The Trinity Challenge

By Ibn Saad

This is an open Challenge to those who accept the Trinity and believe that the Bible confirms this doctrine. I challenge you to bring at least one explicit biblical verse which clearly states something similar to the following:

“God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all gods, however, they are not three gods but one God,”

or

“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being,”

or

“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same” or etc.

 

Note that if you find a verse with the words “God,” “Jesus,” and “Holy Ghost” that appear together in one verse, this does not prove the “Trinity,” or “merging of three into one.” Even if this verse contains the word “one”, this still does not prove the “Trinity.” For example, if I say “Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language” this is not the same as saying “Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person.”

If you are unable to do what I ask, and trust me, you can’t , than you have to agree that the concept of the Trinity does not exist in the Bible. You might argue that Jesus told his disciples in secret and they spread it to his other followers who spread it to later generations. If this is your argument, know that this contradicts the verse in the Bible, where Jesus says:

“I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing” (John 18:20).

So now, you have to ask yourself, did Jesus really teach the Trinity or am I following a man-made paradox? I’ll let you decide.

(Ref: What did Jesus Really Say? http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/contents.html)

Incoming search terms:

  • ibn anwar challenge
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

82 Responses to “The Trinity Challenge”

  1. ibnsaad says:

    Ibn Anwar says

    Assalamu’alaikum,
    There isn’t an explicit verse anywhere in whichever Bible that promotes the trinity SAVE one. The verse is in the 1st Epistle of John Chapter 5 verse 7, the so called Johannine Comma. However, this verse is subject to immense controversy and is regarded by many Biblical experts as nothing more than an interpolation which crept into Latin texts from the 4th century onwards(see the NIV). The verse is not to be found in any early Greek manuscripts according to the New International Version, The Revised Standard Version, The Amplified Version, The Scofield Reference Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible and even the New Revised Standard Version indiates that the passage is not worthy of status as scripture. This is sufficient indication that the verse is a fabrication which wasforced into the Catholic church in its early days.

    Trinity(man-made concoction) vs Absolute Monotheism:

    1st Epistle of John Chapter 5:7 in KJV :
    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the son and the holy spirit and these three are one.

    Versus

    17 John, verse 3:
    “For this is eternal life, that they may know You(the Father) the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.”

    Jazahullah

    • Harry says:

      Hi ibnsaad

      can you find a single verse in the koran that says there isn’t a Father,Son and Holy Ghost and that it is false.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        The Qur’an does not explicitly say that Harry Potter does not exist so that must mean he does right? Stop being a clown please.

  2. ibnsaad says:

    More to add about 1 John 5:7:

    (Taken from http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/mu.....2.2.5.html)

    The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says:

    “This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.”

    Also we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is.

  3. ibnsaad says:

    Roy Wahab says:

    Dear Muslim friends. I am a Christian. Not the kind of Christian you see on movies or in entertainment… they probably aren’t Christians at all.
    I also hold a degree in Physics, have completed a second degree and have done some basic studies in logic.
    I also believe in this elusive controversy called the Trinity. I want you to know that I wouldn’t believe it if: a) it were so easily proven untrue (as is the “Strawman” approach in many religious circles) and b) if it were not taught in Scripture.
    I know that most Christians don’t study their Bibles, (shame on us) and I also admit that especially the Catholic Church has been guilty of adding and subtracting doctrines over the years. That’s why I am not a Catholic.

    I am fully aware that Muslims have trouble with two major Christian beliefs: the Trinity and Jesus being the Son of God. I struggled with them both until I actually read the Bible instead of having others “Strawman” them to me. (Strawman is a cheap debating trick. Google-it, and ask if you’ve been Strawmanned! =)

    Your challenge looks convincing only to readers who already agree with the premise of your challenge, though the rules of the challenge don’t a)help Muslims understand Christians b)further any useful dialog between faiths c) help a genuinely seeking Muslim or d) do not explore THE REAL REASON why Christians believe the Trinity. (By the way, the two people who posted already have more attacked the Bible than shed light on the topic at hand. If the doctrine is logically believable by reasonable people, it probably should not be addressed by Muslims).

    I have a paper written on the Trinity for those who are interested in further reading on the matter. I’m not a theologian, or scholar, but I have read the Bible several times, I enjoy it, and am ready to be held responsible for what I believe.

    The simple answer to the challenge is: No, besides the verse mentioned (and I disagree with the context in which it was discussed) there isn’t (and doesn’t need to be) a single verse in the Bible that wraps the Trinity up in a neat ball.

    I can also say that without the Trinity, the Bible would completely unravel and not make any sense… but that is only a matter for those who study it for themselves. Feel free to email me for this list of Bible verses — but only if you’re really interested in dialog. Eternity is too long to regret unconcluded debates.

    Roy Wahab
    roywahab@yahoo.ca
    NOTE: I don’t check this email address too often, but I will check it until the end of Oct/07

  4. ibnsaad says:

    Ibn Anwar says :

    Assalamu’alaikum,
    First of, what is the purpose of you saying “I’m not the kind of Christians you see on television” ? Secondly, what is the relevance of you saying “I hold a degree in physics,have completed a second degree and have done some basic studies in logic”? Is this suppose to add credebility to your belief in the trinity? If that is the case, though I hope it isn’t then it’s a very poor way of proving this problematic theology i.e. trinity since there are many physicists out there Muslims included who reject the concept.

    I don’t think you are fully aware of the Muslim position. The Muslims are concerned and rather critical over 3 major Christian doctrines namely, the trinity, the crucifixion and the original sin. We do not have trouble accepting Jesus as the “son of God” provided that it is understood as how these verses are understood:

    “Israel(Jacob) is my son, even my FIRSTBORN”. Exodus 4:22

    “for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN.” Jeremiah 31:9

    “Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:38

    “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me(King David), Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee.” Psalms 2:7

    You said,”Your challenge looks convincing only to readers who already agree with the premise of your challenge, though the rules of the challenge don’t a)help Muslims understand Christians b)further any useful dialog between faiths c) help a genuinely seeking Muslim or d) do not explore THE REAL REASON why Christians believe the Trinity.”
    This challenge is simply an honest attempt to see if there is indeed an unambiguous verse which declares the trinity since it is a most important foundation in most Christian denominations. The argument is basically that if it is indeed such an important concept then at least there should be one clear scripture which supports it, not puzzles of scripture put together. You said this kind of approach does not promote the understanding of why christians believe in the trinity…well is it really these kind of approaches or that which you yourself observed,”most Christians don’t study their Bibles” ?

    You have a paper on the trinity? Please proceed it to the administrator of this site Abul Layth. His e-mail address is given in the “The Seekingilm Team” section. I would very much like to read what you have to say.
    The Muslim stance is basically thus,” There is no definitive scriptual evidence of God’s plurality in three. Verses put forth by trinitarians to prove the concept are either misunderstood or ambiguous at best. If the idea existed, Jews an an early people of God would have believed in such a concept, but historically such a concept only existed in the Hindu Thrimurti before 3 to 4 CE. When the details are considered the reasonable man, Muslim or otherwise should reject the notion that trinity is scriptural.”

    Ibn Anwardi
    P.S. “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” mentions :
    “(the trinity) is a product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”
    It’s establishment and security was ensured after the slaughter and killing of Arius and his followers if I might add.

  5. ibnsaad says:

    Rev. Samuel Roberts says :

    As a person who holds a degree in Biblical Studies and has spent many years studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew; I feel compelled to state that idea of the trinity is completely foreign to the Scriptures. The only place one would find the Trinity would be in either a perverse translation of the Holy Scriptures, or in some pagan religion. Roy Wahab has offered us exactly what all christians have given to the world concerning the Trinity, nothing but his own testimony concerning a “great mystery” that even he claims not to understand. I demand that proof from the word of God be offered to us. what good is the testimony of a man?

  6. ibnsaad says:

    Karen says:

    I agree completely with Rev. Roberts. I hold no impressive degrees — I can only point to the truth of the Word of God as validation for this view. Although we may be in the minority, there are many Christians who do NOT embrace the doctrine of the trinity, but are strict monotheists like myself.

    Trinitarians would accuse us of denying two of their gods (”persons”) by only acknowledging One. That is not the case.
    Didn’t God create man in His own image in the beginning? And wasn’t man created with a body, soul, and spirit while being ONE PERSON?

    I have a body, soul, and spirit but am not 3 persons – only one. Since each of us has been created in God’s image, isn’t it reasonable to deduce that, in the same manner, God has a soul (Father), body (Son), and spirit (Holy Ghost) while also being ONE person, not three?

    1Ti 3:16 And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory. (Amplified version)

    Note that this scripture about the “mystery” does NOT say that God was manifest (made visible) in three persons. The mystery is that God was manifest in the flesh, and not just 1/3 of God, but God in all His fullness.

    Col 2:8 See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men’s ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah).
    Col 2:9 For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].
    (Amplified version)

    Let God be true and every man a liar.

  7. ibnsaad says:

    Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    Karen you said:
    “I have a body, soul, and spirit but am not 3 persons – only one. Since each of us has been created in God’s image, isn’t it reasonable to deduce that, in the same manner, God has a soul (Father), body (Son), and spirit (Holy Ghost) while also being ONE person, not three?”

    Is the above like the white, yoke and shell of an egg or ice, water and gas analogies? lol…yes you have a body and soul…i’m not sure how you differentiate a soul from a spirit of a human being..are they not the same thing? Can you as a person survive if your soul left your body? Will you be considered a human being living on earth if your soul is devoid of a physical body? These are philosophical questions but I think you know what I’m getting at….God is one and is not consist of anything that we have knowledge of..as the Qur’an points out “There is NOTHING like unto Him” …He is absolutely unique from all points of view…to compare him to the likes of His creatures is to demean His position as the Ultimate Creator, different from anything and it also brings Him down to the level of the created. God can exist and survive without Jesus or any other thing for that matter. He is one without partner. This message is quite clearly declared in the First Commandment. Jesus does not in any way shape or form share even an ounce of God’s divinity. This is made clear in several places throughout the scriptures and particularly in the verse I pointed out in my previous comment i.e. John 17:3.
    You said :
    “The mystery is that God was manifest in the flesh, and not just 1/3 of God, but God in all His fullness.” This is in accordance with your understanding of the verses you provided from Colossians…However, like many scriptual verses it really depends on how you percieve them. There is also another verse, mentioned in the letters that “God dwells fully in the believers”..are we all now literally and fully ONE with God? Your interpretation is confounded further by such instances where Jesus made clear distinctions between him and God the Father, most often illustrating that the former is subservient to the latter. For instance, “Of that day knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, not the son, but only the Father.” If the Father or God is manifested FULLY in Jesus, isn’t it only logical that they would share the same powers, provileges and most importantly knowledge? Does your soul know something your body does not? This again is a philosophical question, but I think you know what I’m getting at…Well, I shan’t philosophy much further…In short “This is eternal life(salvation), that they may know You(The Father/God) are the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom You(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent(messenger)” John 17:3.

    Ibn Anwar

  8. ibnsaad says:

    Hussain20 says:

    Dr Von Tishendorf, one of the most resolute conservative defenders of the trinity, admitted that the New Testament had “in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written.” (Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 277)

  9. ibnsaad says:

    Roy Wahab :

    Hey sorry guys. You’re right, my last (multi-page post) explained the Trinity, because I know all Muslims have trouble with it, and I tried to show that not only does it make credible/logical sense but that there are OTHER trinities that Muslims rely on as well. (Outside of the Islamic faith) I do apologize if this was interpreted as being rude. Sorry!

    Deuteronomy 6:4 says “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” This is FUNDAMENTAL to Christian theology. Muslims frequently misunderstand us to be polytheistic, and we are adamantly monotheistic. Hence, I thought you wanted clarification, and an explanation based on reason and logic. (Because you don’t agree with our Scriptures anyways)

    But if it is a short, one-worded answer you are looking for; the answer is NO! There is no single verse that carries the credentials you have set up. I’m not sure if you can conclude anything definite from these results based on the way you have set up the challenge. I suppose the challenge is over, and you can close/archive the thread.

    I was however surprised that nobody contacted me about the 5-page list of Bible verses I put together where Christ claims equality with God, or the Holy Spirit does something only God can do.

    Remember the premise, we believe in one God. Otherwise, we are openly contradictory! (or plain liars! =) Here’s my email again for those who are still seeking.

    roywahab@gmail.com

    Again, there is no single verse in the Bible that carries the credentials you have set forth.

    Roy Wahab

  10. ibnsaad says:

    Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum,

    Roy Wahab…your explanation would only be credible if the trinity was actually taught by the Bible…but as you have admitted..there isn’t a single verse in any version of the Bible that does!…so your logical reasonings really mean nothing…just because something is possible and logical does not mean that that’s how it is….your explanation would also help the Hindus in their concept of thrimurti…quite similar to the trinity….if a Hindu were to use the same logical reasoning..is that proof that their thrimurti is true? Sorry to burst your bubble Roy Wahab, but your research is void…
    Trinitarian Christians are polytheistic yes…but there are those Christians who are monotheists like Reverend Samuel who’s an Arian. The Father, Jesus and the holy spirit are seperate beings…you say you have compiled a 5 page list of places where Jesus claimed equality with the Father…..I need only bring one to destroy your proposition and that is ” MY FATHER IS GREATER THAT I”…this clearly shows inequality between the two beings…in regards to the Holy Spirit in John 10 Jesus said “THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL” …all = everything which may inclue the Holy Spirit…and further more it is mentioned that “all blasphemy is forgiven except blasphemy against the holy spirit” this also shows clear inequality between the holy spirit and the other 2 in the godhead…
    I suggest you go study more Roy Wahab. Thanks

    Ibn Anwar

  11. Jan says:

    You can argue your case all day, but I also offer you a challenge – to refute anything documented in the book entitlled “The Unveiling of the Trinity.” This book is guaranteed that you or any other skeptic who rejects the Trinity cannot biblically disprove the Trinity that this book verifies. It also removes the mystery commonly associated with the Trinity and answers all the questions no one could answer before. I doubt if you would accept this challenge and be defeated, so just go on trying to get someone to accept your challenge which will profit you nothing.

    Jan

  12. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,
    Jan, I’m not sure if you can read or understand simple basic English. The challenge is to PROVE Jesus TAUGHT the trinity, not whether it exists in the Bible or for you to propose a challenge of your own. In any case, thank you for the suggestion. I shall certainly have a look at this awesome book which has finally put the mystery of the trinity to rest. However, if this book is so great and the points it raised are extremely sound, then, why don’t you present the arguments(in your own words) with the proofs offered in the book here? Say that I cannot get the book, because by God..this is the first time I’m hearing about it…wouldn’t it only be fair if you could share the ideas with us here? “Prove all things” remember? Let us hope you didn’t post that response simply to score some cheap points..

    Ibn Anwar

  13. Jan says:

    Ibn – You are missing the point of Jesus coming to earth. He came to redeem fallen man from his sins. What good would it have done for Jesus to go everywhere and tell everyone He was God? If He woulld have called down fire from heaven and done all kinds of marvelous wonders, they would have made Him a king, and that would have defeated the very purpose for His coming to earth. He even told His disciples many times not to tell anyone who He is until after He had risen.

    Adam was as close to a perfect being as you could get. The Bible says, he walked with God. That is until he sinned. Then God banished him from the Garden and from His presence. All of mankind’s geneaology goes back to Adam, but they cannot get to God through Adam. We all became separated from God. Only a perfect being could bring us back to God, and there are no perfect beings, except one – that is God Himself. God sent the very best part of Himself, in the person of His Son Jesus, to redeem man. He did it through a woman who had been kept pure from man – a virgin – hence the Virgin Birth. If she had not been a virgin, Jesus would have been corrupted by the same corruption of you and I and Adam and everyone else acquired.

    Now do I expect you to believe this? No. You have been brought up from a pup to believe whatever they told you from birth. I too was brought up that way, only I used my own mind to think for myself. I like to think logically. If I see something that looks like it isn’t telling me the truth – I will ask myself questions like what is wrong with this picture. You might think the picture of the Trinity does not look logical and to the natural man it doesn’t.

    I have been studying the Bible for quite a while and have yet to find a flaw in it. I have found many truths and many prophecies fulfilled and are being fulfiled today. I could not go elsewhere and try something else, because nothing could compare. Everything Jesus said in the Bible has come true for me. You can go ahead and listen to whatever it is that has you against God in His Trinity. That is your choice. May your god be good to you. – Jan

  14. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,
    Jan…I congratulate in you successfully evading the issues. :p…You have thus far failed to address the challenge like all other Trinitarians who have participated and the best so far was Scott ( http://seekingilm.com/archives/205 ). Unfortunately, he too failed miserably in the end. You posed the question,”What good would it have done Jesus to go everywhere and tell everyone He was God?”..what good? well for one, he’d be sticking to his word in Malachi assuming that he’s the God of the OT,”For I am God, and I do not change”. God does not change..now if we study the Old Testament, there is a trend which God seem to have prescribed for Himself, that is, time and again He would always vividly, unambiguously explicitly declare Himself sovereign God whenever He appears, for example :

    “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”(Exodus 20:2)

    “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalms 46:10)

    “I am the Lord your God” (Psalms 81:10)

    “…for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Leveticus 19:2)

    “…I am the Lord your God” (Leveticus 19:31)

    “Then you will know that I, the Lord your God…”(Joel 3:17)

    And so on and so forth. So as you can see, it was a unabashed common nature of God to explicitly declare Himself God. In light of the verse quoted from Malachi, why was this CLEAREST of all natures of God disappears in Jesus? Why did Jesus not follow the trend of God in the Old Testament if he was that same God? You said,”He told his disciples many times not to tell anyone who he really is.”. Would you mind citing some references for that? I’d like to see in what context Jesus spoke those words, if he actually did.

    In your second paragraph you said that all humankind have fallen short of perfection due to Adam’s sin and have been separated from God ever since and the only way to bridge that separation is through Jesus. Thus, in your ideology one must accept Jesus’ blood sacrifice to reach God and for the remittance/atonement of sins. For full proof answer to this perverted idea, refer to my article http://unveilingchristianity.w.....sacrifice/ . I have proven in the article that Jesus or anyone else’s sacrifice is not a necessity to receive God’s mercy and forgiveness. Coming to the issue of perfection and sinlessness, a nature you and your fellow Christians think is exclusively to Jesus alone and because of this he was truly the perfect sacrifice. This notion is compounded by the following :

    “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Luke 1:6)

    The above is talking about Zachariah and Elizabeth. Clearly, according to the verse they had much favour in the sight of God and the most significant point is that they were BLAMELESS, which is a synonym for SINLESS!. So here we see that Jesus was not really the only “sinless” person to have walked the earth.

