Would any Muslim like to have a one-on-one debate about the trinity?

[Bismillah]

I represent the traditional view of the trinity, therefore I believe that the Three Persons are not the same, but are all One God.

Like the limbs which are parts that comprise a body?

In contrast with the Oneness Pentecostal doctirne that holds Christ and the Father are the same person with different names, Heaven was not empty while Christ was on earth.

Before Christ was Earth empty of God?

Now you may ask is that not Polytheism, three people must be three gods? No for Jesus and God are not different Gods, they are one God, eternal coexistent together, yet two persons. Sounds confusing no? Heavenly things are confusing.

Is Jesus a literal son of God?

 

[Tbone]

I've noticed, and no offensive, that some Muslims seem to have very little understanding of proper Christian doctirnes, one of these being the Trinity, I'd love to hear someone else view, or debate them in the one-on-one debate

The trinity is not biblcal.

 

[Godobeyer]

this matter does not work in public areas , and always found that christain avoid to repond or try to change the context .
if you are commun/gather failed ,how about individual ?

[youtube]p45zk9ticWU[/youtube]
Muslims call the Christian see what happened.flv - YouTube[/quote]


this video was just exemple .

 

[ForeverFaithful]

this matter does not work in public areas , and always found that christain avoid to repond or try to change the context .
if you are commun/gather failed ,how about individual ?

[youtube]p45zk9ticWU[/youtube]
Muslims call the Christian see what happened.flv - YouTube

this video was just exemple .[/quote]
You've posted that link before, he is a weak apologist

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Like the limbs which are parts that comprise a body? Before Christ was Earth empty of God? Is Jesus a literal son of God?

Limbs is a good example, you can kinda think of it like squares that form a cube. 6 squares (2-d) and 1 cube (3-d).

There was no Earth before Christ, but before He became incarnate, yes the One True God of Israel existed before 4 BC however so did Christ

By literal son do you mean did God have sex with Mary? No not like that, Mary received the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit took flesh inside her womb

 

[Shermana]

You've posted that link before, he is a weak apologist

Every Trinitarian apologist is weak.

There was no Earth before Christ, but before He became incarnate, yes the One True God of Israel existed before 4 BC however so did Christ

Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon do in fact state the Wisdom (meaning of "logos" or "word") was created as an actual personified being before all other creation.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Every Trinitarian apologist is weak.

Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon do in fact state the Wisdom (meaning of "logos" or "word") was created as an actual personified being before all other creation.

Since when is Proverbs a messianic book? Wisdom is not accepted as scripture by today's Jews or Protestants so I am absolutely not interested in whatever doctirnes it holds

On top of that, my explaining the doctrine has nothing to do with your interpretation of scriptures, where are not you believe what I say is of no consequence I am merely exampling the doctrine as of this moment

 

[Shermana]

Since when is Proverbs a messianic book?

I don't understand what you mean, Proverbs is a canonical book in the OT which no Jew or scholar disagrees on. Why would it have to be a Messianic book in the first place? This is your objection?

Wisdom is not accepted as scripture by today's Jews or Protestants so I am absolutely not interested in whatever doctirnes it holds

That's fine if you don't accept it, the ancient Israelites definitely accepted it by evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Catholics and Orthodox and Coptics and Ethiopian Tawahedo accept it, the rejection of the Apocrypha is a more modern thing and there's some evidence that the Talmudic Jews accepted the Apocrypha until the late dark ages. I don't understand why modern Jews and Protestants rejecting Wisdom of Solomon has anything to do with what the ancient believers felt about their own doctrines. Whether modern Rabbinicists accept it makes no sense if you don't accept that they don't accept the NT either. We can get into a discussion of why it should or shouldn't be included in Canon if you'd like.

On top of that, my explaining the doctrine has nothing to do with your interpretation of scriptures, where are not you believe what I say is of no consequence I am merely exampling the doctrine as of this moment

That's fine, and I'm just explaining mine for the objective observer. But actually, your doctrine has something to do with my interpretation of scripture, because I'm disproving it through mine.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

That's fine, and I'm just explaining mine for the objective observer. But actually, your doctrine has something to do with my interpretation of scripture, because I'm disproving it through mine.

You'll notice a lack of Bible verse in my latest posts has we are not discussing which doctrine is more biblical

 

[Bismillah]

Limbs is a good example, you can kinda think of it like squares that form a cube. 6 squares (2-d) and 1 cube (3-d).

So what is the point of the physical manifestation of Christ then? Before that manifestation did Christ exist? You said that there was no Earth before Christ so I am assuming that Christ did exist but in a different form. Was he a separate entity from God? And what was the need for this separate entity?

