@Kolokalo:

Why do the ignorant find it difficult to understand that God is a trinity when man himself is a trinity? Man exists in 3 different manifestations namely body(flesh), spirit and soul. Since both christian and islamic scriptures agree that we are made in God's image, it is LOGICAL to trace our triune self to our creator Himself since He too exists in 3 different manifestations which includes flesh(Jesus) and spirit (Holy Spirit).

Now the question is: since we are triune beings, are we 3 different people or just ONE person? if you can answer this question, you will understand the term "TRIUNITY"

But do not have that word, 'Trinity,' in your Bible! Do you? If you have it, please present the Chapter and Verse. And sine you claim that man is three parts, 'Trinity,' could you tell us if the spirit is out of the body, as to have 'died,' will the Body and soul still be alive, in that man? That is, can the man be able to run, jog, eat, talk, etc?

Then if it is the soul is out of the body, as to have 'died,' will the body and spirit still be alive, in that man? That is, can the man be able to run, jog, eat, talk, etc? What am trying to find out from you is this if you have 2 out of three, the body being the constant part, in every situation, can you have a live person, still?

And what is the difference between Soul, and Spirit? Can you define them and provide quantumfiable charactistics of each? Are they the same and just having more than one name. Could you sincerely tell me a Muslim, who the person of 'Spirit,' is and who the person of'soul,' is? If do not know it, them or the differences, there is no calamity. Thank you.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Kolokalo: But do not have that word, 'Trinity,' in your Bible! Do you? If you have it, please present the Chapter and Verse.

The word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible but is understood to mean that God has revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You may not like the fact that Muhammad denied the same revelation as given to the OT prophets that God Himself was known as the FATHER (Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 63:16). But what exactly does a denial do to Muhammad other than establish the FACT that he was a false prophet? For if the prophets that preceded him actually knew God as "Father", and Muslims follow Muhammad to deny that FACT, are they not effectively establishing Muhammad as a false prophet already?

olabowale:

And sine you claim that man is three parts, 'Trinity,' could you tell us if the spirit is out of the body, as to have 'died,' will the Body and soul still be alive, in that man? That is, can the man be able to run, jog, eat, talk, etc?

You already know that these are childish questions. You have been invited to the appropriate thread to discuss the components of man - Spirit, Soul and Body - but where have you made an input there? Is it that you already know there's nothing you could offer that is why you are here asking these questions of a simpleton?

@ Olabowale

Then if it is the soul is out of the body, as to have 'died,' will the body and spirit still be alive, in that man? That is, can the man be able to run, jog, eat, talk, etc? What am trying to find out from you is this if you have 2 out of three, the body being the constant part, in every situation, can you have a live person, still?

Every human soul has 2 bodies which are the physical and spiritual bodies. Death is simply a separation of the soul (i.e YOU) from the physical body. Consciousness is still retained since you(your soul) is now existing in a spiritual body. The soul and spirit are permanent since they are immortal. The physical body is dust and nothing more. I hope that answers your question

And what is the difference between Soul, and Spirit? Can you define them and provide quantumfiable charactistics of each? Are they the same and just having more than one name. Could you sincerely tell me a Muslim, who the person of 'Spirit,' is and who the person of'soul,' is? If do not know it, them or the differences, there is no calamity. Thank you.

First thing sir, the body helps us to interract and exist in the physical realm. When you "die" i.e when your flesh dies, you(your soul) will still continue to exist in your spiritual body. Your soul is the real you. It can also be seen as your mind, character. It is that individual consciousness that makes you unique and different from any other person on earth! Your spirit is the spiritual body that helps you exist and interract with the spirit world when out of the body. It is immortal.

9ja

i wish to give you detailed answer with the aid of the Bible about
trinity, but i will wish u meet me personally

i'm always online during the day.

until then
take care.

endee

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.

First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, "they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."—Acts 17:10, 11.

What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: "According to Paul's custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures]."

Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: "It is written." "He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures."—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.

Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that "all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can 'set things straight,' it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?

"Trinity" in the Bible?