    Now I shall offer one evidence from the Bible which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was NOT God. First of all let us agree based on Acts 2:22,”Listen to this, Jesus of Nazareth was a MAN..”. This is Peter speaking and interestingly, notice that he did not say Jesus was God or man God or man and God or anything to the effect. He merely affirmed that Jesus was a MAN!. Now that we have established that Jesus was a man, let us have a look at what The Old Testament has to say about man :

    “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS NOT A MAN, that he should have regret.” (1 Samuel 15:29)

    “I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.” (Hosea 11:9)

    “God IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

    Here we have explicit statements from the OT explicitly indicating that GOD IS NOT A MAN. Jesus as we have agreed was a MAN. Hence, Jesus was NOT GOD! It’s quite simple really.

    There are so many other proofs that disproves Jesus’ alleged divinity, but for the time being I think the above is sufficient.

    In regards to the question of prophecy, I need only bring one unfulfilled prophecy to destroy your entire argument.

    Isaiah 7:14,”Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” Christians for centuries after centuries(surely by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) have time and again used this as proof of Jesus’ divinity and saying that it is a prophesy about Jesus. Let us scrutinise this verse and see if the Christian claim is true. The prophecy says that this child born to a “virgin” WILL BE CALLED by the “virgin” IMMANUEL which means God with us. Assuming that the virgin was Mary, where in the entire New Testament did Mary or even anyone for that matter CALLED Jesus Immanuel? The answer is no one, not even Paul. This is clearly an UNFULFILLED prophecy. Further more, to add to the problem, we now know that the Christian translators have FALSELY translated the verse, ALMOST all except for one that I know of:

    “For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.” (Bible in Basic English)

    Notice any differences? Yes, the word VIRGIN is replaced by young woman. You see, in Hebrew the word for virgin is “baithula”. In the verse, the word found there is not “baithula”, but rather “amla” which correctly means young woman. Evidently, Christian translators have falsely translated the verse to suit their own personal agenda. This is reminiscent to the honest truth of Jeremiah 8:8. The Jews who do not have any bias towards Jesus have translated the verse in the following :

    “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” ( Jewish Publication Society Tanakh)

    Jan, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but you are not the only one who have studied the Bible “a while”.

    Ibn Anwar

  15. Jan says:

    Praise the Lord to our God and Savior Jesus Christ and greetings to you.
    Please understand that the Bible is a spiritual book and is not possible for one to understand the deep things of God unless he is born-again of the Spirit of God – 1 Corinthians 2:10-13.

    What you are saying in your challenge that states there is not one verse of Scripture that says God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God means nothing and proves nothing. There are many Scriptures that teach the Trinity in many places. However, Matthew 28:19 is the only one that mentions the three together, (except 1 John 5:7).

    Jesus said, “My Father and I are One.” He also said, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” Look at some of the Scriptures with an open mind, not the mind of your religion. Asked this question – What does it mean when Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but by Me.

    You cannot look at the Bible with secular eyes and say it says this, but it really means that. That is the only way most non-believer can make it fit their own doctrine.

    Let me answer a couple of your questions, but keep in mind, you can read the Bible all your life, but you cannot understand it without the Spirit of God living in you – Romans 8:9.

    All the Scriptures in the Old Testament regard the Father and Spirit – Jesus was not yet born through the Virgin Birth yet. If you want to see the Trinity in the Old Testament, look at Isaiah 48:16. This is not Isaiah speaking. If you look at the pervious verse you will see it is God (Jesus).

    The righteous and blameless in Luke 1:6 were Jews keeping the law, not salvation through Jesus. Noah and King David and others were also righteous in their day.

    If what is said in the Old Testament is changed in the New Testament, that change in the New Testament takes priority. Such are many verses in Matthew chapters 5,6,7.

    Immanuel in the New Testament is Matthew 1:23. About Mary being a virgin – Matthew 1:18-25.

    I am sorry to tell you, but many Jews do have bias agaist Jesus. – Jan

  16. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,

    You said that the Bible cannot be understood UNLESS a person is “born-again”. This is an age old poor missionary tactic of evasio. If this is indeed the case then Bible societies around the world have wasted their time printing the Bible into more than 2000 languages for the consumption of non-Christians, in their efforts to convert. Because as you have reasoned the texts are incomprehensible to outsiders. Further more, I don’t think born-again Christians are that attuned to the Bible. Most bible thumpers and so called born again Christians I’ve encountered have very limited understanding of scripture, in fact most of them don’t even know their own Bibles. In addition, if being born-again is a requirement for understanding then I’m sure Jimmy Swaggart is an excellent champion of that*notice the sarcasm*. Billy Graham said that there were 70 MILLION born-again Christians in America, YET all these born-agains are going in separate distinct, different directions! Each with their own version of the Bible, each with their own Church practices and each with their own traditions! The schism is such that one denomination would not enter another church of a different denomination. How many Holy Ghosts are there that’s guiding all these people to different paths? lol. You see, your little tactic of evasion is truly a sign of cowardice and a show of your own confusion. You say, that one cannot understand the Bible if one is not born-again. If that is the case, why in the world should we continue to discuss the Bible seeing that I’m NOT born-again myself? Why in the world did you suggest I read the book “The Unveiling of the Trinity” which I would guess uses many Biblical quotes to substantiate its points? If what you said in your first paragraph is true then you have contradicted yourself in your following paragraphs whereby you provided several scriptual texts and demanded me, a NON-born-again to ponder on them. You see, like many Christians before you whom I’ve met…you too do not fall far from the tree of confusion.

    In your second paragraph you made a false witness against me. You said,”What you are saying in your challenge that states there is not one verse of scripture that says God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God means nothing and proves nothing”. Where did I make this claim in our exchanges? My challenge was a reiteration of the challenge posed in the article, that is, TO PRODUCE AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT FROM JESUS(NOT THE WHOLE BIBLE) WHERE HE TAUGHT THE TRINITY. That is the challenge. If you cannot even understand a simple challenge posed by a human being in simple terms, how in the world can you understand the “words of God”? lol…I think, when you said this you still had the mindset that it was not necessary for Jesus to go around calling himself God. I have already responded to this at length, which you have conveniently ignored.

    In regards to Matthew 28:19:

    “…in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit..”

    This is the trinity according to you. lol…well I would agree that the formula contains the three entities of the trinity, but where does it say that these three are one God or one being or anything to the effect? It merely mentions them..this is no proof. Consider the following. World War 3 breaks out. America, Britain and Russia are allies and you work for them, the allied forces. You encounter an enemy on the field of battle and you say,”Stop! In the name of America, Britain and Russia…”. Are you suggesting that America, Britain and Russia are ONE COUNTRY or that they’re the same or something to that effect? Obviously not…so clearly, that verse is no proof for trinity.

    In regards to 1st John 5:7..let me reproduce my first comment in response to the challange posed by Ibn Saad in his article:

    Assalamu’alaikum,
    There isn’t an explicit verse anywhere in whichever Bible that promotes the trinity SAVE one. The verse is in the 1st Epistle of John Chapter 5 verse 7, the so called Johannine Comma. However, this verse is subject to immense controversy and is regarded by many Biblical experts as nothing more than an interpolation which crept into Latin texts from the 4th century onwards(see the NIV). The verse is not to be found in any early Greek manuscripts according to the New International Version, The Revised Standard Version, The Amplified Version, The Scofield Reference Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible and even the New Revised Standard Version indiates that the passage is not worthy of status as scripture. This is sufficient indication that the verse is a fabrication which wasforced into the Catholic church in its early days.

    Trinity(man-made concoction) vs Absolute Monotheism:

    1st Epistle of John Chapter 5:7 in KJV :
    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the son and the holy spirit and these three are one.

    Versus

    17 John, verse 3:
    “For this is eternal life, that they may know You(the Father) the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.”

    Jazahullah

    Let us now deal with some of the verses which you’ve brought up in support of Jesus’ Godhood.

    1. “My Father and I are One” This is in John 10:30

    You’re saying this is where Jesus declared himself one with God. Okay let’s see whether this trinitarian claim is true or false. First let us read the context in which the verse has been taken out of. Let us see in what sense did Jesus utter John 10:30 i.e. what exactly did he mean?

    “And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” (John 23-30)

    After careful examination of the incident one will see that Jesus was not speaking about matters if divinity, but rather of his duty like that of God’s is to see to it that the faithful remains in faith. This is shown in several verses before John 10:30 :

    NOTICE THE PLUCKING

    “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.”

    “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; AND NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER’S HAND.”

    IN THAT

    “I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE”

    This oneness is not the oneness of essence or being, but rather the oneness of purpose, that is, when someone has believed and become the “sheep” or followers of Jesus, he and God will see to it that they remain in faith in this “WE ARE ONE”.

    Now, if you are too obstinate to accept this accurate interpretation of the text, let me then give another strong evidence. If this word ONE or in Greek hen used by Jesus for him and the Father makes Jesus God then consider the following :

    “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:20-22)

    Jesus was praying with the 12 disciples and he said ,”MAY THEY ALSO BE ONE IN US”…”THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE” So now how many gods do you have? You see, you with your born-again nature and the “Holy Spirit” have terribly misunderstood the whole thing.

    I wish I could respond further..but I have to really take my leave . So..I shall present the explanation of Misha’al Abdullah to some of the other verses ytou brought up. I’m going to Singapore..so when I return, insha’Allah we’ll continue the discussion.

    2. “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”

    Well, what about the verse

    “He that hath seen me hath seen the father.”

    Let us look at the context:

    “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

    John 14:8-9

    Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible since no one can ever do ever do that. The Bible says:

    “No man hath seen God at any time,”

    John 1:18

    “No man hath seen God at any time,”

    1 John 4:12

    So Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is doubtful. This is equivalent to for example

    John 8:19: “Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.”
    John 12:44 “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.”
    John 15:23 “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”
    Matthew 10:40-41 “He that receiveth you receiveth me (Jesus), and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.”
    If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God “the Father” because Jesus “is” the father and both are one “Trinity,” and Jesus is the “incarnation” of God, then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, ..etc. are all lies.

    Well, is Philip the only one who ever “saw the father”? Let us read:

    “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.”

    John 6:46

    Who is this who “is of God” and had seen the Father you ask? Let us once again ask the Bible:

    “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

    John 8:47.

    And

    “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God”

    3 John 1:11.

    Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?

    In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh):

    “…….It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development” (emphasis added).

    “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” Volume XIV, p. 295.

    They admit it!. Jesus’ twelve apostles lived and died never having heard of any “Trinity” !

    Did Jesus leave his closest and dearest followers so completely and utterly baffled and lost that they never even realized the “true” nature of God? Did he leave them in such black darkness that neither they nor their children, nor yet their children’s children would ever come to recognize the “true” nature of the One they are to worship? Do we really want to allege that Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in the discharge of his duties that he left his followers in such utter chaos that it would take them fully three centuries after his departure to finally piece together the nature of the One whom they are to worship? Why did Jesus never, even once, just say “God, the Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one Trinity. Worship all of us as one”? If he had only chosen to make just one such explicit statement to them he could have relieved Christianity of centuries of bitter disputes, division, and animosity.

    Tom Harpur writes in his book “For Christ’s Sake”:

    “What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus’ role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea….(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three..”

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica states under the heading “Trinity”:

    “in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament,… The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”

    3. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me”

    Some people read:

    “I am the way, …no one comes to the Father, but through me.”

    When reading this verse, for some reason some people see in it a confirmation of the Trinity. Although I can not see how they can read either an explicit or even an implicit reference to the Trinity in this verse, still, due to it’s popularity it deserves to be studied

    There appear to be a sizable number of Christians who when reading this verse interpret it to state that Jesus is God and that no one shall enter into heaven except if they worship Jesus. However, since it is brought up so often in discussions of the Trinity it appears to be appropriate to discuss it here.

    The popular perception that this verse claims that Jesus requires our worship in order for us to receive salvation is not the intended meaning of this verse. However, in order for us to recognize this fact it is necessary to study it’s context.

    If we were to back up a little and read from the beginning of this chapter, we would find that just before Jesus spoke these words, he said;

    “In my Father’s house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you.”

    John 14:2

    The above statement is quite clear. It is in exact conformance to the teachings of the Qur’an. In the Qur’an we are told how God sent messengers to all tribes and nations. We are told that the basic message which was given to each of these tribes was the same: “Worship God alone and worship none else.” Some of the secondary details of this worship might differ from one tribe or nation to the next according to God’s infinite wisdom and his knowledge of those people. It was made very clear to each prophet that he was not to preach to anyone but his own people. It was further made clear to this messenger’s people that if they were to obey him that they would receive the reward of God. God would not hold them accountable for what any other tribe or nation did or did not do. This would continue until God’s last messenger, Muhammad (pbuh) would be sent to all mankind as the seal of the prophets.

    This is exactly what Jesus is saying here. He said that in God’s mansion there are “many” rooms. Jesus was sent to guide to only one of them. The countless other rooms were reserved for other tribes and nations if they would obey their messengers. However, Jesus was telling his followers that they need not worry themselves about the other rooms. Anyone from among his people who wished to enter into the room which was reserved for them could only do so if they followed Jesus and obeyed his command. So Jesus confirmed that he was going to prepare “a” mansion and not “all” the mansions in “my Father’s house”.

    Further, the verse clearly states that Jesus was the “WAY” to a mansion. He did not say that he is the “DESTINATION” which would be the case if he were God. What else would we expect a prophet of God to say except “I am the ‘way’ to God’s mercy”? That is his job. That is what a prophet does. It is why God chose him in the first place; in order to guide to the mercy of God. This is indeed confirmed in John 10:9 where Jesus tells us that he is “the door” to “the pasture.” In other words, he is the “prophet” who guides his people to “heaven” (see also Jn. 12:44). Once again, this is the message of Islam.

    Finally, remember

    “Not every one that says to me(Jesus); ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven.”

    Matthew.7:21

    In regards to your response to Luke…again I don’t think you paid much attention to what I said. I presented Luke 5 to 6 in response to the issue of perfection which you brought up and how you said a person cannot attain righteousness or salvation except through Jesus..and also the issue of sinlessness…I have proven that your belief in these are false.

    In regards to Immanuel, anyone can read my comment and see that Jan has awfully fallen short of clarifying the problems. Matthew 1:23 is not a fulfillment of the prophecy about a “young lady” NOT virgin..it is simply an ad verbatim quotation of Isaiah. The fact of matter is, the prophecy is unfulfilled, no one ever called in Immanuel throughout the Bible.

    In regards to my saying that the Jews have no bias towards Jesus…when I said this I meant that they do not have preconditioned ideas about Jesus being God and all that, hence their honest translation of the Old Testament, in particular Isaiah 7:14.

    I shall repeat again my proof of Jesus’ NON-Godhood which you failed to address :

    Now I shall offer one evidence from the Bible which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was NOT God. First of all let us agree based on Acts 2:22,”Listen to this, Jesus of Nazareth was a MAN..”. This is Peter speaking and interestingly, notice that he did not say Jesus was God or man God or man and God or anything to the effect. He merely affirmed that Jesus was a MAN!. Now that we have established that Jesus was a man, let us have a look at what The Old Testament has to say about man :

    “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS NOT A MAN, that he should have regret.” (1 Samuel 15:29)

    “I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.” (Hosea 11:9)

    “God IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

    Here we have explicit statements from the OT explicitly indicating that GOD IS NOT A MAN. Jesus as we have agreed was a MAN. Hence, Jesus was NOT GOD! It’s quite simple really.

    I think..I have soundly shown that it isn’t necessary to be “born-again” to be able to analyse the Bible…and it would appear through the discussion, it is you who lack scriptual understanding Jan, with all due respect ;).

    Ibn Anwar

    • genesis 1 says:

      Hi Ibn Anwar

      you are using the verse out of context…God is not a man

      God is not saying he cannot be manifest in flesh

      Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

      read the verse properly God is saying in a nutshell that he can be trusted when he makes a promise he will follow it through

      whatever God says he will do it not us who will lie and and let people down.

      Get your facts right it is not saying that can’t become a human being

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        The Christian apologist Dr. James White refutes you as he admits that he uses this specific verse to debate Mormons and prove to them that God cannot become a man. In any case, I have already refuted your silly points in the article in full:
        3. Third Christian Rebuttal

        The context shows that the verse is talking about man’s limited and fickle human condition in that they lie and change their minds or require repentance for their actions.

        Counter rebuttal:

        The following is the context.

        18. And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:

        19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

        20. Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

        Yes, I will agree with the rebuttal that the context shows that it is talking about the human limitation and how God does not have those limitations i.e. lying and repenting. However, I fail to see how this negates the fact that the verse says “God is not a man …nor the son of man”. In fact, I think the context further supports my position because lying and repenting are innate human conditions. It is because the nature of man contains the facility to lie and to repent that God is not a man! That is what the verse means. As the saying goes ‘to err is human’. It is because God does not err that he is not human/man and it is because he is not man/human that he does not err! Some have tried to suggest that God can be human provided he becomes a perfect human who does not lie nor repent. It is to that effect that he became Jesus who was perfect and sinless. As a matter of fact, Jesus did repent according to the so called Lord’s prayer(Matthew 6 & Luke 11) which he read and taught. Apologists would reply saying that Jesus himelf did not repent, but was actually teaching the disciples how to pray. To refute this excuse I will provide a simple analogy.

        “James and Peter are swimming. James is teaching Peter how to swim in the pool.”(courtesy of Gomerozdubar)

        Does the above mentioning of teaching negate the fact that James is swimming? No, it does not.

        The fact of the matter is that the verse clearly says that God is not a man and Jesus is a man and that means Jesus is not God. It also says God is not the son of man and Jesus was the son of man is repeated 82 times in the gospels which means that Jesus is no God. It’s a very simple excercise and I truly believe any reasonable person will concede. The three rebuttals have been refuted and Numbers 23:19 stands as good proof for our case. Let us now proceed to the next verse.

        First of all, let us recall what I said in the counter rebuttal just now.

        “It is because the nature of man contains the facility to lie and to repent that God is not a man! That is what the verse means. As the saying goes ‘to err is human’. It is because God does not err that he is not human/man and it is because he is not man/human that he does not err!”

        Numbers 23:19 has it that, “God is not a man, for he does not lie nor the son of man for he does not repent…”. Our second verse has it the other way around as if trying to reiterate what was previously said in Numbers. That verse is found in 1 Samuel 15:29 which reads,

        “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent; for He is not a man(lo adam), that He should repent.’”

