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

[arcanum]

Hi foreverfaithful ,i want to go back:to the main subject trinity ok!!!
Trinity =The Father,The Son ,The holly spirit?

So lets talk about one part of Trinity,
What is The Holy Ghost?
the holy Spirit ,is The Holy Ghost , and He is considered as God.
Lets compare 2 verses : Matthew1:18 and Luke1:26-27 ok :sarcastic
mattew1:18. "now the birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise : when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,before they came toghether , she was found with child of The Holy Ghost"
Luke 1:26-27 " and in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee , named Nazareth ,to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph , of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary"
So in the miraculous birth of Jesus, Mattew montioned The Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned The angel Gabriel!
What is the Holy Ghost then?
Answer :The Holy Gost is then the angel Gabriel:yes:

The way I understand the trinty would be like the different states of water: you have it in liquid, ice, and vapor forms yet they are all manifestations of the same thing. God in essense is one but can manifest his energies in different forms. So one could say his essence dosen't change just the outer manifestation.

 

[Shermana]

The way I understand the trinty would be like the different states of water: you have it in liquid, ice, and vapor forms yet they are all manifestations of the same thing. God in essense is one but can manifest his energies in different forms. So one could say his essence dosen't change just the outer manifestation.

The liquid, ice, and vapor explanation, though a common one, is actually Modalism/Sabbellianism, not the Trinity.

basic.theology.forums > Modalism

The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism.

I've noticed that the grand majority of self-professed "Trinitarians" are actually Modalists without realizing. Finding an authentic "Trinitarian" is actually kinda uncommon. I'd say that Moffat and Goodspeed's translations were intended to steer mainstream Christianity ,such as with turning John 1:1 into "The word was Divine" and John 8:58 (where they are correct) into "I have been", away from this problem.

 

[Faith division]

The way I understand the trinty would be like the different states of water: you have it in liquid, ice, and vapor forms yet they are all manifestations of the same thing. God in essense is one but can manifest his energies in different forms. So one could say his essence dosen't change just the outer manifestation.

God = One and only God
Jesus = a human
Holly Spirit = an angel. (prouved by Gospel)

(God in essence is one ) you said, and this is the truth!!!

Now you admit the realities above!!!
but you believe He can manifest in different forms.
I asq you
1/ did He manifest in an other form than human and angel?
2/ the example of water is ok , but if you spill (pour) water, there will be no ice, no vapor! Jesus was crusified logically speaking,no Father , no Holly Spirit left?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Perhaps you didn't see the "Nazarene" part. I accept him as the Moshiach, which is like Prophet ++. The incarnation of the highest angel and first created soul, but not the Supreme Being himself.

So you don't view Jesus as the Lord?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Hi foreverfaithful ,i want to go back:to the main subject trinity ok!!!
Trinity =The Father,The Son ,The holly spirit?

So lets talk about one part of Trinity,
What is The Holy Ghost?
the holy Spirit ,is The Holy Ghost , and He is considered as God.
Lets compare 2 verses : Matthew1:18 and Luke1:26-27 ok :sarcastic
mattew1:18. "now the birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise : when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,before they came toghether , she was found with child of The Holy Ghost"
Luke 1:26-27 " and in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee , named Nazareth ,to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph , of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary"
So in the miraculous birth of Jesus, Mattew montioned The Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned The angel Gabriel!
What is the Holy Ghost then?
Answer :The Holy Gost is then the angel Gabriel:yes:

If you notice the Holy Spirit is equated with Christ's father, therefore Holy Spirit = God

However the Angel Gabriel was the messenger who came to Mary and informed her that she bore the Christ child

 

[ForeverFaithful]

God = One and only God
Jesus = a human
Holly Spirit = an angel. (prouved by Gospel)

(God in essence is one ) you said, and this is the truth!!!

The Father= God
The Son= 100 percent God, 100 percent Man, Begotten not made of one substance being with the father
The Holy Spirit = God , the same God who lead the Jews from Egypt descended on the Church on Pentecost

Now you admit the realities above!!!
but you believe He can manifest in different forms.
I asq you
1/ did He manifest in an other form than human and angel?
2/ the example of water is ok , but if you spill (pour) water, there will be no ice, no vapor! Jesus was crusified logically speaking,no Father , no Holly Spirit left?