A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."

Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures

WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament" reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures

WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament" speak clearly of a Trinity?

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."—Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity.

Taught by Early Christians?

DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught

THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead."—The Triune God

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.

God is darkness to our five senses. That is why he must be recieved as though we are children, by dint of Pure Knowledge and Faith.

The Trinity is a revealed truth about the inner life of God. No human reasoning was able to arrive at it. It is either accepted in faith, or rejected in favour of a completely wrong perception of God.

The sacrifice of Jesus is of infinite value because he is God by Nature.
Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to the Holy Spirit (who is also God by Nature).
Jesus said: "he who sees me sees The Father".

Only the sacrifice of 'a God' could appease the anger of God the Father. A merciful Father indeed!!!! Bulls and goats sacrificed in the OT were not enough appeasement

The teaching about the Trinity is: There are three PERSONS in God sharing one NATURE.

Nature answers the question "What?"
Person answers the question "Who?"\

More of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

@quikengr,

quikengr:

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.

Lol. . . I guess that both the OT and NT prophets did not know that the Messiah was DEITY before the centuries you magically assumed?

Please go back and read your Bible.

@quikengr,
Please DO acknowledge your sources next time

Culled from here

Of course, we do not expect JW's to acknowledge the deity of the Lord nor the explicit biblical doctrine of God-head.
Cheers.

@Kalokalo: Thanks for trying:

Every human soul has 2 bodies which are the physical and spiritual bodies. Death is simply a separation of the soul (i.e YOU) from the physical body. Consciousness is still retained since you(your soul) is now existing in a spiritual body. The soul and spirit are permanent since they are immortal. The physical body is dust and nothing more. I hope that answers your question

My dear brother Kalokalo thinks he is explaining Spirit, Soul and the body of a living person. I simply asked anyone to explain to me if when soul is removed from the three, thereby we have two remaining, the spirit and body, will the person still be living? Capable of talking, eating, yawning, etc? The above is his rendition of the explanation! I also wonder if when spirit is removed and we still have soul fused with the body, will the body and soul still be a living being, capable of talking, eating etc?

First thing sir, the body helps us to interract and exist in the physical realm. When you "die" i.e when your flesh dies, you(your soul) will still continue to exist in your spiritual body. Your soul is the real you. It can also be seen as your mind, character. It is that individual consciousness that makes you unique and different from any other person on earth! Your spirit is the spiritual body that helps you exist and interract with the spirit world when out of the body. It is immortal.

In Islam, the spirit that is the breadth of life in people is soul! When a person is alive his soul is a spirit that is alive. When the soul is separated from his body, the spirit is not alive in the body anymore and of course, the person is dead and all you have is a lifeless body. In reality, soul in man is the spirit in man. Both are the same thing! Human being has just two components, body, the physical part and the spiritual part which is the soul. Both have to be attached for a person to be alive. There is no way spirit can be attached to the body, and there is no soul in the body. There is no way soul can be attached to the body, and there is no spirit in the body. Spirit and soul are just one entity! And the way it is not the flesh that dies.

@recadelide: The JWs are Christians, just like you the methodist or Anglican, etc! The deity of the lord and the doctrine of godhead, both of the Chrisrians are just what it is fables, fallacies, fairy tales. There is no deity other than God the Supreme Creator. And there is no godhead, what we have is God Almighty alone, in His Supreme splendor. To have anything else, is pure disbelief!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Kalokalo: Thanks for trying: My dear brother Kalokalo thinks he is explaining Spirit, Soul and the body of a living person. I simply asked anyone to explain to me if when soul is removed from the three, thereby we have two remaining, the spirit and body, will the person still be living? Capable of talking, eating, yawning, etc? The above is his rendition of the explanation!

Is it such a difficult thing for you to acknowledge that answers have already been provided by several people to your questions?

We have already stated clearly that the soul survives the death of the body with verses from the Bible. Check them again and see the discussions in the relevant threads for the following: [1 Kings 17:21-22; Luke 16; Revelation 6:9-10].

olabowale:

I also wonder if when spirit is removed and we still have soul fused with the body, will the body and soul still be a living being, capable of talking, eating etc?