        The above seems to agree with the third rebuttal that what is being focused on is the human condition of lying and repenting. As I also stated and let us reiterate one more time that God is not a man because He does not lie nor repent and he does not lie nor repent because He is not man. In both instances the negation made is between the referent God and the referent man i.e. they are not the same. God is not a man(lo ish and lo adam).

        The third verse is even more clear and the excuse given by rebuttal three can’t even be used because it says,

        “I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury.” (Hosea 11:9)

        Yes, the context is about Ephraim, but just because it’s about Ephraim does not mean that the highlighted section is rendered moot. Genesis 17:1 says that God revealed Himself to Abram and made the statement, “I am the God Almighty”. The context of Genesis 17 is the covenant and the sign of the covenant. That context does not negate the fact that God explicitly stated that He is God Almighty. Likewise, in all three verses whatver the context may be the important thing is that they all agree on one thing and that is GOD IS NOT A MAN.

        Let us conclude this discussion with a comparison between the actual Trinity and the “trinity of negation for the Trinity”.

        Trinity : The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = One God because they are in agreement and share the same nature

        Trinity of negation for the Trinity : Numbers 23:19(lo ish) + 1 Samuel 15:29(lo adam) + Hosea 11:9(lo ish) = Jesus is not God for they are in agreement that God is not a man and the nature of the verses are the same in that they negate that God is a man.

        Trinity – Trinity of negation = No Trinity

  17. Jan says:

    Please, I am only telling you what the Bible says. If it says: No man can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born-again of the Spirit (John 3:3) – I am just pointing out what Jesus said. If it says there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12) that is what the Bible says about the name of Jesus.

    The requisite for being born-again is not that everyone believe alike. Christians are at different stages of salvation. However, one requisite to be born-again is to believe the Trinity. That is – the Father is God, the Son (Jesus) is God and the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three separate people as many try to project, but these three are one. It is all very simple and you will find that (John 1:18) gives you probably the best way to understand the Trinity.

    Jesus is the Word – where do words come from? The bosom. In this case the bosom of the Father. Look at John 1:1 – the Word was God, the Word is God. Verse 14 – The Word became flesh (Jesus). And here is the answer to how the Trinity is One — “No man has seen God at anytime; the only begotten Son (the Word), which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.” – John (1:18) What is in the bosom of the Father? His Words or as this verse states: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He made Jesus from His Words – not from the dust of the ground.

    Jesus did not come from earth, but from heaven:
    That is why Jesus could say – no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13) and “For I came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him that sent Me (John 6:38) That is also why Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” -(John 14:28) Jesus was made from the Word of God implanted by the Holy Spirit in the virgin through the Virgin Birth. The Word (Jesus) from the bosom of the Father, implanted by the Holy Spirit in the virgin. The Trinity and the Virgin Birth working together.

    Romans 3:23 says, “We have all sinned and fell short of the glory of God.” You, I and everyone has sinned – even if you told a lie, you have sinned. Romans 6:23 say, “The wages of sin is death —, but—–the gift God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.” Sin cannot enter into heaven. Habakkuk 1:13 discloses: “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity.” God cannot look upon sin. That is why we must be purged from sin before we die or else we cannot enter into heaven. Jesus is the way God made to make us righteous in His sight. Jesus took our sins upon the cross, but He himself was innocent.

    A question you brought up about how many gods are there? The Bible also answers that. 1 Corinthians 6:17 – “But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” The Holy Spirit is able to live in each of us. Thus – Jesus is a man and cannot live in us. The Spirit is able to live in everyone who believes.

    About Jesus being a man. As you quoted – “God is not a man.” Jesus even said, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24).
    And as you also said – “Jesus is a man” – even though He is made of the Word of God. The Bible says, “the Father has life in Himself and has given to the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26). 1 Timothy 2:5 says – “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.” Yes, Jesus is still a man. He ascended into heaven bodily. His disciples watched Him go up bodily. You don’t watch a spirit go up, because you cannot see a spirit.

    Why is Jesus still in a body form? Because as I mentioned earlier, only a perfect man can save sinful man. Jesus must remain in His bodily state for salvation to be available to those souls who have sinned – you and I and everyone else. The Bible says, “If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you.” – (1 John 1:8).

    Here are some things you might want to ponder while you are in Singapore.

    The angels belong to God (Jesus).
    “The Son of man shall send forth HIS angels…” (Matthew 13:41).
    “Then they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great glory. And then He shall send HIS angels…” (Mark 13:26,27).
    Question – does Jesus have His own angels? No. Jesus is God – and these angels of Jesus are the same angels as those of the Father. Thus as Jesus said, “I and My Father are One.”

    Jesus acknowledges He is the Christ the Son of the Blessed.
    “The high priest asked Him, and said to Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:61,62)

    Jesu places a decision upon all of us – either we believe or take a chance.
    Jesus said: “You shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.” – (John 8:24)

    To be saved, you must enter by the door (Jesus):
    “Verily, verily I say unto you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” – (John 10:1) I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be SAVED and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” – (John 10:9)

    The Comforter is the Holy Ghost:
    “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. – (John 14:26)
    Here you also see the Trinity in the same verse of Scripture. Jesus is talking about the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send.

    I hope this helps – Jan

  18. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,

    I thank you again for successfully evading most of the refutations I brought up against your poorly researched arguments. You said, “I am only telling you what the Bible says.” No, you are only picking up verses here and there and forcing your own personal interpretations on those verses whilst taking most of them out of context as I have illustrated in my previous comment. You quoted a verse from John 3:3 wherein it says to be saved one has to be born again..then in the following paragraph you said that the requirement to be born-again is not that everyone should believe alike but rather it is that they must believe in the Trinity. May I ask where in the whole Bible this is taught? Where did Jesus say to be born-again one must believe in the trinity? The challenge stands, where did Jesus teach the Trinity? Of course, as you have admitted he never did. Let us try to reason here. If to be saved one has to be born-again as you have stated and the requisite of being born-again which means salvation is to believe in the Trinity then why in the world did Jesus during in 3 year ministry never once spoke on the Trinity? In fact, none of his disciples, Paul included ever taught the Trinity..what you have are verses from different parts of scripture joined together like pieces of puzzles with which a new doctrine is found. And these pieces of puzzles remain to this day a great mystery that most if not all are confused about. Remember that “God is not the author of confusion”. Never in the long history of the Old testament did God ever demanded His adherents to piece together a convoluted puzzle in matters of theology. As I have elucidated in my previous responses, it was ALWAYS His nature to make His being clear and explicit, never ambiguous. In short, if the Trinity is a most significant article of faith as you have shown then it is highly suspect that Jesus taught many other trivial things yet did not once teach the Trinity. The fact is that you like your fellow Trinitarians are clutching at straws, holding onto nothing more than a gossamer.

    In regards to John 1:1 please refer to the following link for a comprehensive explanation:
    http://www.answering-christian.....word_1.htm

    In regards to John 3:13..well I’m sorry but Jesus was apparently wrong there. This is because Jesus was NOT the only one to have ascended unto heaven. “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11). In regards to Jesus coming from heaven…well I believe Adam came down from heaven too..didn’t he? In fact..all of us came down from heaven…our primordial origin is heavenly, is it not?

    Why in the world did you bring up Romans 3:23? That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever to the current discussion. That has got to do with the issue of original sin which is another topic all together. However, because you’ve brought it up..I am forced to respond. I do not think it wise for you to bring up Paul as a witness for Jesus. Let me briefly illustrate why. I shall copy and paste my response to the person Scott I mentioned in one of my comments :

    You said,
    “If you don’t ‘like’ Paul, then well, how can you say the NT doesn’t teach that Christ is God if you do recognize that Paul does explicitly attribute deity to Jesus?”

    Let me illustrate to you why I do not like Paul.

    Acts 9:1-7

    1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

    In verse 7, we see that the men whom journeyed with Paul heard a voice.

    But..the above report conflicts with another in Acts 22: 5-9

    5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

    Now, we are told that they heard not the voice..hmm which one exactly was it?

    Again..looking at the same incident reported in several different places throughout Acts:

    Acts 26:12-14 :
    12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

    Note that they all FELL down…

    Acts 9:5-7 :
    5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man

    Note now that the men whom accompanied Paul STOOD speechless.

    Finally Acts 22:5-7 :
    . 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

    Note that only Paul is reported as falling to the ground.

    Anyone can see that there are clear problems with the reports….which leads us once again to the issue of integrity and reliability of your texts.

    I can give so many examples of Paul’s blunder…but let me just show you one more:

    “…for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” 2:16

    “But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident…”3:11

    Versus

    “Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.” (Deuteronomy 6:25)

    “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that (for this purpose) it might be well with them and with their children forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29)

    No one is justified by the law?

    “Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God’s eyes, careful to obey all of the Lord’s commandments and regulations.”
    (Luke 1:6)

    Notice that both Zachariah and Elizabeth were righteous BECAUSE they obeyed the commandments and regulations.

    Paul tried to make a case that no one is justified by works and obedience to the Laws and Commandments but only through faith and belief. A notion not shared by scripture as has already been shown and will further be proven.

    What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)

    “…just as Abraham “Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness”. (Galatians 3:6)

    Paul did tell the truth…but only half of it..

    “Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:5-6)

    I would ask what is this righteousness?

    Genesis itself answers :

    “Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws.” (Genesis 26:3-5)

    End of Copy and Paste

    So, as you can see Paul isn’t exactly a reliable source for evidence. Let’s move on.

    On the question of “how many gods are there?” …well that was in response to your use of John 10:30 which I fully explained. You have failed to respond to that explanation of mine.

    You said,
    “About Jesus being a man. As you quoted – “God is not a man.” Jesus even said, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24).
    And as you also said – “Jesus is a man” – even though He is made of the Word of God. The Bible says, “the Father has life in Himself and has given to the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26). 1 Timothy 2:5 says – “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.” Yes, Jesus is still a man. He ascended into heaven bodily. His disciples watched Him go up bodily. You don’t watch a spirit go up, because you cannot see a spirit.

    Why is Jesus still in a body form? Because as I mentioned earlier, only a perfect man can save sinful man. Jesus must remain in His bodily state for salvation to be available to those souls who have sinned – you and I and everyone else. The Bible says, “If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you.” – (1 John 1:8).”

    This is perhaps the only real attempt you’ve made as a response to one of my arguments. Unfortunately, I have to say you didn’t really refute anything. Let me copy and paste what I said on this point YET AGAIN:

    Now I shall offer one evidence from the Bible which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was NOT God. First of all let us agree based on Acts 2:22,”Listen to this, Jesus of Nazareth was a MAN..”. This is Peter speaking and interestingly, notice that he did not say Jesus was God or man God or man and God or anything to the effect. He merely affirmed that Jesus was a MAN!. Now that we have established that Jesus was a man, let us have a look at what The Old Testament has to say about man :

    “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS NOT A MAN, that he should have regret.” (1 Samuel 15:29)

    “I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.” (Hosea 11:9)

    “God IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

    Here we have explicit statements from the OT explicitly indicating that GOD IS NOT A MAN. Jesus as we have agreed was a MAN. Hence, Jesus was NOT GOD! It’s quite simple really.

    The above argument remains a strong proof against you and your polytheistic Trinity.
    In regards to Jesus being a mediator between God and man..yea of course. Naturally, as a prophet of God i.e. God’s mouth-piece humanity during his time and location had no choice but to access God’s commands and teachings via Jesus. In that way he was a mediator between God and man. This is no proof of his “divinity”.

    In regards to Jesus having Angels…well..let’s say that I’m given authority in the army by the highest ranking general. In one occassion I say,”I’m sending my troops ….”. Are they really my troops? No, the troops do not belong to me..I do not own them..however, I am given a temporary privilege to order them around..linguistically speaking..I will not be blamed for saying “my troops”…likewise Jesus is given authorit…GIVEN..it is not his. As a Prophet, he has higher standing in God’s sight than any given angel and in certain cases the angels may be ordered around by the Prphets..this is also the position of Islam..that certainly does not mean Jesus is God.

    In regards to Jesus bring the Christ and son of God..well I need not quote the verses to refute this. It is well known to any serious student of the Bible that Jesus is not the only one whom is given the title “Christ” nor is he the only one called “son of God”. This like all of your aguments is no proof for Jesus’ “dvinity”.

    In regards to John 8:24..in you read the whole context you will see that it is a series of misunderstandings on the Jews’ part. As you know Jesus spoke in parables throughout the Gospels…however, what exactly did he mean when he said that “I am he”? This answer lies in verse 42,”Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. “. One who is SENT by God, is NOT God but rather a SERVANT of God..if Jesus was God had equal power with the Father, then that necessarily implies he could and should have sent himself to the world..it’d be his prerogative..but as we see here like in many other places throughout the Gospels..Jesus did not send himself but was rather SENT BY GOD.

    In regards to John 10:9..yea sure…as I have explained to you many times, Jesus was God’s mouthpiece…His messenger and Prophet…one who heralded God’s teachings…of course the people of his time had to enter through him i.e. the teachings of God which he examplraised and taught to earn salvation.

    In regards to John 14:26..sorry to burst your bubble..but the “Holy Spirit” isn’t really the comforter. Consider the following carefully:

    John 16:7-14 “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.”

    Notice that Jesus said this “comforter” will ONLY come if he departed..if he doesn’t depart he will not come! This was the condition attached to the coming of the comforter. Does the Holy Spirit fulfill this condition? How can it? The Holy Spirit was ever present, before and during Jesus’ time and even when Jesus was speaking th above prophesy was the Holy Spirit not with him and his disciples? Of course he was…

    “For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)

    “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.” (Luke 1:35)

    “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost” (Luke 1:41)

    “And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,” (Luke 1:67)

    “And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” (Luke 2:25)

    “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26)

    “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)

    “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22)

    Evidently, the Holy Spirit does not meet the condition attached to the coming of the Comforter, hence he isn’t that Comforter.

    In conclusion, you have yet again FAILED to address the challenge and all of your points have thus far been refuted. John 17:3,”This is life eternal, that they may know You(The Father), the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom You(the ONLY TRUE God) have sent.”

    Ibn Anwar

  19. Jan says:

    I find it hard to believe that someone who admits he is not a Christian and has not even received the born-again experience would attempt to tell a Christian who has experienced these things and has the Holy Spirit living in her that he is able to interpret the Christian Bible.

    The most prominent thing you said is that the Bible does not say what it says, therefore let me (Ibn Anwar) tell you what it says. That is what I am receiving from your answers.

    For you to say that John 14:26 does not say – “But when the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things…” DOES NOT SAY that it says, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,” but it says what I (Ibn Anwar) tell you it says is ludicrous.

    I don’t think I need someone who is not a Christian to tell me what the Bible says it says. Like that verse says, “But when the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus’) name, he will teach you all things…” You need the Holy Ghost to teach you first, then maybe you can interpret the Christian Bible. – Jan

  20. Jan says:

    One further comment – How could I expect you to believe the Trinity if it was spelled out in the Bible when you refuse to believe the Comforter is the Holy Ghost when it IS spelled out in the Bible? – Jan

  21. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,

    Well…thank you..for the FOURTH time you have FAILED to address the challenge. You have also thus far failed to satisfy my refutations to your poorly researched arguments. Perhaps..instead of wasting your energy and strength on sarcastic remarks you should have answered the important points I raised…..but of course like many Christians I’ve encountered before..instead of reasoning….you follow blindly and would have the whole world stomach everything you say and believe. Any reasonable reader who’s been following our discussion will be able to conclude that you have failed miserably in defending your beliefs and religion. “Prove all things” Paul said…you on the other hand have only proven that you lack understanding and study. In regards to your attempt at disproving my explanation about the “comforter” by bringing a verse which says that it is the holy ghost only prove my point further i.e. you’re a blind sheep following the herd. I have only to repeat my explanation which you have FAILED to reasonably and logically disprove :

    In regards to John 14:26..sorry to burst your bubble..but the “Holy Spirit” isn’t really the comforter. Consider the following carefully:

    John 16:7-14 “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.”

    Notice that Jesus said this “comforter” will ONLY come if he departed..if he doesn’t depart he will not come! This was the condition attached to the coming of the comforter. Does the Holy Spirit fulfill this condition? How can it? The Holy Spirit was ever present, before and during Jesus’ time and even when Jesus was speaking th above prophesy was the Holy Spirit not with him and his disciples? Of course he was…

    “For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)

    “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.” (Luke 1:35)

    “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost” (Luke 1:41)

    “And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,” (Luke 1:67)

    “And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” (Luke 2:25)

    “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26)

    “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)

    “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22)

    Evidently, the Holy Spirit does not meet the condition attached to the coming of the Comforter, hence he isn’t that Comforter.

  22. Jan says:

    Have you not read in Act 1:8-9 that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to His disciples and He ascended into heaven as they watched Him go up. And did you not read in Acts 2:1-4 that the Holy Ghost came upon them and they received the Holy Ghost just as Jesus promised. Now do you know what I mean – unless you are born-again you cannot see nor understand these things even though they are written in plain language. – Jan

  23. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,
    Have you not seen or read that Acts 1 and 2 DOES NOT MENTION “the Comforter” alongside The “Holy Spirit” even once? lol…seriously…you need to study more…anyway here’s a detail explanation from answering-christianity.com on the issue :

    Why did Jesus use the word “Paraclete”?

    Why did Jesus use the word “Paraclete” when he predicted the coming of the Comforter after him?

    According to the Aramaic Bible Society, the word “Paraclete” back then meant the “Praised One”. Muhammad’s name was “Ahmed”. Both Muhammad and Ahmed in Arabic mean “The Honored One” or the “Praised One”.

    The following was taken from http://www.aramaic.org/PARAVLETE.html

    Q. I am curious why in the Aramaic scriptures the word “paraclete” is used when talking about the “comforter” and the “advocate”. Can you enlighten me on this? I believe as you, that Jesus only spoke Aramaic, not Greek.
    Thanks, Ken.

    A. Dear Ken,

    You have raised an important question. Why indeed are there any Greek words in the “Aramaic Scriptures?” The short answer is that you were working with the “Peshitto” which is otherwise known as the West Palestinian “Peshitta” that was made to conform to the pre-Christian Septuagint of the Greek church. We know that Jesus did not speak Greek because the Aramaic speaking people in the time of Jesus considered it sinful to speak any other language. This had to be true because the Aramaic Estrangelo Script was the lingua franca in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Aramaic in this script is similar to Arabic and this was the language of commerce and industry. A growing number of scholars now recognize that Jesus spoke this form of Aramaic, not Greek. The square letter Aramaic in Hebraic characters came much later. (See “Western Christian Scholars Awaken to Truth” in the Table of Contents on the Aramaic Bible Society Website). See Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History”, first published in 1928! Also, “The Age of Faith”, Will and Ariel Durant’s “The Story of Civilization”, Vol. 4.

