@babs787,

babs787:

@stimulus

I am thinking if you are in anyway related to pilgrim. She avoids questions on the pretext that I must answer hers before she would answer mine even though I asked mine before hers.

The one reason why I stopped entertaining your show-off on the Forum is because you never have been interested in any genuine discussion. This supercilious idea of demanding others to answer your questions have not demonstrated that you have anything original to offer - and I have offered you to do the one simple thing to invite me to answer your questions. That was made as a promise, and you have the opportunity to either take t or leave it.

babs787:

So chairman, thanks for admitting seeing my questions, can you still go ahead and provide answers, then we will go deep into that issues. Trust Babs for that

I don't want you scooting off as you did yesterday. If you can be man enough to stand in this discussion, please simply let me know where you stand on those 3 simple questions and I will keep my promise.

stimulus:

I don't want you scooting off as you did yesterday.

@babs787,

I really didn't expect you to stand and smart up today as well. It is the usual thing for gentlemen like yourself to scoot off when you cannot find materials to plagiarize in answer for your theories.

Whenever you are man enough, please try and invite me to discuss your assumptions on John 1 v 1 which you have recycled so many times until they have been weathered! As soon as you let me know where you stand by answering those 3 questions, I shall keep my promise to you of discussing the John 1 subject.

Regards.

babs787:

@Imhotep
Where is that?
Can GOD sit at the right hand of himself?
Where is that and who witnessed the crucifixion?
Firstly, what is your understanding of 'all nations'?
Secondly, does the above sounds like trinity to you before I expose you further?
Save yourself that crap. Since God is three in one, why is one part aware and the other part is not aware?
Did you read your post at all? You said Jesus is God and I asked you the above question.So are you saying that his father is superior to him?
How does that relates to trinity?

The fact that you are struggling so hard NOT to believe the Trinity is already proof of the existence of Trinity.
In your arguments, you impose human ways of being upon God's 'existence' (by the way, God is Being itself also). That's why you fail to get it.

You cannot tell God how to live His Life.

@Imhotep: You are very ridiculous in your thought! What is it that you do not understand? Is there a word spelled TRINITY, in your Bible? Forget the pronounciation for a moment! I have say that I am your father, or your uncle (a blood relation), will you not ask me to prove it?

Now lets deal with the pronounciation: Is there a word that is in the bible that can remotely be pronounced Tree nee tee? You don't have it. End of story! Now, what Bab787 have done is to make you think. But you refuse to. Clinging, so foolishly on a dead issue! Your dedusal to see wha you are missing in the Bible "3 in 1, which is impossible and the fact that Trinity as a word does not occur, hence the concept around is is like breadthing through a straw, is crazy.

You see how Bab787 is making you think? maybe somebody else will read it and get thinking.

olabowale:

@Imhotep: You are very ridiculous in your thought! What is it that you do not understand? Is there a word spelled TRINITY, in your Bible? Forget the pronounciation for a moment! I have say that I am your father, or your uncle (a blood relation), will you not ask me to prove it?

Now lets deal with the pronounciation: Is there a word that is in the bible that can remotely be pronounced Tree nee tee? You don't have it. End of story! Now, what Bab787 have done is to make you think. But you refuse to. Clinging, so foolishly on a dead issue! Your dedusal to see wha you are missing in the Bible "3 in 1, which is impossible and the fact that Trinity as a word does not occur, hence the concept around is is like breadthing through a straw, is crazy.

You see how Bab787 is making you think? maybe somebody else will read it and get thinking.

A simple human analogy is enough for anyone who WANTS to understand.

The body of babs787 + the soul of babs787 = one babs787 (how does your 'logic' understand this)

It appears the muslims need a concept of Allah that will allow them to kidnap, behead, hijack and commit all manner of atrocities that they consider to be holy.

This is only proves how baseless the stories of Mohammed are, and how quickly they should be rejected by any true seeker.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Imhotep: You are very ridiculous in your thought!

Certainly, this type of outburst is a confirmed pointer to your insecurity.

olabowale:

What is it that you do not understand? Is there a word spelled TRINITY, in your Bible? Forget the pronounciation for a moment! I have say that I am your father, or your uncle (a blood relation), will you not ask me to prove it?

Pronunciations are not what we worship, and you can hang and bend on that until your bones crank. The word spelled 'Trinity' is not in the Bible, but that does not mean that the concept itself is not there! Other terms have been used to discuss this concept; but have you been open for anyone to prove its veracity to you?

This idea that because a word is not spelled (or spelt) so-and-so in any book does not therefore mean that it is not worth discussing. The discussion of the Trinity recognizes God as FATHER - that is a reference point, and one would never hope that you can be mendacious enough to deny that! Where then is the revelation of God as "Father" to be found in the Qur'an?

olabowale:

Now lets deal with the pronounciation: Is there a word that is in the bible that can remotely be pronounced Tree nee tee? You don't have it. End of story!

Cheap. Is there a word that can remotely be pronounced 'father' as describing 'Allah' in your Qur'an? None? End of story - throw your Qur'an under your mat and let others live!

olabowale:

Now, what Bab787 have done is to make you think.

A thinking man does not scoot off every so often. I expected he would again scoot off this evening - and he predictaly proved he is not a thinking person with enough originality of his own other than the false assumptions he plagiarized with which to mesmerized you guys on the Forum. I deliberately offered him just 3 questions to test his ability to think for himself - has he impressed you with any answers?

olabowale:

But you refuse to. Clinging, so foolishly on a dead issue!

The fact that you refuse to drop your elderly hypocrisy is a testimony of your own folly.

olabowale:

Your dedusal to see wha you are missing in the Bible "3 in 1, which is impossible and the fact that Trinity as a word does not occur, hence the concept around is is like breadthing through a straw, is crazy.

There are so many words which do not occur in the Qur'an - and starting on such cheap ideas will also prove the Qur'an untennable.

olabowale:

You see how Bab787 is making you think? maybe somebody else will read it and get thinking.

Until babs787 is able to think for himself, it's going to be hard applause that he has suddenly become your think-tank! Please pass.

These following is taken from the Athanasian creed (written by St. Athanasius in the 4th century. Long before Mohammed came to confuse babs787, olabowale and the likes of them):



"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.


As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.


So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, here be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.


And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. "

To light up your darkness a little, take a look at Gen 18:2-5:

"He (Abraham) looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. He said, "My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on--since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said."

