/islam/ - 8kun Masjid

>>26330

>Okay, so if we are to accept that Mary is a goddess to Christians in addition to the “three gods” they worship already, that makes four gods.

Some christians are mariolators, all christians, save unitarians, are christolators.

>The Quran said Christians worshipped three gods (5:73), and it never mentioned that Christians worship the Holy Spirit.

In that passage Allah condemns any tri-formulation of God. Again, you read something that wasn’t there. Allah never said “Christians ONLY worship three gods.”

>My takeaway from sura al-Ma’idah is that Christians believe in a trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus.

That’s your illiterate eisegesis.

>I know that Christians don’t believe in a trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus; so the Quran is wrong.

Nowhere in Quran is Mary referred to as part of a popular tripartite godhead, 3, etc. The phrase “gods besides Allah” is not even unique to trinis in the quranic corpus. All mushriks are guilty of placing gods besides Allah.

At the end of the day if the Quran has “failed” because it doesn’t do justice to the trinity postulation then the Old and New Testaments have also failed. Associating partners with God is the worst crime humanly possible and there is no justice to be found in God indulging this grave injustice in ANY revelation. It doesn’t matter how many Chicken Soup For The Mushrikeen Soul books are written, a sentence from Allah is enough to obliterate them all. And that’s on top of the fact that all Jews and millions of Christians share your book and see no trinity to begin with. That’s the difference between revealed religions: scriptural abrahamic unitarianism and mystery religions like trinism. For starters look up the definition of revelation and compare to the definition of mystery.

Repetitive rephrasings and pastes by trinis should be reported and pruned. That is not ideological censorship, just basic QC.

>>26332

>Why would the Quran condemn tiny little groups that died out fast and had no influence instead of condemning mainstream Christianity?

Some such groups - and even individuals - are condemned in the Quran. As per the asbab and wisdom of God. But the mariolators are not one of the groups that had no influence, rather their influence persists. Secondly, obviously part of Allah’s plan was to have triune Christianity fulfill its past and whatever remains of its future. As this is the general case of Qadr and the specific case of it appearing as though Prophet Jesus died on that cross. Thirdly, the general consensus of christianity you appeal to now was not yet fully catechized in current doctrine by a long shot at the time of the Quran’s revelation. The “first infallible” biblical canon was not declared until 1546 at the Council of Trent, nearly one thousand years after muslims declared the Quran infallible. The Iberian peninsula was Islamic before it was Mushrikeen. What I’m getting at is there shouldn’t be an expectation among Christians for a tailormade sect/creedal specific message to Christians then or even now. Then, multitudes of Christians didn’t even accept the trinity and today millions stil do not.

>That’s your illiterate eisegesis.

No, that's what the chapter says.

Your pic related demonstrates the kinds of textual gymnastics you engage in with your own religion. I shouldn’t be surprised or take offense that you bring that to my religion. You’re an eisegate through and through. And btw on the subject of your pic, you need to realize we don’t consider Saul of Tarsus to be a prophet and do not regard his postcards as biblical, much less part of the Injeel, the words given to Prophet Messiah Jesus by Allah and found in snippets throughout your book.

>Nowhere in Quran is Mary referred to as part of a popular tripartite godhead, 3, etc.

<It says that Mary is worshiped as a god alongside Allah and Jesus. Earlier in that very same chapter, it said Allah is worshiped as one god among three.

Ok, I am prepared to chalk this up to the fact you are relying on an English translators interpretation of Quran. In Surah Maidah 116 Allah says Jesus will be asked if he told people to take he and his mother as gods MIN DUN ALLAH من دون الله which means instead of Allah. When the english translators write “besides” this then does not mean (meta)physically snuggled “beside” as a triune. Allah will ask Jesus only about Christolatry and Mariolatry - Allah will not - as far as we know - question Jesus with a litany of details of the Roman mystery religion. No quiz on trinities, no quiz on popes, no quiz on the place of prayer in American classrooms - inshaAllah, alhamdulillah, Allahu alam.

>In this Bible passage, Jesus affirms that he is God. If you believe in the Bible, why don't you believe Jesus is God?

We believe in Jesus the living prophet who was raised to heaven, not the crucifixion npt the resurrection and not the apparition who shows up later in Christian legends.

Would you like to discuss this verse more or was it just part of a scatter shot?

>“And, having been baptized, Jesus immediately rose up out of the water; and look: The heavens were opened, and he saw God’s Spirit descending as a dove, alighting upon him; And look: a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I have delighted.”

>“Go, therefore, instruct all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

>“In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god”

>“No one has ever seen GOD; the one who is uniquely god, who is in the Father’s breast, that one has declared him.”

>“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me?”

Jesus is the begotten God in the bosom of the Father, if you believe the Bible. You don't believe the Bible, so you don't believe that.

>Repetitive rephrasings and pastes by trinis should be reported and pruned. That is not ideological censorship, just basic QC.

<The trini thread shouldn't have trinis in it! It should be a circlejerk where we spend eternity screaming about how Allah, Jesus, and Mary aren't three gods!

Ok, more scattershots. Choose one biblical verse and let’s discuss it indepth both theologically and textually.

Now in general the trouble with Mushrikeenism is that it takes the broad spectrum of Hellenic philosophy and uses it to justify the theological primacy of a very specific mystery cult. There's all sorts of questions and implications that come with that, but the gist of the matter is that B does not follow from A, and pretending that it does while insisting that any other interpretation of A is historically invalid and any other interpretation of B is doctrinally heretical will likely corrupt both A and B simultaneously.

>>26314

>Also stop deleting this post. This is the trini general

That is not a license to misbehave. This thread must still adhere to the rules of the board, the number one being that it is NOT a place where Muslims have to defend themselves or their religion from outsiders. This thread is a courtesy, designed primarily to keep the board from being flooded by /christian/ threads; but it is not intended to be anyone's personal pulpit.

I have given this thread over to the Vols, staying out of it myself for the most part; but if the non-Muslim participants of the thread cannot behave themselves, I will remove it and disallow its re-creation. If you wish to discuss finer points of Qur'an, then do so. If you wish to merely constantly repeat yourself with your fingers in your ears and refuse to even acknowledge scholarly response, then you can go back to /christian/ and remain there. We have given you a room in the mosque to have your discussions, but that doesn't mean you are permitted to piss on the floor.

>>26338

Dear BO,

If you ever are forced to take action in this thread, please lock instead of delete. JazakAllah Khayr.

The Quran does not use the word "trinity". The verse 5:73 is talking about Allah and how christians try to reduce His role by making Him the third of three. In fact it doesn't say "three gods", just three(so if you say well no we believe that they're three persons not gods, it doesn't make a difference). Allah is addressing the christians who are already familiar with their own belief anyway, just as the Quran doesn't explain what the pagans believed in when they are addressed, yet this does not mean the Quran gets Arab pre-islamic paganism wrong just because we do not get a detailed understanding of what gods they worshipped and what roles they had from reading it.

>>26321

>The Quran says at another point that Christians take Mary and Jesus for gods with Allah

Note the word "take". It means that what you are doing is in practice polytheism. Not in verse 5:116 nor in 5:73 does the Quran literally say "christians say there are three gods". Praying(ie making supplication) to Jesus and Mary, as christians do all the time, is most definitely shirk which is condemned throughout the Quran. The people who do that are essentially worshipping them instead of Allah, since only He is worthy of worship and only He can answer your prayers. This is the entire message of monotheism repeated throughout the Quran. If you disagree with Islam's monotheism then you can debate whether or not it's true, but, that's what the Quran says, so it does not mean anything's being "misrepresented". By Islam's monotheism laid out in the Quran, the trinity is shirk, plain and simple. This much you can admit to regardless of religion.

Really, what it comes down to is not that you christians believe that the Quran got the trinity wrong, but rather that the Quran got monotheism wrong. What you should ask yourself is, who has the most right to tell you what true monotheism is, Allah or the church?

If the trinity is wrong, meaning, your understanding of God's nature is wrong, then you are mushrikuun and Allah pointing that out is not indicative of a misunderstanding. So saying that "the Quran is wrong because it got the trinity wrong" is no different from saying that "the Quran is wrong because the trinity is correct" since you are making a claim of God's nature and the Quran another. But naturally, the former phrasing comes across as more "objective" than the latter, but it's just an illusion in the end.

>>26326

> Ultimately, if I decided for whatever reason to completely reject the trinity, and that it truly did make no sense I would become either a Unitarian Christian, a Platonist, a Gnostic, or maaybe a Buddhist. I would not become a Muslim, because this error...

The trinity theory is the spiritual analogue of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You’re already a platonist and rejecting trinity entails a rejection of platonism - and vice versa. If you became a rabbinic Jew or a messianic Jew (Unitarian Christian) it would be much better for you I am sure.

It’s interesting that even if you imagined yourself to have dismissed the trinity as nonsensical you would still consider the Quran to have erred by dismissing the trinity as nonsensical. Do you see the problem here? What you’re really saying is “even if the Quran was right about the trinity it would still be wrong about the trinity.”

>>26341

>>26335

It's not really for us to say what God can and can't do when it comes to phenomena that have no inherently moral dimension.

Whether God can incarnate/participate within his creation is something beyond our scope, it's just speculation.

And I don't think we should be too reckless with our logic and what seems to be possible from our perspective.

>>26399

We don't say "God can't" but Qur'an says "God doesn't". Qur'an is God's holy word and He doesn't lie to us through Qur'an. God has never been here in the flesh with us, He has no son, and He has no partner.

Can God? Yes.

Has God? No.

Will God? We don't know.

>>26399

God could become a piece of pepperoni, triniboy. But that doesn’t befit God’s majesty. God lives without a mother, knows us without being human, and most importantly can love and forgive us without cursing and then dying for us!

>>26399

God can't stop being God by losing His divine attributes. I don't know why christians have a hard time accepting something so obvious.

>>26428

Trinanity is a mystery religion, not a revealed religion. The paradox of “incarnation” is definitely problematic but it’s the hill Trinis want to fight on. Their bizarre “Godhead” distracts both them and their opponents from many serious mistakes - chief among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for people other than the sons of Israel.

So even if we for the sake of argument accept their premise that God was some Godman tri-entity then that God still only came for the lost sheep of Israel.

>>26428

His attributes can't be understood positively, the infinite qualifier makes them incoherent to us. That's why apophatic theology is so important. It doesn't matter the religion, when we talk about God or his qualities we are talking about something far beyond our grasp and normal frame of reference. The fact that paradoxes emerge should be expected.

>>26436

I think mystery religions had to do with secret initiations and secret teachings not accessible to the regular public, not teachings that were seemingly "mysterious" or "paradoxical".

>chief among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for people other than the sons of Israel.

that's only partially true, Jesus also praised gentiles for their faith and told his apostles to convert all nations; the israelites were just the first to hear the news, but most would reject it

>>26444

>His attributes can't be understood positively, the infinite qualifier makes them incoherent to us.

Yes they can. Negative attributes are ascertained through the intellect and positive attributes are ascertained through revelation. The reason why you believe God’s attributes can’t be understood positively and remain “incoherent” is because your core conception of God is from incoherent mystical church teachings not clear revelation.

>That's why apophatic theology is so important. It doesn't matter the religion, when we talk about God or his qualities we are talking about something far beyond our grasp and normal frame of reference. The fact that paradoxes emerge should be expected.

Paradoxes arising from apophatic theology are resolved via cataphatic theology. And this is how Mushrikeens speak out of both sides of their mouth, they say understanding God is “far beyond our grasp” but also claim to have it’s figured out with the trinity formulation. Well, which one is it?

>I think mystery religions had to do with secret initiations and secret teachings not accessible to the regular public, not teachings that were seemingly "mysterious" or "paradoxical".

That would simply be esotericism, mystery religions are more defined by their “holy mystery” teachings, recurrent paradoxes, their use of sacraments and ritual intoxicants.