    Follow me as we trace the Biblical history of this Greek word “Paraclete”. Startling as it may seem, at one time the word read “Periklytos” and “Paraklytos”, which is the name for “Muhammad” in Greek. Surprising? It should not be because both words mean “Praised” or “Celebrate,” the meaning and character of the man “Muhammad.” (1 Jesus in The Qur’an, One World Publications, (c) Geoffrey Parrinder 1965, 1995, ISBN 1-85168-094-2. Knowing this, there is a need for us to study the life of Prophet Muhammad in depth to see if it all stands up. Surprisingly it does.

    Of special interest always is what the name for Muhammad was in his mother tongue, Palestinian Aramaic. For this we have to look to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures. According to the present day Aramaic scriptures, the word for Muhammad would read “Paraqleyta” or “Paraklytos” in Greek and “Menahem” in Hebrew! In the ancient Aramaic scriptures, before these changes, it read “Ahmad,” then Munahammana” which is the Aramaic/Syriac rendering for the name “Muhammad.” These are names, not simply words, and they mean “Comforter” or “Muhammad” in Arabic.

    There is no Aramaic dictionary where you’ll find the word “Paraqleyta” because there is no such word in that language. Therefore, two questions are asked:

    1.Why was “Periklytos” changed to “Paraklytos”?

    2.Why was Ahmad changed to “Munahammana” and then to “Paraqleyta?”

    History tells us that Muhammad was the only prophet who came shortly after Jesus and did everything Jesus said he would. But, you ask, what is the meaning of all of this? The answer is given in Luke 6:40, “There is no disciple who is more important than his teacher; for every man who is well developed will be like his teacher” (Lamsa) or “The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master” (KJV). Christians are often told that no one can go to heaven except by Jesus. This tells us that the only way anyone can go to heaven is to be Christ-like. Muhammad was such a man. Muslims make a stronger case. They say that Jesus says the only way one can be with Jesus in Heaven is to be as Him, i.e., one who submits to Alaha’s Will (Aramaic), Allah’s Will (Arabic). To do this is to be a Muslim! But let us return to the study of the word “Comforter.”

    Most recent discoveries:

    Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archiologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism Allah al Rahman al Rahim” which showed that Christians were the first to use this name, Allah for GOD Almighty, which proves that the name of GOD Almighty in the Noble Quran, “Allah” is the correct one. This also proves to us that the Bible is not all found. There are still missing pieces in it that disprove trinity.

    For more details and proofs, visit: Jewish and Christian Arabs used the word “Allah” for GOD before Islam. See historical and archeological evidence and most recent discoveries in the Middle East.

    John 16:7-13

    But I tell you the truth, It is better for you that I should go away; for if I do not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I should go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will rebuke the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will not see me again; Concerning judgment, because the leader of this world has been judged. Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you. Everything that my Father has is mine; this is the reason why I told you that he will take of my own and show to you. (Lamsa)

    The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims use the original words that Jesus and all the prophets used. In speaking of John 16:7-13, most Christians will tell you that the “Comforter” Jesus will send is the Holy Ghost. But keep in mind that the Holy Ghost was around before Jesus. In the Aramaic we see that the translation is “Spirit.” Jesus, peace be upon him, was talking about the one who would ONLY appear when He joined His Father in Heaven*. In other words, this Spirit of Truth (a man) was never around before. The man Jesus sent was Muhammad.

    If this information is surprising to you, let me take it a step further. Christians and Jews alike have forgotten the history of the Great Nation that was to come out of Ishmael, and the 12 princes that came out of him. Where is the conclusion of the story of Ishmael, and why was it unfinished? Was Ishmael really a bastard, or was there jealousy involved? If Ishmael was a bastard, Isaac was a greater bastard because he was born through incest; Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister (Genesis 20:12). This is in the Christian Bible and in the Torah! Muslims do not say this. Jealousy and hatred towards anyone will always make one degrade the one that is hated.

    Having cited the historical shortcomings of the Christian Bibles in matters relevant to its own history and the great nation of Islam, it behooves us to give a brief account of the latter. When God brought Islam, the Muslims won remarkable victories, conquering the Byzantines as well as all other nations. As time went on and the Muslim dynasty flourished, the Muslims developed an urban culture for learning which surpassed that of all other nations. When the Christians forced the Spanish Muslims to accept Christianity, the Christians collected the works of the Muslim physicians and scholars and this work spread all over Europe and of course giving Christians the credit. But it was the Arab caliphs who had supported intercultural institutions like the university at Jundishahpur and the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. It was Arab medicine that had blossomed magnificently. It was the great physicians of the Islamic world who illuminated Europe in the Dark Ages with a well-elaborated science whose outlines are still familiar today.

    The story of the rise of the Muslim empire is not unlike that of Nestorius. (See “The Lynching of Nestorius” in the ABS Table of Contents) When Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, 428-431, was forced into exile he and some of his people took the enlightenment of math and the sciences into Persia and even into China. Marco Polo discovered the ruins of the Church of the East erected in the eighth century A.D., long after the death of Nestorius.

    In Service To God,
    Ramazan M. M. Zuberi

    (Christian Supplements by Robert E. Allen, Jr., President, The Aramaic Bible Society, Inc.)

    * The real message of the life and teachings of Jesus, Muhammad and Nestorius can be likened to that of the Peshitta and the Qur’an. The Church of the East claims that every copy of the Peshitta ever made was certified by every Bishop to be a true and clean copy, the meaning of the word “Peshitta” itself. The Qur’an is likened unto it. The Peshitto or Peshitta of the West was changed, not so often as present day Christian Bibles but changed in ancient times. The Torah was destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and since has suffered a worse fate. There were only two such scrolls at the time. One was held by the priests, the other by the King. In those times families were charged with the memory of whole books and what was created has been re-written many times to suit the purpose of the writers as with the many versions of the Christian Bible.

    * The Muslim view of the phrase, “He joined His Father in Heaven,” is that Jesus never joined God, but is in the second heaven waiting until God sends him on his “second coming”. Also, it should be pointed out that Muslim’s do not praise even Muhammad’s name although it means “the praised one”.

  24. Ibn Anwar says:

    Thank you for participating in the discussion Jan…I think we can now conclude that you have FAILED…I give you an F and a + for the efforts.

    In conclusion,
    John 17:3,”This is life eternal, that they may know you(The father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You(THE ONLY TRUE GOD) have sent.”

    That is salvation.

  25. Anthony says:

    The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is part of every major creed in the history of Christendom. It can be defined in the following way: In the nature of the one God there are three centers of consciousness, which we call persons, and these three are equal. Though the term “trinity” is not found in the Bible, the doctrine is nevertheless taught there. “Trinity ” is merely the term employed by theologians and church historians in order to describe the phenomena of God they find in the Bible.

    The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at in much the same way as a scientific theory. A scientific theory, for the most part, is a reasoned explanation of observed (or unobserved, in some cases) phenomena in the natural world. Analogously, the doctrine of the Trinity is a reasoned explanation of what we observe to be the phenomena of God in the Bible. Church fathers, councils, denominations, etc. have been so overwhelmed with the evidence for the trinity in the scripture that there has been a universal creedal acknowledgement in church history. The argument behind the doctrine can be put this way:

    Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God.

    Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons
    called God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Conclusion: So, the three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit –
    are the one God.

    We do not need it to say in one verse that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. But there is a verse which Jesus teaches us to baptise in the NAME (Singular) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Mat thew 28:19.

    The quran does not mention the word TAWHID. Yet this is the concept you muslims belive. This is the word you use to describe the Unity of allah. In the same why the word “TRINITY” is not in the Bible. But this is how we explain how the BIble teaches that there is ONE GOD yet calls three distinct persons GOD.

  26. Anthony says:

    Ibn Anwar.. you also mentioned some things which you provided no evidence for besides your own opinion. You said that the Aramaic speaking Jews considerd it sinful to speak any other language. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The Aramaic speaking Jews translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek called the Septuagint long before Christ . The aramaic word for comforter was nothing to do with AHMAD and I challenge you to prove otherwise. The website you provided doesn’t even work. The closest thing you can get is the Aramaic word Manahana which is nothing to do with Muhammed or Ahmed and Manahana means “LIFE GIVER” nothing to do with “PRAISED ONE”. I challenge you to provide evidence that the Aramaic word Jesus used meant “PRAISED ONE”. I suggest you do some more research as you have shown nothing but ignorance and lack of knowledge.

  27. Anthony says:

    I see how you have tried to connect Manahana with Muhammmed. I don’t see how anyone with a little common sense cannot laugh at your connection. Firstly the quran mentions that Jesus said He is giving glad tidings of a messenger whose name shall be AHMAD not MUHAMMED. By the way, both names come from the root HMD which is to do with “PRAISE”. The Hebrew word Menahan has nothing to do with PRAISE but rather means Life giver. You mentioned that the scriptures were changed from Periklytos to Paracletos. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THAT PERIKLYTOS WAS CANGED TO PARAKLETOS!!!!! THE GREEK SCRIPTURES NEVER HAD THE WORD PERIKLYTOS.. THE WORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN PARAKLETOS WHICH WHICH MEANS “ADVOCATE” OR “ONE CALLED ALONGSIDE”

  28. Anthony says:

    Funny also how muslims try to use Song of Solomon 5:16 where the word is MACHMADIM and muslims say this is MUHAMMED and at the same time try to connect the Hebrew/Aramaic word MENAHAM which means COMFORTER/LIFE-GIVER and has nothing to do with MACHMADIM? Where is your consistency?

  29. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum and Greetings,

    Anthony…you said that the doctrine of Trinity is arrived through a “scientific” study of the Bible and that the evidence pointing to it is SO OVERWHELMING that there is “universal” acknowledgement in Church history. Well..perhaps if you meant those within the circle of people like Athanasius..then yea…but perhaps you have forgotten all those thousands of Arians who were brutally hunted and put to death due to their vehement rejection of Trinity. Apparently, there wasn’t really much of a “universal” acknowledgement. You said that the Bible teaches that there is only one God..yes..I would be more than glad to concur. However, you also said that the Bible teaches that there are THREE DISTINCT PERSONS called God, known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I would like to ask you to provide just one Biblical verse from whichever version of the Bible which speaks of DISTINCT PERSONS in God. To my knowledge, NO SUCH VERSE OR VERSES exist in any Bible…there is no mention of different PERSONS within God….this is an innovation by your Church Fathers…such as Athanasius in his famous “Athanasian Creed”. In regards to 28:19..Jan had also brought up that verse in defense of the Trinity which I have clarified. Let me repeat what I said, word for word.

    In regards to Matthew 28:19:

    “…in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit..”

    This is the trinity according to you. lol…well I would agree that the formula contains the three entities of the trinity, but where does it say that these three are one God or one being or anything to the effect? It merely mentions them..this is no proof. Consider the following. World War 3 breaks out. America, Britain and Russia are allies and you work for them, the allied forces. You encounter an enemy on the field of battle and you say,”Stop! In the name of America, Britain and Russia…”. Are you suggesting that America, Britain and Russia are ONE COUNTRY or that they’re the same or something to that effect? Obviously not…so clearly, that verse is no proof for trinity.

    You said,”The quran does not mention the word TAWHID. Yet this is the concept you muslims belive. This is the word you use to describe the Unity of allah. In the same why the word “TRINITY” is not in the Bible. But this is how we explain how the BIble teaches that there is ONE GOD yet calls three distinct persons GOD.”

    Actually the word Tawhid does occur in the Qur’an in a sense. The word Tawhid comes from the verb wahhada and this in turn is derived from the trilateral root Ahad. Allah says,”Say: [1] Say: He, Allah, is One(AHAD).”[112:1]. The word Trinity on the other hand does not in any shape or form occur in the whole Bible…not even once. Further more, though the exact word Tawhid which means “To make something one, or to assert the oneness of something.” [Lisaan ul-‘Arab (3/450)] the concept is vividly and explicitly elucidated throughout the Qur’an. For example, the quoted verse from Al-Ikhlas(112), verse 1 and Surah Al-Baqarah(2), verse 255. However, the Bible has NO AUTHENTIC EXPLICIT statement in support of the Trinity. What you have are verses taken out from different places throughout the Bible and then put together to form an innovated picture of God. Most often than not these verses are unexplicit and ambiguous, open to many different interpretations. As I explained to Jan,

    The challenge stands, where did Jesus teach the Trinity? Of course, as you have admitted he never did. Let us try to reason here. If to be saved one has to be born-again as you have stated and the requisite of being born-again which means salvation is to believe in the Trinity then why in the world did Jesus during in 3 year ministry never once spoke on the Trinity? In fact, none of his disciples, Paul included ever taught the Trinity..what you have are verses from different parts of scripture joined together like pieces of puzzles with which a new doctrine is found. And these pieces of puzzles remain to this day a great mystery that most if not all are confused about. Remember that “God is not the author of confusion”. Never in the long history of the Old testament did God ever demand His adherents to piece together a convoluted puzzle in matters of theology. As I have elucidated in my previous responses, it was ALWAYS His nature to make His being clear and explicit, never ambiguous. In short, if the Trinity is a most significant article of faith as you have shown then it is highly suspect that Jesus taught many other trivial things yet did not once teach the Trinity. The fact is that you like your fellow Trinitarians are clutching at straws, holding onto nothing more than a gossamer.

    God does not change..now if we study the Old Testament, there is a trend which God seem to have prescribed for Himself, that is, time and again He would always vividly, unambiguously explicitly declare Himself sovereign God whenever He appears, for example :

    “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”(Exodus 20:2)

    “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalms 46:10)

    “I am the Lord your God” (Psalms 81:10)

    “…for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Leveticus 19:2)

    “…I am the Lord your God” (Leveticus 19:31)

    “Then you will know that I, the Lord your God…”(Joel 3:17)

    To your comments about Aramaic, Hebrew, prophecies of the coming of MUhammad s.a.w. in regards to parakletos etc. I repeat what was copied and pasted from answering-christianity.com

    Why did Jesus use the word “Paraclete”?

    Why did Jesus use the word “Paraclete” when he predicted the coming of the Comforter after him?

    According to the Aramaic Bible Society, the word “Paraclete” back then meant the “Praised One”. Muhammad’s name was “Ahmed”. Both Muhammad and Ahmed in Arabic mean “The Honored One” or the “Praised One”.

    The following was taken from http://www.aramaic.org/PARAVLETE.html

    Q. I am curious why in the Aramaic scriptures the word “paraclete” is used when talking about the “comforter” and the “advocate”. Can you enlighten me on this? I believe as you, that Jesus only spoke Aramaic, not Greek.
    Thanks, Ken.

    A. Dear Ken,

    You have raised an important question. Why indeed are there any Greek words in the “Aramaic Scriptures?” The short answer is that you were working with the “Peshitto” which is otherwise known as the West Palestinian “Peshitta” that was made to conform to the pre-Christian Septuagint of the Greek church. We know that Jesus did not speak Greek because the Aramaic speaking people in the time of Jesus considered it sinful to speak any other language. This had to be true because the Aramaic Estrangelo Script was the lingua franca in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Aramaic in this script is similar to Arabic and this was the language of commerce and industry. A growing number of scholars now recognize that Jesus spoke this form of Aramaic, not Greek. The square letter Aramaic in Hebraic characters came much later. (See “Western Christian Scholars Awaken to Truth” in the Table of Contents on the Aramaic Bible Society Website). See Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History”, first published in 1928! Also, “The Age of Faith”, Will and Ariel Durant’s “The Story of Civilization”, Vol. 4.

    Follow me as we trace the Biblical history of this Greek word “Paraclete”. Startling as it may seem, at one time the word read “Periklytos” and “Paraklytos”, which is the name for “Muhammad” in Greek. Surprising? It should not be because both words mean “Praised” or “Celebrate,” the meaning and character of the man “Muhammad.” (1 Jesus in The Qur’an, One World Publications, (c) Geoffrey Parrinder 1965, 1995, ISBN 1-85168-094-2. Knowing this, there is a need for us to study the life of Prophet Muhammad in depth to see if it all stands up. Surprisingly it does.

    Of special interest always is what the name for Muhammad was in his mother tongue, Palestinian Aramaic. For this we have to look to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures. According to the present day Aramaic scriptures, the word for Muhammad would read “Paraqleyta” or “Paraklytos” in Greek and “Menahem” in Hebrew! In the ancient Aramaic scriptures, before these changes, it read “Ahmad,” then Munahammana” which is the Aramaic/Syriac rendering for the name “Muhammad.” These are names, not simply words, and they mean “Comforter” or “Muhammad” in Arabic.

    There is no Aramaic dictionary where you’ll find the word “Paraqleyta” because there is no such word in that language. Therefore, two questions are asked:

    1.Why was “Periklytos” changed to “Paraklytos”?

    2.Why was Ahmad changed to “Munahammana” and then to “Paraqleyta?”

    History tells us that Muhammad was the only prophet who came shortly after Jesus and did everything Jesus said he would. But, you ask, what is the meaning of all of this? The answer is given in Luke 6:40, “There is no disciple who is more important than his teacher; for every man who is well developed will be like his teacher” (Lamsa) or “The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master” (KJV). Christians are often told that no one can go to heaven except by Jesus. This tells us that the only way anyone can go to heaven is to be Christ-like. Muhammad was such a man. Muslims make a stronger case. They say that Jesus says the only way one can be with Jesus in Heaven is to be as Him, i.e., one who submits to Alaha’s Will (Aramaic), Allah’s Will (Arabic). To do this is to be a Muslim! But let us return to the study of the word “Comforter.”

    Most recent discoveries:

    Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archiologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism Allah al Rahman al Rahim” which showed that Christians were the first to use this name, Allah for GOD Almighty, which proves that the name of GOD Almighty in the Noble Quran, “Allah” is the correct one. This also proves to us that the Bible is not all found. There are still missing pieces in it that disprove trinity.

    For more details and proofs, visit: Jewish and Christian Arabs used the word “Allah” for GOD before Islam. See historical and archeological evidence and most recent discoveries in the Middle East.

    John 16:7-13

    But I tell you the truth, It is better for you that I should go away; for if I do not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I should go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will rebuke the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will not see me again; Concerning judgment, because the leader of this world has been judged. Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you. Everything that my Father has is mine; this is the reason why I told you that he will take of my own and show to you. (Lamsa)

    The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims use the original words that Jesus and all the prophets used. In speaking of John 16:7-13, most Christians will tell you that the “Comforter” Jesus will send is the Holy Ghost. But keep in mind that the Holy Ghost was around before Jesus. In the Aramaic we see that the translation is “Spirit.” Jesus, peace be upon him, was talking about the one who would ONLY appear when He joined His Father in Heaven*. In other words, this Spirit of Truth (a man) was never around before. The man Jesus sent was Muhammad.