Notice that the three 'men' are addressed in SINGULAR as 'My Lord'. This is seen as a pointer, in the OT, to the Trinity revealed by Christ. God revealed Himself slowly and progressively.

I am sure Muhammad has distorted this too.

@Stimulus:

@babs787,

If you really want to discuss this issue, please smart up for it. You never complained about whether or not the NT was written in Greek - and unless you have a clear pointer as to what other language it was written in, I do not see why you're whipping that as an excuse for this.

Please go and review Deedat's article that you plagiarized and see that you have no clue how you have absolutely rubbished his argument even on this Forum.

Can I ask you these simple questions:

(a) which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?

(b) what is the meaning of "ton theon"?

(c) what does theos mean?

If I can get honest answers from you on those three, I will deal with your argument about John 1:1. My singular objective here is to demonstrate that Deedat had no clues about Greek, and he only used his fallacies to cheat his readers. Can I see you answer those questions - and I promise to take up your own queries.

(a) Theos, but it shout be O Theos or Ton theon, which should have referred to "God" in a better way.
(b) Ton Theon is "God" in a proper sense.
(c) Theos is any deity: For example Ogun, Shango, Makumba, Yamaya, Obatala, (Whats my girls +Osisi Igbo traditional deities' names).

Now that I have answered your 'special questions,' what now? Where is the beef?

@Stimulus: Let me me kill your enthusiasm before it began. If you wanna deal with me be consistent. You wanna use Greek, use Greek and stay with it. Don't run from Pillar to post with me, by switching to Hebrew or Aramaic whenever you hit a brickwall in your Greek.

@olabowale,

I appreciate your attempt to answer the questions I posed, even though babs787 has proven himself unable to hold his grounds in this plagiarized material.

My questions #1:

stimulus:

(a) which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?

Your response #1:

olabowale:

(a) Theos, but it shout be O Theos or Ton theon, which should have referred to "God" in a better way.

You are playing a dice game here. My question is simple and straightforward: "which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?"

Now to answer that it is "Theos" and then put a "but" to say that it should be "O Theos or Ton theon" is actually to confuse your answer and arrive at nowhere! It is like saying you're confused as to which of those three terms is actually your answer between:

[list][li]Theos[/li]

[li]O Theos[/li]

[li]Ton theo[b]n[/b][/li][/list]

Which of those terms is properly used for God in Greek? You cannot be dancing between all the terms and yet arrive at no single word between them.

Meanwhile, since you're crying about your inability to examine the Greek language, how do you know which term to choose? Is this the inconsistent game you want to start playing at the onset?

- - - - - - -


My questions #2:

stimulus:

(b) what is the meaning of "ton theon"?

Your response #2:

olabowale:

(b) Ton Theon is "God" in a proper sense.

So what happens to your answer #1 to my question #1 where you just stated that it was "Theos"?!? You see how confused you and babs787 can be? At least you tried to offer answers, even though you're confused. As for the blabbing machine, he has been too scared to defend his plagiarism of Deedat!

Meanwhile, you have just simply contradicted both babs787 and Deedat. Go back and read what they said about "ton theon", and then come back and lick your fingers before you type again O!


- - - - - - -


My questions #3:

stimulus:

(c) what does theos mean?

Your response #2:

olabowale:

(c) Theos is any deity: For example Ogun, Shango, Makumba, Yamaya, Obatala, (Whats my girls +Osisi Igbo traditional deities' names).

Lol, you're dead wrong! I wouldn't blame you much, as you've always been scared of the Greek! Rest assured, theos is Greek for "God" - and as we progress on this discussion, I'll show you numerous examples where theos was used properly in reference to God!

Just understand something here: this is not an Arabic class! And you have to be careful when trying to read Greek and make it bend to the rules of Arabic grammar - you just can't bend it that way; and no wonder that your Muslim translators cheated on many occasions in translating the Qur'an from Arabic to Greek! The copy I have read is a completely ridiculous garboil, and any Greek-Muslim scholar who applauds that translation would be a shameless dunce! I know what I'm saying, and if you want to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an with me, I'd be just too delighted to take you and babs787 on that challenge after I walk you through the fallacies in Deedat's sad arguements about John 1:1. Do you care to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an after this?

olabowale:

Now that I have answered your 'special questions,' what now? Where is the beef?

You've tried - but scored zero over 10! Olodo rabbata!

I dey wait for babs787 O! Una eye go see pepper with Deedat's noise about John 1:1. Olodo both of you!

@olabowale,

Just cool down, I never even start!

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Let me me kill your enthusiasm before it began.

You've just infact woken it up!

olabowale:

If you want to deal with me be consistent.

I've always been consistent, so you can end that lullaby.

olabowale:

You want to use Greek, use Greek and stay with it. Don't run from Pillar to post with me, by switching to Hebrew or Aramaic whenever you hit a brickwall in your Greek.

I'll read the texts in the languages in which they were given. Where we find them in Greek, then Greek it shall be; where it is Hebrew, I'll post them in Hebrew; and then Aramaic also will be in Aramaic.

That is how to be consistent and not try to bend another man's language to the peghole of Arabic or any other lanaguage.

Your problem is that you're too scared to stand out honestly enough to accommodate the texts as they appear in their languages. Is it not remarkable that Deedat was making so much noise about the Greek texts of John 1:1 - why should we then acquiesce to your boohoos here about not going to Greek or any other language of the texts?

If you're not prepared well enough to discuss this issue, take a break and go and prepare soundly. I don't intend to be as condescending as you're hoping of me - and when I start, nothing will be left untouched that needs to be examined in all the core issues of Deedat's arguments which babs787 has plagiarized gleefully.

Relax, I won't bite you. Rather, I'll just help you zip up and make less noise about what you have no clues to debate!

@Stimulus:

Your response #1:
Quote from: olabowale on Today at 09:13:40 PM
(a) Theos, but it should be O Theos or Ton theon, which should have referred to "God" in a better way.
You are playing a dice game here. My question is simple and straightforward: "which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?"
Now to answer that it is "Theos" and then put a "but" to say that it should be "O Theos or Ton theon" is actually to confuse your answer and arrive at nowhere! It is like saying you're confused as to which of those three terms is actually your answer between:
Theos
O Theos
Ton theon
Which of those terms is properly used for God in Greek? You cannot be dancing between all the terms and yet arrive at no single word between them.
Meanwhile, since you're crying about your inability to examine the Greek language, how do you know which term to choose? Is this the inconsistent game you want to start playing at the onset?