Where did you get the idea of a soul fused with the body?

olabowale:

In Islam, the spirit that is the breadth of life in people is soul!

There is something TERRIBLY wrong here.

(a) In Islam, the spirit is NOT the "breath of life". Please show us just where in Islam you found this - or whether you are speaking of another innovative Islam that was strange to Muhammad's version.

(b) To equate the "spirit" (the breath of life) to the "soul" is to actually make the "spirit" the same as the "soul". That may be okay with your thoughts on Islamic teaching; but that should not be used to adjudge the doctrines of other people. QED.

What you have just stated is the same thing as saying:

"spirit" (aka "breath of life" = "soul"

. . . and it would have the same effect as saying:

"soul" = "spirit" (aka "breath of life"

(i.e., since the "spirit" is the same as "breath of life", then:
"soul" is the same as "breath of life"!)

Do you see how confused and incoherent your ideas are?

When you state your opinions or persuasion in a public Forum, you should expect people to read intelligently what you are stating. they will ask questions where you are NOT clear! If your premise falls apart when scrutinized, it is because it was untennable from the onset. Meanwhile, we would be delighted to see where in Islam you got the idea that: "a soul fused with the body".

olabowale:

When a person is alive his soul is a spirit that is alive. When the soul is separated from his body, the spirit is not alive in the body anymore and of course, the person is dead and all you have is a lifeless body.

That's alright. Islam may assume that the soul is the spirit; but that is not what the Biblical prophets taught, I hope you know that? The Biblical prophets knew that there was a difference between the soul and spirit - that is why you don't find them using the words interchangeably to assume what many people assume and yet fail to discuss when questioned.

On the other hand, the spirit out of the body is NOT "dead". It exists, albeit in quite a different kind of experience altogether.

olabowale:

In reality, soul in man is the spirit in man. Both are the same thing!

Lol. . . I hope readers can see that classic quote - because as we progress, you will soon withdraw that statement! It's a deal!

olabowale:

Human being has just two components, body, the physical part and the spiritual part which is the soul.

I'm sorry, but that is not what Islam teaches. If there are only just two components (soul and body); where is the "spirit" of man? I know you tried to make "soul" the same as "spirit"; but that is not what Islam teaches.

Second, please understand that even animals have souls; and I'm sure you're not trying so hard to reduce man to the same plane of animals?. What make's man unique in his composition?

Third, if you push this idea of man comprising just two components, then you are effectively saying that the message of Islam has no bearing with any part or revelation of the Jewish or Christian scriptures. WHY? Because it would become clear for all to see that Muhammad and his doctrines simply disregarded the revelations of the same OT scriptures that the Qur'an mentions!

olabowale:

Both have to be attached for a person to be alive.

Nope, for the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26); but the spirit can survive out of the body ("whether in the body, or out of the body . . he was caught up into paradise" - 2 Cor. 12:3 & 4).

The body experiences life purely in a physical plane; but when the spirit departs, the body is "dead" - however, the spirit lives apart from the body.

olabowale:

There is no way spirit can be attached to the body, and there is no soul in the body. There is no way soul can be attached to the body, and there is no spirit in the body.

Hmm. . . this is more cacophony than the previous lines.

olabowale:

Spirit and soul are just one entity!

We shall see soon.

olabowale:

And the way it is not the flesh that dies.

Uh-oh!! Lol. . . so the body actually does not die, you mean? Unless you meant to say again that "flesh" and "body" are not the same in your context, althought "Spirit and soul are just one entity". Cheers.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@recadelide: The JWs are Christians, just like you the methodist or Anglican, etc!

Even when it comes to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the JW do not hold the same persuasion as the Methodists or Anglicans. This is why you need to drop your preconceived notions and get a good grasp of what you have always assumed.

In the same way, one may say that your own denomination will suffer the same fate as all the other 72 sects in Islam that you consigned to Hellfie for not belonging to your sect!! Are they not Muslims as well - even though some of them have taught that 'Allah' might have had a beginning (e.g, the Hanafiya sect).