    If this information is surprising to you, let me take it a step further. Christians and Jews alike have forgotten the history of the Great Nation that was to come out of Ishmael, and the 12 princes that came out of him. Where is the conclusion of the story of Ishmael, and why was it unfinished? Was Ishmael really a bastard, or was there jealousy involved? If Ishmael was a bastard, Isaac was a greater bastard because he was born through incest; Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister (Genesis 20:12). This is in the Christian Bible and in the Torah! Muslims do not say this. Jealousy and hatred towards anyone will always make one degrade the one that is hated.

    Having cited the historical shortcomings of the Christian Bibles in matters relevant to its own history and the great nation of Islam, it behooves us to give a brief account of the latter. When God brought Islam, the Muslims won remarkable victories, conquering the Byzantines as well as all other nations. As time went on and the Muslim dynasty flourished, the Muslims developed an urban culture for learning which surpassed that of all other nations. When the Christians forced the Spanish Muslims to accept Christianity, the Christians collected the works of the Muslim physicians and scholars and this work spread all over Europe and of course giving Christians the credit. But it was the Arab caliphs who had supported intercultural institutions like the university at Jundishahpur and the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. It was Arab medicine that had blossomed magnificently. It was the great physicians of the Islamic world who illuminated Europe in the Dark Ages with a well-elaborated science whose outlines are still familiar today.

    The story of the rise of the Muslim empire is not unlike that of Nestorius. (See “The Lynching of Nestorius” in the ABS Table of Contents) When Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, 428-431, was forced into exile he and some of his people took the enlightenment of math and the sciences into Persia and even into China. Marco Polo discovered the ruins of the Church of the East erected in the eighth century A.D., long after the death of Nestorius.

    In Service To God,
    Ramazan M. M. Zuberi

    (Christian Supplements by Robert E. Allen, Jr., President, The Aramaic Bible Society, Inc.)

    * The real message of the life and teachings of Jesus, Muhammad and Nestorius can be likened to that of the Peshitta and the Qur’an. The Church of the East claims that every copy of the Peshitta ever made was certified by every Bishop to be a true and clean copy, the meaning of the word “Peshitta” itself. The Qur’an is likened unto it. The Peshitto or Peshitta of the West was changed, not so often as present day Christian Bibles but changed in ancient times. The Torah was destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and since has suffered a worse fate. There were only two such scrolls at the time. One was held by the priests, the other by the King. In those times families were charged with the memory of whole books and what was created has been re-written many times to suit the purpose of the writers as with the many versions of the Christian Bible.

    * The Muslim view of the phrase, “He joined His Father in Heaven,” is that Jesus never joined God, but is in the second heaven waiting until God sends him on his “second coming”. Also, it should be pointed out that Muslim’s do not praise even Muhammad’s name although it means “the praised one”.

    End

    I didn’t say anything on parakletos..I merely copy and pasted an article from answering-christianity which contains the explanations of experts on the subject. Well anyway, you haven’t proved anything and like those before you, you have failed to address the challenge.Thanks for the try..try harder.

  30. irfan says:

    assalaamu alaikum

    how will you respond to the comparision of the trinity to mind , body and soul ?? nither 1 nor 3 but someting in between.

  31. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum,
    I have heard and seen the common analogies used by Trinitarians to solve the logical problem of the trinity e.g. the egg analogy and many others(including the one you’re sharing with us right now). So far none of them really represent or reflect the Trinity doctrine and fall apart when scrutinised. Now, let’s have a look at the proposition that the Trinity can be seen in the human being which comprises mind, body and soul. So, I have a body and my body is made up of a body(flesh), mind and soul, yet I am still one and not three. Does it work with the Trinity? No, it does not. Let’s have a look at what the trinity is. To do this we shall quote from the famous “Athanasian Creed” :
    ” But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
    So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. ”

    Let’s go through the creed.

    1. “The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.”

    Analogy : The body = created, the soul = created, the mind = created

    Result = total failure. False analogy.

    2. “The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.”

    Analogy : The body = very comprehensible(we know a lot about human anatomy), the soul = incomprehensible(unseen and metaphysical), the mind = comprehensible to an extent(studied under human scienes in psychology)

    Result = The only similarity is with the soul. Otherwise it’s another total failure. False analogy.

    3.” The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. ”

    Analogy: The body = had a beginning, the soul = had a beginning, the mind = had a beginning.

    Result: Total failure. False analogy.

    4.” So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. ”

    Analogy : The body = is dead without the soul and insane without the mind(without the soul and the mind it is lifeless and is just a shell), the soul = by itself cannot be called a complete body, the mind = cannot be called a complete body.
    The body by itself is nothing, the soul by itself is not a body and the mind by itself is not a body.
    The Trinity concept stipulates that the Father is FULLY GOD, the Son is FULLY God and the Holy Spirit is FULLY God.

    Result : Total failure. False analogy.

    Further more, the body can exist without the soul and vice versa. The soul can exist without the mind and vice versa. The Trinity on the other hand says the they are co-equal and co-eteral which means they cannot be independent of each other. Thus, the analogy body, mind and soul falls apart and does not represent the Trinity.

    Finally, the most crucial point is that the Trinity is not taught clearly anywhere in the Bible.

  32. Roy Wahab says:

    1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ: To the temporary residents of the Dispersion in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen
    1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for the sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
    [Read the above, knowing there is ONE GOD].

    Mar 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: You are My beloved Son; I take delight in You!
    Mar 1:12 Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness.
    When Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit landed on Him in the form of a dove, and God spoke from heaven saying He was pleased.
    [Read the above, knowing there is ONE GOD].

    These may not qualify for your challenge though, because these are two verses in a row – but not all three in one verse. Maybe just worth the mention.

    Roy Wahab

  33. Polycarp says:

    Matthew 28:19

  34. Fahad says:

    May the Almighty God bless you. I am only 18 and I really wish you could give me some lessons about the Christian and how i am going to preach my people over here in Ghana.
    Thank you

  35. genesis 1 says:

    Hi Ibn Saad

    You asked these questions about the trinity and where Jesus taught it, I show you what bible says about the Trinity

    The resurrection – Father,Son and Holy Ghost involved in this one event the resurrection

    Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

    John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
    John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
    John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

    Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

    it this a contradiction one verse says it was the father another says Jesus will do it and last of all Romans 8:11 says it will be the spirit.

    I have many more where all three are involved in accomplishing a task from old and new testament.

    prove from the koran where it speaks about the father,Son and Holy Ghost not being the trinity and that it is false!
    prove by a verse or verses you can choose as many as you want.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Any reasonable reader can confirm that you have failed to answer the challenge. However, let us look at your logic: The Father raised Jesus, Jesus raised raise Jesus, the Holy Spirit raised Jesus = Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit are ONE.
      Let us see how consistent little Harry who is pretending to be someone else(genesis 1) is:
      “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
      “Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
      Satan incited David to count, God incited David to count = Satan and God are ONE
      Will you worship Satan now?
      *refuted*

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        sorry I’m not trying to hide I have another debate forum that I am apart of just chose to use Genesis1

        anyway you quoted 1st Chronicles 21:1 and 2nd Samuel 24:1

        There is no contradiction here with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David to number Israel, something which displeased the Lord.

        The reason why this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was evidently placing his trust in the number of his people. Even David’s commander-in-chief, Joab, was not totally pleased with the king’s decision:

        “But Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this? But the king’s word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army…” 2 Sam. 24:3-4

        Evidently, David had purposed within his heart to number Israel, something which the Lord was aware of. Realizing this, the Lord in his anger moved David through the agency of the Devil to act upon his heart’s desire.

        Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.

        (Note – This is a teaching which the Quran agrees with, that the devils can only do what Allah allows them to do:

        “Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy – Satans among men and Jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed they would not have done it: so leave them and what they forge.” Sura. 6:112

        “Seest thou not that We have set Satans on against the unbelievers, to incite them to fury?” S. 19:83

        sorry mate i’m not refuted! your own koran teaches the same thing,but you spend so much time looking for a reason why the bible is full contradictions and corruption you forgot about your book

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          You are indeed a complete clown. Did I say there’s a contradiction or even suggest it? I know very well the Christian response to this apparent contradiction. The issue is not whether there’s a contradiction or not, but whether or not your argument for the Trinity is consistent. You argued that the Trinity is proven by the verses that you cited because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all responsible for raising Jesus to life. That makes them three in one. Now, I have proven that you will not be willing to say that God and Satan are one and the same even though they are responsible for inciting David on making the count. The point is this:
          Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one because all three raised Jesus. Thus, Satan and God according to your logic are two in one as both incited David. Are you too daft to not see the argument? Yes, you have been soundly refuted.

  36. harry says:

    Hi Ibn Anwar

    you said…As a matter of fact, Jesus did repent according to the so called Lord’s prayer(Matthew 6 & Luke 11) which he read and taught.

    Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
    Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

    Jesus said when you pray

    Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

    Nowhere do you read of Jesus repenting and I do believe you said he was sinless anyone who is sinless does not have a need to repent.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Begin with verse 1:
      One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”

      The request was for Jesus to teach them to pray as how John taught his disciples. Did John teach his disciples how to pray but he himself did not do it? What kind of teacher is that? We have to infer that John practiced that which he taught. Likewise, Jesus must have practiced that which he taught. Yes, in my view Jesus is sinless as are all prophets before him. That is the standard Islamic view. One does not have to a sinner to pray to God for repentance. If one were humble before God though one is not predisposed to sinning one would still seek repentance i.e. pray.

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        as is it with you when something is said that you don’t like to resort to slandering
        a person’s character for instance my I.Q now I’m a clown have ever spoken in words to you like that

        you said… One does not have to a sinner to pray to God for repentance.

        well I beg to differ because repentance is about turning from sinful way or practices.

        are you telling me the Prophet of the Muslims didn’t sin? and if he didn’t I want to show what text in the koran says.

        1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

        this is God’s joy to confound the wise with the foolish

        and about the Trinity issue when have the devil and God ever been spoken of as being one

        The point I was making is the Father,the Son and the Holy Ghost had a part to play in resurrection of the Jesus

        What bothers me about your attitude is that you didn’t even address the verses from the koran that shows the Koran teaches the same thing that is written in 1Chronicles 21:1 2 Samuel 24:1-4

        in the same way we speak about the Father,Son and Holy Ghost in the bible our friend set this challenge and gave no real room to use scriptures but can you quote from the koran where the three are spoken against as falsehood.

        How can you attack something your book doesn’t speak about so show where the Father Son and Holy Ghost is spoken against in the Koran

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          What are you complaining about? You’re supposed to bless me:
          bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.(Luke 6:28)
          But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)

          Yes, I maintain that you have low IQ because you still don’t get the point!

          I will reproduce my responses to your nonsense for the readers so they can see what a funny thing you are.
          Any reasonable reader can confirm that you have failed to answer the challenge. However, let us look at your logic: The Father raised Jesus, Jesus raised raise Jesus, the Holy Spirit raised Jesus = Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit are ONE.
          Let us see how consistent little Harry who is pretending to be someone else(genesis 1) is:
          “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
          “Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
          Satan incited David to count, God incited David to count = Satan and God are ONE
          Will you worship Satan now?
          *refuted*
          ———————————————–
          Your reply:
          sorry I’m not trying to hide I have another debate forum that I am apart of just chose to use Genesis1

          anyway you quoted 1st Chronicles 21:1 and 2nd Samuel 24:1

          There is no contradiction here with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David to number Israel, something which displeased the Lord.

          The reason why this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was evidently placing his trust in the number of his people. Even David’s commander-in-chief, Joab, was not totally pleased with the king’s decision:

          “But Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this? But the king’s word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army…” 2 Sam. 24:3-4

          Evidently, David had purposed within his heart to number Israel, something which the Lord was aware of. Realizing this, the Lord in his anger moved David through the agency of the Devil to act upon his heart’s desire.

          Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.

          (Note – This is a teaching which the Quran agrees with, that the devils can only do what Allah allows them to do:

          “Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy – Satans among men and Jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed they would not have done it: so leave them and what they forge.” Sura. 6:112

          “Seest thou not that We have set Satans on against the unbelievers, to incite them to fury?” S. 19:83

          sorry mate i’m not refuted! your own koran teaches the same thing,but you spend so much time looking for a reason why the bible is full contradictions and corruption you forgot about your book
          ————————————–
          My reply:
          You are indeed a complete clown. Did I say there’s a contradiction or even suggest it? I know very well the Christian response to this apparent contradiction. The issue is not whether there’s a contradiction or not, but whether or not your argument for the Trinity is consistent. You argued that the Trinity is proven by the verses that you cited because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all responsible for raising Jesus to life. That makes them three in one. Now, I have proven that you will not be willing to say that God and Satan are one and the same even though they are responsible for inciting David on making the count. The point is this:
          Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one because all three raised Jesus. Thus, Satan and God according to your logic are two in one as both incited David. Are you too daft to not see the argument? Yes, you have been soundly refuted.

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        you said the following…in my view Jesus is sinless as are all prophets before him

        Can you show me in the Koran where your Prophet is sinless?

        you still haven’t addressed it

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          The Qur’an does not explicitly say that the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is sinless. It is necessarily implied that he is from the fact that is described as “a mercy to the universe”. What kind of mercy to the universe is it if it’s a sinful thing? In Islam there are four sources for our Shari’ah: The Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma'(Consensus) and Qiyas
          It is through the Ijma’ of the ‘ulama that we know and believe that the Prophets are all sinless. We know that an ijma’ is binding because of numerous ahadith such as the one which says “yadullah ‘ala al-jama’ah” and ‘la tajtami’ ummati ‘ala dalalah”. Both indicate that the consensus of the ummah(specifically the ‘ulama/scholars) is proof for the truth of a thing in Islam. Rationally, there isn’t any record of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. committing any sin(going against the clear commands of Allah), hence he was sinless.

  37. harry says:

    Hi Ibn Anwar

    tempting someone to sin is not a miracle raising someone from the dead is, it is only God who raises people from the dead hence the three scriptures I gave you illustrates my point.

    Why are they mentioned why don’t all the scriptures just say God raised him up

    You still are wanting when it comes to bringing scriptures from the Koran that mention the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not God one verse will do.

    It is your goal I believe to discredit the bible which means you will expose contradictions if you can.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Harry claimed that “only God raises people from the dead”. Let us prove him wrong with his own Bible as usual. Jesus instructed his followers to do the following:
      “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:8)
      In the above verse they were specifically commanded to “raise the dead” and in Matthew 28:20 it says that Jesus was “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” Jesus commanded to raise the dead and they were toi observe everything that they were commanded to do, hence they raised the dead.
      If Jesus raised the dead then the disciples must have done that too and even greater things than that, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.”(John 14:12)
      Peter raised someone from the dead in Acts 9:40, “But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.” According to Acts 20:9-10 Paul also raised someone from the dead, “And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.”
      In 1 Kings 17, Elijah brought a child who was dead back to life and in 2 Kings 4, Elisha did the very same thing. Even more stupendous is the miraculous properties of Elisha’s bones, “Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.” Neither the verse nor its context identifies God as the one who gave life to the dead man, but rather the thing responsible for bringing him back to life was Elisha’s bones. In Exodus 7 we are told that Moses and Aaron turned the former’s wooden staff into a snake. That is a far greater feat than bringing someone back to life! That is because a wooden staff by its nature is not alive as it is an inanimate object and Moses changed its nature to a brand new species i.e. a snake.
      According to Harry’s logic the Father is God, Jesus is God, the disciples including Peter are God, Paul is God, Elijah is God, Elisha is God and Moses and Aaron are God. Once again he admits to us that he is a polytheist.

      • rocky says:

        1Cor 11:3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.”

        here is something funny. WHAT allows trinitarian christians to ASSUME that when the word “head” has been USED for god and krist, then “HEAD” only means SUBSERVIENT ? what grammatical rule ALLOWS you to ASSUME that in the ABOVE passage the God and krist are CO-EQUAL and SAME substance/essense ect? BUT why DON’T YOU make the husband and every man and wife SAME SUBSTANCE/ESSENSE/CO-EQUAL with GOD and christ? AGAIN, WHAT grammatical RULE you employ to BIGUP jesus’ SUBSTANCE, and what grammatical rule DOES not allow you to big up all other people in the passage?

        you christians are polythiests

        you believe in 3 persons. you do not say that jesus = father , son and ghost, you do not say 1 person = 3 persons, you say 3 persons who are SEPERATE and INDEPENDENT of each other with the ABILITY TO WILL.
        even if you were to DUMP 2 human beings in 1 human being you will still get 3 seperate persons who are NOW DEPENDENT on 1 body .dependent .but still 2 SEPERATE humans and SEPERATE minds regardless if they agree on the same WILL they still are INDEPENDENT willers. how can you say you are monethiests? you are tri theists. 3 gods worshippers.

        jesus is a god, but jesus is NOT the triune god.
        the trinue gods consists of father, son and ghost.
        jesus by himself is not triune god

        what you christians are saying is the bird is made out of wood the car is made out of wood and the door is made out of wood so same essence . in the same way the polythiest says the same about his 3 seperate gods who all have the same ESSENCE and the only beef you christians will have is the polythiestic gods don’t AGREE with each other, but what if they do, then you really are close to polythiesm, right?

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        I can see what you are trying to say but the verses say…Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

        who is it that is able to give a person power to raise the dead? the bible says it was Jesus,so an ordinary man, just a prophet gives these men the power to raise the dead.I think not this is God involved here

        As for Moses this is what happened…Exo 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
        Exo 4:2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
        Exo 4:3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.

        this was done by God not Moses if it was Moses why did he run away from the serpent?

        secondly…Exo 4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
        Exo 4:7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.

        this was also done by not Moses, this is an example of God working through his people

        The actual point I was making in the first place was that the trinity was involved in the resurrection of Jesus

        to try and bring the disciples and Paul in the argument does not work because even the koran says Jesus was given permission by Allah to do miracles but doesn’t mean that you think Jesus is god

        I know those disciples were given the power through Jesus

        and by the way I am stilll waiting for the text from the koran speaks against the trinity the father,the son and the holy ghost

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          Harry said:
          I can see what you are trying to say but the verses say…Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

          who is it that is able to give a person power to raise the dead? the bible says it was Jesus,so an ordinary man, just a prophet gives these men the power to raise the dead.I think not this is God involved here

          My reply:
          Matthew 10:1 says that Jesus authorised the disciples to drive out unclean spirits and heal sicknesses. Raising someone from the dead is NOT mentioned as one of the things that was authorised by Jesus. Thus this verse negates your assumption that Jesus supplied them the power to raise the dead. Jesus was no ordinary man. Who said he was an ordinary man? Jesus was a man anointed by God. EVerything that he had was given to him just as everything that the disciples had were given to them. The disciples were the apostles of Jesus and through him God whilst Jesus was the apostle of God(John 17:3). “All power is given unto me” he said. If it is given then it is not originally his. It is delegated power from God.