I think you are to juvenile to be taken serious. My answer is there for everybody to see, but I was correcting your Bible, especially, when John 1;1 is translated directly, word for word to English. Now we will actually see the 'Olodo rabata,' between you and Me (I do not use I here for obvious reason).

Quote from: olabowale on Today at 09:13:40 PM
(b) Ton Theon is "God" in a proper sense.
So what happens to your answer #1 to my question #1 where you just stated that it was "Theos"?!? You see how confused you and babs787 can be? At least you tried to offer answers, even though you're confused. As for the blabbing machine, he has been too scared to defend his plagiarism of Deedat!
Meanwhile, you have just simply contradicted both babs787 and Deedat. Go back and read what they said about "ton theon", and then come back and lick your fingers before you type again O!

Did you see where I suggested that O Theos or Ton Theon was a proper and better word that what your Greek Bible put, which could have meant any diety, including david Kuresh of the branch Davidian of Weco Texas fame?

My questions #3:
Quote from: stimulus on February 05, 2008, 09:32 PM
(c) what does theos mean?

Your response #2:

Quote from: olabowale on Today at 09:13:40 PM
(c) Theos is any deity: For example Ogun, Shango, Makumba, Yamaya, Obatala, (Whats my girls +Osisi Igbo traditional deities' names).
Lol, you're dead wrong! I wouldn't blame you much, as you've always been scared of the Greek! Rest assured, theos is Greek for "God" - and as we progress on this discussion, I'll show you numerous examples where theos was used properly in reference to God!

Just understand something here: this is not an Arabic class! And you have to be careful when trying to read Greek and make it bend to the rules of Arabic grammar - you just can't bend it that way; and no wonder that your Muslim translators cheated on many occasions in translating the Qur'an from Arabic to Greek! The copy I have read is a completely ridiculous garboil, and any Greek-Muslim scholar who applauds that translation would be a shameless dunce! I know what I'm saying, and if you want to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an with me, I'd be just too delighted to take you and babs787 on that challenge after I walk you through the fallacies in Deedat's sad arguements about John 1:1. Do you care to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an after this?

The first premise here is that the Bible, in general, be it in any language, including Greek is corrupted. And I am a greek and I do not care too much for it as a language. I have too many greek blooded people in my life to defer to a Yoruba man as a greek Tutor. I do not read Yoruba translation of the Qur'an and it will be useless to go for a Greek translation with you. I speak English, and I am not in a greek speaking society and the benefit to me is not significant, so why would I want to discuss Qur'an in Greek with you? I can see that you want to deflect the issue of the Trinity. But I will not make it easy for you. You gotta stay on it. And I left your confusion intact above to show your instability. I have already answered #2 and there is no reason to label #3 as #2, again.

I'll read the texts in the languages in which they were given. Where we find them in Greek, then Greek it shall be; where it is Hebrew, I'll post them in Hebrew; and then Aramaic also will be in Aramaic.

If you want us to use Greek Bible, stay with it. that is the call. You can not change Bible. Unless you are saying that you are not certain of 'a Bible.' Just exactly what the muslims have been saying; You ain't got nothing. So chose your poison. Unless you wanna be the Snake oil sales man, but will not work with me.

That is how to be consistent and not try to bend another man's language to the peghole of Arabic or any other lanaguage.

So how many languages do you need to discuss TRINITY with me? Three Languages and English?

Your problem is that you're too scared to stand out honestly enough to accommodate the texts as they appear in their languages. Is it not remarkable that Deedat was making so much noise about the Greek texts of John 1:1 - why should we then acquiesce to your boohoos here about not going to Greek or any other language of the texts?

So if you have gulls enough as a Christian stay with Greek Bible and i will cream you with your own Bible!

If you're not prepared well enough to discuss this issue, take a break and go and prepare soundly. I don't intend to be as condescending as you're hoping of me - and when I start, nothing will be left untouched that needs to be examined in all the core issues of Deedat's arguments which babs787 has plagiarized gleefully.
Relax, I won't bite you. Rather, I'll just help you zip up and make less noise about what you have no clues to debate!

I will meet you in measures; foot length by foot length and arm length by arm length. Don't think too much of yourself. Empty barrels make the loudest noise. I will stand toe to toe with you and God willing, I will deck you on your "Bible."

Below, Stimulus is John 1 Verse 1 in Greek (In a word for word translation in English). Of course, you do not have an opportunity to ever seen the Aramaic or hebrew Bible before. That will not interest you, except that you settle for a second run.

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = Allah). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from Quran's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

Strangely enough though, he was a scholar of Christianity whose opinion of Islam was that Islam was a heretic form of Christianity and as we all know that's incorrect and not what the Quran refers to itself, for it does not call itself Christianity. He was probably the earliest critic of Islam, of course who knows how this man was allowed to function as he did while working for the Khalif.

@olabowale,

Let me quickly run through yours, even though midway you had to duck behind Deedat's argument that no Muslim has been able to sustain. How this is so, I'll demonstrate in just a moment.

olabowale:

@Stimulus: I think you are to juvenile to be taken serious. My answer is there for everybody to see, but I was correcting your Bible, especially, when John 1;1 is translated directly, word for word to English.

You cannot correct the Bible, unless you're such a dunce to make such assertions and yet be unable to read Greek! How did you translate the Greek of John 1 v 1 that you still missed the point and was dancing between three opinions of which is the proper term for God? You should learn to contain your brigand and supercilious bilgewater when you engage me in these discussions and not make the mistake of furthering your pretended scholarship that amounts to zero.

olabowale:

Now we will actually see the 'Olodo rabata,' between you and Me (I do not use I here for obvious reason).

Please zip up your molars until you're able to say anything reasonable.

olabowale:

Did you see where I suggested that O Theos or Ton Theon was a proper and better word that what your Greek Bible put, which could have meant any diety, including david Kuresh of the branch Davidian of Weco Texas fame?

Are you so daft as to repeat the same illiterate rants from Deedat? I'm not disappointed that up until now you still do not have any clues of the Greek language - and typically you'd perpetuate the same retard garboil from Deedat.

olabowale:

The first premise here is that the Bible, in general, be it in any language, including Greek is corrupted.

