[grip_daddy]

I am going to pose questions which has been asked by Muslims for years (not new): To ndigila,if God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the "Father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

God does not exist as matter. He is Spirit and His ways are past finding out. On one part God said that He is only one God and beside Him there is no one else when declaring His glory, power, and Majesty to prophet Isaiah. To the same prophet He asked, "whom will we send? Who will go for us?" Isaiah 6.

Let me tell you that man perceives singularity (single entity of personality) because He is composed of natural matter limited in space-time.

Let me ask you a sincere question; according to Muslims, is Allah able to be everywhere talking to all angels and humans, listening to their prayers at the same time? When Grip is prayeing to Him at the same exact time Mohammad is praying to Him and also Ndigila and hundreds of Muslims or thousands or Millions, is He able to give 100% attentive ear and concentration to each and everyone of them? If yes, is that comprehendable to finite humans how He does it?

The same way one man cannot listen to millions of people talking to him at the same exact time, the same way man cannot be at all places at the same time, the same way man cannot pass through walls, it is the same way man cannot explain fully how God was complete and is complete and is always complete even when Jesus died. If you will know what it means when God said that His ways are past finding out, then you can start rationalising this Mystery of Trinity. Actually personally I dont like the term Trinity, but would accept the concept of one God whose existence is not in singularity but multiplicity of three.

To Grip Daddy: who wrote the book of Revelation?

John the disciple of Jesus while in captive in the Island of Patmos. He was the most beloved apostle and predicted a lot of things that have come to pass including the rise and fall of Papacy, Islam, America, and the almost the coming world religious order. By the way I heard that Muslims are fostering a close working relationship with the Catholic church, any latest development?

Why is half of the New Testament written by a man who never even met Jesus in his lifetime?

Paul was a gifted scholar schooled in the law of Moses at a tender age. He preached to thousands of Gentiles in many places and as a good pastor, during the free time he had in the Roman prison walls, he decided to write many letters to the fiends, churches and congregations he had preached to. It happens that most of his letters (not all) were able to be collected to form part of the New Testament as opposed to any other apostle.

PAUL claimed with no proof that he had met Jesus while on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus.

Claims are there, which are possible even in Islam. Now, what kind of proof would you have wanted him to produce? He was not alone and he became blind for many days after the incident. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

PAUL was the main enemy of Christianity. Isn’t that reason enough to question the authenticity of what he wrote?

I wish that this fact could have been distorted as you claim the New Testament was. Why do you think his acts prior to conversion to Christianity are recorded? To show the power of salvation in Jesus Christ, right? If you read Paul carefully, you will find that he frontiered monotheism more than other apostles, dont you think that was a work of God?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

To ndigila,if God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the "Father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

Muhammad, remember the Virgin birth unites humanity and divinity in the personhood of Christ. When Jesus talks about his God, it was his human nature. You seem to think that it is impossible for Jesus to be both God and man at the same time.

[Muhammad_4]

Grip daddy wrote: "Actually personally I dont like the term Trinity, but would accept the concept of one God whose existence is not in singularity but multiplicity of three". You need to make up your mind.
If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to the people.

[grip_daddy]

You need to make up your mind.


Do you really think that a term rightly applied though of wrong origin affects the real? For example there are these people who prefer to call God Yaweh, others prefer Elohim, while others prefer Jehova. I think the basic concept matters and not the name applied to the concept.

If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time?

Before Christ there were no such thing as Trinity. The verses that identified God as Tri (the plural us used to describe God's speeches comes from 'more than two' plural form of Hebrews language syntax) were not taken with a lot of seriousness.

After Christ's sojourn on earth, there were a group of people who considered Him another God (the three gods school of thought), others only recognised Father and Son to be gods, whereas others argued that only the Father was God. Due to the prevailing confusion of the time, a statement explaining the true nature of God was deemed necessary to erase the confusion.

It is therefore necessary to know that our ONE God is the Father, and He is the Christ, and He is the Spirit. One God revealing Himself as three though ONE...Beside whom there is no any other God. He is the self existent one, the only creator, saviour and sustainor of life whose manifestation is in three personalities. This uniqueness of God is what is called Trinity which to me sounds vague.

How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity?

Trinity is a name developed to explain a concept. I have just read that those who followed Allah's ordained ways of life are considered Muslims even before the word Muslim or Islam came into existence? That means Muslims like Abraham were also Muslims (and all other prophets) in absence of the organised Islam religion? Same concept applies to the term Christianity, Trinity, and other names that may develop to define an existing concept. If you asked me, Abraham was equally a Christian.

Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to the people.

Trinity is NOT a way of life but a recognition of the true nature and existence of God. It was recognised by the writer of Genesis, Isaiah, David, Zechariah and others. Simply put, it enables a true appreciation to the power and eternity of God in Himself as revealed in His own triunion of His three Personalities. It gives hope, strength to a believer that it is God Himself that "so loved the world" that He came down on earth to be ridiculed by man and die for that man.

When a person appreciates that the Holy Ghost is God Himself convicting us of sin, he will develop an indepth fear and reverence to the worship of this very God. Note, He is the same one God that is the Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost. "These three are one", says John.