          Harry said:
          As for Moses this is what happened…Exo 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
          Exo 4:2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
          Exo 4:3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.

          this was done by God not Moses if it was Moses why did he run away from the serpent?

          My reply:
          Your logic is really faulty. Just because Moses jumped away from the snake that does not necessarily mean he did not create it. The Americans created the atomic bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombers fled from the scene. Their fleeing implies they didn’t make it? No, Harry you really need to know that you are neither a good debater nor are you well versed in the scriptures.

          Harry said:
          secondly…Exo 4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
          Exo 4:7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.

          this was also done by not Moses, this is an example of God working through his people

          My reply:
          Where does it say that it was not Moses who did it and it was only God? That is your assertion and interpretation. It was God who instructed him and to you this means God was the one who did it. If I instructed you to eat and you go ahead and eat does that mean that I’m actually the one who’s eating and not you?

          You must be a complete fool if you think that I believe Jesus or Moses were able to do miracles without God’s direct intervention. My whole argument was to show the readers how ill equipped you are to actually deal with the issues and to put forward good arguments. I have proven your silly statement that “only God raises the dead” is refuted by YOUR scriptures.

          Harry said:
          The actual point I was making in the first place was that the trinity was involved in the resurrection of Jesus

          to try and bring the disciples and Paul in the argument does not work because even the koran says Jesus was given permission by Allah to do miracles but doesn’t mean that you think Jesus is god

          I know those disciples were given the power through Jesus

          My reply:
          Yes, you have refuted yourself! Thank you very much. Every single miracle that all the Prophets including Jesus did were by the permission of God. Jesus did not act alone. He was not able to as he himself said, “I can of my ownself do nothing!”. Acts 2:22 is succinctly clear in saying, “”Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, WHICH GOD DID AMONG YOU THROUGH HIM, as you yourselves know.

  38. ROCK says:

    “The actual point I was making in the first place was that the trinity was involved in the resurrection of Jesus”

    “I can of my ownself do nothing!”

    just a clarification. jesus the HUMAN person was a SINGLE PERSON, right? he as a PERSON was a single PERSON /human being , right?

  39. Harry says:

    I am sorry…I admit that I am stupid and have been refuted 🙁

  40. ROCK says:

    “this was done by God not Moses if it was Moses why did he run away from the serpent?”

    NOW harrry please STICK TO your reason. harry don’t try to EXPLAIN just STICK your reason “why he RAN away” harry can god almighty run away from the humans he created? he never can RUN AWAY from them, yet your created god jesus krist DID RUN away from the jews who were about to STONE him to DEATH. harry , if you use it for moses , then IT IS EQUALLY good for jesus. harry, why are you living a life of blasphemy? think man.

    • harry says:

      Hi

      I just want to ask where do you read that Jesus ran away from the Jews?

      Luke 4:30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

      John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

      John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

      can you find a text that says that Jesus ran away

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        The only reason I’m allowing this final comment from Harry the Joker is to show the readers the kind of intelligence we’re dealing with here. This is what happens when you believe in such a senseless concept as the Trinity. Harry the clown says: He escaped from the scene, but he didn’t run away!.
        LoL

  41. rocky says:

    i guess his got failed to turn the other cheek. both cheeks RAN away.

    • rocky says:

      harry, i know it is hard for you to believe that jesus’ parents SAVED jesus and jesus ESCAPING /running away SAVED jesus. you don’t like the words
      “saved jesus” do you.

      but its your new testament which says that actions of OTHERS SAVED jesus. they were jesus’ SAVIOURS LOL

  42. The Bull says:

    The problem with this entire arguement is that you can’t base your case on the words (or lack thereof) of Jesus endorsing the trinity or not. If you place such weight on the words of Jesus then you have to listen to the other words of Jesus that just so happen to demolish Islam. You have to throw out the entire New Testament. It’s that simple.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      It’s not only that Jesus did not endorse the Trinity, rather we know that he had a completely different take on God, that is, he believed in mainstream Jewish monotheism:
      http://unveiling-christianity......e-trinity/

      • The Bull says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        Notice how you didn’t answer my statement (because you can’t). It’s not your fault. Even a good debater can’t win a losing battle.

        I read your article.

        You said:”Here is a million dollar question. When the scribe affirmed Jesus’ testimony concerning God being One(heis) what concept or notion did he have in his mind? Was he thinking of some sort of a triune Godhead wherein Jesus is also God together with the Father and Holy Spirit? The answer to that question should be a definite no. The reason is quite simple. If the scribe thought that Jesus was God, he would not have attested to what Jesus said in the third person.”

        Answer: What if the scribe thought Jesus was God then? Maybe he would have acknowledged Jesus as God?

        We both know that the bible refers to other entities as ‘gods’, however, the bible only endorses Jesus as an accepted ‘God’ (other than the Father and H.S.). You have used the argument that Satan is also called god, but we know that he is not accepted or endorsed as such.

        Isaiah 43:10: “Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. ”

        …So when God made Moses ‘a god to Pharaoh’ (Exodous 7:1) he therefore did not become God. Jesus on the other hand did and is: Alpha Omega, Word, Name above every name, God etc etc. (Rev. Colos. John, Philipians, Hebrews etc etc.)

        What about John 8:58? They could only throw stones at Jesus because he claimed to be God.
        And didn’t the scribes recognise that Jesus had made himself equal with God? (John 5:18)?

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          You read my article but you can’t refute the points I made therein. That’s great ;). This clown of a bull claimed, “Notice how you didn’t answer my statement (because you can’t).” Really? Let’s read what I said in response:
          It’s not only that Jesus did not endorse the Trinity, rather we know that he had a completely different take on God, that is, he believed in mainstream Jewish monotheism:
          http://unveiling-christianity......e-trinity/

          The Bull clown said:
          What if the scribe thought Jesus was God then? Maybe he would have acknowledged Jesus as God?

          My reply:
          We have already gone through your “what ifs” last year The Bull. Have you forgotten how you were soundly refuted and how you ran away from the discourse for such a long time? What if the Bull is a transvestite? Oh, this is an excellent proposition because I have used the hypothetical! In the article http://unveiling-christianity......e-trinity/ I have proven beyond any doubt that the scribe did not at all think that Jesus was in any way God. You have either not read it or you just have a rather low level of intelligence to comprehend like your friend Harry.

          The Bull said:
          We both know that the bible refers to other entities as ‘gods’, however, the bible only endorses Jesus as an accepted ‘God’ (other than the Father and H.S.). You have used the argument that Satan is also called god, but we know that he is not accepted or endorsed as such.

          My reply:
          The Bible endorses Jesus as an accepted God and Satan isn’t? Where does the Bible explicitly endorse Jesus an an accepted God and Satan as a false God? Is there a verse where it says Satan is a fake/false God? No, the verse in 2 Corinthians 4:4 specifically identifies him as THE GOD(ho theos) of the world without qualifying it in the way that you have. You think that Satan is a false God and Jesus Christ is an accepted God because of your preconceived Christian belief. In fact Moses is specifically described as an ACCEPTED God by God in Exodus 7:1 without the indefinite article “a” in the Hebrew. In fact, a human king is described as God in Psalms 45:6 (http://unveiling-christianity......hebrew-18/). What you fail to grasp is that human beings or anyone having positions of respect may be labelled as “god” in both Hebrew and Greek. I have already explained this to you along with Alpha and Omega and all the other passages that you have cited in parenthesis last year. The fact that you can come out of the woodwork and put forward the same nonsense after having been refuted shows what a joke you seriously are. I have told you that the Christian produced Thayer’s Lexicon explains in its fourth definition that “theos” is a term that is applicable to human beings.

          The Bull said:
          What about John 8:58? They could only throw stones at Jesus because he claimed to be God.

          My reply:
          John 8:58 reads, “Before Abraham was, I am”. This proves Jesus is God? First of all, if this verse essentially means Jesus is claiming “I am God” then logically one of the Synoptics would have surely recorded it. Is there anything more important then a clear cut claim made by Jesus that he is God? Which is more important: To claim that Jesus rode on a donkey into Jerusalem which every single Tom, Dick or Harry did or to report that Jesus essentially claimed “I am God” as John in your view did? Such an important statement would not have been left unreported. The fact that none of the Synoptics reported such “I am” statements from Jesus means that they do not originally belong to Jesus, but is John’s own creative invention. As Dr. L. Michael White says, “…it radically reshaped the narrative for dramatic effect in light of new social and theological contexts.” (White, L. M. (2010). Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. New York: HarperCollins. p. 353)
          However, even if I were to grant that the verse reflects Jesus’ historical words does that necessitate the interpretation that Jesus claimed divinity? You claimed that they picked up stones to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God there. Let’s look at the verse and see what exactly it says:
          “At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”(John 8:59)
          Where does that verse say that they picked up stones because they believed Jesus claimed to be God? No, that is your assertion which is unsupported by the text itself. It is such a wonderful thing to see Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus yet they appeal to the claims made by Jesus’ staunch opponents! Let’s look at the exchange made between Jesus and the Pharisees here:
          56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

          57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

          58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

          59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

          Jesus first said that Abraham rejoiced at “seeing my day”. What was the reply given? They said, “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” If you have even an ounce of intelligence you can see that they are lying! Jesus never claimed that he saw Abraham. Rather, Jesus said Abraham saw his day. The seeing was done by Abraham and not Jesus. It is clear that they were trying to find fault with Jesus’ words and yet you put such great stock in what they have to say and do. Look at the description Jesus gives in the same passage about the very people whose speech and actions you give so much weight:
          43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
          44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
          In Jesus’ own words these are people who are followers of the devil who is the father of lies and have absolutely no truth in him. That means the Pharisees themselves are liars and have absolutely no truth. Devoid of truth whatever they say or do must be rejected. Hence, their accusations of Jesus are false and untenable according to Jesus.

          The Bull said:
          And didn’t the scribes recognise that Jesus had made himself equal with God? (John 5:18)?

          My reply:
          If I had a boss who’s female and one day I take a position that makes me equal to her does that make me a woman? Following your line of reasoning it does. How silly can you be? Joseph is described as equal with Pharoah in Gen. 44:18 so that must make him Pharoah too.

  43. The Bull says:

    Harry said: “secondly…Exo 4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
    Exo 4:7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.”

    Ibn Anwar said to Harry; “Where does it say that it was not Moses who did it and it was only God? That is your assertion and interpretation. It was God who instructed him and to you this means God was the one who did it. If I instructed you to eat and you go ahead and eat does that mean that I’m actually the one who’s eating and not you?

    Observation: In my opinion Ibn Anwar has made a hasty analogy that does not fit. There is simply no human function that is able to turn skin leperous! God had to have done the miracle and not Moses. Mastication, however, is a normal human function that requires no miracle. In no way can you compare the two.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Bull clown said:
      In my opinion Ibn Anwar has made a hasty analogy that does not fit. There is simply no human function that is able to turn skin leperous! God had to have done the miracle and not Moses. Mastication, however, is a normal human function that requires no miracle. In no way can you compare the two.

      My reply:
      Clearly, you missed the part where I said to Harry:
      “You must be a complete fool if you think that I believe Jesus or Moses were able to do miracles without God’s direct intervention. My whole argument was to show the readers how ill equipped you are to actually deal with the issues and to put forward good arguments. I have proven your silly statement that “only God raises the dead” is refuted by YOUR scriptures.”

      None of the miracles that are attributed to Jesus conform to “normal human function” which means that Jesus do not do them himself as he was clearly a normal human being(Acts 2:22). That’s the whole point of my responses to Harry the Joker. The power came from God and he was merely the channel through which God’s power was made manifest. After witnessing a miracle “done” by Jesus his believers remarked, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8) It was God who was praised for giving such authority to men(Jesus) as E.P. Sanders says, “Probably most Galileans…regarded Jesus as a holy man, on intimate terms with God.” (Sanders, E.P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. England: Penguin Books. p. 164). Acts 2:22 perfectly describes how Jesus is A MAN chosen by God who did many miracles which God did by him.

      • The Bull says:

        Ibn Anwar said:

        “Where does it say that it was not Moses who did it and it was only God?”
        and
        “The power came from God and he was merely the channel through which God’s power was made manifest.”

        I think it is plain to see that the two statements you have made are oxymoronic.
        Also God instructed Moses to put his hand in his bosom, not to turn it leprous. Moses therefore had no part in turning the hand leprous and God did not instruct him to do that. You analogy still does not fit.

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          The Bull, you do know that an oxymoron is not an untruth right e.g. bittersweet. You’re not clever The Bull. You should know that by now. What you fail to understand is that I was proving a point to Harry the Joker, that is, the Trinity is not proven by simply showing that Jesus or the so called Spirit is expressed as having done miracles. You said:
          “Also God instructed Moses to put his hand in his bosom, not to turn it leprous. Moses therefore had no part in turning the hand leprous and God did not instruct him to do that. You analogy still does not fit.”
          Moses had no part in it? You will always be a clown The Bull. As you yourself stated Moses was instructed to put his hand in his bosom which then made it leprous. If Moses had absolutely no part in it then what was the point of asking him to act in certain ways which then resulted in miracles? No, Moses was involved however, just like Jesus the actual source of the miraculous feats are God. Jesus had no power by himself as he said, “I can of my own self do nothing…” But as an instrument of God(Acts 2:22) he was involved in certain miracles which God did through him. That is why Jesus is a prophet like Moses(Deuteronomy 18:18).

  44. rocky says:

    here is a challenge to pagans like bull, show me anywhere in the TORAH (to hell with the nt) where the “MOST high” is IDENTIFIED with KINGS who will be SERVED on earth. I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW me where he who IS BELOW is called “MOST high” in the torah , even the unitarian christian sir anthony buzzard would ask the same question. where he who is BELOW is ever refered to as ” most HIGH” IN A LITERAL SENSE

  45. rocky says:

    “John 8:58 reads, “Before Abraham was, I am”.”

    just a little observation. john is the MOST ANTI jewish christian book on the planet. don’t come out with the BULL shit that john was a JEW, even jews become HERETICS, PAGANS and traitors and one of the REASONS why the temple was destroyed, according to jews, is that jews TURNED polythiests and began to worship a jew. it is no suprise my brothers, YHWH in the bible, always DESTROYS people who COME later, for example, the amalekite WOMEN AND CHILDREN pay for the CRIMES thier ancestors DID , so then what to do when jews PRACTICING idolatary OUTSIDE and inside of israel? but ask any unitarian christian, before abraham WERE ANGELS , so bull must be an ANGEL worshipper.
    but lets go further. johns jesus IS CLAIMING SUPERIORITY , not in divine sense, but in a sense of ” i am better than ABRAHAM” and to say this to the pharisees would obviously piss them off. none of this has to mean that jesus was BEFORE abraham in a literal sense, but if we consider john turning jesus MORE and more into hellenistic jew, then it is no suprise that jesus , according to john DEPARTS FROM the path of abraham.
    we are not allowing the gospel writer FREEDOM to speak his thoughts on why jesus is no longer a jew but a HERETICAL jew who has left abrahams path, what we have is dumbass viewing the gospels through each other.

  46. rocky says:

    “And didn’t the scribes recognise that Jesus had made himself equal with God? (John 5:18)?”

    equal in essense? meaning the essense is the same or do both AGREE WITH EACH other and have the same GOAL?

    1Cor 11:3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.”

    here is something funny. WHAT allows trinitarian christians to ASSUME that when the word “head” has been USED for god and krist, then “HEAD” only means SUBSERVIENT ? what grammatical rule ALLOWS you to ASSUME that in the ABOVE passage the God and krist are CO-EQUAL and SAME substance/essense ect? BUT why DON’T YOU make the husband and every man and wife SAME SUBSTANCE/ESSENSE/CO-EQUAL with GOD and christ? AGAIN, WHAT grammatical RULE you employ to BIGUP jesus’ SUBSTANCE, and what grammatical rule DOES not allow you to big up all other people in the passage?

  47. The Bull says:

    Ibn Anwar said: “I have proven beyond any doubt that the scribe did not at all think that Jesus was in any way God.”

    My reply: That is exactly my point. You chose ‘evidence’ from someone who had limited understanding of who Jesus is and appears to hold your position at first glance. With more revelation pehaps the scribe would indeed call Jesus God as Thomas and many others did.

    Ibn Anwar said: “The Bible endorses Jesus as an accepted God and Satan isn’t? Where does the Bible explicitly endorse Jesus an an accepted God and Satan as a false God? Is there a verse where it says Satan is a fake/false God?”

    My reply: Are you suggesting that Satan is not a false God? That is unbelievable even from you. I’m totally gobsmacked. I think the bible endorses Jesus. No one should bow down to Moses, Satan or anyone as God. However the bible encourages one to do so with Jesus.
    Both God and Jesus are Alpha Omega and the bible proved that last year.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Bull said:
      That is exactly my point. You chose ‘evidence’ from someone who had limited understanding of who Jesus is and appears to hold your position at first glance. With more revelation pehaps the scribe would indeed call Jesus God as Thomas and many others did.

      My reply:
      No, in the article I proved that the scribe’s understanding was perfect which is why Jesus agreed to it without any reproach. Only Jesus actually addressed Jesus as “God” in the gospels. None of the other disciples called him that. John 20:28 however is absolutely no evidence of Jesus’ alleged divinity as it is a similar vocative as Hebrews 1:8 which is addressed to a human being and not the Supreme Deity(http://unveiling-christianity......hebrew-18/). A unique vocative for the Most High is “adonai elohim” or “YHWH elohim” seen in the Old Testament, yet is never given to Jesus anywhere in the entire New Testament.

      The Bull said:
      My reply: Are you suggesting that Satan is not a false God? That is unbelievable even from you. I’m totally gobsmacked. I think the bible endorses Jesus. No one should bow down to Moses, Satan or anyone as God. However the bible encourages one to do so with Jesus.
      Both God and Jesus are Alpha Omega and the bible proved that last year.