>that's only partially true, Jesus also praised gentiles for their faith and told his apostles to convert all nations; the israelites were just the first to hear the news, but most would reject it

We have evidence Jesus lived and preached and believe in his prophethood but there is no evidence Jesus became an apparition traipsing about the Earth and started a “great commission” where he changed his mind about the fact he was awaited to be annointed as a distinctly jewish prophet. And citing this self-contradictory and paranormal story as the justification for your taking a jewish prophet as your god is circular as well.

<Jesus is for all nations and should be worshipped by all, because Jesus clearly said this after he died and brought himself back from the dead and revealed he was God and commanded the disciples to convert all people.

>>23556

>God could become a piece of pepperoni on your pizza, triniboy. But God has majesty and does not do everything despite being more than capable of everything.

If man is made in the image of God and has something of his spirit in him, his breath or life, then it's not a fair analogy to compare the incarnation to God becoming a piece of pepperoni. Man is something else entirely. And if God sees it fit to breathe his spirit into us and make us in his image then it's not necessarily true that human incarnation is beyond his 'majesty'.

>>26448

>The reason why you believe God’s attributes can’t be understood positively and remain “incoherent” is because your core conception of God is from incoherent mystical church teachings not clear revelation.

Even with revelation mystery remains, for example God has "hands" but they are not literal hands like we know, God has a "breath" but it's not a literal breath of oxygen out of a literal mouth or body like we understand, nor is it like the wind blowing through the trees. Even with clear revelation the more we think about God the more mysterious he becomes.

>>26472

> If man is made in the image of God

Only a pagan church would take this literally.

> and has something of his spirit in him

No, when God says “His” spirit it means possessive ownership and sole creatorship - God’s spirit is not a kit-kat bar and part was given to humans.

>it's not a fair analogy to compare the incarnation to God becoming a piece of pepperoni.

You’re right, pepperonis don’t fill up diapers, suckle and mewl like you say God did. It’s not fair to the pepperoni.

>Even with revelation mystery remains

There is a difference between claiming to know absolutely everything about God and a mystery. Something is only a mystery if you dedicate yourself to trying to explain/solve it. That is what the trinity is. And a religion is only a mystery religion if its core is a mystery, that is what trinianity is.

>for example God has "hands" but they are not literal hands like we know, God has a "breath" but it's not a literal breath of oxygen out of a literal mouth or body like we understand, nor is it like the wind blowing through the trees. Even with clear revelation the more we think about God the more mysterious he becomes.

We only affirm for Allah what Allah affirms for himself - without asking “how?”. Human beings were created to obey and worship God, not sit around “thinking” ie cranking out crackpot theories about God and then combing the revealed texts to justify anthropomorphism. Again, the biblical canon was not declared infallible until 1546 in Trent but the trinity doctrine long predates that. How can infallible doctrine predate infallible scripture?

Reply to trini from a trini board who said Quran has no “literary merit.”

>>613966

>but even atheists admit

Crumb-diving, the poast. Anglo atheists can see lit merit in KJV, Arab atheists in Quran, so what?

>literary merit

If the world loves the bible it is because so much of the bible is of the world. Quran reads like lightning bolts of revelation and is a recitation not a conventional book much less one larded with flowery telegrams meant to ingratiate renegade jews to pagan greeks. The Quran is an undiluted record of communication from God to His final prophet.

>>26648

yea or disjointed tweets

I’ve posted this as it’s own thread, but I’m gonna ask here too cause this is where Christian-Muslim dialogue is expected. The Quran says of Jesus’ apostles:

>But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, "Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?" The disciples said," We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].

>And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, "Believe in Me and in My messenger Jesus." They said, "We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah ]."

The New Testament was written by Jesus’ apostles, and it directly contradicts Islam. Even if you don’t count Paul as an apostle (and early Islamic commenters did count Paul as an apostle) none of the remaining books agree with Islam except for maybe James (James doesn’t mention the crucifixion, doesn’t call Jesus God or the Son of God, commands submission to the will of God, and includes the Islamic phrase of Inshallah). If the books don’t reflect true apostolic teaching, where can I find true apostolic teaching and who corrupted the books?

>>26747

>The New Testament was written by Jesus’ apostles,

No it wasn’t.

>and it directly contradicts Islam.

What about unitarian christians that use the same NT as you?

>Even if you don’t count Paul as an apostle (and early Islamic commenters did count Paul as an apostle)

If that is true:

Prophet saws said : When a judge passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge and gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge but gets it wrong, he will have one reward. (al-Bukhaari, 7352; Muslim, 1716).

If a scholar genuinely errs they are not accountable for their mistake because they were striving in the cause of Allah. And if you are worried that this is going to give scholars free rein to pass rulings as much as they want, then don't. Because there are countless Qur'an verses and Hadiths that state that Allah swt will preserve Islam.

>None of the remaining books agree with Islam except for maybe James (James doesn’t mention the crucifixion, doesn’t call Jesus God or the Son of God, commands submission to the will of God, and includes the Islamic phrase of Inshallah).

The chronological order of the canonical gospels shows what could be considered an evolving doctrine of christolatry.

>If the books don’t reflect true apostolic teaching, where can I find true apostolic teaching and who corrupted the books?

You should learn Aramaic and Hebrew, the languages Jesus pbuh spoke in and read in respectively. The people in the position to corrupt the books were the middlemen: scribes and translators. The Aramaic Original hypothesis makes sense. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the authors of the canonical gospels were the conventionally named. How was the “original” written language one that the authors did not know? Why spend three Aramaic speaking years with Jesus and then turn around and learn greek to write the original? Why make the original a translation?

Sir Anthony Buzzard mastered biblical Hebrew and is apparently able to reconcile the canonical Bible with unitarianism. So the “contradiction” of NT and Quran might be partially a false dilemma. Paul’s telegrams and later, Mushrikeen church dogma combine to form an artificial wedge between the two texts that exacerbates small differences and creates new ones.

So if you say where can you find true apostolic teaching then you should learn the language of the apostles and verse yourself in the masoretic text they used and read the early aramaic scrolls.

>>26756

Also

One of the most convincing arguments for the aramaic original thesis Ive seen are greek sentences attributed to Jesus that become perfect puns when translated into aramaic.

>>26756

>>26757

I made that as it’s own thread (though it was later deleted) because the issue wasn’t just the trinity. I posted it here too just cause this was a Christian/Muslim debate thread, so I thought it made sense to bring up here too. The apostles in the Quran all proclaim themselves Muslims, yet the New Testament directly contradicts the Quran and Islamic theology. Take this Sir Anthony Buzzard fellow you bring up; he came to unitarian conclusions from the New Testament, but look at the other aspects of his theology:

>There is one Lord Messiah, Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6), who was supernaturally conceived as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and foreordained from the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20).

>In the atoning, substitutionary death of Jesus, his resurrection on the third day, and his ascension to the right hand of the Father (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:34-36), where he is waiting until his enemies are subdued (Heb. 10:13).

>In the freedom "under grace" and not "under law," inaugurated at the cross in the New Covenant, in contrast to and replacing the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai (Gal. 3 and 4; 2 Cor. 3). Issues of physical circumcision and "the whole law" (Gal. 5:3) associated with circumcision, including calendar and food laws, are concerns of the old and not the new covenant. Compare Col. 2:16-17 where the temporary shadow is contrasted with the permanence and newness of Christ.

So he came to all these conclusions that are antithecal to Islam as well. Like I said, every book of the New Testament except James supports extremely non-Islamic views

>>26802

>>26802

You keep saying "all the apostles" but the first thing you quote from the NT is attributed to someone who was not even one of Jesus' disciples. Even the parts attributed to some disciples were done so only later on after first having being transmitted by unknown people.

>every book of the New Testament except James supports extremely non-Islamic views

The canon was decided by people who already had a non-Islamic theology. It wasn't decided upon by Jesus, because it didn't even exist during his lifetime. The Quran is more authoritative for us since it's the revelation from God, recited by the Prophet(saw) in public for 23 years to thousands of people.

>>26802

>So he came to all these conclusions that are antithecal to Islam as well. Like I said, every book of the New Testament except James supports extremely non-Islamic views

You keep saying antithetical when you really mean different. Why should we be surprised that non-muslims come to non-islamic conclusions? When the apostles describe themselves as muslims that means they are “those who submit” to God and accept their prophet Jesus. That’s what the word means. The difference is Buzzard accepts the ghostly apparitions of Jesus “resurrection” and the postcards of Paul as scripture. We don’t. If we go only by the accounts of Jesus’ actual life then he would be on the precipice of Islam.

>>26873

Good find. But that’s something we should preface with “for the sake of argument” because in Quran, Mary is never identified as a person of any trinity. That claim is from christian apologists who are arabic illiterate.

>>26874

>Mary is never identified as a person of any trinity. That claim is from christian apologists who are arabic illiterate.

Ah, I've only read Quran in English myself, and I'm not very informed on polemics/apologetics. Thanks for letting me know.

>>26982

>>26983

This is why knowing the language of scripture is so important.

It just takes one trini a split second to look at an English Quran translation and go besides —> beside —> alongside. Now multiply and compound that error by more than one and a half thousand years and thousands of barefoot scribe friars and bubonic monks.

>>26982

>maybe if I keep ignoring all the refutations and just spam the same thing over and over again with anime pictures it'll come true!

>>26991

Your God(Jesus) commanded children to be murdered, raped and enslaved throughout the whole the old testament.

>>26991

You have literally never read a Qur'an in your life. You just take sound bites and memes as the whole of Islam.

This is why mushrikeen shouldn't be allowed in public debate. You're all idiots. Get used to being spit on.

>>26998

I’ve read the Quran (Sahih International, last summer. Took about a month). It says that Mary is in the trinity and never brings up the Holy Spirit (in the context of the trinity). There’s really no other explanation but the massive reaches you people are making

>>27004

Nice IP switch.

I'm curious why you think the Qur'an should mention your mushrikeen lies at all. Modern Paulism is a false religion and that's all anyone needs to know. Your kind mentions the Epistle to the Romans more than Jews mention the Talmud. I'm starting to think your "trinity" is the three faces of Paul.

>>27005

I mean, you guys make these reaches, but they’re just not organic. Let’s say you took someone who had never heard of the trinity. They never learned about Christianity, and had never read or seen any trinity-teaching resources like the Forgotten Trinity or Anderson’s trinity sermons. You then showed them the Quran’s 5th surah and asked them about the trinity. They would come to the conclusion that the trinity is the belief that Allah, Jesus, and Mary are three gods. The idea that the Holy Spirit was a person in the trinity, of that 5:73 and 5:116 refer to different things would never occur to them

>>27006

It didn’t need to mention them. But it did mention them, so it had a duty to not actively misrepresent them. I’d be fine if the Quran never brought up the trinity, but instead it does and claims it’s Allah Jesus and Mary. It’s actively misrepresenting and lying about Christians

>>27008

>actively misrepresenting and lying about Christians

Not really. It's not our fault that you can't understand what you're reading.

>>27009

I understood it perfectly

>They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

>And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

It’s clear and unambiguous. You were correct when you said the Quran didn’t have to mention the trinity. But it did mention the trinity, so it had a duty to be accurate. The Quran lies to Muslims about who Christians are and what they believe.

>>27010

>Did you say this?

>No, I did not.

I don't know why you can't understand simple English. It's like talking to a 5 year old.

>>27007

If you gave someone ignorant of christianity a bible they'd never get the trinity out of it. If you gave a jew the OT they'd never in a million years understand the Mushrikeen God. Ooops I guess that means God misrepresented God to most of mankind. And so did Jesus since christians didn't understand the trinity until 400 years later. You needed "divinely inspired" church leaders to teach you the trinity because Jesus sure as hell didn't.

>>27008

The Quran is representing you as an obstinate mushrik, which is true.

>Jesus and Mary

Which are undeniably worshipped by christians as has already been made perfectly clear in this thread on several occasions.

>>27011

You can apply that to Muslims interacting with Christians though

>did you say that there are three gods?

>no I didn’t, there is one God

>no you believe in three gods you think Jesus and Mary are two gods separate from God

>>27013

>the trinity was invented by Paul!