If you don't like to read these facts, then do yourself the favour of not seeking to always deride Christians.

olabowale:

The deity of the lord and the doctrine of godhead, both of the Chrisrians are just what it is fables, fallacies, fairy tales.

Thank you. Please start with Isaiah 9:6 and let us know what Muhammad thought about the prophet Isaiah. No long drama - just start from there and let us know WHY Muhammad was to scared to mention that prophet - even though in Muhammad's day that verse remained as it has ever been penned, and he knew that the Jews held Isaiah as a genuine prophet of God.

When you are done, we shall see who the fable-fabricator in the Qur'an actually is.

olabowale:

There is no deity other than God the Supreme Creator. And there is no godhead, what we have is God Almighty alone, in His Supreme splendor. To have anything else, is pure disbelief!

If having anything else is pure disbelief, what are Muslims doing with Muhammad's Sunnah (the Hadiths)? Did Muhammad not proclaim that he has given more commandments and prohibitions than Allah gave in his Qur'an? Where was your "Almighty Creator" when Muhammad was making such rants?

u guys have nothing 2 say about Trinity, you guys are just integrating what's not into d issues.

u guys need 2 learn more. philgrim1 , i greet u o. one of these days i'm gonna trash- you- out, get ready.

TRINITY obeys d principle of RADIATION OF D SUN. The sun is one but three(3) in its entirety, but still d same SUN. even the bible says that GOD IS A SUN, i pause. let d wise guys ponder on this,

@kingsikaz,

How bodi, bros?

kingsikaz:

u guys need 2 learn more. philgrim1 , i greet u o. one of these days i'm going to trash- you- out, get ready.

That's the third time today alone that people have said that to me! Wetin I do una?

Anyhow, I dey under cover for now. . . till then.

kingsikaz:

TRINITY obeys d principle of RADIATION OF D SUN.

I'm not quite sure that is how to word it. I'd rather say that all things are subject to (and thus obey) the Trinity.

Cheers.

madam pilgrim, u dey there, i feel u.

u know do me anything, free world,


great wench, u may rearrange it 2 suite your taste. but 4 me
i still maintain dat TRINITY obeys d law of RADIATION OF D SUN.
you got 2 read more on philosophy particularly on PLATO'S THEORY ON IDEAS. in other 2 understand d pre-existence of life.

mama , all i still feel u. never relax

I am wondering how TRINITY fits into Deut. 6 Verse 4 and then surprisingly, Mark 12 Verse 29?

Trinity is an idea, borne out of conjectures; an unclear inferences to suggest that there are 3 persons in One God of the Christians, yet everyone of them is coequal to the others. They are also inseparable, eternally existing (Jesus being presented in the spiritual realm as the 'Word,' but suddenly on earth he died! This declaration of his death is sufficient as the destruction of his being eternal! Therefore we can even argue that Jesus was never eternal which knocks him out of the rank of god and destroy trinity, or we can destroy the eternity of the One who the Word was with in the beginning s being not eternal at all, because as jesus died all of them in the trinity must die also. Inshort, none of them could retain the Awesome power that others, Muslims, as a good example ascribe to the 'Creator, The almighty God Allah, the One that is Irresistable!'

Deut. is a Book in the Jewish religious Book, the Torah (Please check Deut. 6 Verse 4, to see that the old prophets said God is One and not more!)
Mark is a Gospel in the christian book 'the bible,' (please check Mark 12 verse 29 to see Jesus himself declaring that his own God is One and not more!)

@olabowale,

May I address and engage you directly on this one? Amicably. . . I promise.

olabowale:

I am wondering how TRINITY fits into Deut. 6 Verse 4 and then surprisingly, Mark 12 Verse 29?

Infact, I am glad that you finally asked it this way, even though you had derisively hinted at the same thing several times. Nonethless, this is just one simple request I ask of you:

Try and study the Hebrew word for "one" in that verse (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Hint: the Hebrew word is "אחד" ('echâd), and when you begin to study that word, perhaps you will finally come to see what that verse teaches.