      My reply:
      No, in my belief Satan is not a god in any sense at all. We’re not analysing my beliefs. We’re analysing what the Bible says. There isn’t a single verse anywhere which says that anyone will bow down to Jesus as God. It is your preconceived notion that Satan is a false God and so you wish to interpret 2 Corinthians 4:4 in that manner. However, 2 Corinthians 4:4 does not qualify “ho theos” given to Satan as you have. The point of showing that Satan is called God is that if such an entity can actually be described as that why not one who is far holier, that is, Jesus in the Bible? This is the point that you’re missing. You do not understand either the Hebrew or Greek traditions that permit a non-divine entity to be called “god”. I have explained this to you many times already but you persist in your ignorance. You think that you’ve proven something last year along with the Bible regarding your supposition that Jesus and God are “alpha and omega”? Let us recapitulate my responses to this silliness which I have refuted which prompted you to flee from the discussion in the end:
      You(the Bull) said:
      A: No, but who is the holy spirit then? Plus why not include Moses or Abraham? Clearly the name of Jesus is elevated above all in Pauls writings.
      Romans 14:11 echos Isaiahs statement in 45:23 that every knee shall bow to God. Yet we read in Philipians 2:10 that every knee shall bow to Christ and he has the highest name? (2:9). Then you have Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17 and Revelation 1:11,17,18.

      My reply:
      You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged. The distinctions are quite explicit. Just because Jesus’ name is elevated above all others does not necessitate divinity on his part. Muhammad s.a.w. is believed to be the highest name in all of creation by orthodox sunni Muslims, yet none ascribe divinity to him just because of that. What about Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10 in light of Isaiah 45:23? Well, the action of bowing down itself by no means make the subject of the bowing divine e.g. Daniel 2:46. King Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel because of the latter’s God i.e. Daniel was His messenger. I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you. I’ll explain it one more time. Say you have speakers on your computer and I am your King. You start hearing my voice and you tremble in awe and fall down in obeisance. Are you falling down to the speakers or the voice? In reality you are bowing down to me even though I may not be exactly in front of you to receive your bow. The speakers signify Jesus through which God speaks and so the worshipping/proskoneo of Jesus is actually in reality directed to the One who sent him. Remember 1 Timothy 6:16 which clearly says that God dwells in an unapproachable light which means that you can’t actually approach and worship Him. Jesus then will be like a symbol for God i.e. His agent. Recall my analogy of an ambassador and his state of origin wherein the President whom he represents resides in.
      What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” (Norton, A. (1856). A Statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctrine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ. Boston: American Unitarian Association. pp. 301)

      What about Colossians 1:16-17?
      Verse 16 as noted by scholars like E.W. Bullinger in his ‘Figures of Speech Used in the Bible’ involves a figure of speech known as “encircling” or “epanadiplosis” in Greek. Notice that in the verse the phrase “all things were created” is repeated, hence encircling the items that were created namely, “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities…” The verse isn’t identifying Jesus as the creator of every atom in the universe, every rock and plant on earth etc. Rather it designates Jesus as the progenitor of authority in the ekklessia that he started. Maurya P. Horgan in his commentary on Colossians regarding the verse writes, “These created entities are presented in Col as angelic beings that are subordinate to Christ (these terms are used also to refer to earthly powers…).(Horgan, M.P. (1990). The Letter to the Colossians. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Op. Cit. pp. 879). Verse 17 where the term “pro” is used refers to his pre-eminent position in God’s record and not necessarily his personal pre-existence. The very next verse identifies him as the “firstborn” from among the dead and so the idea of before all things should be understood in light of that expression used immediately thereafter.
      What about Revelation 1:11?
      You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation. The expression does not appear in the NIV and other versions of the Bible as textual scholars have noted that it is a later interpolation.
      What about verse 17? With regards to falling down and meeting the floor, I have already indicated that this is done to others like Daniel and they are not made into objects of divine worship. An important point to note is that proskuneo is used for others besides God, but “letreuo” which means religious worship or service is never used for Jesus and is specifically for God, the Father. What about the expression, “the first and the last”? Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s. In another response I have already shown that such a method is fallacious if you you’re a Bible believing Christian. I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”. This is the level of education we are witnessing here. The Bible time and again identifies God as THE ONLY saviour such as in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4. The typical Trinitarian will then find you verses where Jesus is called saviour e.g. Acts 13:23 and lo and behold God and Jesus are one. But what they fail to tell you is that others beside God and Jesus are called the same such as those in 2 Kings 13:5, Nehemiah 9:27, and Obadiah 1:21. Following the Trinitarian’s logic those too ought to be made Gods and deserve to be religiously worshiped. We see then just because Jesus is described in a way that may resemble God, that does not neseccitate divinity on his part. In any case, Revelation is a collection of dreams that is not based on actual historical incidences and it went through much difficulty before being widely accepted as canonical and even then theologians like Martin Luther wanted to expunge it from the canon.

      —-end of 1st response—-

      The second response:

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Was it really John as first identified by Iranaeus that according to you received the information from Polycarp?”
      A: John received information from Polycarp? Polycarp was a disciple of John according to Irenaeus.

      My reply:
      what the hell are you replying to exactly?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged.”
      A: And how did he do that? Jesus is both God and Man.

      My reply:
      No, he did that by saying that Jesus was the man who intercedes between believers and God, the Father. This is what I said in full:
      You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged. The distinctions are quite explicit. Just because Jesus’ name is elevated above all others does not necessitate divinity on his part. Muhammad s.a.w. is believed to be the highest name in all of creation by orthodox sunni Muslims, yet none ascribe divinity to him just because of that. What about Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10 in light of Isaiah 45:23?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Well, the action of bowing down itself by no means make the subject of the bowing divine e.g. Daniel 2:46. King Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel because of the latter’s God.”
      A: There is a distinction here. Unlike Daniel, EVERY knee shall bow to Christ. That includes angels, Muhummad and every thing that has ever existed. Why would ‘things in heaven’ (Phillipians 2:10) bow to Jesus if God is present there. This logic exposes the fallacy of your ‘speaker’ analogy. Also King Neb. should not be worshipping Daniel.

      My reply:
      What do you mean King Necuchadnezzar should not have worshipped Daniel? But he did! And his action was not rebuked by Daniel, God or anyone else. So you’re basically saying that God and Daniel were both foolish for allowing someone to commit blasphemy without reproach. You just can’t accept the fact that proskoneo is applicable to both humans and the Divine. This is due to your ignorance of Biblical language and content.

      You said:
      There is a distinction here. Unlike Daniel, EVERY knee shall bow to Christ. That includes angels, Muhummad and every thing that has ever existed. Why would ‘things in heaven’ (Phillipians 2:10) bow to Jesus if God is present there. This logic exposes the fallacy of your ‘speaker’ analogy

      My reply:
      Idiots speak idiot language. I have already explained this and yet you fail to comprehend. As usual, let’s reproduce what I said:
      I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you. I’ll explain it one more time. Say you have speakers on your computer and I am your King. You start hearing my voice and you tremble in awe and fall down in obeisance. Are you falling down to the speakers or the voice? In reality you are bowing down to me even though I may not be exactly in front of you to receive your bow. The speakers signify Jesus through which God speaks and so the worshipping/proskoneo of Jesus is actually in reality directed to the One who sent him. Remember 1 Timothy 6:16 which clearly says that God dwells in an unapproachable light which means that you can’t actually approach and worship Him. Jesus then will be like a symbol for God i.e. His agent. Recall my analogy of an ambassador and his state of origin wherein the President whom he represents resides in.
      –end of quote–
      In addition, in the Qur’an we have the story of Adam being worshipped by all the denizens of heaven including angels. No Muslim has ever taken that as a sign of Adam’s divinity. Rather that worship was out of respect and not a show of religious devotion. So what if every knee will boy down to Jesus’ name according to Paul’s view? I don’t necessarily believe that, but I do believe that every knee will bow down before Muhammad’s name. That however does not mean I have promoted him to divinity. I have already stated that specific religious devotion and worship(letreuo) is given to the Father and never to Jesus. Since you have quoted from Strong’s concordance why don’t you look up the definition for “proskuneo”. The definition it gives is that of a dog licking the hand of its master. This is the sense behind the word in question.

      You said:
      What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being..”
      A: That is like saying the word ‘red’ does not denote red.
      The context is this: Christ is much better than angels (v4), let the Angels worship him (v6)What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being..”
      A: That is like saying the word ‘red’ does not denote red.
      The context is this: Christ is much better than angels (v4), let the Angels worship him (v6) (Imagine that scenario in heaven with God watching!)and he created the heavens and laid the foundations of the world (v10). Jesus obviously existed before he was born and he is greater than any prophet that ever lived. Also the author is quoting from Psalm 45v6 showing that it is indeed God to whom he is referring.

      My reply:
      You’re telling me that a Harvard theologian does not know the meaning of the word ‘red’? I think it would be safe to conclude that it is you who don’t know what you’re talking about. Muslims believe that every righteous human being is better than the angels. Of course I don’t expect you to know this since you don’t even know your own book that well. The Muslim belief is relevant here to show that just because a man is above an angel or a host of angels that by no means makes the former divine. If God has ordained a particular individual or a group of individuals to be above angels let it be so. You said, “(Imagine that scenario in heaven with God watching!)”. Yes, we can easily imagine that scenario as it is found in the Qur’an where the angels bowed to Adam in God’s non-geographical presence. Does red mean red? Well, first of all, red is an adjective and God is usually used as a noun, though the word theos in certain cases can be used as an adjective. So the two are not really alike. The comparison clearly fails. But you see, the word theos in Greek according to Thayer’s lexicon has got at least four definitions. The fourth definition is the one that Andrews Norton refers to which is also found used for Moses in Exdous 7:1, the judges in 82nd Psalms(quoted by jesus in John 10), Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4 etc. So in reality it is you who do not know what you’re talking about you foolish imp.

      You said:
      he created the heavens and laid the foundations of the world (v10). Jesus obviously existed before he was born and he is greater than any prophet that ever lived. Also the author is quoting from Psalm 45v6 showing that it is indeed God to whom he is referring.

      My reply:
      Several theologians argue that verse 10 actually refers to God, the Fathe rand not Jesus. The verse reads, “και συ κατ αρχας κυριε την γην εθεμελιωσας και εργα των χειρων σου εισιν οι ουρανοι.” It begins with the conjunction “kai”(and), hence it is actually joined with verse 9. In verse 9 it is clearly referring to the Father, “our God has set you (the Christ) above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Scholars then contend that the word “κύριε”(Lord) in verse 10 goes back to the subject in the immediate context which is the One who set Jesus above his companions, that is, God, the Father. Andrews Norton says:
      “Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” (Ibid. pp. 214)

      You said:
      What about Revelation 1:11?
      You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation. The expression does not appear in the NIV and other versions of the Bible as textual scholars have noted that it is a later interpolation.
      A: No, I’m sorry to burst your bubble.
      Rev: 22:12-13: “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (NIV).
      AND
      Verse (20) :“He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” (NIV) (Just to pre-empt you).

      Clearly then, even the ‘thinner’ minority modern translations refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega.
      Also, Jesus said he IS the way, the truth and life. (John 14:6). Notice how he didn’t say I’ll show you the way, the truth and life.

      My reply:
      hahahaha You actually burst your own bubble and you don’t even realise it. I said, “You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation.” Notice the words “AT THIS POINT IN REVELATION”. Oh, I certainly know that elsehwere LATER in Revelations we find the expression a few times. You think I don’t know that you bloody nitwit? I told you I have read the Bible in several languages probably more times than you ever will in your whole life. You made the mistake and you know you did in appealing to a particular reference that you thought has Jesus described as Alpha and Omega. But as I have shown that particular verse that you appealed to is clearly an interpolation and there is no Alpha and Omega there specifically. You made the mistake. own up to it instead of embarrassing yourself further. Yes, Jesus was the way in his own dispensation! lol Elsewhere he is made to say that, “I am the door…anyone who enters will be saved” That means he is not the ultimate destination, but rather paves the way to the actual destination. If you wanted candy from a store you don’t stop at the door and say, “YAY, I have can get candy now!”. Rather, you have to go through the door and it is inside that you will find the candy. Jesus isn’t the candy that you’re looking for. He’s the door leading to the candy. Can you get that? It’s really very simple.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s.”
      A: What if Jesus shares attributes with God that are only unique to God? It cannot be said of any prophet that he is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last. It cannot be said of any prophet that he never sinned and that he was truly good. Jesus was both Man and divine. Jesus existed before he was born into this world.

      My reply:
      What if? I have already proven that your method of deifying Jesus is not just insufficient, but also nonsensical according to the scriptures you appeal to. Here’s my whole response that you did not refute at all:
      “What about the expression, “the first and the last”? Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s. In another response I have already shown that such a method is fallacious if you you’re a Bible believing Christian. I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”. This is the level of education we are witnessing here. The Bible time and again identifies God as THE ONLY saviour such as in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4. The typical Trinitarian will then find you verses where Jesus is called saviour e.g. Acts 13:23 and lo and behold God and Jesus are one. But what they fail to tell you is that others beside God and Jesus are called the same such as those in 2 Kings 13:5, Nehemiah 9:27, and Obadiah 1:21. Following the Trinitarian’s logic those too ought to be made Gods and deserve to be religiously worshiped. We see then just because Jesus is described in a way that may resemble God, that does not neseccitate divinity on his part. In any case, Revelation is a collection of dreams that is not based on actual historical incidences and it went through much difficulty before being widely accepted as canonical and even then theologians like Martin Luther wanted to expunge it from the canon.”

      You said:
      I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”
      A: What if Melchizedek is Jesus before his incarnation?

      My reply:
      What if? what if the Bull is an idiotic nitwit who looks like a bloody Bull…as ugly as hell? What if? The attributes given to Melchizedek are clearly in opposition to those given to Jesus. In fact, Melchizedek is described as WITHOUT BEGINNING of days or END of life. According to you Jesus is the beginning and the end. Melchizedek is described as “LIKE THE SON OF GOD”, but isn’t Jesus the “son of God”? How can Melchizedek be the Son of God and at the same time LIKE the son of God? Can you not see the stupidity of your ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’?

      You said:
      “Ibn Anwar said: “Who saw Moses receiving the commandments exactly? Did anyone? NOBODY. What do you mean it was witnessed OPENLY? Are you telling me that angels cannot be God’s messenger of Revelation? Can you tell me who was it that informed Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah’s impending doom? Can you tell me who was it that Daniel spoke to in Daniel 8:17? Was it not Gabriel as mentioned in verse 16? In fact, Daniel experienced something similar that Muhammad s.a.w. did, that is, both were overwhelmed by the angelic presence.”

      A: You don’t have to look very far to see that many of the miracles and wonders surrounding Moses were witnessed by many. An entire nation was brought to its knees by signs and wonders. Nobody saw Moses receiving the commandments (twice), however his face shone (Exodus 34:28) and the stone tablets were engraved by God himself (Exodus 31:18, 32:16)).An entire mountain was on fire and the nation of Israel audibly heard the voice of God (Exodus 19,20). Also, 73 other people saw God at this time (Exodus 24:9:10).”

      My reply:
      The revelation that Moses received at the beginning was witnessed by no one, just like the first revelation that was given to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. The similarities between the two are striking. Both received important commandments in a cave that were not witnessed by any other(recall Deuteronomy 18:18). But the miracles of Muhammad s.a.w. were witnessed openly, just as the miracles of Moses and Jesus were. In fact, in Bukhari we have the narration that his entire congregation heard the wailing and moaning of a tree because the Prophet moved his location of sermon giving elsehwhere. It was only upon reassuring the tree that it began to calm down and was silent again. This was witnessed by hundreds during the Jum’ah service. This is only one sample out of numerous others. In fact, the standing miracle of the Prophet s.a.w. that is even today witnessed by all is the Qur’an. Why talk about miracles in the past that are today unverifiable? We find mention of Hindus doing miracles in India witnessed by their followers and things of the sort. Do we give any weight to those even though it is claimed that they really did happen and witnessed by so many? Jesus said that even false prophets can perform miracles. Hence according to your own criterion which is the Bible miracles prove nothing. The Qur’an is so miraculous that even non-Muslim experts like A.J. Arberry(a Christian expert on Arabic) in his introduction to his translation of the Qur’an says that he has no problem accepting that the language of the Qur’an is of supernatural origin.

      You said:
      In contrast to this Muhammad received new (and conflicting) doctrinal information alone, from God through an angel. Paul warned about angels preaching ‘another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:8).
      A Roman Catholic clergyman was the first to announce him as a prophet?
      Moses received revelation from God directly and an entire nation witnessed it.

      My reply:
      OMG. You have truly reached the acme of idiocy! A roman Catholic clergyman? Waraqa Bin naufal was not a Catholic you dumb idiot. Nowhere does it identify which sect or denomination of Christianity he belonged to. If you make any more of such tremendously foolish statements you will be permanently exiled from this forum. Do you understand? You said that Muhammad received new doctrinal information. What the heck are you talking about? Jewish Rabbis themselves affirm affinity with the Islamic doctrinal teachings such as a clear affirmation for God’s absolute Oneness. In fact, Maimonides said that Jews can worship in mosques, but not in Churches. Why do think that is? It’s because our doctrines correlate in most of the important theological issues. It is Pauline Christianity that conflicts with the teachings of the OT and even the teachings of Jesus. This is affirmed by Christian experts themselves. http://unveiling-christianity......f-tarsus2/. It was Paul who made resurrection the bedrock of faith. Prior to him none of Jesus’ followers said that if you don’t believe in the resurrection then your preaching is in vain. Yet, prior to the resurrection were there no real believers? Mark 2 talks about people with real faith that allowed them to be forgiven. Did they believe in the resurrection? the answer is NO, yet were they in vain? How could that be when it was their faith(without belief in resurrection) that gave the paralytic forgiveness of all sins. The conflict is between Pauline Christianity and numerous teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “The gospels were already in circulation during their time which means that they were simply reiterating what they had been told by those who claimed to know those who came from Jesus.”
      A: Do you realize that you’ve just added another layer of communication here!
      You should have said they were reiterating what they had been told by those who knew Jesus. You see they not only had the gospels, but they had the eyewitnesses as well!

      My reply:
      hahaha The Bull****, you have absolutely no proof that there were only three layers of communication involved. we have no way of telling who gave who what and when. What eyewitnesses? Those people may have claimed to know eyewitnesses, but there is no way to verify their claim and those claims supposedly made by them are told to you by those who claim to know them and there is no way to verify this either!

      You said:
      A: “It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”
      (Wikipedia – Ignatius)

      “Starting in the 3rd and 4th century,[1] tradition has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow laborer in Christ.”
      (Wikipedia – Clement).

      1Clem 47:1
      Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

      1Clem 7:4
      Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how
      precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation
      it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.