The first premise here is that the Qur'an is book demonstrating Muhammad as a false prophet! I have warned you to respect the views of other discussants, and i'm not going to be putting up with such stupid remarks while you assume the unbridled rascality to be deliberately derisive of the Bible.

olabowale:

And I am a greek and I do not care too much for it as a language.

Since when did you become a Greek, olabowale? Are you so desperate to win your illiterate argument by switching over to lies again?

olabowale:

I have too many greek blooded people in my life to defer to a Yoruba man as a greek Tutor.

Don't take a heart attack. Yes, I'm a Yoruba man, and the pride that you've been showing off on this forum will crash soon enough!

olabowale:

I do not read Yoruba translation of the Qur'an and it will be useless to go for a Greek translation with you.

Ahh! Now I am disappointed - deeply disappointed! After all the noise you made, I was actually looking forward to the challenge to enter into a debate on the Greek translation of the Qur'an; but this bruhaha you've offered just shows what a weakling you can be! Haa! Indeed, I over-rated you sir!

olabowale:

I speak English, and I am not in a greek speaking society and the benefit to me is not significant, so why would I want to discuss Qur'an in Greek with you?

Four reasons why I offered that challenge to you and babs787:

- to demonstrate that I know what I'm arguing in Greek

- to demonstrate that the Greek translation of the Qur'an is a ridiculous garboil

- to demonstrate the fact that Deedat's arguments were false, wrong and illiterate

- and to demonstrate that it's about time you shut your megaphone on your puerile rants!

Each of these points will be well demonstrated if and only if you dared to examine your own Greek translation of the Qur'an so I could show you how your Muslim scholars have cheated the Greeks by mangling their language just to please Muhammad!

The invitation is still open - do you care to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an to see the garboil it actually is?

olabowale:

I can see that you want to deflect the issue of the Trinity. But I will not make it easy for you.

I'm not asking you to make it easy at all - infact, I've directly challenged you to go one step further and prove your mettle in reading the Greek translation of the Qur'an! The argument plagiarized by babs787 from Deedat on John 1:1 will be discussed subsequently; and I'm going to sit back and luagh at your redundancy in the language you've been making so much empty noise about!

olabowale:

You gotta stay on it. And I left your confusion intact above to show your instability. I have already answered #2 and there is no reason to label #3 as #2, again.

Already scared to cunter my points?

olabowale:

If you want us to use Greek Bible, stay with it. that is the call.

Why are you so scared of the Biblical languages, olabowale? What are you so scared of?

olabowale:

You can not change Bible.

I never hinted I was going to do that; but I'm indeed going to change your noise making to a mewling waste!

olabowale:

Unless you are saying that you are not certain of 'a Bible.'

Stop all this childish rants and deliver the goods! Ha! At your age, you complain like a market woman selling kerosine in Medina! What's all this harrangue about?

olabowale:

Just exactly what the great ones have been saying; You ain't got nothing.

Somebody help call ambulance for olabowale O. . . I can't help his hyperventilations simply from Greek!

olabowale:

So chose your poison. Unless you want to be the Snake oil sales man, but will not work with me.

Do you mind not excusing yourself away even before I start?

olabowale:

So how many languages do you need to discuss TRINITY with me? Three Languages and English?

OLABOWALE, what is scaring you about the languages of the Biblical documents? Do you mind refraining from this infantile drivel and let's deal with the real issues? I'd very much appreciate if you stopped this silly complaints - you sound worse than a mentally challenged crank!

olabowale:

So if you have gulls enough as a Christian stay with Greek Bible and i will cream you with your own Bible!

It will be interesting to see you do so - inspite of having shown how daft you can be with all the complaints! Ha!

olabowale:

I will meet you in measures; foot length by foot length and arm length by arm length. Don't think too much of yourself. Empty barrels make the loudest noise. I will stand toe to toe with you and God willing, I will deck you on your "Bible."

I'll just laugh on this one - you're a child!

olabowale:

Below, Stimulus is John 1 Verse 1 in Greek (In a word for word translation in English). Of course, you do not have an opportunity to ever seen the Aramaic or hebrew Bible before. That will not interest you, except that you settle for a second run.

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

Good - another plagiarized effort from Deedat. I'll deal with them and help you see how dense Deedat was. Just dress warm and get your anti-depressants nearby to hand!

olabowale:

Strangely enough though, he was a scholar of Christianity whose opinion of The Great Religion was that The Great Religion was a heretic form of Christianity and as we all know that's incorrect and not what the The Great Book refers to itself, for it does not call itself Christianity. He was probably the earliest critic of The Great Religion, of course who knows how this man was allowed to function as he did while working for the Khalif.

We go see how far. . . cool down! The scholar you supposed Deedat was, you go sorry for both the guy and yourself!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

I've just taken this part of your plagiarism to a neat thread - see it here:

John 1 v 1 – λογος, Θεόν, Θεός - WORD and GOD

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Islamic Hanifan is used to illustrate it. Further the Jews in the time of Paul preached that to be God fearer, the Greek will have to be circumcised, to be in the covenant and worship with them in the Synagogue, while Paul (the pseudo apostle who never met Jesus and Jesus never met him), turn the process of standard belief with the Jews which was even accepted to Jesus over its head, by saying circumcision is not necessary anymore to be in the covenant, but just by faith alone. This shows that some part of Moses laws were scrapped by Paul, when Jesus himself had a different take to it. HOW CAN YOPU EXPLAIN THE BETTER BETWEEN JESUS AND PAUL? Which person would you take his position, if they have different andopposing positions? It is either that you have to abandone the whole falsehood or you remain and wallow in your falsehood.

@Stimulus: I have to go to Wikipedia, the same darn place you went, while you were pretending to be a Greek language expert. You can see how tontheon is explained. Yet none of the writer is a Muslim. yet any interpretation is possible. So theos could be anything; from physical idol, to conceptualised one and indeed even a person and finally God Almighty Creator Himself. Alhamdulillah, I do not have the same problem in Islam. God Almighty is known and accepted and we have no problem accepting Him as One whole.


Godfearers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
The Bible

Biblical canon and books
Tanakh: Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Chapters and verses
Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
Development and authorship
Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Mosaic authorship · Pauline epistles · Johannine works
Translations and manuscripts
Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible · Biblical criticism · Historical criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology
Interpretation
Hermeneutics · Pesher · Midrash · Pardes · Allegorical · Literalism · Prophecy
Views
Inerrancy · Infallibility ·
Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity
This box: view • talk • edit
This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Religion or the Religion Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.