[/quote]

Are they above verses from the Qu'ran? No offence but that's what worries me, it's not rebuttaling the Orthodox view of the Trinity :sorry1:

While Christ was on Earth, the Father was still in Heaven, as was the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:10-11)

Did that mean 2/3 of God where running the Universe? No, that's just silly. God = ∞ and so do all member of the trinity
so Even if only the Father was in Heaven it would still be ∞

God being incarnate and being in Heaven is perfectly possibly because God is God, do you not believe anything is possible with the Lord?

 

[Faith division]

Are they above verses from the Qu'ran

these are my questions and answers not Quran
I want to keep the conversation with you logically , for that i used step by step
But trust me ,i m verry smart but , i cant understand any of what you said!!
I feel that we were few steps far , but i say God is one , and you say God =infinity ???big question mark
The power,mercy,wisdom,misericorde,goodness,existance,,etc,, of God are all infinityi*
But He is one
You said Jesus = 100%human =100% God
If you said 50,50% its logical
But do you accept,if i say
My table is 100% wood=100% iron!?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

these are my questions and answers not Quran
I want to keep the conversation with you logically , for that i used step by step
But trust me ,i m verry smart but , i cant understand any of what you said!!
I feel that we were few steps far , but i say God is one , and you say God =infinity ???big question mark
The power,mercy,wisdom,misericorde,goodness,existance,,etc,, of God are all infinityi*
But He is one
You said Jesus = 100%human =100% God
If you said 50,50% its logical
But do you accept,if i say
My table is 100% wood=100% iron!?

See these things are Heavenly, not Earthly, the same rules do not apply

Now this will be hard to follow I know but bear with me

A line is a 1 dimensional thing, and if we lived in a 1-D world it would be impossible for us to imagine a square

likewise the square could not conceive a cube

and we in this 3d world can not conceive God fully, but only how he has revealed Himself

 

[Shermana]

So you don't view Jesus as the Lord?

Definitely not. As "the lord" in lower case as David is called "lord", yes. He is the "lord" as in the chosen one selected by The Father to rule as his representative.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Definitely not. As "the lord" in lower case as David is called "lord", yes. He is the "lord" as in the chosen one selected by The Father to rule as his representative.

Do you believe he died on the cross and resurrected?

 

[Shermana]

Do you believe he died on the cross and resurrected?

That I do.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That I do.

You don't find Jesus' "I Am" statements or his other statements that the Jews understood explicatly as being claims of divinity actually pointing to JC being divine? I guess the obvious answer is "no", I'm curious how you read and understand those passages.

 

[Shermana]

You don't find Jesus' "I Am" statements or his other statements that the Jews understood explicatly as being claims of divinity actually pointing to JC being divine? I guess the obvious answer is "no", I'm curious how you read and understand those passages.

I have discussed this extensively on other threads.

One: The name itself is "I shall be". I hope I don't have to get into this yet again. If you disagree with this, we have records of several Septuagints written before the Sinaiticus that translate Ex 3:14 as "I shall be". Thus, the name itself is a moot point since most Jews have traditionally translated what is today called "I am" into "I will be". And then there's the issue of the actual meaning and context of what Jesus says. And there's only 1 "I am" statement in question, the other ones are drastically taken out of context that show how badly Trinitarians mangle translation and context to meet their doctrines, like Jesus merely saying "I am" when they ask "Are you Jesus?" By that logic, next time I say "I am" I'm declaring myself to be G-d, right? But it's moot, since "Ehyeh" means the future tense "I shall be/I will be". You will find almost every other use of "Ehyeh" in the Torah to be future tense "I will be" or past tense, so suddenly now it changes in Exodus 3:14 for some reason?


Second: Trinitarian scholars Dr. Goodspeed and Dr. Moffatt (Oxford) have translated Ego Eimi as "I was" and "I have been", because Genesthai is "Abraham was", even though its usually "Will be", so its a matter of different tense. French and other languages use "I am" for "i was" and past tense.

I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:12. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it can also be translated as "I-shall-be that I-shall-be."[1]

Hebrew Concordance: ?eh·yeh -- 43 Occurrences

2 Samuel 7:14
BIB: אֲנִי֙ אֶהְיֶה־ לּ֣וֹ לְאָ֔ב
INT: I become father he
2 Samuel 15:34
BIB: אֲנִ֤י הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ אֶֽהְיֶ֔ה עֶ֣בֶד אָבִ֤יךָ
NAS: O king; as I have been your father's

So as we can see, the "I AM" statements are nothing but Trinitarian desparation when used as "proof texts" that don't take into account the actual grammar or context of the situation.