>the trinity didn’t exist until 400 years after Christ

What’s up with Muslims ☻ing up years so bad? First you say Moses is Jesus’ uncle, now you say Paul is a church leader from 400 years after Christ. Are there any dates you ☻ers agree with the rest of society on?

>>27014

>What’s up with Muslims ☻ing up years so bad?

>Are there any dates you ☻ers agree with the rest of society on?

yeah…so how's the 6000 year old earth working out for ya?

>>27016

>I don’t know what you believe but I’m gonna claim you believe this

Spoken like a true Muslim, at least I’m quoting your satanic bible

>>27010

>i choose to interpret “besides” to mean “alongside”

>i dont speak arabic so I use a convenient translation to defeat Islam

The actual Quran we all use says min doon (من دون) in 5:116.

MIN DOON

MIN DOON

MIN DOON

PUT من دون into your google translator, Madison.

Other English translations:

Yusuf Ali: And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?"

Arberry: And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?'

What’s with christians and not being able to into languages? Especially languages of scriptures?

>>27010

>It’s clear and unambiguous.

You don’t even know arabic and you are expounding like this on Quran? You are definitely a burger.

>You were correct when you said the Quran didn’t have to mention the trinity. But it did mention the trinity, so it had a duty to be accurate. The Quran lies to Muslims about who Christians are and what they believe.

You roman pagans didn’t have to mention Jesus. But you did so you had a duty to be accurate. You lie to people about who Jesus was and you even created a bizarre post hoc platonic construct and took it as your god. You now take the Quranic ayaats out of their context just like you do with your strained OT christolatrous “foreshadowing” efforts. Allah says He will ask Jesus if he encouraged people to direct worship and prayers to himself and his mother. Why would Allah ask Jesus about trinity when even you know Jesus never taught that? Jesus obviously wouldn’t even understand the question since the trinity was not a (retconned) belief for hundreds of years until after his ministry.

>>27014

>What’s up with Muslims ☻ing up years so bad? First you say Moses is Jesus’ uncle, now you say Paul is a church leader from 400 years after Christ. Are there any dates you ☻ers agree with the rest of society on?

What’s with the f-bombs? Do you kiss your idols with that filthy mouth? You claim that one of your pagan god’s three persons literally lives inside you and this is how you express yourself?

>>27017

It’s ok you can tell us your sect is the real trinism. Here at /islam/ you can safely jettison all other denoms to make yourself comfortable, in fact we encourage it. Are you going to lowkey pretend that millions of Christians don’t worship Mary? Really, is that your angle? To just cross your fingers and hope that none of us are aware of mariolatry?

You xians are just digging the hole deeper for yourselves because when you’re called out in Quran for christolatry and mariolatry your PRIDE compells you to say “you forgot ghostolatry.” Like worshipping a ghost is some kind of ace up your sleeve in this situation.

>>27052

^- this is a response to this -v

>>27007

>>27052

Hey dummy, the Quran didn’t have an obligation to mention the trinity but it did have an obligation to be correct in all it said. If the Quran never mentioned the trinity, I’d be okay with that. Instead, it brings up the trinity and gets it wrong. That’s unacceptable.

Let me give you a nontrinity example: math. The Quran never mentions or brings up math. That’s fine, it doesn’t have an obligation to do that. However, if the Quran did start to bring up math, if it had a chapter dedicated to math, there would be an obligation to not say any mathematical mistakes. If the Quran said “2+2=5,” that would be an error.

The Quran brought up the trinity. It then had a responsibility to not make direct errors.

If the Quran never mentioned the trinity, that would be fine.

If the Quran mentioned the trinity but only to say “people believe in a trinity, that’s wrong” (like in 5:73) that would also be fine.

The Quran instead said “people believe in a trinity, Allah Jesus and Mary, that’s wrong” and that is unacceptable. The book’s author is either ignorant or a liar.

>I’ve never heard any prayers to the Holy Spirit

“Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth. O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations, Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.”

Also, you claim to believe in Jesus, yet you blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You call it the “1/3rd ghost god,” Jesus would oppose your blasphemy

>[Jesus said] “I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme.

>But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" —

>because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

The Quran corroborates this gospels claim that Jesus was accompanied by the Holy Spirit

>[Quran 5:110] God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessings upon you and your mother. I supported you with the Holy Spirit, to enable you to speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult. I taught you the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel.

You blaspheme the Holy Spirit and a man you call your prophet. God will send you to hellfire so fast you won’t have time to speak any more blasphemies as you go down.

>>27054

Yep, it's a troll. Well played for all the responses you're getting - and don't assume we don't know you're the same guy hopping IPs to create a false consensus - but at least you're contained.

>>27054

The Quran never says Mary is in the trinity you pagan ghoul. You make a self serving and linguistically false inference. Again, type من دون in your google translate, Madison. It means without and instead of, not alongside or as a ‘triune’.

<I’ve never heard any prayers to the Holy Spirit

I said SAW, you bore false witness and changed it to HEARD. You have one prayer of extrabiblical undetermined origin to the dove god but you don’t have many shrines for it. There’s not much bowing and kissing ofdove god statues, like the other ones you lick. Get on your knees for that dove, pagan brat.

>Also, you claim to believe in Jesus, yet you blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You call it the “1/3rd ghost god,” Jesus would oppose your blasphemy

Jesus is not your prophet or mine and he never claimed a triune god so give it up. Matthew if a real person was a lawkeeping Jew and Jesus is telling the other lawkeeping Jews not to blaspheme the holy spirit (angel Gabriel) because he doesn’t have to tell the Jews not to blaspheme God. You trinnies blaspheme God with your trinity and this is because Jesus was not your prophet and you had no ground rules or 101 understanding of monotheism. This is precisely why Jesus never preached to non-Jews his entire prophetic ministry. By dealing with his jewish compatriots certain things went unsaid and you bubonic fools never understood that.

>[Quran 5:110] God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessings upon you and your mother. I supported you with the Holy Spirit, to enable you to speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult. I taught you the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel.

The holy spirit is the angel Gabriel.

>You blaspheme the Holy Spirit and a man you call your prophet. God will send you to hellfire so fast you won’t have time to speak any more blasphemies as you go down.

Jesus is not our prophet, trinnie mouse, we recognize him as A prophet to the lost sheep of Israel. Your fire and brimstone falls flat as you are lawless polytheist Jesus would have dismissed as a dog and Jesus will tell you on the day of resurrection to depart from him, he never knew you. Jesus will be trembling before his Creator and you will no longer derive comfort from pagan delusions of him.

>>27057

>>27055

Trinnies: Don’t you dare blaspheme the holy spirit! *proceeds to declare holy spirit to be 1/3rd Person Of God (POG), blaspheming God*

With trinnies it’s always “amazing” but it’s never “grace.”

>>27057

So you blaspheme the Holy Spirit and deny the prophethood of Jesus Christ. You might as well get drunk and try some bacon, because God will reject you on judgement day.

>>27058

The Holy Spirit is not 1/3rd of God. The trinity doesn’t teach that the Holy Spirit is 1/3rd of God. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with this post

>>27061

Face it, you wouldn’t be satisfied unless the entire pseudo-athanasian was contained in the Quran. It’s lost on no one that you demand psuedo-athanasian creed in my scripture but not yours. You demand psuedo-athanasian creed from the tongue of my prophet but not the tongue of your mangod. Your anti-unitarian/anti-binitarian bigotry has no justification as you trinnies don’t have a monopoly on the NT (or OT) and never did. There are millions of real monotheists that claim OT or OT+NT and well - trinnies are the fifth wheel.

Tl;dr Arians > trinit-Arians forever and ever, amen.

They wore out their welcome again.

Due to christians spamming the board with graphic pornography and copypasting the same dissonant responses over and over again from their missionary sites - this thread is closed.

When this thread is closed trinnies are not tolerated on the board. A boardwide moratorium on trini pornlings is now in effect.

>>22921

>Interesting since the Didache recommends the triune form of baptism:

>"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neithe

There is nothing triune about that, it never says they are god or even attributes of god. That formulation means baptize in name of God, his prophet, and the one who gave the prophet revelation - Gabriel. You roman pagans wanted a triune so you cobbled together what you could get.

>>27373

>That formulation means baptize in name of God, his prophet, and the one who gave the prophet revelation - Gabriel.

where are you getting any of that from that verse?

William Lane Craig, the worshipper of the cerberus-deity, strikes again: The Islamic God(which was worshipped by every single Prophet including Mohammed pbuh but excluding Jesus according to wlc) is weaker(not all-powerful) than the Christian God because the latter was powerful enough to become human and get murdered by jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJK3irA_sQA

I'm surprised WLC isn't worshipping the hindu god since he can become cows and elephants with superpowers which must be even more all-powerful than his cerberus-deity that was crucified(although as others have pointed out the christians do worship a version of the hindu trinity).

It's of course well known that christians insult God, eg by comparing Him to a three-headed dog, or depicting Him as an old white-haired man(which btw is what paved the way for atheists to try to slander and ridicule theists by saying they worship santa claus in the clouds etc.), but they also end up insulting Jesus.

Not a single Prophet before Jesus ever taught anything about a trinity or worshipping a man. The jews, which Jesus was sent to preach to, had been taught by God that worshipping a creature was the most vile of deeds(of course what they do in practice is a different topic). But then come christians, claiming to love and follow Jesus, saying that no actually Jesus went around telling people to worship a human. So I'd like to point out two things:

a) If this was true then he was an apostate heretic and the jews justified in trying to have him murdered, so why would jews be condemned?

b) Jesus would be doing the same thing that Pharao did by claiming divinity for himself. Christians believe that God punished the Pharao, who claimed to be divine, only to send another human and tell people to worship him, after telling them to never worship a creature or idol. And the irony doesn't end there. According to christians Jesus was crucified and humiliated whereas the Pharao basically had a huge kingdom and enjoined immense respect. So which one would be more appropriate to be worshipped if any human was?

Muslims worship the same God that every single Prophet worshipped and called people to do the same. Even christians can not claim that anyone spoke of trinity before Jesus supposedly did. Christians reject that for something that Jesus MAYBE preached(depending on whether or not you accept that church leaders were divinely inspired even though Jesus never established the church nor said anything about one).

So when christians accuse Muslims for worshipping a different God since we don't affirm the father-son relationship, then they're saying the same about every Prophet before Jesus. So at least they're honest in affirming that we have the same theology as for example Abraham.

>>27403

You Christians completely misunderstood what the holy spirit was, probably because the authors of the NT seemed to have been more interested in transmitting absurd stories including, but not limited to, the devil tempting God by offering Him God's own kingdom, than accurately representing what Jesus actually taught. And it doesn't exactly help that half of the NT is attributed to someone who never even met Jesus, so it's no wonder then that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>27752

>>27752

>Not a single Prophet before Jesus ever taught anything about a trinity or worshipping a man.

God doesnt have to reveal everything at once to all people. Progressive revelation and abrogation have their place. No?

>Muslims worship the same God that every single Prophet worshipped and called people to do the same. Even christians can not claim that anyone spoke of trinity before Jesus supposedly did. Christians reject that for something that Jesus MAYBE preached(depending on whether or not you accept that church leaders were divinely inspired even though Jesus never established the church nor said anything about one).

>So when christians accuse Muslims for worshipping a different God since we don't affirm the father-son relationship, then they're saying the same about every Prophet before Jesus. So at least they're honest in affirming that we have the same theology as for example Abraham.

You have a point but it's a tricky subject.

In the old testament, the prophets saw God as "father" : Isaiah 63:16, this relation continues into the new testament, but isn't present in Islam, is it?

God in the Old Testament manifested and appeared on earth, within creation. Walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, appeared as a burning bush, and spoke to the prophets personally. He was strongly shown to be "person" and "personable", while in Islam he is quite distant and non-person, "unlike anything", neither male nor female, so far removed from man that he uses angels as mediums, etc.

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the."

But then this goes back to how authentic are the original old testament scriptures that the jews used for "thousands" of years which were then adopted by the christians…

>>27758

>Progressive revelation and abrogation have their place. No?