It is just like someone trying to arrive at the meaning of a verse in the Qur'an purely from the English translation. We all know that they would never arrive at a clear contextual meaning of the verse until they consult the Arabic language in which the scripts are penned.

The same thing when arguing merely from the English translations of the Bible. Until one takes the time to study the Hebrew words in their contexts and applications, one is bound to still argue away from the true meaning of any verse of the OT - just as I believe is what you have been doing all along.

I know as a Muslim, I rejected the idea of the Trinity; and the only reason why I did so was because the Qur'an rejected the Bible . . . until I had to swallow my pride and bow to the truth of the Biblical revelation that God has given of Himself.

Let me leave it there for now.

Cheers.

Greatest kingsikaz,

kingsikaz:

madam pilgrim, u dey there, i feel u.

u know do me anything, free world,

No wahala.

kingsikaz:

great wench, u may rearrange it 2 suite your taste. but 4 me
i still maintain that TRINITY obeys d law of RADIATION OF D SUN.
you got 2 read more on philosophy particularly on PLATO'S THEORY ON IDEAS. in other 2 understand d pre-existence of life.

Okay. . . na your way! My respects, bros!

kingsikaz:

mama , all i still feel u. never relax

Enjoy. . . you're still "great".

@ pilgrim1

you are also great! i have this hunch in me that truely pilgrim 1 all other pilgrims are counterfeit.

great pilgrim 1,

@pilgrim.1


I thought that this thread has been laid to rest but not knowing that you are still denying the non-existence of TRINITY in the bible and that the early prophets did not preach same.

In "The Dictionary of the Bible," John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899 bearing the Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and Imprimi Potest (official Church seals of approval), we read:


"THE TRINITY OF GOD IS DEFINED BY THE CHURCH AS THE BELIEF THAT IN GOD ARE THREE PERSONS WHO SUBSIST IN ONE NATURE. THAT BELIEF AS SO DEFINED WAS REACHED ONLY IN THE 4th AND 5th CENTURIES AD AND HENCE IS NOT EXPLICITLY AND FORMALLY A BIBLICAL BELIEF.


The concept of "Trinity" was in fact a very old worshipping practice; it started long time before the time of Jesus. It was in Babylon that the idea of "Trinity" first appeared. This Trinity consisted of Baal, the Sun-god as father, Semiramis, the Queen mother and Nimrod, the divine child. A day was set aside to rejoice over and to celebrate the re-birth of the young god. From Babylon this worship spread to other places, but the names varied in different countries.



Three centuries after Jesus, the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."



The Jews also reject the trinity, in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians never know about trinity doctrine at all. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God and against the trinity.


Moreover, the 'Socinianism', the 17th-century Christian also rejects such traditional doctrines as the Trinity and original sin, the founder is Socinus, and his Latinized name of Lelio Francesco Maria Sozzini (1525-1562), the Italian Protestant theologian.

Now please with regards to Ist John 1 v 1:

Can you tell me the greek word for 'God' in the above verse?

@babs787,

Let me help you here in simple terms. Please mr Babs, whenever you type, it is no offence to call someone who understands English to help read through so that you don't keep making the same misleading remarks.

An example is this:

babs787:

@pilgrim.1

I thought that this thread has been laid to rest but not knowing that you are still denying the non-existence of TRINITY in the bible and that the early prophets did not preach same.

If this matter on the TRINITY in the Bible has been laid to rest here in this thread (or anywher else for that matter), would my simple question have remained unanswered by Muslims ever since I asked it?

What question was that?

Here:

Any discussion about the Trinity in the Bible (OT and NT) must necessarily involve the revelation whcih God has given of Himself in the Bible - afterall, we all want to know if the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Now, this revelation has to be consistent and not denied at all anywhere by any of the Biblical prophet. Hence, both the OT and NT teaches that God is known as FATHER - and my question to Muslims have been this:

Can you deny that God was known as FATHER by all the Biblical prophets?

