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known

and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather than the witness of the Quran, the

word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who all believed the

Bible texts to be truthful, Why do you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas but not

the Gospel of Jesus?

Kish ''';

Edited by Kish - 21 October 2011 at 10:31am

Jack Catholic View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 369

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 18 October 2011 at 9:43pm

Dear IslamiPeace,

You wrote, "You still have not proven that the trinity teaching is present in the Tanakh."

Ahhhh, Piecie Boy, there you go, trying to twist and turn my words to make make yourself look victorious when in fact you are still as pathetic as you always were. I never said that I would prove that the "Holy Trinity" teaching was present in the Tanakh.

What I did write, blind man, is the following: " The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah." I do not have to prove that the Tanakh teaches the Holy Trinity, I only have to show where the persons of the Holy Trinity are present in the OT (Tanakh) and I did that quite well. So you loose, poor pathetic excuse for a scholar that you are, sir. The Catholic Church is right on, because it accepts all of what is in the Holy Bible, NT and OT (Tanakh). But you personally do not. I guess truth is not an issue for you, huh?

After ranting and raving for another two long paragraphs like a mad man, you posted the same question. Does beating your head against a brick wall for repetitions ad nauseum feel good to you, cause its making you look like a fool: "I ask again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?" Man that's gotta hurt!

Then you write, "Again: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at? Anyone? Come on, don't be shy." Bang, bang, bang

Look above, blind man, at what I said I would do and where the term in question comes from and what its purpose is. But, oh my, here it comes again: And a third time: Where in the Tanakh is the concept of the trinity mentioned or even hinted at?" Want a bandaid for that boo boo on your head?

Man, I'm laughing so hard at your stubborn st***pidity that it has brought me tears.

You wrote that I contradicted myself when you wrote, "At first you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) did not know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did, meaning that trinity was accepted by the Jews. But now you say that the Jews "did not see it". Which is it?"

Ahhh, there you go interpreting your own stuff into the mouths of others again. I did not say that the Trintiy was accepted by the Jews. What a dull headed monkey you are, silly man. I simply showed that the Jews recognized in the Tanakh the existence of the Holy Spirit. At least the Jews knew Allah this much, as Christians do. Muhammad, on the other hand, denied the very existance of the Holy Spirit. So much for knowing Allah, huh?

You wrote, even after I pointed out verses for both God's Word in action (Jesus) and the very clear mentioning of the Holy Spirit in the OT, "I only say this because I can't imagine how anyone with an ounce of reason can "see" the trinity in the Tanakh. It seems like they want to see something that is just not there, sort of like a drug addict in a euphoric state."

Congratulations!

You have just exposed your blindness so loudly and clearly. Read in the Holy Bible what Jesus says about blind men, IslamisPeace. How can anyone take you seriously now. Why, I bet you could look right at an elephant and say that it was not there.

Can't get any st***pider than that!

Oh, yes, correction, you chose not to read the link I provided due to your own laziness. So you are blind, st***pid, and lazy.

What a sad combination to have as character traits.

You wrote, "You know I could just give you a bunch of links to read too."

And you know what, I wish you would. They would be so much more informative than your ranting, sour, whiny, pathetic posts where you bash your head repeatedly against a proverbial wall and LOL like a raving madman claiming that what is made clear and obvious is not really there. Then you claim that those who can see what is clearly there are on drugs and halucinating. You can't get a more pathetic post than that.

Then you post the evidence of your hazy vision once again, "And amazingly, you have yet to provide any evidence of the trinity!" Ha.... aha....haha

I know that Allah will bless you anyway,

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 18 October 2011 at 9:50pm

Jack Catholic View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 369

Post Options