The Godfearers or Sebioi from Greek σεβεοι (Arabic: Sabi'een/Sabi'oon, Hebrew: Toshavim) are messianic Non-Jews who from the earliest of times have worshiped The Name of the Hebrew Elohim.

Their original base was around Harran and they are of two types: Those (called Sabiah Hunafa in Arabic) who worship God Alone saying there is no god but Ton Theon, and those (called Sabiah Mushrikun in Arabic) who worship partners alongside Ton Theon. Abram is upheld as the perfect example among those who say there is no god but Ton Theon.

In the New Testament Period other "'God-Fearers'" (φοβουμενοι τον θεον) were members of the gentile community who affiliated themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who were interested in Jewish morality and monotheism, yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a "'proselyte'" would be. Further, a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would traverse between polytheistic paganism and proselyte-Judaism.

The following is taken with permission from a blog entry on the topic written by Timothy Gough.

Contents [hide]
1 Biblical evidence
2 Evidence from Acts
3 Extra-biblical evidence
4 Remarks
5 References
6 Texts
7 See also
8 External links



[edit] Biblical evidence
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. It’s my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.

Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; 'strangers who dwell with you.' These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12

The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.

John Dominic Crossan believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff

It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.


[edit] Evidence from Acts
Within Acts we see the most explicit reference to God-fearers (Acts 10; 13:16; 13:26; 13:43; 13:50; 16:14; 17:4; 17:17; 18:6-7). Some say this is Luke writing as a theologian who needed God-fearers for his narrative. I believe the reason we have the most references to God-fearers within Acts is because it gives us historical details not necessary in the rest of the New-Testament narratives.

God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at other times they begin the persecution.

Acts 10 Cornelius the Centurion is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts , however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as his entire household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.

Acts 13:16-50 Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).

From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.

Acts 16:14 This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.

Acts 17:4,17 Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.

Acts 18:6-7 Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.

These passages in Acts teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God. • The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers • The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution • This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers • The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers


[edit] Extra-biblical evidence
‘It's important to remember that archaeology by its very nature is not able to produce a complete picture of cultural and religious life…Only the combination of the information received from the different sources, and the careful cross-checking of them, can produce reliable results’.[1] Inscriptions have been found around the Diaspora, which include the word θεοσεβης, many of these are identities. The most important, the ‘Aphrodisias’ inscription, contains lists of synagogue people. What’s interesting is the God-fearers are separate; making them different from the Jews, yet still members of the synagogue. Some of the inscriptions appear to give the title God-fearer’ to a Jew however the evidence to support this is minimal. Kraabel ‘suggests that the inscription from Aphrodisias refers simply to pious Gentiles who contributed to synagogues.’ This again doesn’t fit the evidence.

‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.

Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:

‘[Jews] were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.’ ‘But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and fearers of God…had been contributing, ’

I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.


[edit] Remarks
God-fearers covers a spectrum of Gentile-sympathizers who were attracted to Judaism, mainly for its morality and monotheism but were not willing to become a proselyte, who would be circumcised, would attend Jewish feasts, would have made a public statement of faith and for all intents and purposes were considered in the covenant. God-fearer faith is more of a pick-and-choose faith in that it is merged paganism with Judaism. For instance, Cornelius, being a centurion was probably a member of the imperial-cult. Some God-Fearers may have been more institutionalised, for instance the Aphrodisias inscription includes them as an official group of people, and traces of ‘rules’ can be found. However, these wouldn’t cover the whole spectrum of who God-Fearers were.

God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome, see also zealots. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.

--

In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’

Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.

The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.


[edit] References

If your preacher, pastor, teacher, minister, deacon or any other religious leader really cared, he would take time out to research the original language, rather than rely on poor translations. If they knew how to translate from the original Syriac (Arabic) and Galilean Arabic, the verse 1 John 5:7 that you are familiar with today did not exist. Neither did it exist in the original Hebrew and Greek that were translated from these original languages. It wasn’t until the onset of the Roman Catholic Church that this distortion was made. The Roman Catholics inserted the trinity verse when they tranlated the bible from Greek to Latin. Notice I say “inserted” and not[b] “translated”[/b] because, as I already said, the original Greek did not have this verse. However, you will find some Greek translations that have been translated from Latin or English, and it is in these Greek translations that you will find either the whole trinity verse or only a portion of it.
1 John 5:7 is surrounded in controversy because there are two versions of this verse. So-called scholars say the verse used in most bibles today is either not the original verse, or they say that it is only partially genuine. These so-called scholars continue to argue back and forth on this subject because they really don’t want to admit that the trinity really has no basis in the teachings of Jesus.

I will refer to the Holy Bible from Ancient Manuscripts by George M. Lamsa, which is a bible that is translated from the original Aramic or Syriac language .

6 ¶This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood.
7 And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth.
8 And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.

When you read 1 John 5:7 in your standard bible, which in this case is the Ryrie Study Bible (King James Version). . . you will read this:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Do you see what happened? . . . You will find that the original verse 5:7, has been actually pushed up to merge with verse 5:6.

The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says "I", and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,. Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.

The Trinity
God is three persons
Each person is divine
There is only one God.
Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.


There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).
This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity, but inferior in his humanity. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Of course Jesus already is King, but the analogy shows that because someone is sent, it doesn't mean they are different than the one who sent him.
Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human.

Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself.
It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical.
Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

@Dafidixone
Man, thanks for this post, I enjoyed it, moreso, It helped me in answering some questions on the subject Trinity.
What a timely sermon!!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

You're even denser than I had thought! How on earth could ton theon mean "God fearer"?!? You're just being stupid, and the rascal illiterate noise you and babs787 have been making here about the Greek terms will be laid to rest.

All the lengthy posts you have come back with have said nothing intelligent - and your continued confusion about what term applies to which translated term will show how much of a scholar Deedat was! You cannot deflect the simple questions I asked in the other thread - go there and attend them if you care; and until you do so, your panic measures are not going to atone for the fact that Muhammad will be shown for the false prophet that he was!

Keep getting confused about ton theon - you never start yet!