No, abrogation has not taken place in belief ie monotheism. How could it possibly if you say that Jesus and all of God's persons are eternal? That just makes God a liar then. And that still doesn't answer the problem: none of the previous Prophets affirmed "the son" either. I know christians like to claim Muslims say God deceived people with Jesus, but in fact christians believe God deceived people about God so that He'd first tell people He's not a man(see the verses OP posted) and then He'd tell people to worship Him as a man. So basically He(according to christians) lied and tricked the jews into believing that worshipping a man is the worst sin only to then demand they do so.

And the trinity is false even if you allow for progressive revelation since God could have an infinite amount of persons, the NT never said there's only three. So mormonism seems the more correct position then with their infinite gods, but christians don't allow that since they follow the "revelations" of their church fathers(false prophets) even though Jesus authorized neither the church nor joseph smith, they're all equally illegitimate.

>In the old testament, the prophets saw God as "father" : Isaiah 63:16, this relation continues into the new testament, but isn't present in Islam, is it?

What does the old testament have to do with Abraham? Anyway, the the "sons" are all the believers and not limited to Jesus so the concept is not shared between christianity and judaism anyway. Father means something else to christians. It didn't simply carry over from judaism.

>God in the Old Testament

No doubt the OT contains a lot of absurdities made up by shameless lying heretics but at the end of the day you have clear verses forbidding taking up idols of what walks on earth, that say God is not a man etc. so at best you can say the OT is a contradictory which is problematic for christians who base the legitimacy of Jesus on the OT. And modern jews at least reject any anthropomorphism so clearly they have ways of re-interpreting the verses you're referring to.

>>27759

I'm not really looking to argue here, just wanted to point out how they're not totally inconsistent given the scriptures they read.

>How could it possibly if you say that Jesus and all of God's persons are eternal?

Christians are monotheists imo, so nothing was abrogated in terms of monotheism, they just have multiplicity at the level of personhood, but oneness at the level of being. I don't know, maybe I've watched too much scifi or anime, but this idea isn't bizarre or incoherent to me.

>but in fact christians believe God deceived people about God so that He'd first tell people He's not a man(see the verses OP posted)

I would interpret verses like that generously, the gist being that God is not like us in the sense that we lie and cheat and break promises. The qualifiers are the point. And a Christian would say that at that time God was not incarnate anyway…or something. I don't find it a good argument.

>And the trinity is false even if you allow for progressive revelation since God could have an infinite amount of persons, the NT never said there's only three

I don't know the NT that well, but logically if it doesn't say "theres only three persons" then a future revelation stating God has infinite persons wouldn't be a contradiction. Since threeness is subsumed in the infinite. A contradiction would occur if they went down in number to 2 persons or 1.

> you have clear verses forbidding taking up idols of what walks on earth, that say God is not a man etc. so at best you can say the OT is a contradictory which is problematic for christians who base the legitimacy of Jesus on the OT.

The idol thing is tricky because an object is not an idol in-itself, but only in relation to how a person treats it and views it.

> And modern jews at least reject any anthropomorphism so clearly they have ways of re-interpreting the verses you're referring to.

Ya they tend to reinterpret things to suit the spirit of the age they find themselves in.

>>27761

>Christians are monotheists imo

Their "monotheism" is impossible to define without the word "three". It wasn't defined by Jesus that way.

>they just have multiplicity at the level of personhood

Which no one believed before Jesus.

>God is not like us in the sense that we lie and cheat and break promises. The qualifiers are the point.

Yes and God demonstrates this by saying quite clearly that He's not a man because men lie, cheat and break promises. So one can then ask the question, does Jesus' human nature lie, cheat and break promises? If God first did not lie because he wasn't a man, then when He became a man then we know that there's nothing stopping Him from lying anymore.

>God was not incarnate anyway

The Persons still existed eternally. But yes Jesus' human nature did not exist then, because God had not created it yet.

>then a future revelation stating God has infinite persons wouldn't be a contradiction.

That was my point though. So mormons believing that there's an infinite number of gods(I'm sure they could just describe them as persons if they wanted) shouldn't be far fetched for christians. Nor hinduism. Why should God only create a human nature for himself and not a bovine as well? Doesn't God love cows that he'd need to be one to feel their suffering too?

>>27763

>Yes and God demonstrates this by saying quite clearly that He's not a man because men lie, cheat and break promises.

Yes, as a general rule men do those things but exceptions can exist. It's not necessary for all men to cheat, lie and break promises, etc.

>Why should God only create a human nature for himself and not a bovine as well? Doesn't God love cows that he'd need to be one to feel their suffering too?

I'm not sure how taking up the human nature works, but animals don't have souls or play the same role in creation as man does, I don't think animals are under the 'test'…

>>27764

>men do those things but exceptions can exist. It's not necessary for all men to cheat, lie and break promises, etc.

Then the verse in the OT is phrased poorly and of questionable divine origin. God specifically chose to demonstrate His not lying by saying he's not a man, only to become a man.

>I'm not sure how taking up the human nature works, but animals don't have souls or play the same role in creation as man does

Shouldn't matter if God is unconditionally all-loving. If becoming human is needed to be such then becoming a cow should be needed to love cows.

>>27765

>Shouldn't matter if God is unconditionally all-loving. If becoming human is needed to be such then becoming a cow should be needed to love cows.

Not sure what you mean. To Christians he didn't become human in-order-to love mankind, or because he needed to, but because he already loved mankind and chose to show it that way.

>>27766

Yes that's what I said, christians believe God's becoming human is a necessary consequence of His all-loving nature, thus I say that if He loves cows then why has He not created a bovine nature for Himself?

>>27767

>God's becoming human is a necessary consequence of His all-loving nature

couldn't he just choose to incarnate as an exercise of his freedom and his love for mankind? not as a 'necessary consequence' of something in particular

>why didn't he incarnate as a cow

well because he didn't choose to, and maybe there's something significant about human nature (which is made in his image already) that he finds more congenial than bovine nature?

I dunno, I don't wanna play their advocate anymore

>>27770

My point was that if becoming human is a more complete all-loving nature then a god that becomes not only man but also a female and every other type of creation would be more complete and all-loving, thus the christian god is deficient in love and not the greatest conceivable being(this is in response to WLC).

>which is made in his image already)

I wonder if it is humans that were made in the image of God or vice versa, since God took on the human form.

>>27775

>My point was that if becoming human is a more complete all-loving nature

I wouldn't make this argument. Whatever God does is already complete with love and wisdom. Whether he incarnates and becomes more personable or remains distant and more obscure.

>My point was that if becoming human is a more complete all-loving nature then a god that becomes not only man but also a female and every other type of creation would be more complete and all-loving,

females and males share the same human nature, our human nature is the unifying element between people of all races, genders and ages. So all people from all places and times are covered already by virtue of sharing the same nature.

>thus the christian god is deficient in love and not the greatest conceivable being(this is in response to WLC).

sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, doesn't make much sense

>>27790

>I wouldn't make this argument.

Ok? It's a common argument by christians. If you wouldn't use it then I assume you agree with me that it's dumb so what are you even arguing about?

>females and males share the same human nature

Not according to the bible which says among other things that

>men were created in the image of God whereas women were not

>women are evil and deceptive in nature and the cause of the original sin

Seems pretty significant.

>sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing

I could say the same to you since you don't even represent christian belief.

>>27166

How is that stupid? The Son is the Son because of his relation to the Father. Have you never read any work of theology? Oh that's right, you're a low IQ Mud who believes in an illiterate 7th century desert nomad who literally plagiarized stories he heard from local Jews and Christians and called it the Qur'an.

See, /islam/ allows a free-speech thread for these trini dogs to try to argue for their religion, as opposed to /christian/ where no such is allowed. So is that what they do? No, they come instead to spam insults and porn.

>>27975

>trini dogs

We know that "whoever has the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life and God's wrath is upon them" (John 3:36)

for we know that "no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal to." (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22)

But you have the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:3), therefore you are antichrists, just as your false Arabian prophet was, who's very name is too blasphemous to even make utterance of, and every time God hears your false Arabia prophet's name uttered he fills with wrath at how utterly blasphemous and ungodly your doctrines and your laws are.

(FYI: We did have a /christian/ vs /islam/ debate thread not that long ago, but there wasn't too much response, it seems because you were all too afraid to debate knowing that you might be safer on /islam/ but on /christian/ you would get trampled.)

>>27975

>trini dogs

Attack the argument, not the person. Breaking forum rules will result in a ban. Please be civil.

>>27979

That rule doesn't apply to this thread.

>>27978

>We did have a /christian/ vs /islam/ debate thread not that long ago, but there wasn't too much response,

Liar. It was a Christianity vs Islam General and it got all the way up to #11 before y'all couldn't take any more and stopped making them. Then again, it doesn't surprise me when a Mushrik lies.

>>27979

Let me know when they present any arguments. Until then they don't deserve any better.

>>27982

Come make your own thread ☻, see how we destroy your sand religion which was literally plagiarized from Jewish and Christian sources.

>>27998

>sand religion

As opposed to the snowy mountains of Nazareth. Of course you're just an atheist LARPer.

>plagiarized from Jewish and Christian sources.

You deny divine revelation, like the atheist bible scholars who conclude that the gospels of the NT must've been plagiarized from each other where they contain the same material, and that christianity as a whole is just a cocktail of pagan myths.

>>27998

>sand religion

Where do you think Jesus a.s lived?

>>27763

>Their "monotheism" is impossible to define without the word "three". It wasn't defined by Jesus that way.

It's still monotheism. Allah's 99 names, or his multiple omni-properties don't negate his oneness. And the Christian God's multiple personas do not negate his oneness either. There is a metaphysical distinction between beingness and personhood.

>>28050

We don't claim His (s.w.t) attributes are independent persons. Bad analogy. You worship a creation, that makes you an idolater.

>>28050

If names are analogous to persons then you'd have to make "the son" and Jesus two different entries in your godhead, which you don't. So that analogy doesn't work.

And it's still a fact that not Jesus nor any prophet before him defined anything close to a Mushrikeen godhead. This was innovated by latter christians. So even if we for the sake of argument accept that God has multiple persons, then you are lying about Him anyway by defining it to three.

>>28052

>You worship a creation, that makes you an idolater.

That's correct. Christians worship Jesus' human nature which was created by God at a certain point in time.

>>28056

>>28052

analogy works just fine, analogies dont have to be 1 to 1 exact, they never will be, that's the point. You're supposed to pick up the point indirectly, by approximation.

A name is not the same as "being", a property is not the same as "being", and likewise a persona is not the same as "being". A being can have multiple personas, or NO personas, a being can have multiple names, or no names, and still be one being. This doesn't mean that names and personas are the same, obviously they aren't, but it means they are not essential to beingness nor do they create multiplicity in beings. Name, property, ability, power, persona are on a different level than being itself.

>>28056

if God incarnates and walks among you, then it is your duty to worship the God that incarnated, not the God you prefer or think is more logical or aligns with your gut feeling. No?

there's nothing illogical about God incarnating and being among his creations, he has infinite power and can do all things.

now whether he did incarnate and reveal himself to mankind or prefers to remain hidden and impersonal is a matter of faith.

>>28058

If God tells to you that He was never born from a womb then it is your duty to stop believing that, and not reject God's revelation in favor for what aligns to your emotions and ideas of what an "all-loving god" needs to do. There's nothing illogical about God not needing to have a son to be all-powerful.

>prefers to remain hidden and impersonal

According to you God stayed hidden for thousands, or billions, of years, then he visited earth for 30 years or something, revealed his true identity to 12 people, and then went back to hiding in the sky. What about the rest of humans who need a "personal" God? Oh that's right, they make do with painting pictures of pigeons and worshipping statues, like regular paganism which is condemned throughout the OT. I guess the OT prophets or believers never had any connection to their God.

As a Muslim I already have a connection to my Lord by

>accepting His authority and following His laws, instead of abrogating whatever I don't feel like doing

>asking Him for help instead of hundreds of saints

>recognizing everything in this world as His creation and blessing

I earn absolutely nothing by god supposedly having visited earth 2000 years ago and getting killed by jews.