By literal son do you mean did God have sex with Mary? No not like that, Mary received the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit took flesh inside her womb

No I understand immaculate conception, it is a part of Islamic belief as well. When you say Mary received the Holy Spirit what does that mean what relation does Christ bear to God. As you assume he is God's son does that mean that Christ is placed at a subordinate position than God? And why the need to call Christ the son of God if he is the same entity, why not call Christ simply God?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

So what is the point of the physical manifestation of Christ then? Before that manifestation did Christ exist? You said that there was no Earth before Christ so I am assuming that Christ did exist but in a different form. Was he a separate entity from God? And what was the need for this separate entity?

Had Christ not been made flesh, he could not have suffered for our sins, it also shows a God who seeks out man and can relate to him.

No I understand immaculate conception, it is a part of Islamic belief as well. When you say Mary received the Holy Spirit what does that mean what relation does Christ bear to God. As you assume he is God's son does that mean that Christ is placed at a subordinate position than God? And why the need to call Christ the son of God if he is the same entity, why not call Christ simply God?

If we read the Greek for John 1
"... και θεος ην ο λογος" "... and the Word was God"

You'll notice a lack of definite article, this is because Jesus =/= the Father, that is called Sabellianism and is considered a heresy.

Christ would besubordinate to the Father as a person of the Trinity, but both are God fully

(before someone rudely intreputs and asserts that this passage supports Arianism I like to point out the lack of article does imply an automatic indefinite article, Martin Luther once said the sentence structure is anti-Arian, the Arian verse would more likely be written και ο λογος ην θεο&#962

 

[Shermana]

Once again, JOhn 1:1 should read "And a god was the word"< it's an anarthrous Theos.

(Also important to note, angels are called "gods", and Justin Martyr called Jesus an angel.)

As well, some prominent Trinitarian translators prefer to render it as "And the word was Divine" because they believe the "traditional" word was God rendering is in fact Modalism.

I like to point out the lack of article does imply an automatic indefinite article,

Exactly. Lack of article implies an indefinite article. Otherwise, get rid of all your "a's" and "an's" in your translation. See Acts 12:22.

That is all fo rnow.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Once again, JOhn 1:1 should read "And a god was the word"< it's an anarthrous Theos.

(Also important to note, angels are called "gods", and Justin Martyr called Jesus an angel.)

Many of the Early Church fathers held doctirnes even you would consider heretical, that was the point of the Nicene Coucil, to decided who was on to something and who was off base.

As well, some prominent Trinitarian translators prefer to render it as "And the word was Divine" because they believe the "traditional" word was God rendering is in fact Modalism.

Exactly. Lack of article implies an indefinite article. Otherwise, get rid of all your "a's" and "an's" in your translation. See Acts 12:22.

That is all fo rnow.

A lack of a definitive article was one way of having an indefinite article, however that lack of a definite article didn't automatically mean an a indefinite article

Here's an article about it
Comparing the Use of the word God and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1

 

[Shermana]

Many of the Early Church fathers held doctirnes even you would consider heretical, that was the point of the Nicene Coucil, to decided who was on to something and who was off base.

To be honest, virtually ALL of the Church Fathers held doctrines I'd consider heretical, even Arius. Just because I agree with SOME of their views, like Justin Martyr calling Jesus an Angel or Iraneus considering Enoch and the Shepherd of Hermas to be Inspired, doens't mean I agree with their other beliefs. I'm sure they thought the sky was blue, even if we disagreed on what books were canon or how to interpret what Jesus meant.

A lack of a definitive article was one way of having an indefinite article, however that lack of a definite article didn't automatically mean an a indefinite article

You're halfway right, ,but only halfway. The implied indefinite article does not always apply, HOWEVER, Theos/Theon in pretty much all of the other times requires an article or a grammatical indicator to know that it's referring to THE god, the "god of the gods". Such as "In beginning", doesn't need an article, it's simply the way we would say "At evening", or "In school", or "At work". The arguments against it involve straw men versions of the grammatical interpretation or flat out dishonesty such as shifting the word to "Theou" instead of the Theos/Theon form.

Here's an article about it
Comparing the Use of the word God and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1

[/quote]

As for John 1:18 as that Article attempts to debunk, it can be read as

"A god no one has ever seen". However, Moses apparently saw G-d "face to face", so was it really talking about G-d who no one has ever seen? So it's probably talking about the "god" (angel) known as Jesus who no one had seen until then. An uncommon translation perhaps, but consistent at least.

As for John 1:4, there's no reason to NOT read it as "A life", even if it doesn't make sense in your interpretation. "IN him was a life", does it mean "In him was the totality of life itself"? No. It means there was "life" in him, a separate life from the concept of "Life altogether".

As for John 1:6, this proves the article's either ignorance or deliberate dishonesty, the word is THEOU.