@Stimulus: As usual, I know you will take the bait;

Godfearers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
The Bible

Biblical canon and books
Tanakh: Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Chapters and verses
Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
Development and authorship
Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Mosaic authorship · Pauline epistles · Johannine works
Translations and manuscripts
Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible · Biblical criticism · Historical criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology
Interpretation
Hermeneutics · Pesher · Midrash · Pardes · Allegorical · Literalism · Prophecy
Views
Inerrancy · Infallibility ·
Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity
This box: view • talk • edit
This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Religion or the Religion Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.



The Godfearers or Sebioi from Greek σεβεοι (Arabic: Sabi'een/Sabi'oon, Hebrew: Toshavim) are messianic Non-Jews who from the earliest of times have worshiped The Name of the Hebrew Elohim.

Their original base was around Harran and they are of two types: Those (called Sabiah Hunafa in Arabic) who worship God Alone saying there is no god but Ton Theon, and those (called Sabiah Mushrikun in Arabic) who worship partners alongside Ton Theon. Abram is upheld as the perfect example among those who say there is no god but Ton Theon.

In the New Testament Period other "'God-Fearers'" (φοβουμενοι τον θεον) were members of the gentile community who affiliated themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who were interested in Jewish morality and monotheism, yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a "'proselyte'" would be. Further, a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would traverse between polytheistic paganism and proselyte-Judaism.

The following is taken with permission from a blog entry on the topic written by Timothy Gough.

Contents [hide]
1 Biblical evidence
2 Evidence from Acts
3 Extra-biblical evidence
4 Remarks
5 References
6 Texts
7 See also
8 External links



[edit] Biblical evidence
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. It’s my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.

Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; 'strangers who dwell with you.' These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12

The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.

John Dominic Crossan believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff

It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.


[edit] Evidence from Acts
Within Acts we see the most explicit reference to God-fearers (Acts 10; 13:16; 13:26; 13:43; 13:50; 16:14; 17:4; 17:17; 18:6-7). Some say this is Luke writing as a theologian who needed God-fearers for his narrative. I believe the reason we have the most references to God-fearers within Acts is because it gives us historical details not necessary in the rest of the New-Testament narratives.

God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at other times they begin the persecution.

Acts 10 Cornelius the Centurion is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts , however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as his entire household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.

Acts 13:16-50 Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).

From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.

Acts 16:14 This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.

Acts 17:4,17 Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.

Acts 18:6-7 Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.

These passages in Acts teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God. • The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers • The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution • This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers • The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers


[edit] Extra-biblical evidence
‘It's important to remember that archaeology by its very nature is not able to produce a complete picture of cultural and religious life…Only the combination of the information received from the different sources, and the careful cross-checking of them, can produce reliable results’.[1] Inscriptions have been found around the Diaspora, which include the word θεοσεβης, many of these are identities. The most important, the ‘Aphrodisias’ inscription, contains lists of synagogue people. What’s interesting is the God-fearers are separate; making them different from the Jews, yet still members of the synagogue. Some of the inscriptions appear to give the title God-fearer’ to a Jew however the evidence to support this is minimal. Kraabel ‘suggests that the inscription from Aphrodisias refers simply to pious Gentiles who contributed to synagogues.’ This again doesn’t fit the evidence.

‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.

Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:

‘[Jews] were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.’ ‘But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and fearers of God…had been contributing, ’

I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.


[edit] Remarks
God-fearers covers a spectrum of Gentile-sympathizers who were attracted to Judaism, mainly for its morality and monotheism but were not willing to become a proselyte, who would be circumcised, would attend Jewish feasts, would have made a public statement of faith and for all intents and purposes were considered in the covenant. God-fearer faith is more of a pick-and-choose faith in that it is merged paganism with Judaism. For instance, Cornelius, being a centurion was probably a member of the imperial-cult. Some God-Fearers may have been more institutionalised, for instance the Aphrodisias inscription includes them as an official group of people, and traces of ‘rules’ can be found. However, these wouldn’t cover the whole spectrum of who God-Fearers were.

God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome, see also zealots. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.

--

In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’

Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.

The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.


[edit] References
This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

^ I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol 5, Diaspora Setting p.58 (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996)

[edit] Texts

The same place you go to get your information. If they are wrong, about ton theon, then definately you are wrong.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: As usual, I know you will take the bait;
The same place you go to get your information. If they are wrong, about ton theon, then definately you are wrong.

Ha! You simply are a laugh! I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how "ton theon" could mean "God fearer" - have you done that? I just took one look at the garboil you posted and laughed so loud at yet another illiterate attempt to scuttle and drown your obvious confusion. Was this not your remarks earlier? --

olabowale:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

Now, oga olas, just relax and explain HOW in the universe "ton theon" is used (by who?) to describe "God fearer" - I just want you to clear that harrumph first, and then I'll show you what your rank-xeroxed article has failed to point out.

Do you care to show me how you connect "ton theon" to mean "God fearer"?

I'm waiting!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

Do you care to show me how you connect "ton theon" to mean "God fearer"?

I'm waiting!

@Stimulus: Open your eyes and read the article from Wikipedia posted above: I also remarked, there that if the definition of Ton theon is wrong from Wikipedia, the same source for your 'Intelligence,' then your whole premise is wrng. Afterall, they are your first rate 'Greek reference source.' You see I do not have to have any problem knowing that in English God could mean anything if it has a small g, while with a capital G, it mean the Almighty Creator.

Also Lord can be use to denote the superiority of one person by another, (afterall there is a house of lords in England parliamentary governance), but there is One true Lord, Lord God the Almighty Creator. And Jesus aint it. Please return to Mark 12 Verse 29. Thats Jesus talking directly, at least no Muslim will disagree with the textural meaning of that verse.

Open your eyes and your mind and take every word in and then get back to me. I will devote the whole of this week for you for concerns. I may be busy next week, God (Almighty Creator) willing.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Open your eyes and read the article from Wikipedia posted above:

Please stop patronizing me with that garboil - I know what the article said; and it is not saying the rubbish that you and Deedat have been arguing for eons!

olabowale:

I also remarked, there that if the definition of Ton theon is wrong from Wikipedia, the same source for your 'Intelligence,' then your whole premise is wrng.

You're such a laugh! Please go and see my thread and ask yourself if I got my intelligence from Wikipedia? What is the link of Wikipedia that I might have plagiarized? From the onset I told you guys that you will never see me plagiarizing any website - and my style would be to go directly to the source (the Greek texts),  read what it says, and then discuss precisely what is stated there! If you can't do the same, it is no surprise that you're at a lose as to how to cover your harrumph!