>>28057

I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying here turns out to be a heresy similar to modalism. You have to define christian according to a creed formulated almost 400 years later because there's nothing in your bible about it. That's why when you ask 10 christians to define their "monotheism" you will get 11 different answers.

So this does not discuss the trinity of Christians but I felt it belonged in this thread, one thing that interested me along the way of my search for how to worship God as I gradually learned and accepted Islam, is that the Odinist and Norse Pagan LARPers, like Varg VIkernes and 'golden one' who worship despite them being cultural atheists, they worship the norse gods but I found that 'Loki' the so called brother of 'Thor' is said in traditional norse mythology to be a gender swapping, species changing queer (https://www.tor.com/2017/11/27/lokis-equine-offspring-birthing-the-eight-legged-sleipnir/). There is a norse myth in which loki turns into a female horse and is impregnated. So I found that utterly hilarious. The polytheists embarrass themselves.

>>28254

leave the jew out, they are evil.

>>28255

They are human beings. Some choose to do good and worship God without partners, some choose evil.

>>28254

Is the christian "argument" the left ie that Muslims worship a different God? If so pretty good answer. IMO I think it's a silly objection to begin with since they just end up attacking themselves before Muslims. None of them can claim any of the previous Prophets worshipped a triune godhead or affirmed the father-son relationship. In fact as the verse OP quoted says, they specifically worshipped a God that is not a man, whereas christians worship a God that is a man. Yet that's supposed to be the same God somehow. So if anything, christians don't worship the same God as Abraham, Moses, or even Jesus, or even the authors of the new testament, since none of them defined the trinity either.

>>28259

Well, I guess the question is whether they worship an entirely different God or whether they worship the same God but have very wrong ideas about Him? I lean toward the latter.

>>28259

And yeah, that's the point the Christian is are trying to make there. That pic is probably meant to accompany the usual incoherent ramblings about black cubes, moon gods, the planet saturn, and "your father the devil".

>>28260

Well in short I'd just say they're committing shirk. So they lie about Him and propagate very wrong ideas.

>>28261

Ok yeah. A funny thing about the saturn and moon nonsense is that the very catholic church itself is accused of the same thing(and worse) by their fellow christians.

>>28262

>Well in short I'd just say they're committing shirk. So they lie about Him and propagate very wrong ideas.

Which would go to prove they worship the same God. Since if it was a different God we couldn't say their ideas about God are wrong, we could only say that they invented some other God who isn't ours from thin air. The fact that claims they make are said to be wrong claims about God shows that it's a wrong perception of the same God rather than a different God. Thoughts?

>>28263

I probably agree with you. I'd say that they do recognize the God of Abraham. Arab christians do worship Allah. But they set up deities beside Him so they worship false gods as well, which we reject. But I'd rather say I worship the same God as Jesus than say the same God as christians.

>>28257

the majority of self described jews are either atheists, secularists, or wage war against Islam. You only need to notice the animosity that cultural jews like Sam Harris holds against Islam that he does not even hold against Judaism. Even Noam Chomsky (another jew) has called out jews for this hatred of Islam. The secular jews so often call for "reformation" of Islam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGdPcC0zBIQ) yet you can see clearly that these "reformers" are just puppets of the secularists.

Keep in mind also that the actually religious jews resent Islam even more, themselves being turbo-zionists

>>28449

I wasn't talking about ethnic secular Jews

>Keep in mind also that the actually religious jews resent Islam even more, themselves being turbo-zionists

This is a recent development, it's called "dati-leumi" meaning religious nationalism. It's a perversion of their religion. Originally, they were opposed to Zionism, and Jews coexisted with Muslims for hundreds of years before the founding of Israel. There are still some good orthodox Jews like Yaakov Shapiro left, but unfortunatley with time zionism is perverting their religion :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-tRrKeAfQ

I'm not saying you have to love Judaism or something, it has lost of problems and is not consistent with the final revelation brought by the Prophet Muhammad (saws) but don't fall into /pol/tier "antisemitism" either.

Allahu Alim

>>28489

> but don't fall into /pol/tier "antisemitism" either.

I think the jews themselves have acted and shown what judaism is.

>>28449

>>28491

I do so love it when /pol/ comes to visit us.

>>28489

>Jews coexisted with Muslims for hundreds of years before the founding of Israel

Yes and then we saw how they repaid Muslims.

>>28491

Honestly any time someone says "the jews" in that way it's a huge red flag for me. What do you mean "the jews"? Are they one giant hivemind of conniving, money grubbing, interest charging, culture subverting, political subterfuge plotting, "degenerates"? Is there room for literally zero "good Jews" in your worldview? They can't exist?

>>28494

>Yes and then we saw how they repaid Muslims

You think they were plotting it all along? Like the Jews living peacefully in Medieval Andalusia wrote instructions which were passed down to their descendants in the mid 20th century that said "pssst leave the Muslim lands in which you reside and found a socialist secular nation-state in your Biblical homeland"? This was their secret plan all along?

>>28492

There was literally nothing /pol/ about his posts.

>>28495

Most people who say "the jews" are the jews themselves since they claim to have a right to Palestine because they are JEWS. We're constantly reminded by them themselves that they are JEWS. We're constantly reminded what the JEWS had to suffer which now gives them the right to oppress Palestinians. Because Palestinians are not JEWS.

>>28496

>This was their secret plan all along?

We can simply see now what happened when the "state of Israel"(of course Israel aleyhi salaam is free from this terror organization of atheist criminals) was formed. Jews all over the Arab world moved there to help dispel Arabs and turn the demographic numbers in the favor of foreign jews. So jews that had taken refuge under Muslim rule from christians ended up allying with christians to take Palestine from Muslims.

>>28497

>Most people who say "the jews" are the jews themselves since they claim to have a right to Palestine because they are JEWS. We're constantly reminded by them themselves that they are JEWS. We're constantly reminded what the JEWS had to suffer which now gives them the right to oppress Palestinians. Because Palestinians are not JEWS.

What I've said earlier about:

1. the difference between Orthodox and secular Jews

2. the lamentable transformative effect that Zionism has had on Orthodox Judaism itself

Is pertinent and I don't need to restate it. I would also add that we need to look at various historical factors tht contributed to Jews leaving their homelands in the Middle East like the Zionist state apparatus deceiving them about all kinds of "dangers" if they stayed behind (e.g. Moroccans were told by Mossad the gov of Morocco was planning to persecute them and they had to leave ASAP).

>We can simply see now what happened when the "state of Israel"(of course Israel aleyhi salaam is free from this terror organization of atheist criminals) was formed. Jews all over the Arab world moved there to help dispel Arabs and turn the demographic numbers in the favor of foreign jews. So jews that had taken refuge under Muslim rule from christians ended up allying with christians to take Palestine from Muslims.

Do you suffer from some sort of "time agnosia"? Jews living in the middle ages did not leave their nations to join a secular nation-state, that was their descendants who did that hundreds of years later. These are two different sets of individuals. This only reinforces what I said earlier about some Jews doing good and worshipping God with no partners, amd others doing evil.

>>28498

>2. the lamentable transformative effect that Zionism has had on Orthodox Judaism itself

Oh come on. The orthodox jews who "oppose israel" that I keep hearing about are like 12 people. They have literally no influence what so ever. Most jews are atheists and support israel.

>the Zionist state apparatus deceiving them

How did it happen though? Why did they trust a foreign newly formed state over their home country? Oh that's right, because they were jews like them. Go figure.

>Mossad

jews again.

>Do you suffer from some sort of "time agnosia"?

hahaha the entire claim jews have is that they lived there thousands of years ago. Are they the same people? How ironic.

>>28497

>it's "da j0000s"

>not /pol/

Pick one.

Muslims are responsible for Muslims. To sit around crying about "the jews" is beneath us. Allah is our guide and protector and we should fear nothing but Allah. "The Jews" have no power here or anywhere over Muslims.

>>28500

>>it's "da j0000s

Who are you quoting?

>To sit around crying about "the jews"

No one did that in this thread.

>>28499

>Most jews are atheists

Source: Your Ass.

>>28501

You've used damn near every single /pol/ talking point about the Jewish people ITT. You're just a couple posts shy of "The Holocaust was a lie" and "Hitler did nothing wrong".

>>28499

>How did it happen though? Why did they trust a foreign newly formed state over their home country? Oh that's right, because they were jews like them. Go figure.

Yeah, it's one of the many flaws in their religion that leads them to place more trust in secular Jews than in religious Muslims. Hence they made the mistake of leaving their homelands. Making a mistake is not the same thing as consciously plotting in some Machiavellian fashion against da goyim. I'm not arguing that Judaism is the correct religion, or that it doesn't have obvious flaws. I'm arguing that there are Jews who enjoin good and worship God with no parterners, and there are those who do evil. Any objection to that claim? History is much more complicated than the bad guys who are completely bad with zero exceptions versus the good guys who are completely good with zero exceptions.

As for everything else in your post…either unclear or already addressed by me.

>>28503

>You've used damn near every single /pol/ talking point about the Jewish people ITT.

Oh get real. I hate /pol/ as much as everyone else, doesn't mean I have to buy your jew-apologia, and it doesn't mean I have to use their talking points.

>"You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."

>>28505

I want you to go over to /christian/ right now, find their QTDDTOT thread and ask, "Who are the true Jews?"

I'll wait.

>>28504

But the jews have been plotting against Muslims for a long time, I refer to abdullah ibn saba as an example.

>Any objection to that claim?

I think you're phrasing it wrong. But yes obviously I wouldn't say there's not a SINGLE DECENT JEW. Nor have I said it.

>>28507

>"every single Jew is evil

No one has said that here.

>>28506

Why?

>>28508

>abdullah ibn saba

Abdullah ibn Saba, whoever that is, is presumably a jew. Abdullah ibn Saba is not "the jews". So on top of "time agnosia" you also have trouble distinguishing between differing quantities. This is some serious impairment.

>>28509

>Abdullah ibn Saba is not "the jews"

I never said one person is "the jews". Which one person is "the khawarij"? Which one person is "the christians"? You could go on.

>So on top of "time agnosia"

I've already addressed this objection.

>>28510

>I've already addressed this objection

I fail to see how you addressed that, at all. Please have an approved parent or guardian present to review your posts before you press submit.

>>20806

This argument against Trini.tarianism is odd to me since it assumes that nothing holy can exist in the mortal realm because Allah is completely separate from it, including revelations which would be immediately misconstrued by mortal man. If that was the case then there would be no holiness to the scripture, invalidating the beliefs of any person of the book, unitarian or not. Christians believe in the holiness of one God but extend that holiness ("Holy Spirit") to Jesus, through whom they are sanctified. How is this any different from Allah revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad or the Torah to Moses, through whose words Muslims and Jews respectively are sanctified? Because the scripture is undoubtedly holy yet exists in the mortal world, wouldn't Jews and Muslims then be considered "dualitarians" due to worshiping God through the book?

>>28591

It doesn't claim "nothing holy can exist". Lots of things can be holy/sacred. Sacred Prophets, sacred books, sacred angels, sacred days, sacred months etc. Arguments against Mushrikeenism are arguments against those who posit that God is divided into multiple persons (whether or not those persons share the same essence)

>How is this any different from Allah revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad

It's actualy quite similar. Even the Quran testifies that Isa (as) is a Word from Allah, just like Adam (as) was. The difference being that they do not identify that word with God, neither as a "separate person" nor as the "same person" or what have you. I'm not a theologian and may Allah (swt) excuse me for any mistakes I've made. Allahu Alim.

>>28593

>Mushrikeenism

yeah that was an auto-filter lol

>>28594

It's fitting.

>Those who say, "God is the Messiah, son of Mary," have defied God. The Messiah himself said; "Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord." If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers. Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

Why does the Quran insist on misinterpreting the trinity here? The nicene creed clearly states that all three persons of the trinity are the one Lord, sharing the substance of God without any division, yet the Quran asserts that only one person, unspecified, possesses that substance. Why would the Quran condemn the beliefs of a group of people that don't exist?