So basically Jesus is saying that he existed as a spiritual being since before Abraham existed. Not the same as calling himself The G-d.

There's also the question of what the word "divine" actually means. Angels are called "gods". Psalm 8:5, Elohim is translated as "Angels" in the Septuagint. There is only one "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2), so thus Angels are "divine" and thus Yashua can be considered divine, but perhaps not in the definition you are familiar with.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I have discussed this extensively on other threads.

One: The name itself is "I shall be". I hope I don't have to get into this yet again. If you disagree with this, we have records of several Septuagints written before the Sinaiticus that translate Ex 3:14 as "I shall be". Thus, the name itself is a moot point since most Jews have traditionally translated what is today called "I am" into "I will be". And then there's the issue of the actual meaning and context of what Jesus says. And there's only 1 "I am" statement in question, the other ones are drastically taken out of context that show how badly Trinitarians mangle translation and context to meet their doctrines, like Jesus merely saying "I am" when they ask "Are you Jesus?" By that logic, next time I say "I am" I'm declaring myself to be G-d, right? But it's moot, since "Ehyeh" means the future tense "I shall be/I will be". You will find almost every other use of "Ehyeh" in the Torah to be future tense "I will be" or past tense, so suddenly now it changes in Exodus 3:14 for some reason?


Second: Trinitarian scholars Dr. Goodspeed and Dr. Moffatt (Oxford) have translated Ego Eimi as "I was" and "I have been", because Genesthai is "Abraham was", even though its usually "Will be", so its a matter of different tense. French and other languages use "I am" for "i was" and past tense.

I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hebrew Concordance: ?eh·yeh -- 43 Occurrences

So as we can see, the "I AM" statements are nothing but Trinitarian desparation when used as "proof texts" that don't take into account the actual grammar or context of the situation.

So basically Jesus is saying that he existed as a spiritual being since before Abraham existed. Not the same as calling himself The G-d.

There's also the question of what the word "divine" actually means. Angels are called "gods". Psalm 8:5, Elohim is translated as "Angels" in the Septuagint. There is only one "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2), so thus Angels are "divine" and thus Yashua can be considered divine, but perhaps not in the definition you are familiar with.

I appreciate getting to hear your point of view. I'm sure you've talked about it to death already and that's how it works on these forums. After a while the same debates are repeated over and over. Thanks for sharing. I've got another question. Do you have a church that shares your belief system,or did you come to these conclusions basically on your own?

 

[Shermana]

I came to the conclusions on my own, and I do not belong to any church as I actually dislike most so-called "Messianic Jewish" congregations that are basically fronts for Evangelism that don't take any scholarly method into account and go blindly by the Roman canon. However, my views are not purely my own at the same time, many others share what I believe, they just happen to be few in number.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I came to the conclusions on my own, and I do not belong to any church as I actually dislike most so-called "Messianic Jewish" congregations that are basically fronts for Evangelism that don't take any scholarly method into account and go blindly by the Roman canon. However, my views are not purely my own at the same time, many others share what I believe, they just happen to be few in number.

Are you a scholar? Are you able to actually evalute actual scholarship at anything higher than an amateur level?

 

[Shermana]

Are you a scholar? Are you able to actually evalute actual scholarship at anything higher than an amateur level?

Define "scholar". Do I have to go to a 4 year school to be a "scholar"? Do I have to have a degree to read "actual scholarship" and get what they're saying? What would an "amateur level" be? If I say the same thing as say F.C. Baur about the Pseudo-Clementine literature, does my opinion not count but someone with a degree's does? If I disprove what a person with a degree says and show him conflicting opinions that disprove him, why am I the "amateur", just because I don't have the degree? Do I need a degree to agree with someone who has one or present their arguments and the evidence to back them? Does he win because he has the degree? If I agree with Tischendorf's evaluation of the edits and ommissions regarding the KJV, is it only amateur if I don't have a degree? Are you trying to say unless one has been to a "Theology school" that they are unable to process basic ideas in the scholarly world?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Define "scholar". Do I have to go to a 4 year school to be a "scholar"? Do I have to have a degree to read "actual scholarship" and get what they're saying? What would an "amateur level" be? If I say the same thing as say F.C. Baur about the Pseudo-Clementine literature, does my opinion not count but someone with a degree's does? If I disprove what a person with a degree says and show him conflicting opinions that disprove him, why am I the "amateur", just because I don't have the degree? Do I need a degree to agree with someone who has one or present their arguments and the evidence to back them? Does he win because he has the degree? If I agree with Tischendorf's evaluation of the edits and ommissions regarding the KJV, is it only amateur if I don't have a degree? Are you trying to say unless one has been to a "Theology school" that they are unable to process basic ideas in the scholarly world?