You may have "remarked" that Wikipedia was wrong in defining "ton theon" - that is least of my worries; but I'm still waiting for you to attend to this assignment:

stimulus:

@olabowale,

olabowale link=topic=103159.msg1968752#msg1968752 date=1203346318:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

Do you care to show me how you connect "ton theon" to mean "God fearer"?

I'm waiting!

And yes - I'm still waiting!

olabowale:

Afterall, they are your first rate 'Greek reference source.'

Abeg throw your lies to the bin! Who ever told you that? You're sounding ever so confused for your fallacies - your eye go see pepper!

olabowale:

You see I do not have to have any problem knowing that in English God could mean anything if it has a small g, while with a capital G, it mean the Almighty Creator.

Keep deceiving yourself! Your own illiterate scholar did not even argue out his premise that way; and if this is the best mewling excuse you can offer, what a huge embarrassment it must be for your clan!

olabowale:

Also Lord can be use to denote the superiority of one person by another, (afterall there is a house of lords in England parliamentary governance), but there is One true Lord, Lord God the Almighty Creator.

When Muhammad referred to 'Lord' in the Qur'an, did he excuse it as one of the titles for the English parliament? Hawwwww!! I go laugh you to shame!

olabowale:

And Jesus aint it. Please return to Mark 12 Verse 29. Thats Jesus talking directly, at least no Great One will disagree with the textural meaning of that verse.

With all your noise, no muslim has been able to explicate the meaning of that verse - and that is why I will not leave you guys to be running from thread to thread littering posts with the same illietrate adventures. You want to see the texts in the contextual meaning according to their languages? Fine - I'll walk you guys through the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts so you can grobvel all you like!

And don't come back giving me that mewling cry about your dread of going to the Hebrew texts. That cry is for kids, and I don't intend to call a nanny for you!

olabowale:

Open your eyes and your mind and take every word in and then get back to me.

Open you nostrils and wash the catarrh out and then attend to the assignment I gave you above!

olabowale:

I will devote the whole of this week for you for concerns.

No worries - even if I'm engaged, I'll take time to post my replies and ensure you guys do not borrow extra legs for scooting off that subject!

olabowale:

I may be busy next week, God (Almighty Creator) willing.

Good. So whatever happened to your 'god' and the Lai-la-la-yada-yada?

@Olowo tee:

The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence.  In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity.  Each has a will, loves, and says "I", and "You" when speaking.  The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father.  Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God.  There are three individual subsistences, or persons.  The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness.  The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
      Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,.  Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim.  Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.

The Trinity
God is three persons
Each person is divine
There is only one God.
     Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God.   When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals.  But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings.  God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence.  God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
    The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God.  So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.

So when according to you one of them died, did the death affect the ability of the others to enact His duties/power? We have realised that when the son died the father was capable to manage the affairs of overseeing the whole of creation and even forgave those he had forgiven, before the death of the son, and could even forgave others, regardless the death of the son.

If the holy spirit also died, the remaining One could still be able to handle all the affairs as if nothing had happened. Not that it could happen, but just for clarity and a new way of looking at things, if the son had remained alive, as well as the holy ghost, but the One who was always the Speaker dies (again, I repeat not that it could ever happened (and I ask The Almighty God for His Forgiveness of my wrongs)), could the remaining two without Him capable of handling the affairs of all things; Angels, Jinns, Heavens and earth, all thing between and beyond them?

I am clearly certain they could not. So you see Olowo Tee, the 2 that you are attaching to God the Almighty Creator are absolutely irrelevant to His existence. They are nothing more than His Creations, like everything else. To argue away that three entities all of a sudden becoming One Supreme Entity, is absurd and make no sense. Not just from me, it just does not make theological Sense: More Importantly, when Adam was Created and through out his and his wife's mistakes that followed, we only heard about God's interaction with them. The holy ghost and the son were no where to be found and absolutely irrelevant to any and all actions and decisions.

All of a sudden you will spring the two who have been dormant all this time on us? Where was the son or the holy ghost when the sons of Adam and Eve were disagreeing and one killed the other? Where were they when Noah people were doing evil to the point they were wiped out by flood?  Where were they when the people of Lut were committing evil deeds, etc? Sisi mi, I have respect for you in the good work you are doing, with kids in School. I am sure it is slanted towards you propagation of your religion. I am not sure we are talking about apples and oranges here.

@Stimulus: Never will I patronise you. I do not enjoy anything about street people. You do your work and I do mine. I have no need for your type.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Never will I patronise you. I do not enjoy anything about street people. You do your work and I do mine. I have no need for your type.

I knew it wouldn't take long for this weasling to come off your chest. If you're done shedding your street-gand clothes, please let me know. And yes, I'm doing my job in santizing your illiterate 'job' of ridiculing other people's faith; and it is up to you to grow up, sit up, and speak up with some good sense.

If that is the cry you often make when your dense posts are refutted, it won't surprise me. You've done it before - several times - so it does not come as a surprise to me that you'd expectedly make the same moo-ing.

olabowale:

@Olowo tee: So when according to you one of them died, did the death affect the ability of the others to enact His duties/power? We have realised that when the son died the father was capable to manage the affairs of overseeing the whole of creation and even forgave those he had forgiven, before the death of the son, and could even forgave others, regardless the death of the son.

The death of the Son was in the FLESH - it does not mean He ceased to exist or even reduced His power to hold the Universe in place and govern all things. It is the Word (Logos) through whom creation came into existence (John 1:3); and it is still by the Word (Logos) that all things are sustained (Heb. 1:3). At death, the same Word (Logos) went to the underworld and declared the tidings of His victory to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19); and indeed, the Bible makes clear that it was impossible for death to keep Him bound (Acts 2:24).

When you can seek to understand the meaning of the death of Christ on the Cross, you will come to see that it is far distinct from what your mullahs have been spoon-feeding you.

olabowale:

If the holy spirit also died, the remaining One could still be able to handle all the affairs as if nothing had happened.

May God forgive you, olabowale. You see how your restless and illiterate soul is seeking to be blasphemous? You think you're trying to sound intelligent, but you have no clue that you're sealing your own doom. If someone had made that same remark about the one that Muhammad mistook for his 'holy spirit' (Jibril), the world would go up in flames with Muslim rage!