>>28785

>>28837

Ok but does the Quran insist on misinterpreting the trinity? The nicene creed clearly states that all three persons of the trinity are the one Lord, sharing the substance of God without any division, yet the Quran asserts that only one person, unspecified, possesses that substance. Why would the Quran condemn the beliefs of a group of people that don't exist?

>>28907

You dont see how that can be blasphemous? To say that God wasn't perfect in the OT, but now suddenly is when Jesus (pbuh) was born in the NT?

Think about it this way. To say that one can contain the infinite majesty of God inside of one man would diminish God. Jesus (pabbuh) was a man. He felt hunger, thirst, fatigue, he even prays to God. If he was God, why would he need anything? Why would he need to eat food or pray to himself?

Another thing to consider would be the orginal koine greek used to describe Jesus (pbuh). Throughout the Gospels Jesus has the title "Son of God" using the greek word pais which translates to (according to Strong's concordance):

Male child, boy, male slave, servant

But not son

One can deduce from this that in the orginal greek, jesus called himself the "Servant of God" like the prophets before him. Even in the Septuagint the OT in Greek in Psalms David is described as 'pais', a servant of God.

So than why the sudden change that the same title that was given to David, suddenly means son and ergo something worthy of our worship?

Why is it that when the prophets of the OT perform a miricle, God is credited but when Jesus (pbuh) performs a miricle he is credited and not God? Its these inconsistencies that caused the Arian rift in the first place, making way for the rise of Islam.

>>28907

The Quran never mentioned your "nicene trinity". The Quran says "don't say three" because God never revealed Himself as "three" or defined Himself in any way with the number three. It doesn't matter if you say persons, gods, spirits, souls, whatever. And God never called Himself "person" either. God is in the Quran condemning you for making up things.

You should be more worried about why your own bible is misrepresenting the trinity. For example why does it say that the Jesus entity is less of a God than the father entity? Not even the authors of the NT knew of your nicene trinity, let alone Jesus himself, peace be upon him.

>>28908

>To say that God wasn't perfect in the OT, but now suddenly is when Jesus (pbuh) was born in the NT?

The incarnation on earth of the uncreated creator is not remotely the same as his being created. Who on earth would make such a blasphemous claim that God could ever be imperfect?

>Think about it this way. To say that one can contain the infinite majesty of God inside of one man would diminish God.

On the contrary, I would assert that to claim that God, whom none of us on earth can even perceive the fullness of, could not do so, could not fully put on a form of our frailty and mortality, would be to put a limit on what God is capable of, which is far more blasphemous in my estimation.

>If he was God, why would he need anything?

"And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Luke 23;35-43

>Why is it that when the prophets of the OT perform a miricle, God is credited but when Jesus (pbuh) performs a miricle he is credited and not God?

Because Jesus is God. If you want a more comprehensive understanding of the theology of the trinity, I recommend you read you read De Trinitate by Augustine of Hippo. This board has a habit of asserting that the trinity was just invented out of thin air but the scriptural evidence, particularly John 1, John 10:29-31 (which thoroughly refutes your claims about Jesus calling himself just a servant as well) and Jesus's requests not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is pretty cut and dry.

>For example why does it say that the Jesus entity is less of a God than the father entity? Not even the authors of the NT knew of your nicene trinity, let alone Jesus himself, peace be upon him.

The authors of the NT alternate between calling him both equal (John 10:30, John 1, Philippians 2:6 [written before any of the gospels], the various points where Jesus says "I am" and gets stoned.), and lesser (John 14:28, Matthew 12:26 concerning the Holy Spirit, and everything concerning his mortal nature.)

Jesus himself even claimed both equality and subservience to the Father within the same sermon at the last supper in John 14. That passage, along with all the others, lay the seeds for an interpretation that cannot deny either Jesus's humanity or his divinity without flatly contradicting scripture.

>God is in the Quran condemning you for making up things.

Then why can it not even condemn what we actually believe in? "Don't say three" has nothing to do with this debate and isn't even the verse in question, "God is the third of three" is, and this glaring error in muhammed's perception of our beliefs still needs to be addressed, directly.

>>28911

>The authors of the NT alternate between calling him both equal … and lesser

So it's contradictory, which isn't surprising when it was written by different people with different theology.

2 Corinthians 13:14

>May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Here God(which in the Arabic bible reads Allah) is clearly portrayed as one of three, the other two being Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That's by Paul himself, so go ahead and say he misrepresented the trinity.

There's also john 3:34, in which the Arabic bible reads: Allah, the Word and the Holy spirit. But even if you reject this as an error in translation(which still means every Arab christian today also misunderstands the trinity) the above should be enough.

The thing is, even if we for the sake of argument says that the verse is not the NICENE CREED then it's irrelevant, because it never says it is the nicene creed to begin with. So all it means is that the Quran is refuting the sect of nasaara that does say that.

You're also ignoring that the Quran is from God and God has the right to define correct theology. So when He says that what you're doing is tantamount to having several deities(ilaah's) then you can't say anything is being "misrepresented".

>>28914

>So it's contradictory, which isn't surprising when it was written by different people with different theology.

Did you not read my post? The Gospel of John, written by one author, makes multiple references to Jesus as lesser and equal to the Father. That point dosen't address mine at all.

>Here God(which in the Arabic bible reads Allah) is clearly portrayed as one of three, the other two being Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That's by Paul himself, so go ahead and say he misrepresented the trinity.

So God, presumably the Father here, Jesus, of whom Paul says in Phillipians 2:6-7 "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness," and the Holy Spirit, of which he says in 1 Corinthians 2:11-12 "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." So, Paul describes three persons, all of whom equal the infinite and indivisible God in qualities, Jesus in full form and the Spirit in wisdom, in the way that no created creature can. One divinity, three persons. So yes, Muhammed misrepresented the trinity, unless…

>So all it means is that the Quran is refuting the sect of nasaara that does say that.

If you could point me to proof that there was, in fact, a sect that held these beliefs in the time an place the Quran was written, that would be enough proof for me. As it stands, a quick google seach does not reveal that.

>You're also ignoring that the Quran is from God and God has the right to define correct theology. So when He says that what you're doing is tantamount to having several deities(ilaah's) then you can't say anything is being "misrepresented".

Yes and, as you probably imagine, I don't believe the Quran is the Word of God, just as you don't believe the Bible is, so I'm not sure what your point is.

>There's also john 3:34, in which the Arabic bible reads: Allah, the Word and the Holy spirit.

Not sure what your point is here either.

>>28915

>So God, presumably the Father here

Then why don't you say that "Allah" in the Quran in that ayat is what you call father? So the "father" is one of three [persons]. No misrepresentations.

>So, Paul describes three persons

Did you read my post? In 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul portrays God(Allah) as being one of three. So your objection has already been answered.

You're projecting your own creed onto Paul. Where did he write:

>all three persons of the trinity are the one Lord, sharing the substance of God without any division

? What seems to be the case is that he misrepresented the trinity in fact.

>If you could point me to proof that there was

The proof is that they're referred to in the Quran. Where's your proof that the jews existed that questioned Jesus as portrayed in the NT? There's no mention of that outside the NT. Jews don't have such records in their writings today. What's the proof that any of the polemics mentioned in the NT against jews? It's not exactly a secret that there has existed hundreds of christian sects with differing theologies. Most of them were suppressed as "heretics" and their writings burnt though, so not much has survived. You have to prove why the author of the Quran would condemn someone that didn't exist. It would be very easy for the nasaraa then to just say that we don't believe this. But that did not happen.

The nicene creed was not misrepresented since it was not mentioned in the first place, just as the Arabic paganism was not presented in any notable detail either. Nor the hindu trinity. Nor norse mythology etc. If you say that your belief is not the same as the "nasaraa" referred to in the Quran then fine, so? All that means is that you're a nondescript pagan mushrik idolator on the same level as hindus. I have no problem considering you as such if that's what you prefer.

>Not sure what your point is here either.

Your objection is that no one says God is one of three, well clearly that's wrong as even your own bible makes God out to be one of three.

>>28916

>Did you read my post? In 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul portrays God(Allah) as being one of three. So your objection has already been answered.

Did you read my post? Paul describes Jesus as being equal to God in Phillipians 2:6-7, and Paul describes the Holy Spirit being equal to God in 1 Corinthians 2:11-12, making them all persons of the one indivisible divinity. So your objection has already been answered.

>Where did he: all three persons of the trinity are the one Lord, sharing the substance of God without any division

He did not. What he did write, as I have shown you, is that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit were equal to God the Father, Jesus explicitly and the Holy Spirit by possessing the full, infinite wisdom of God . Unless you want to start changing the definition of God, you know that God is indivisible. Therefore, if these persons are equal to God, then they cannot be two extra divinities but one divine, indivisible substance fully possessed by three, co-equal persons, as the many other verses of the New Testament I already cited attest too.

>Then why don't you say that "Allah" in the Quran in that ayat is what you call father? So the "father" is one of three [persons].

That interpretation, at least the first sentence, is sound linguistically, yet not theologically, and refuting the theology was the main thrust of that verse, so defenses of it should be addressed to the theology, not the linguistics.

>Your objection is that no one says God is one of three, well clearly that's wrong as even your own bible makes God out to be one of three…

…if you divorce the verses of the individual authors, like you've done with Paul and John, from the context of the totality of these individual's writings, yes. Your argument suggest to me that this was very likely what Muhammed did as well, but your points about the Jews in the OT, even if the opinions of an entire sect should be better documented then the opinions of Jews on one of many claiming they were the messiah, are fair, so I suppose I can accept that the true meaning of the verse cannot be definitively determined. Still, that kind of exegisis wouldn't hold water with even an amateur biblical scholar.

>>28918

Oh bleh, that second sentence is fine theologically too. Forgive me, too much coffee is making me skip a few beats.

>>28918

>So your objection has already been answered

You've yet to show where Paul wrote

>>all three persons of the trinity are the one Lord, sharing the substance of God without any division

So I'll use the same standard you're using and say until you've shown me Paul wrote the above then he misrepresented the trinity. So far what you've presented is ambiguous and could be affirmed by any number of christian heretical groups as well.

> What he did write…

That's your own interpretation.

>is sound linguistically, yet not theologically

Of course it's not sound theologically, that's the entire point.

>so defenses of it should be addressed to the theology, not the linguistics.

You're misrepresenting the verse so of course I'll address the linguistics. You can't understand the verse to begin with to then start talking about theology.

>I suppose I can accept that the true meaning of the verse cannot be definitively determined.

It's very clear but you're too stubborn and willfully blind.

>that kind of exegisis wouldn't hold water with even an amateur biblical scholar.

Your exegesis of the Quran wouldn't hold water with even an amateur tafsir scholar.

You yourself admitted that "God" can be used interchangeably with the father. So even if we accept for the sake of argument that the ayat refers to the trinity then God is one of three [persons].

>>28918

>better documented then the opinions of Jews on one of many claiming they were the messia

Ok so let me get this straight. Someone claiming to be the messiah and not just that, but GOD HIMSELF having come down to earth, and He then preached to the children of israel, ie the jews, including the rabbis, and then rose from the dead, and shown himself to 500 israelites, none of this is mentioned at all in jewish sources. None of this survived apparently. But you expect complete documentation of every single christian sect to have existed including the ones in 6th century Arabia?

>>28920

>So I'll use the same standard you're using and say until you've shown me Paul wrote the above then he misrepresented the trinity.

That's a pretty bad standard given that the verses I've shown logically point to such a statement, so if all you can offer as a counterargument is stating "other people can have different opinions" in lieu of challenging the majority interpretation of the text then I think I'll pass.

>Of course it's not sound theologically, that's the entire point.

Yes, that is the entire point; the Quran's critiques of the trinity, seeing as they don't address the trinity as christians believe in it, is not theologically sound. If you can find some prominent Muslim scholars to back up your interpretation then I can accept it, but even then there's no denying that theological error far overshadows lingusitic accuracy in this regard, especially if Muhammed was exhorting his pupils to avoid a certain theology.