[Muhammad_4]

See how Jesus, who was the expected Messiah, a prophet, was escalated from teacher to son of God, Lord, and finally to God Himself. Read John 3:2: "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him: 'Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God ..."; John 6:14: "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said: 'This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." Jesus is also called a prophet in John 7:40; Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16 and 24:19. In Acts 9:20, we read: "And straightway he [Paul] preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the son of God." (You can conclude from here also that early Christians were still using synagogues, but later when Christianity deviated from the original teaching of Jesus, churches were established. Paul, Barnabas, and the Gentiles were expelled from the synagogues, as they were accused of blasphemy and pollution. See Acts 13:50, 17:18, and 21:28.). In Luke 2:11, it is said that: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savoir, who is Christ the Lord" and in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
How can Jesus be god while it says in Exodus 33:20 "And he (God) said ,thou canst see my face:for there shall no man see me, and live" but people saw Jesus,ate, walked with him etc! also in John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time" .
Let me leave you with this one I Corinthians 14:33 : "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." Doctrines made by men create confusion!.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." Doctrines made by men create confusion!.

I once said that I am not confused, but seemingly you are confused about God. Let us discuss Allah from the OT.

1. Read Isaiah 9:1-7 and tell me if you agree with those wordings.

2. Read Isaiah 53 and also tell me if you accept the wordings.

3. Since you quoted Paul, also read Philipians 2:5-8 and see the process of Christ's incarnation.

4. Read Genesis 18 where Abraham talked with God face to face.

Now we can start discussing from your point of reasoning or contradiction of the above scriptures.

[Muhammad_4]

I would like to comment one of the Scripture you shared Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace".
We know that the word "son of God" can be used to anyone who is beloved or near to God according to the Bible.
"The mighty" god! In Arabic,Hebrew and Greek there is no differentiation between a capital "G" for God,and small "g" for god, as in the languages of the Western countries today;yet the Christians are very known to have played the first and loose when translating the Bible, for instance 2 Cor.4:4 "In whom the god (the devil) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not..." Exodus 7:1 "And the lord said unto Moses,see,I have made thee a god to pharao, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet"
Compare with JOHN 1:1 where the Christians have used capital "G"``s and "W" `s when reffering to Jesus!
Talking about the Book of Isaiah: The first revelation (surah 96: 1-5) of Allah through the angel Gabriel to Muhammad was the word iqra', which means "read." As he was illiterate, he replied: "I cannot read." This first revelation was prophesied in Isaiah 29:12: "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying: 'Read this, I pray thee,' and he saith: 'I am not learned. "
The Qur'anic verses were not revealed in the order in which they appear in the Qur'an. In other words, the first part that was revealed is not the first page and the last part that was revealed is not the last page. That these revelations came in instalments and were inserted in a certain order in the Qur'an as ordained by Allah was also mentioned in Isaiah 28:10-11: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to his people." Another tongue means here another language not Hebrew or Aramaic, but Arabic
The vision of Isaiah of the two riders in Isaiah 21:7: "And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels ..."
Who was the rider upon an ass? Every Sunday School student knows that this person was Jesus: John 12:14: "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon, as it is written." Who, then, is the promised rider on a camel? This powerful prophet has been overlooked by readers of the Bible. This person is Prophet Muhammad. If this is not applied to him, then the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. That is why lsaiah mentioned in 21:13: "The burden upon Arabia ...," which means the responsibility of the Arab Muslims, and of course now of all Muslims, to spread the message of Islam.

[grip_daddy]

Mohammad,

You did not comment on the words "everlasting Father". Also note that "mighty god" demands understanding as such, mighty god. Unless the son that is born to us is a mighty god, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, those words are blasphemous. Moses was made a god, not God...and not a god of worship as you may claim. Other prophecies in Old Testament clearly shows that our promised Christ shall be worshipped yet worship is only meant for Allah.

Isaiah 53 prophesied of Jesus death and why. What does the statement, "he was cut off for our transgressions" mean? You said earlier that God cannot have someone to die on behalf of man.

Also, why were the animal sacrifices demanded for by God from the children of Israel?

[Muhammad_4]

Why should I comment on the word "everlasting father", while it is clear as the day and night that Jesus can not be everlasting father? Read "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46). "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32).
Also, you have a problem of translation: In Surah 3:45: [Remember] when the angels said: "O Mary! Verily Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name will be Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are near to Allah." In this verse, Jesus is called a "Word from Allah," by which is meant a Word coming from Allah or belonging to Allah, in correspondence with I Corinthians 3:23: "And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." John 1:1 should also have been written: "... and the Word was God's." The mistake could have been in the translation from Aramaic to Greek, deliberately or not. In the Greek language, Theos is God, while Theou means God's (see any Greek dictionary or Bible, or Muhammad in the Bible by Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah, page 16). This difference of only one letter has major consequences.
On "the Prince of peace" how can this be attributed to Jesus while himself (according to the Bible) claimed that he didnt come to bring peace?!
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
*I still dont know what do you mean in this statement of yours,"why were the animal sacrifices demanded for by God from the children of Israel"? because I can pose similar questions like this!

[grip_daddy]

Mohammad,

You cannot use the New Testament to discredit Old Testament because you believe the New Testament was doctored.

But if you believe that the Old Testament was doctored too, then I'm glad to inform you that your application of it for Muhamed is ill adviced. Please be consistent.

Jesus is God, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the only immortal and eternal creator. He is the only one God who deserves worship, reverence and adoration. He is the one who appeared to Moses in a bush of fire and Moses worshipped Him. If you read that story, you will realise that He is both referred to as the LORD God Almighty, I AM THAT I AM, and the Angel of the LORD. You will need to explain the "Angel of the LORD" part of it.

If you have problems with Old Testament too, I'll say that the verses you quote to prove your points were equally doctored.