May God forgive your blasphemous spirit.

olabowale:

Not that it could happen, but just for clarity and a new way of looking at things, if the son had remained alive, as well as the holy ghost, but the One who was always the Speaker dies (again, I repeat not that it could ever happened (and I ask The Almighty God for His Forgiveness of my wrongs)), could the remaining two without Him capable of handling the affairs of all things; Angels, Jinns, Heavens and earth, all thing between and beyond them?

If it could not happen the way you're forcing yourself to suggest, why even attempt it at all? Must you seek to throw your own soul away for the sake of mere arguments on Nairaland?

MAy God forgive you indeed.

olabowale:

I am clearly certain they could not. So you see Olowo Tee, the 2 that you are attaching to God the Almighty Creator are absolutely irrelevant to His existence.

What is irrelavant to His existence is your blasphemous thinking and Muhammad's denials of God's revelations. God does not need the irrelavant denials of a Quraish prophet centuries after He raised His own prophets and committed His word to them.

olabowale:

They are nothing more than His Creations, like everything else.

neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit were created.

olabowale:

To argue away that three entities all of a sudden becoming One Supreme Entity, is absurd and make no sense.

To argue away using Muhammad's denials of God being FATHER is absurd and does not make any sense!

olabowale:

Not just from me, it just does not make theological Sense: More Importantly, when Adam was Created and through out his and his wife's mistakes that followed, we only heard about God's interaction with them. The holy ghost and the son were no where to be found and absolutely irrelevant to any and all actions and decisions.

You could not find the Holy Spirit and the Son in the Genesis account because you have deliberately closed your eyes to the Biblical narratives.

olabowale:

All of a sudden you will spring the two who have been dormant all this time on us? Where was the son or the holy ghost when the sons of Adam and Eve were disagreeing and one killed the other?

Where was Muhammad's allah all the time that Muslims were busy slaughtering one another in Iraq? Where was Muhammad's 'Allah' when the Wahabbis were busy blowing up their own Muslim brethren? If you can give us the answer to that, then I'll give you a simple answer to your question.

olabowale:

Where were they when Noah people were doing evil to the point they were wiped out by flood? Where were they when the people of Lut were committing evil deeds, etc? Sisi mi, I have respect for you in the good work you are doing, with kids in School. I am sure it is slanted towards you propagation of your religion. I am not sure we are talking about apples and oranges here.

Where was Muhammad's allah when Muslims were busy slaughtering each other over disagreements on doctrines? Have you found your 'allah's' solution yet as to the problem of the Wahabbis who are still seeking to wipe out their own Muslim brethren?

The subject under discussion is Trinity. Discussants can share their belief or non belief in the doctrine of trinity without degenerating into personal attacks. The nature of God lies beyound the understanding of any creature including man. The nature of God can only be brought to man by divine revelation. That is , only God can reveal his nature to man and in the revelation, man can only know of it but will never understand or comprehend it. Thus even when God reveals that he is one and yet three, the understanding of it is impossible and will forever remain a mystery. However, those who genuinely serve God will intutively percieve that the concept of Trinity is true even when they cannot understand it. God is one and yet three. You have God the father, God the son (Jesus), God the Holyspirit. In reality it is God the father that is Jesus and it is still the same God the father that is the Holyspirit. To put it more correctly a "part" of God the father is Jesus and a "part" of God the father is the Holyspirit. Although the Holyspirit and Jesus are one with the father because they are parts of him, they are personal in their working. Thus even when Jesus returned and reunited with his father after his physical death, he still remained personal. Thus the concept of Trinity does not contradict the oneness of God. To put it simply, one can say that God the Father is in three persons - the Father, the son ( Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. These explanations can only help those who want to know of it (Trinity) and have an intelligible picture of this concept. However it is impossible to understand it since it is beyound human understanding. The expalnation given here is not my own knowlege, but my own perception of the revelation that is mediated to mankind in the work "In the Light of Truth- The Grail Message.

@m_nwankwo,

m_nwankwo:

The subject under discussion is Trinity. Discussants can share their belief or non belief in the doctrine of trinity without degenerating into personal attacks.

This is what I have been appealing to several times; but if Muslims see it as their birthright to continually slur other discussants with sly invectives and expect to read pleasantries, they can as well hold their hankies to weep more.

@M_Nwankwo: As much as I disagree with you, I at the same commend you for your maturity. When i read and know people like you are products of Nigeria, I long for the place, on one hand and then i struggle, personally to improve myself! Hellfire is created for some human being to inhabit it, yet some will not go to it for they have done well with their Creator: Worshipping Him the way He has prescribed and doing a much good as possible.

For me, I am not a Christian and I believe in the messengership of all Prophets and messengers, before the Prophet from Makka and Madina (as). Yet when the Christians derided him, we simply or at least try to ask them to explain themselves? To talk about the Qur'an, you are at least should learn about the process of revelations of its content. There are over 6000 verses in it. And none of it ws revealed without a clear reason.

I dislike thuggery and it seems as if thats how many of my people, the Nigerian carry out their persona. This is th only reason I wanted the Trinity explained in relationship to all the other verses which negate the possibility of it. For instance, Mark 12 Verse 29, is a glearing example. But I thank you for throwing in your matured hat. And I liked the way you saw Soul and Spirit as one in a man. Meaning man is made up of Body and soul/spirit. And when the soul/spirit is extracted, then the result is a lifeless body.

olabowale:

I dislike thuggery and it seems as if thats how many of my people, the Nigerian carry out their persona. This is th only reason I wanted the Trinity explained in relationship to all the other verses which negate the possibility of it.

You dislike thuggery but have incessantly used it as your bastion in deriding the Trinity even after you have been appealed to SEVERAL TIMES! How many times have I personally offered you an enabling environment to discuss it, often inviting you again and again to seek to discuss issues without recourse to your sly slobbers?

We can discuss whatever we want to discuss in amicable mature ways. There is no need to invite what you cannot sustain and then come back to whimper with these lame excuses. I've often offered reasonable answers to your queries - but like I said recently, if you are allergic to rational discussions then I will no longer entertain your penchant to continually slur and disrespect Christians.

stimulus:

@m_nwankwo,

This is what I have been appealing to several times; but if Muslims see it as their birthright to continually slur other discussants with sly invectives and expect to read pleasantries, they can as well hold their hankies to weep more.

It is for you own health not to get all whirl and frenzy, stimulus.