> Someone claiming to be the messiah and not just that, but GOD HIMSELF having come down to earth, and He then preached to the children of israel, ie the jews, including the rabbis, and then rose from the dead, and shown himself to 500 israelites, none of this is mentioned at all in jewish sources.

Actually mention is made of him, the apostle James, and the prophet John the Baptist in the writings of Josephus, the most famous Jewish scholar of the era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#James_the_brother_of_Jesus

>But you expect complete documentation of every single Christian sect to have existed including the ones in 6th century Arabia?

I expect documentation of one if someone is going to claim that there is sect whereby the trinity, a theological interpretation of God that specifies three persons in one God, is composed of one God and two creatures. If you are going to claim that Muhammed is referring to a completely alien theology then the burden of proof is on you. Surely there must be some scholarship on the subject?

>>28922

All your argument amounts to is at this point is "my opinions are facts". Your interpretation of the Quran is literally worthless.

>as they don't address the trinity as christians believe in it, is not theologically sound.

You're just repeating your claim over and over again without addressing my refutation.

>if Muhammed was exhorting his pupils to avoid a certain theology.

Muhammed peace be upon him, addressed the christians directly. They had much time and ample of opportunity to point out any misrepresentations.

>in the writings of Josephu

which were tampered by christians and scholars hold that the actually theologically relevant parts were inauthentic. The original says nothing about Jesus being God nor having resurrected from the dead. It's the greatest proof against you not for you.

>I expect

You have no rational basis for that expectation to start off with as I've already pointed out. You have a bigger problem with there not being any unbiased documentation of God visiting earth and preaching to the israelites and no else.

It's certainly strange that Jesus in the gospels are portrayed to preach SOLELY to the israelites, yet not a single israelite made any mention of Jesus. Instead only reports by anonymous greeks. Hmm…

>a theological interpretation of God that specifies three persons in one God

For the like 20th time, the Quran makes no mention of your "persons".

Your contention is either:

a) The Quran is misrepresenting God by saying that he is One, and not a godhead consisting of three persons(which is false so of course God isn't going to say it). Or

b) the Quran is misrepresenting christianity by not spelling out the nicene creed(which not even the bible does)

Both alternatives are absurd.

>>28923

>You're just repeating your claim over and over again without addressing my refutation.

You claim that God, through the Quran, is condemning christian theology, which, if he is condemning the trinity, is nicene theology whether the Quran explicitly lays it out or not. Then you that because Paul and this verse match linguistically in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the verse is sound, despite the fact that Paul's theology, as I have shown, also claims that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equals of God, meaning that unless they can somehow divide infinity that they are all God as well. You have done nothing to challenge this interpretation of my holy text other, the majority interpretation by a long shot, then refer to yours and claim that there are refutations to this interpretation without actually introducing them. Then you claim that the verse is refuting a local sect of Christianity instead of Christianity as a whole and provide no evidence, either through historical sources or even scholarly tafsir, of said fact. When you decide which stance on the text you are actually taking and then address my already presented refutation of it, then I will respond.

>Muhammed peace be upon him, addressed the christians directly. They had much time and ample of opportunity to point out any misrepresentations.

Which gives Muhammed even less of an excuse for his misrepresentations.\

>The original says nothing about Jesus being God nor having resurrected from the dead. It's the greatest proof against you not for you.

A devout Jew holding the theological opinions of a devout Jew is neither a proof for or against the faith. The corroboration of the execution of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod is a proof for the faith.

>You have no rational basis for that expectation to start off with as I've already pointed out.

Then you have no rational basis for making your claims at all, especially when they contradict those of your first post. Unless, of course, you can find tafsir that suppourt it.

>You have a bigger problem with there not being any unbiased documentation of God visiting earth and preaching to the israelites and no else.

Same goes for the Quran and the claims about Muhammed's divine inspiration and miracles. Now can you put the goalposts back where they were?

>For the like 20th time, the Quran makes no mention of your "persons".

I'm talking about Biblical exegesis, how is a completely separate text relevant?

>It's certainly strange that Jesus in the gospels are portrayed to preach SOLELY to the israelites, yet not a single israelite made any mention of Jesus

Other Josephus, one devout jew working in the region at the time named Paul, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, arguably Peter and James, etc.

>a) The Quran is misrepresenting God by saying that he is One, and not a godhead consisting of three persons

How did my posts lead you to think this was my argument?

>b) the Quran is misrepresenting christianity by not spelling out the nicene creed(which not even the bible does)

Unless you can prove that Muhammed was referring to a non-nicene christians, then he was misrepresenting christian belief.

>>28924

The Quran defines correct monotheism and then condemns every form of shirk. Since the Quran speaks with the authority of God it can define what is shirk and what isn't. So all you can do is say: I disagree because I don't believe the Quran is from God. But what you can certainly not is to try to claim that the Quran is somehow "objectively" misrepresenting monotheism, which is what you're trying to do now.

Some groups of disbelievers have been mentioned specifically, some have not. If you feel like your nicene creed is not mentioned specifically then you're in the latter category of kuffar.

>christian theology, which, if he is condemning the trinity, is nicene theology

Let's say there was a group that called themselves nasaraa in 6th century Arabia. You in the 21st century would say that they're not true christians(tm). But they called themselves nasaraa nevertheless. Now why on earth can't God not then call them nasaraa???? You have not been able to give a single explanation for this. No one has to provide documentation for every single christian sect that has ever existed.

>Which gives Muhammed even less of an excuse for his misrepresentations.\

Nothing has been misrepresented.

>devout Jew holding the theological opinions of a devout Jew is neither a proof for or against the faith.

The point was that he made no mentioned of Jesus claiming to be God or rising from the dead, nor of his followers doing it, which was the entire point to begin with. The statement of Josephus that he was a wise man that performed miracles is that Islamic claim not the christian, thus it's proof against you not for you. There's no unbiased source of jesus or early christians claiming he was god. So if that's fine for you then I laugh at your objection to Muslims not having preserved the (probably non existent) writings of every single christian sect to have lived in Arabia.

>when they contradict those of your first post.

I haven't contradicted myself.

>you can find tafsir that suppourt it.

Support what? Why don't you find me first a tafsir saying that the Quran misrepresents christianity.

>How did my posts lead you to think this was my argument?

Because that's what you're essentially arguing. Your objection is against the monotheism of the Quran. According to the definition of ilaah(deity/god) and monotheism and shirk as laid out in the Quran, the nasaraa were mushriks. You coming and saying that oh no well we're actually monotheists is a theological claim you make. It does not mean the Quran is misrepresenting anything. Or else a jew will say the NT misrepresents God since it says he's a man "proving" thereby that Jesus did not understand judaism.

>Unless you can prove that Muhammed was referring to a non-nicene christians

You're the one that has to prove that the nasaraa adressed were misrepresented. I wonder how you'll do that after just demanding ME to provide source of their theology. So you don't know what their theology was yet you knew it's being misrepresented, how amazing.

>>28925

>The Quran defines correct monotheism and then condemns every form of shirk. Since the Quran speaks with the authority of God it can define what is shirk and what isn't. So all you can do is say: I disagree because I don't believe the Quran is from God. But what you can certainly not is to try to claim that the Quran is somehow "objectively" misrepresenting monotheism, which is what you're trying to do now.

Except I just questioned how my posts lead you to believe this was my argument in the first place. B. B was the argument, not A.

>Your objection is against the monotheism of the Quran. According to the definition of ilaah(deity/god) and monotheism and shirk as laid out in the Quran, the nasaraa were mushriks. You coming and saying that oh no well we're actually monotheists is a theological claim you make. It does not mean the Quran is misrepresenting anything

Read my original post again. I ask why the Quran insists on misinterpreting the trinity, nothing more I hereby declare that, despite my personal objections to it, and as obvious as that fact should be, that I am not challenging Islamic monotheistic theology. I will not be responding to this bizarre and irrelevant accusation again.

>But they called themselves nasaraa nevertheless. Now why on earth can't God not then call them nasaraa????

I have no idea where you are getting this line of reasoning from, or how the name of a certain sect has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

>No one has to provide documentation for every single christian sect that has ever existed.

Then it's a good thing I am only asking for one.

>You're the one that has to prove that the nasaraa addressed were misrepresented. I wonder how you'll do that after just demanding ME to provide source of their theology. So you don't know what their theology was yet you knew it's being misrepresented, how amazing.

If you insist. First off it is worth asking whether or not Muhammed was referring to this specific group of the city of Najran, of simply all christians, as this verse simply warns against "those people who say that God is the third of three." You know the text so you tell me. Given that he waged wars against the Byzantines and, according to tradition, even wrote to Emperor Hadrian, along with a fact that he made a covenant with Byzantine monks on St. Catherine's Monastary on Mount Sinai, (http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com/) the presence of Nicene Christianity in Muhammed's territory cannot be denied, so if he was referring to the christians of Arabia then he misrepresented the. If you want to narrow it down to one city, however, Najaran were mostly nestorian, with the Ka'aba Najran at Jabal Taslal drawing many pilgrims, with some non-nicenes and others mixed in. The best record of the persecution of the city's christians in 524 was from a catholic bishop named Simeon of Beth Arsham. One of their leaders, the martyred St. Arethas, is actually a Catholic saint. So yes, Muhammed did, in fact, misrepresent the theology of the nasaraa.

>>28927

>Except I just questioned

I've already explained it like three times.

>why the Quran insists on misinterpreting the trinity

that's a loaded question. It has been my fault for entertaining your ridiculous fallacies for too long.

>I have no idea where you are getting this line of reasoning from

It's what your entire argument rests upon. You've taken it for granted that christianity has been misrepresented when the Quran refers to someone you consider to violate the nicene creed as nasaara. Prove why that would be the case first or else you can't proceed.

>First off it is worth asking whether or not Muhammed was referring to this specific group

More loaded questions. You're not very good at this.

>Muhammed did, in fact, misrepresent the theology of the nasaraa…

You say after asking me who the nasaara even were or what their theology was. Not that it matters since regardless no one is being misrepresented as I've already made clear above several times.

>>28928

>You've taken it for granted that christianity has been misrepresented when the Quran refers to someone you consider to violate the nicene creed as nasaara. Prove why that would be the case first or else you can't proceed.

I refer you to the second half of the above post.

>You've taken it for granted that christianity has been misrepresented when the Quran refers to someone you consider to violate the nicene creed as nasaara.

Except that, as I have shown, it actually does not.

>You say after asking me who the nasaara even were or what their theology was. Not that it matters since regardless no one is being misrepresented as I've already made clear above several times.

Good thing that isn't even a question and I address both options.

>More loaded questions.

Well if the Christians of Arabia/Najaren were a mix of catholics/orthodox and nestorians with only a few non-chalcedonians, and, as you yourself say, Muhammed was referring to them, then yes, he actually was misrepresenting them.

>>28930

>I refer you to the second half of the above post.

You mean where you're saying you can't understand? I'm not sure how to make it clearer to you but here:

You claim the Quran misrepresents the trinity in one verse. You're wrong because the Quran in that verse says that nasaraa say that Allah/”the Father” is one of three [persons], which is what christians believe. No one is being misrepresented. If your only objection at this point is that it's still being misrepresented because it doesn't spell out the entire literal nicene definition then likewise the bible would be misrepresenting the trinity.

Then I said however, simply for the sake of argument, that even if what is attributed to the nasaara here is not the orthodox christian creed according to your sect, then it still doesn't mean anyone is being misrepresented, since it would just be referring to that sect of nasaara, since no mention of the nicene creed took place. If you disagree with this then you have to first prove that God can't call nasaraa who has a different theology than the nicene creed nasaraa.

>a mix of catholics/orthodox and nestorians with only a few non-chalcedonians

See >>27052

Literally no one cares whether or not you can find a list of every sect and a detailed blueprint of their theology in the Quran. First bring me the writings of the 6th century nasaaraa of Arabia, then we can see whether or not anyone has been misrepresented. Until then you have no argument, just a whole lot of conjecture and logical fallacies.