If some rogue theologian comes out a radical finding that is dismissed by the vast majority of his collegues, are you able to contradict them as an authority in their field?

 

[Shermana]

If some rogue theologian comes out a radical finding that is dismissed by the vast majority of his collegues, are you able to contradict them as an authority in their field?

It depends on what you consider an "authority". There are times when the "Cheese stands alone", and the majority of scholars go with a traditional view merely because its traditional. There are some issues like with "Q" in which most scholars agree it existed, and the minority doesn't, and I side with the minority, and think the Majority is going with wishful thinking, there are times I think the majority is right, such as with Ephesian's non-Pauline origins, and the minority (who are often the "Conservative scholars" in this case) who hold on to Pauline authorship are in the wrong, same with the Pastorals. If one needs a 4 year degree to be an "authority" then that makes the issue moot as if such is necessary to discuss these things. Also, not all scholars are "Theologians". The "Conservative" scholars, those who believe in the scripture as it is and try to defend traditional doctrines like the Trinity, are even divided among themselves. Moffatt and Goodspeed, like I showed earlier, believe that John 8:58 should be read as "I have been" for example. You'd have to have a specific example for me to show what I can "Contradict" exactly. Most of the things I believe in are shared by at least a few other scholars. There are only a few things that I hold that I have yet to find scholarly support on, like on issues like the Ascension of Isaiah, which most scholars consider to be mostly filled with Christian-edits, while I think it's only a few Christian edits and it actually is referring to the Moshiach, but with some Trinitarian bias thrown in over the years. I agree with F.C. Baur that in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, "Simon Magus" was a codeword for Paul, but not many "Theologians" aka "Conservative scholars" will agree to this, because Paul is so central to their beliefs. So you'll have to give some examples. I believe I could use the same method and show the same evidence that one with a 4 year degree could, and I often hold "conservative scholars" with 4 year degrees in suspicion since their schools tend to be trinitarian, pauline biased.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It depends on what you consider an "authority". There are times when the "Cheese stands alone", and the majority of scholars go with a traditional view merely because its traditional. There are some issues like with "Q" in which most scholars agree it existed, and the minority doesn't, and I side with the minority, and think the Majority is going with wishful thinking, there are times I think the majority is right, such as with Ephesian's non-Pauline origins, and the minority (who are often the "Conservative scholars" in this case) who hold on to Pauline authorship are in the wrong, same with the Pastorals. If one needs a 4 year degree to be an "authority" then that makes the issue moot as if such is necessary to discuss these things. Also, not all scholars are "Theologians". The "Conservative" scholars, those who believe in the scripture as it is and try to defend traditional doctrines like the Trinity, are even divided among themselves. Moffatt and Goodspeed, like I showed earlier, believe that John 8:58 should be read as "I have been" for example. You'd have to have a specific example for me to show what I can "Contradict" exactly. Most of the things I believe in are shared by at least a few other scholars. There are only a few things that I hold that I have yet to find scholarly support on, like on issues like the Ascension of Isaiah, which most scholars consider to be mostly filled with Christian-edits, while I think it's only a few Christian edits and it actually is referring to the Moshiach, but with some Trinitarian bias thrown in over the years. I agree with F.C. Baur that in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, "Simon Magus" was a codeword for Paul, but not many "Theologians" aka "Conservative scholars" will agree to this, because Paul is so central to their beliefs. So you'll have to give some examples. I believe I could use the same method and show the same evidence that one with a 4 year degree could, and I often hold "conservative scholars" with 4 year degrees in suspicion since their schools tend to be trinitarian, pauline biased.

The importance of every issue that you've listed here pales in comparison to the question of Jesus' divinity. It seems to me that if you're going to deny his divinity you'd better damn well know what you're talking about