If that cannot be denied, then what is so difficcult to acknowledge also that both the OT and NT taught about the fact that the Son was deity as well as the revelation of the Holy Spirit? There can be no denying the fact that the Biblical prophets all knew God as FATHER - and the only people who can attempt to deny that fact are callous and shamless minded Muslims with all sorts of excuses.

I know how embarrassing it must be for Muslims to ever imagine that Muhammad could deny the revelations which God gave of Himself to the Biblical prophets - that is why reference is never made to such prophets as Isaiah, Zechariah and Jeremiah in Islam!!

But my aim is not to embarrass anybody - Muslim or Christian - for that kind of behaviour simply shows that we would be engaged in the same chiidish games all over again. However, my aim was to help Muslims carefully and intelligently look at each item of this discussion instead of just denying it wholesale. By trying to look at this issue carefully, we shall all honestly come to the FACT that there was never a time when the revelations were altered: they have always remained the same to the point that God was ALWAYS FATHER - and from there also we can then go on to see the Deity of the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

Infact, when we come to the Holy Spirit, we shall see that all those ideas you referenced in quote ("Ebonites, the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians", not one of these sects in their various persuasions ever confused who exactly the Holy Spirit was - they did not assume or mistake Him for the angel Gabriel (Jibril). Which brings us to another interesting question:

WHY then did Muhammad assume falsely that the Holy Spirit that the Biblical prophets knew was angel Jibril?

You see, babs787, the word TRINITY may not appear in the Bible - but even if another theological term was used (such as TRIUNE), it still does not change the fact that God was known as FATHER - and also we cannot evade the question of the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit which the Biblical prophets knew so clearly!

babs787:

Now please with regards to Ist John 1 v 1:

Can you tell me the greek word for 'God' in the above verse?

Yes, I can - and I am still reserved until we genuinely enter a discussion to be honest about the revelations of the OT prophets who knew God as FATHER. It is crucial that we come to that fact, because it is clearly connected with what John was pointing out when he employed a very distinguished style of Greek in penning John 1 v1.

Hint: when you find the term you are asking about in John 1 v 1, ask yourself this also: did John use that same term in any other verse? If he did, who was he referring to in that (or those) verse(s)?

Cheers.

@pilgrim.1

Hint: when you find the term you are asking about in John 1 v 1, ask yourself this also: did John use that same term in any other verse? If he did, who was he referring to in that (or those) verse(s)?

I have asked you a very straight forward question and try not to deflect the thread PLS.

When you finish supplying me the greek word for God in John 1 v 1, then kindly supply me the greek word for 'god' when God told Moses that he would made him 'god'

@babs787,

babs787:

@pilgrim.1

I have asked you a very straight forward question and try not to deflect the thread PLS.

I explained the context in detail - don't evade them please.

babs787:

When you finish supplying me the greek word for God in John 1 v 1, then kindly supply me the greek word for 'god' when God told Moses that he would made him 'god'

Don't you see how you demonstrate you truly have no heart for a discussion? Please where did Moses speak Greek?

@Pilgrim.1

Don't you see how you demonstrate you truly have no heart for a discussion? Please where did Moses speak Greek?

Why not quit playing game with me? Can you please tell me the greek word for God used in John 1 v 1 and when God told Moses that he would make him god. If Moses didnt speak greek, you should still be able to tell me the greek word for god in that verse.

Do you have the languages the bible was written before that of English language?

@babs787,

babs787:

@Pilgrim.1

Why not quit playing game with me? Can you please tell me the greek word for God used in John 1 v 1 and when God told Moses that he would make him god. If Moses didnt speak greek, you should still be able to tell me the greek word for god in that verse.

Is this your own dribbling gimmick of tersely admitting your blooper of Moses speaking Greek? Grow up babs787, your posts are sounding ever so childish - and until you have a firm grip on yourself, there's no need wasting scholarship on you.

It's simply that you don't have any real issues - we know, because Muslims have played that games for eons, so nothing new there.

babs787:

Do you have the languages the bible was written before that of English language?