      My reply:
      It is really sad that you think citing wikipedia proves your case. Do you realise that wikipedia is an unacceptable source in academia? But, let’s see what the text says, ““It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”. The key word there is “believed”. There are just no hard facts to prove the alleged connection.

      You said:
      “Starting in the 3rd and 4th century,[1] tradition has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow laborer in Christ.”
      (Wikipedia – Clement).

      My reply:
      Starting in the 3rd and 4th century. That’s roughly 250 or more after the fact! What is the basis for this tradition? What are the proofs that we can discern to truly say that it is valid? None.

      You said:
      “A: Have you read the testimony of Polycarps Martyrdom? Iraneaus knew Polycarp who knew John and many who had seen Jesus. Certainly these people were alive at a time when they could have known them. You can see by their writings and the fact that they died for the cross that they were more likely to be telling the truth than not.”

      My reply:
      Yes, I have read that writing and you have not. The author of the writing itself is anonymous, but Eusebius claimed that he received it in a letter that was addressed to Philomelium by the Church of Smyrna. You do realise that Eusebius hails from more than 200 years after Jesus right? Scholars have noted that the work contains several interpolations and a good number of scholars date it to later than the mid of the 2nd century. It is no proof for you at all. You said, “Iraneaus knew Polycarp who knew John and many who had seen Jesus.” You’re quite slow in not realising that we are testing this chain of transmission. So far you haven’t proven that one is indeed connected to the other. You have no proof to verify the allegations of tradition.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “but the resurrection was still very unpopular and so it is neither in Mark..”
      A: You are incorrect here. Read Mark 16v6.

      My reply:
      Mark 16:6 says that Jesus was crucified and has been raised. Does that mean resurrection? No, it does not have to mean resurrection. The New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary says that it assumes “that God raised up Jesus”. You will only think that this means resurrection if you refer to later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke which was my point exactly. At the time Mark was completed the Christian concept of Jesus’ bodily resurrection was not yet in vogue. The idea of Jesus’ rising then in Mark 16:6 may very well be in reference to elevation in status or taking Jesus up to the heavens as is the Muslim position.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “I made mention of the fact that the Q tradition markedly leaves out the crucifixion and the resurrection.”
      A: That’s incredible, can you post the Q gospel so I can see it for myself?

      My reply:
      This is what I wrote in the article:
      “You might be saying that I’ve gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I’m talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I’m talking about the lost Gospel “Q”. To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means “seen together” the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the “Synoptic Problem”. The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed “Q” which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of “Q”, the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the “Q” Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[24]

      By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this “Q” Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the “Q” Gospel notes, “…the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories…”[25]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, “Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” [26]
      Gospel “Q” came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made used by Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because neither really took place and are indeed unessential to the faith that Jesus brought.
      —end of quote—

      If you wish to see the Q document then you might want to purchase L. Michael White’s ‘Scripting Jesus’ or any other Introduction to the New Testament that provides the material. But you can do it yourself if you have the patience and intelligence. Simply compare Matthew and Luke against Mark. Mark the similarities between Matthew/Luke and Mark and the similarities between Matthew and Luke. Those similarities or exactness between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark are what scholars describe as Q. Do you understand now?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Were any of the other prophets sinless? Do you have a problem with your memory? We have already gone through this months ago elsewhere. I have won that round like all the others.”
      A: Ecclesiastes 7:20: “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.’”. See Isaiah 64:6-7 and Psalms 53:2-3. I have already shown that Job sinned and needed redemption.

      My reply:
      It is in the same book that it says, “This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.”(Ecclesiastes 7:29) So God made every person upright, but it is later in life that many seek out wrongdoing hence inviting imperfection. I have already explained the whole issue to you elsewhere and I understand that because of your slowness it is difficult to retain information. Let’s reproduce some of my refutations to you on this very issue that was discussed under “Dr. anis Shorrosh Christian Evangelist Put to Shame”. These were responses that you failed to rebut time and again and finally you admitting defeat by your silence:
      It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.” Some years later an author wrote the gospel according to Luke and he refutes Paul’s claim inadvertently when he writes about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6) The key word is blamelessly which is translated from amemptoi which is derived from memphomai meaning “above reproach because morally pure”. You said “A loving God extends hope to all people”…A loving God extends hope to all people and if he ever had a son I think that love and hope would reach the son too unless He’s very loving to all except His own son. What kind of a God is that? You claim that the “old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.” But Christian theology teaches that even after grace Christians are not sinless. They are as prone to sin as any other. So called born again Christians are not angels. In many cases they have been shown to be the worse of the lot e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Kent Hovind etc.

      ——
      You said:
      You said : ‘It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.””
      Have you fallen short of Gods glory? If not, you are on par with God and you god is not very great! Both the psalmist and Isaiah declare that there is no one who does good (Psalm 14:3, 53:3) and that all our righteousness is as filth rags (Isaiah 64:6) and we are all unclean.

      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Yes, Job is described as perfect a few times by God Himself and as sinless in the same chapter. So before chapter 14 verse 16 he was perfect before God’s eyes and sinless. That means it is not impossible for a person to be perfect of sinless. How can a man be righteous before God? How is asking that question equates to saying it’s impossible???? lol..you are funny. It is quite clear that Job was a humble servant and as such he did not go around parading his righteousness which would have not made him righteous if he did. It is because he was righteous that he asks the question “how can a man be righteous before God? I would advice you not to hijack and lie on your own scriptures. The reason Zechariah and Elizabeth were declared righteous before God and perfect is NOT because of the verse in Isaiah 61:10. It was because they obeyed the laws and commandments of God perfectly(ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι). They were merely adhering to Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man.”

      —–

      You said: ‘We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory’
      A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!
      You said: ‘There is not a single shred of evidence that they actually died believing in the death and crucifixion of Jesus as you do.’
      A: There is the bible isn’t there and don’t forget the resurrection! Didn’t they ‘turn the world upside down’. History has spoken.

      Hahahaha you have totally ignored my refutation and start preaching instead. Let’s see what I said one more time:
      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Apparently, you don’t understand the necessary implication behind the word ‘fall’. Before there can be a ‘fall’ there must be rising or standing or sitting. If men fell short of God’s glory then there was a point of time when men stood on part with His glory BEFORE the fall! lol

      ——-

      You said:
      A: That’s right. Adam and Eve were not short of Gods glory before the fall. They were made in his image and walked with God face to face. They were faultless and holy until the serpent came and beguiled them.

      My answer:
      This image must have been that of a glorified ape unfamiliar with the concept of right and wrong. This is the Genesis story is it not? Adam and Even only realised they were naked once they ate from the tree of knowledge. Prior to that they had no sense of good and evil. You claim that this is the glorified state from whence they came akin to that of God’s glorified position. The implication of this similitude is that God was a simpleton like Adam and Eve. Why do you enjoy digging a deeper grave than what you already have? Can Adam and Eve or any man stand in front of God and claim that he is glorified like God? It was you who adamantly denied this in no uncertain terms as you said, “A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!” No human being, not even the first ones can hold a candle to God and say, “I am with glory just like you.” God is unlike anything as 2 Samuel 7:22 says,“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You”. You have kicked the bucket because you realised that my argument about the state of being prior to the fall is irrefutable so you had to concede but to save face you try to allege that they were just as glorified as god before the fall and by doing so you have unbeknownst devalued your god to that of an ignoramus like the first human beings.

      You said:
      “A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual,”

      My answer:
      What spiritual context? It is quite clear that you are restricting the word ‘all’ rather than apply it to absolutely everything and anything like you were falsely doing with some passages regarding doing good. Scripturally I have proven that men can do good and are described as such for their righteous deeds. You don’t have a leg to stand upon.
      —end of discussion on sin and sinlessness—

      repeat yourself at your own peril The Bull.

      —end of 2nd response—

      To all of the above what was The Bull’s “genius” rebuttal?

      Hi Ibn. Notice how there is a comma after the word contextual in my last reply on this issue. I posted the rest of the reply but for some reason it was not posted. Here is the rest of the statement:

      You said: ‘They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z.’
      A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual, objective and reasonable when interpreting scripture (commonsense). You seem to have applied a dogmatic logic with the words ‘good’ and ‘blameless’. No one is good yet people are deemed good and blameless by faith and their resultant ‘good’ actions should testify to this as seen with Job, Zech. and Elizabeth. It does not mean they have never sinned impossibility) and do not need redemption. Apart from God no man can do good. The words of Jesus are that you can do NOTHING unless you abide in him (John 15:5).

      —end of The Bull’s silliness—

      The exchange may be read in the comment section here http://unveiling-christianity......ucifixion/

  48. rocky says:

    “…is and appears to hold your position at first glance. With more revelation pehaps the scribe would indeed call Jesus god as Thomas and many others did.”

    maybe they were mentle? maybe roman oppression raped them so badly that they started seeing humans as gods? maybe they were psychologically raped and started to see gods CREATED flesh being BURNT in burnt offerings? maybe they were doing what rasterferians were doingand seeing god in weed? hey man , since your god took on the form of cloud and fire in the ot, why don’t you have cloud, fire, flesh and spirit in the trinity lol? why don’t you allow the fact that someof the deciples became weird heretics who started to see god in a FAILED god who was hung on a stick? maybe paul the LIAR aND fraud DELIBERATELY was selling crucified god to the HEATHENS because he wanted to DEJUDISE jesus original message? maybe selling a crucified god to people who were OPPRESSED AND gang raped was good for business? even paul himself tells his listners “I AM NOT LYING” meaning paul was ACCUSED of being a bull sh itter. and 1st century christian divisions on preaching DIFFERENT interpretations of christ EXISTED.

  49. Oro says:

    Assalamu Alaikum,

    Bro Ibn Anwar, u are doing a great job may Allah continue to bless u, increase ur knowledge and understand.

    Fi amaanillah

    p.s Even if u have not reply me 🙂

  50. The Bull says:

    Ibn Anwar said: “The point of showing that Satan is called God is that if such an entity can actually be described as that why not one who is far holier, that is, Jesus in the Bible? This is the point that you’re missing. You do not understand either the Hebrew or Greek traditions that permit a non-divine entity to be called “god””

    My reply:

    Exodus 23:13: “And in all [things] that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”

    Here we have it in plain text for all to digest and ponder. According to this verse, the NAME of ‘other gods’ should not even be mentioned. The name of Jesus IS clearly mentioned and glorified equally with God e.g.

    Rev 5:12: “Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

    Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. ”

    Also your ‘speaker analogy’ that you have used does not work in this context.

    Also, What on earth is Jesus doing recieving the glory if he is a mere ‘god’ who should not even be mentioned?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The name of satan(i.e. the devil, satan etc.) is mentioned several times in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Your logic really does not follow because the prohibition to mention the name of other gods was a way to curtail polytheism which was rampant in the time of Moses. The verse actually says that the name of gods should not be “heard out of thy mouth”. Did you not write/say Satan in your comments? The Bull’s ill conceived argument shows just how clever he really is(not so much).

      What about Revelation 5:12-13? First, you begin with chapter 4, the heading of which is “The Throne in Heaven” in the NIV. From verses 8 to 11 we clearly see that it is God who sits on the throne described as the one who created all this i.e. The Creator. In chapter 5 verse 1 we see that there is a scroll at the right hand of the Creator on the throne. In verse 7 we see that the Lamb(JESUS) TOOK the scroll “from the one sitting on the throne”. This means that Jesus is not the one who was described as the creator sitting on the throne. Jesus is someone else who takes the scroll from THE CREATOR. Yes, Jesus is given honour and glory and power all of which are also given to the saints as I have shown here http://unveiling-christianity......us-is-god/
      Every analogy that I have given stands unchallenged. As usualy The Bull is soundly refuted.

  51. robert says:

    i think that marks jesus is portrayed as a failed prophet. i think that mark thought that jesus really did think that he was going to make an imminent return.

    Quote:

    Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:62) “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
    Quote:

    7:13 I was watching in the night visions,

    “And with the clouds of the sky

    one like a son of man was approaching.

    He went up to the Ancient of Days

    and was escorted before him.

    7:14 To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.

    All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving36 him.

    His authority is eternal and will not pass away.

    His kingdom will not be destroyed.

    Quote:

    “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ “(Daniel 7:27)

    what i think is that the jewish high priest interpreted jesus to mean that he , jesus, was not only going to make an iminent return , but he would also fullfill what daniel 7:13 said. jesus thought he was a king , according to marks gospel. this was not talking about a future event centuries later, but a CONTEMPORARY EVENT which would happen in the high priests life time. i think jesus , according to mark, also assumed that he was going to return in the high priests life time.

    i have heard many people even scholars say that the deciples thought that the END WAS near

    look how desperately matthew tries to apply ancient ideas in the ot in jesus’ life time. do you really think mark was thinking “prophecy fullfilled” after 21st century?

    Quote:
    Mark 13:24 “But in those days, after that suffering,32 the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; 13:25 the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.33 13:26 Then everyone34 will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds35 with great power and glory. 13:27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.36

    this is making use of the language in daniel again.

    just look at jesus’ INITIAL entry INTO jerusalem. this is LIKE a kings entry. cleaning out the temple and gettting rid of the TRADERS all seem to portray a jesus who thought that he was fullfilling , in his LIFE TIME, the ideas in ot.

    but their is a sudden twist in the story, jesus is not only governed by the jews, but destroyed by them.

    not only were marks jesus hopes CRUSHED , he finally utters the words ,

    “MY God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Then he died.

    yeah, why have you forsaken me? you were on my side all the other times, but why have you forsaken me now?

    marks gospel proves that 1) jesus was not the messiah

    2) he was not the king in daniel

    the scholar bart d ehrman says in his book forged that every single century christians have been awaiting thier returned jesus and the earliest fiddled with the texts to answer those who did not see returned jesus

    for example

    the authour of 2 thessalonians ,claiming to be paul, argues that the end is not in fact coming right away. certain things have to happen. certain things like
    political /religious uprising
    anti christ like figure will appear
    he will claim to be god and seat himself in temple of jerusalem
    jesus will then make his return

    Ehrman says 2 thessalonians was created by an unknown who claimed to be paul.the reason why it was created because it tried to explain why jesus did not return. 1 thessalonians assumed that the return of jesus was going to happen in pauls time, butit didn’t so thats why the 2nd thessalonians was created.

    .

  52. The Bull says:

    Ibn Anwar said: “Your logic really does not follow because the prohibition to mention the name of other gods was a way to curtail polytheism which was rampant in the time of Moses.”

    My Reply:
    So that prohibition doesn’t stand today? Of course it does. Polytheism should be curtailed in the true religion should it not? Next time you are at your mosque or with your muslim friends why don’t you extol the virtue of Budda or Ganesh?

    The bible and your religion say there is only ONE GOD and that all others are false. However Jesus is a ‘God’ that is true. He is therefore that ONE GOD with the H.S. and GOD (the Father).

    Ibn Anwar said: “This means that Jesus is not the one who was described as the creator sitting on the throne. Jesus is someone else who takes the scroll from THE CREATOR.”

    My Reply:
    Rev 22:1,3 plainly tell us that God and Jesus share the same throne and that his servants serve HIM.

    Rev 5:6 also tells us that the Lamb is in the midst (middle) of the throne.

    Also, if you use Revelation 4&5 to support your position, how do you explain a few verses down, e.g. Rev 5:9 “…for thou wast slain and has redeemed us to God by thy blood..” You have invalidated your position (Islam) by appealing to the authority of the bible to support your case.
    Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3 support Jesus as the creator.

    Also Daniel 7:14 talks about HIS kingdom. You have used a word that isn’t even in the bible to support your case (THEM) in verse 27!! Most translations render the invisible word HIM which contextually makes more sense considering 7:14.

    Be strong and humble yourself before God. He will be your strength.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Bull Nonsense said:
      So that prohibition doesn’t stand today? Of course it does. Polytheism should be curtailed in the true religion should it not? Next time you are at your mosque or with your muslim friends why don’t you extol the virtue of Budda or Ganesh?

      My reply:
      The prohibition is on uttering the name of some pagal idol and not teaching the virtues that are ascribed to them to one’s own community. Islam does not prohibit its adherents to actually SAY/UTTER the name of a false God. It prohibits the adoration or a false God. But simple identifying or speaking of that false deity is not proscribed. Your claim is that simply uttering the name of a false God is prohibited. This is repudiated by your own New Testament:
      And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Romans 11:4)
      Didn’t Paul know that he was not supposed to mention Baal at all?? You see, your understanding of the verse that you cited is simply ridiculous and your argument fallacious. You really need to stop arguing like an ignoramus. If you can’t why don’t you just be silent and contemplate on why Trinitarianism is polytheism just as the Trimuurthi in Hinduism.

      The Bull Nonsense said:
      Rev 22:1,3 plainly tell us that God and Jesus share the same throne and that his servants serve HIM.

      Rev 5:6 also tells us that the Lamb is in the midst (middle) of the throne.

      Also, if you use Revelation 4&5 to support your position, how do you explain a few verses down, e.g. Rev 5:9 “…for thou wast slain and has redeemed us to God by thy blood..” You have invalidated your position (Islam) by appealing to the authority of the bible to support your case.
      Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3 support Jesus as the creator.

      My reply:
      One does not need to adhere to the entire Bible to be able to quote it to defend a particular position or to illustrate a particular point. I can cite the Bible but that does not mean I have to believe that human beings are made like curdled cheese according to the Old Testament. It was you who first brought up Revelation 5. You tried to appeal to it as evidence of Jesus’ deity but I have proven that the passages prove that Jesus isn’t God and to now try to start a topic on soteriology is a complete red herring. Does Rev. 5:6 says that Jesus is in the “centre” of the throne? No, it does not actually say that. A more accurate way of rendering the verse is as such:
      “Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God that is sent out into every part of the earth.”
      An important part in the verse is the conjunction “kai” which shows that the position of the lamb is between the “thronou”(throne), “ton tessaron zoon” and “ton presbyteron”. That is to say the lamb is surrounded by the throne, the four living things and the elders.

      The Bull Nonsense said:
      Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3 support Jesus as the creator.

      My reply:
      How silly can you really be? I have refuted you on those verse more than once! Stop repeating yourself. Be quiet if you have nothing new to offer.

      The Bull Nonsense said:
      Also Daniel 7:14 talks about HIS kingdom. You have used a word that isn’t even in the bible to support your case (THEM) in verse 27!! Most translations render the invisible word HIM which contextually makes more sense considering 7:14.

      My reply:
      The JPS translates the verse as follows:
      And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’
      Both the Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version agree with the final third person plural pronoun.

  53. The Bull says:

    I am so sorry for repeating myself over and over and over and over and over again. I will refrain from being so foolish next time.

Leave a Reply