Do you know what languages they were written before your blooper about that Moses speaking Greek?

@pilgrim.1

Is this your own dribbling gimmick of tersely admitting your blooper of Moses speaking Greek? Grow up babs787, your posts are sounding ever so childish - and until you have a firm grip on yourself, there's no need wasting scholarship on you.

It's simply that you don't have any real issues - we know, because Muslims have played that games for eons, so nothing new there.


Quote from: babs787 on Today at 05:39:45 PM
Do you have the languages the bible was written before that of English language?

Do you know what languages they were written before your blooper about that Moses speaking Greek?

You are trying to deflect the thread and it wont help you at all.

1.
Since you are denying the greek word for god in that verse, please was the bible written in greek or not?

2. If there is greek bible, what is the greek word for 'god' in that verse and what is also the greek word for God in john 1 v 1?

Thanks

@babs787,

babs787:

@pilgrim.1

You are trying to deflect the thread and it wont help you at all.

Have you any other cry-song?

babs787:

1.
Since you are denying the greek word for god in that verse, please was the bible written in greek or not?

I didn't deny or confirm anything. I simply pointed out the basics for this discussion - and if you would not comply, you yourself are the one closing the gate for a genuine discussion. For example, asking me if the Bible was written in Greek or not sounds like discussing with a child. Seriously. And if you want to buy time (perhaps more than 15 days), no worries - simply ask!

If it too much for you to present a mature discussion, then I can as well tease you endlessly until you have another cry song for your gimmicks. Try this one: the Bible was not written in Quraish!

Babs787, if you have a genuine concern to present, do so - and then when you invite a mature discussion and not this comic relief, I shall oblige you. If you are being so callous, you can expect to keep your entertainment and sport on as usual, afterall. , it's only your own resources you would be burning.

babs787:

2. If there is greek bible, what is the greek word for 'god' in that verse and what is also the greek word for God in john 1 v 1?

Are you asking about 2 verses now. . . or one?

@pilgrim.1

Are you asking about 2 verses now. . . or one?

You understood me perfectly.
You may kindly supply me the Greek word for 'God' and 'god' in the two verses.

Thanks

@babs787,

babs787:

@pilgrim.1

You understood me perfectly.
You may kindly supply me the Greek word for 'God' and 'god' in the two verses.

Lol. . . you didn't make yourself clear - and my question was direct. If you're not intersted in what I raised and discussed previously, what are the excuses all about? Trying to buy more time?

@pilgrim.1

Lol. . . you didn't make yourself clear - and my question was direct. If you're not intersted in what I raised and discussed previously, what are the excuses all about? Trying to buy more time?

Since you afraid to give me that of the book of Exodus, can you still give me the Greek word for 'God' in John 1 v 1?

@babs787,

There's no one who's afraid of anything except your display of confused reasoning. Exodus and John are not the same thing - and that's why I took my time to raise a few issues with you. Seeing that you enjoy being such a mendacious personality, I have sinced refused to entertain your gimmicks, until you can demonstrate two things:

(a) that you seek an honest discussion (nevermind that you don't have the scholarship for it)

(b) you're willing to follow the discussion (which is why you should not be making false claims you cannot defend - such as assuming that Moses spoke Greek, and up until now you haven't defended that idea).

If you are not going to demonstrate a clear and consistent position, it is not my style to argue illiterate assumptions such as Moses speaking Greek. I raised a few issues for your concerns (if you care) - such as God being known as FATHER; and you have tersely ducked that issue again and again.

When you begin to address issues, you will find answers from me. If you just want to keep buying time and ducking those issues, nothing new there - we know Muhammad never sought to answer questions anyway and needed to duck the simple questions offered him for 15 days!

@pilgrim.1


You should read this thread from the beginning before accusing me of dodging your question . The topic is on trinity and my question has been in line with the thread. You have been deceiving people with this hallucination of John that 'in the beginning was the word and the word was withg God, and the word was God.

You should be able to defend all you have been saying all these days. Tell me the Greek word for God in that particular verse or you dont have where you can cull it from again?