>>28931

>You're wrong because the Quran in that verse says that nasaraa say that Allah/”the Father” is one of three [persons], which is what christians believe.

Without specifying that we actually believe that all three persons of the trinity are Allah and thereby grossly misrepresenting our theology to his people. Which, if this is directly from God himself, would make God a poor Biblical scholar indeed.

>If your only objection at this point is that it's still being misrepresented because it doesn't spell out the entire literal nicene definition then likewise the bible would be misrepresenting the trinity.

Despite my, the majority, exegisis of Phillipians 2:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 2:11-12, along with the Gospel of John, which you have yet to refute. Which would be fine if you were not hypocritically accusing me of conjecture.

>Then I said however, simply for the sake of argument, that even if what is attributed to the nasaara here is not the orthodox christian creed according to your sect, then it still doesn't mean anyone is being misrepresented, since it would just be referring to that sect of nasaara, since no mention of the nicene creed took place.

There is no unified sect of nasara, just a collection of nicene chrisians and nestorian christians with only a minority of non-Mushrikeens.

>First bring me the writings of the 6th century nasaaraa of Arabia, then we can see whether or not anyone has been misrepresented.

As I said, the best record of the persecution of the city's christians in 524 was from a catholic bishop named Simeon of Beth Arsham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_of_Beth_Arsham

And it is not a matter of undue representation, it is a matter of the verse in question refering to a theology that no Arabian Christians, not even the non-Mushrikeens, actually believed in.

>>28932

>Without specifying that we actually believe that all three persons of the trinity are Allah

That's irrelevant to the point of the verse hence no need to mention it since the Quran is not a blueprint of christian sects as already noted. Even if you say that all three persons of the trinity are Allah then you're still kuffar.

Thus I refer back to

>If your only objection at this point is that it's still being misrepresented because it doesn't spell out the entire literal nicene definition then likewise the bible would be misrepresenting the trinity.

>thereby grossly misrepresenting our theology to his people

1. It wasn't an education about the beliefs of christians rather it was addressing the christians themselves who were already familiar with their own beliefs.

2. The christians could've easily disproved the divine origins of the Quran if it was the case that they were misrepresented.

>Despite my, the majority, exegisis

Exegesis is not relevant here, I was talking about the bible itself.

>which you have yet to refute.

I posted the bible verses to prove that God was used interchangeably with the Father, which you admitted to right away. So you've already conceded to my point here.

>that no Arabian Christians, not even the non-Mushrikeens, actually believed in.

The vast majority of them believed in it and still do since nothing was misrepresented. Since you just ignored it the first time I'll say it again:

>that verse says that nasaraa say that Allah/”the Father” is one of three [persons], which is what christians believe. No one is being misrepresented.

Or the ayat is in fact a refutation of all your "persons" at the same time. Since you believe there are THREE persons:

God(Allah) the father

God(Allah) the son

God(Allah) the holy spirit

So Allah in the verse of the Quran eloquently says it: Anyone who says that Allah is one of the three persons, is a kaafir. It's an elegant and brief statement, you can not formulate it better. And Arabic speaking christians would get the point.

>>28933

>that verse says that nasaraa say that Allah/”the Father” is one of three [persons], which is what christians believe. No one is being misrepresented.

Which, again, does not specify that we actually believe that all three persons of the trinity are Allah, that the trinity is Allah, and thereby grossly misrepresenting our theology to his people. If the point of the verse is to show the problems of a certain theology, and it misrepresents that theology, then it has failed in it's job. Paul uses the terms God and the Father interchangably, Muhammed, and by extension Allah, does not. Even if we concede that for the sake of argument, however, the proceding sentence says that there is only one God Which is true, but very suspect as a refutation of a group that already believes as such. It is as if Muhammed thinks we believe that there can be three separate infinite divinities or two inferior divinities, non-divinities, in relation to the true one; it is a gross misrepresentation through and through.

>It wasn't an education about the beliefs of christians rather it was addressing the christians themselves who were already familiar with their own beliefs.

That seems tenuous given that he says those people and not you people. If that is the case though why did you not say that from the beginning? That's a perfectly valid reason not to go into specifics, misrepresentation of their own beliefs aside.

>2. The christians could've easily disproved the divine origins of the Quran if it was the case that they were misrepresented.

Why would they need to disprove a false prophet speaking blasphemies against Christ?

>Exegesis is not relevant here, I was talking about the bible itself

You were talking about one verse divorced from the theological context of the rest of the author's work an the rest of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

>>28934

>So Allah in the verse of the Quran eloquently says it: Anyone who says that Allah is one of the three persons, is a kaafir

So I, and the 6th-century arabian christians, knew that Allah is one divinity in three persons, and Muhammed would criticise us for believing Allah is only one of three, and correct us by stating something we already believe? I feel like Muhammed could have formulated it better.

>>28936

>does not specify that we actually believe that all three persons of the trinity are Allah

There's no need for the Quran to specify every kind of kufr. Here it's addressing people familiar with their own beliefs.

>Paul uses the terms God and the Father interchangably

And christians are the ones being addressed

>If that is the case though why did you not say that from the beginning?

It should be known to anyone remotely familiar with the Quran that Mohammed, peace be upon him, recited it openly and specifically also adressed christians and jews since there are numerous such commands in the Quran itself. Of course when you're just copy pasting nonsense from christian polemicists then you end up in error.

>Why would they need to disprove a false prophet speaking blasphemies against Christ?

What are you convincing yourself you're doing here then, trolling?

Now, your question is actually easily answered though. They'd be interested in disproving Islam since it threatened their communities built on kufr and deceit. And you also claim christians were persecuted. If they could disprove Islam without resorting to fighting back physically then that would've been ideal for them. So they had in fact every reason to try to disprove Islam, not that they could, and not that you will.

However, unfortunately for you, the case is not the same against you, since an atheist will now say: What possible reason would jews have to disprove a false prophet speaking blasphemies against the laws of Moses? None, since christians were in the beginning completely irrelevant and insignificant. So this nullifies most of your arguments(eg the empty tomb polemics, why the jews did not try to present the body etc etc).

>You were talking about one verse divorced from the theological context of the rest of the author's work

You've already conceded to my point, give it a rest.

>would criticise us for believing Allah is only one of three

It doesn't say ONLY one of the three. The verse is condemning your saying "Allah the [one of the three persons]". No misrepresentation what so ever. The verse perfectly refers to what you believe and say:

God(Allah) the father

God(Allah) the son

God(Allah) the holy spirit

>>28938

>It should be known to anyone remotely familiar with the Quran that Mohammed, peace be upon him, recited it openly and specifically also adressed christians and jews since there are numerous such commands in the Quran itself.

Despite the fact that the specific verse say "they" and not "you," implying that many of the people he was speaking too were not, in fact, christians? Ok.

>Now, your question is actually easily answered though. They'd be interested in disproving Islam since it threatened their communities built on kufr and deceit. And you also claim christians were persecuted. If they could disprove Islam without resorting to fighting back physically then that would've been ideal for them. So they had in fact every reason to try to disprove Islam, not that they could, and not that you will.

This is the kind of historical revisionism I would expect out of a baptist on /christian/, as if armed cult didn't move into the area and as if Umar ibn al-Khattab didn't kick relocate us to Iraq.

>You've already conceded to my point

In the context of the Bible and not the Quran, yes. This isn't that difficult dude.

>It doesn't say ONLY one of the three.

The verse says that God is the third of three. We do not believe that Allah is one of three, or three of three. We do not believe Allah is three because there cannot be three divinities, three Gods. We do not believe that God is the third of three. Allah is one, and his one indivisible divinity is fully shared in three persons. We do believe that the Father is the first of three, but if Muhammed was using God as a synonym for the Father like Paul, without the context that Paul himself provides, his message is muddled at best. He recommends that we start believing in one God as if we believe in three Gods. I don't for one second think that Muhammed's theology would acknowledge any of these differences, but if this is the Word of God then it should be perfect, period, and quite frankly after all of these posts you've done nothing to dissuade me from thinking that any christian worth his salt would have seen through such a sophistic representation of the topic. Anyways, it's time for me to go to bed. Good night and may God grant you peace.

>>28940

As usual you christians are allergic to reading a verse in its context. The previous verses clearly open with:

>O Messenger! proclaim the (message)…

>Say, ‘People of the Book…

>any of the people he was speaking too were not, in fact, christians?

Of course most people at that time were not christians. Did you just figure that out?

>In the context of the Bible and not the Quran, yes.

The Quran is talking about the beliefs of the christians. Do you say now that you disagree with Paul's language?

>We do not believe that Allah is one of three, or three of three.

You say that Allah is father/son/holy spirit ie three.

>fully shared in three persons

which is what the Quran condemns.

>we start believing in one God as if we believe in three Gods

The Quran tells you to have one ilaah(deity), not three persons.

>I don't for one second think that Muhammed theology would acknowledge this difference,

God is saying that worshipping three persons is shirk. Your theology is wrong. So now you finally admit that your problem all this time was the Quran's definition of monotheism.

After all this and you still could not prove that the Quran misrepresented the trinity.

>any christian worth his salt would have seen through such an erronious representation

You really don't want to go down this line when you believe that the israelites, ie Jesus' own people, rejected him(by not following your false religion). The religion of Jesus was hijacked by pagans who went on to massacre and suppress the actual israelite christians for being "heretics".

>deportation

As opposed to christians mass murdering people, burning them alive, gassing them to death, etc. yes we're well familiar with your religion of love.

>>28942

>After all this and you still could not prove that the Quran misrepresented the trinity.

This is why I love interfaith debate so much. Nobody wins, everyone thinks they're right and the other is wrong, and proofs are decided by hairsplitting over definitions and double standards. You couldn't refute the Quran's misrepresentation without erroneously saying christians believe in three Gods, three infinities, an error Allah could have easily just have smoothed out by addressing our actual beliefs to the conversion of many but which he repeats in multiple other parts of his eternal word, and I apparently couldn't prove that the Quran misrepresents the trinity and had a secret agenda all this time. Two different definitions of the trinity, two correct and incorrect views of God

people arguing over eachother's heads for hours. Would I be wrong in saying that you feel tired or ill after this debate? I certainly do. Don't get me wrong, you're a heretic, and I've studied enough miracle workers in my faith to be peacefully content in the truth that is the trinity and the lordship of Christ, but I suppose I shouldn't have expected that to get me anywhere in this thread. In the sermon on the mount Jesus told us not to throw pearls before swine, not to share wisdom with those who would never see it. I usually only remember how wise that saying is when it's already too late. Again, good night and may God grant you peace.

>>28943

You people are truly deaf, blind and stupid. I give you glad tidings of hell.

>>20806

This is, of course true, of one is operating under the presupposition that God is speaking in human terms. The truth of God is that he can never be quantified or qualified by a name. Think Shakespeare, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…" the judeo christian God and the God of the Muslim faith are one and the same the problem isnt in the actual scriptures of either but the eagerness of men to set themselves apart from other which is counterproductive to a larger understanding of God, one love…all faiths have a holy viewpoint of the peace of heaven and yet we fear ourselves to shreds over the nuances of faith… the trinity is one, the holy spirit is the conduit between divinity down to man, and the world really is the digital proving ground operating under the binary code of right/wrong, dark/light, on/off so you see while these things exist separate by human reasoning it is really just the fractal layering and astral projection conceptualized into metaphysical principle… if viewing the world as the digital projection it is the spirit is the holy soul and consciousness sent to embody a man that he might walk and teach in the way and so the embodiment of God is both his father and his son, the father is the consciousness from above that controls avatar spirit projection in the world. For a war to be fought between good and evil eternal beings it has to be fought on a plane of existence where the those beings can die, kind of…this isnt yo br taken literally but more of a metaphor for the truth without the details… it is the matrix but not the evil monster robots… all of spirituality should be defined by two things does it bring peace and joy, and does it liberate you to be a better more fulfilled you…. by the way I dont pretend my answers are correct I just love discussion especially if the intelligent variety… this is from my phone so good luck reading it with no punctuation, sorry!

And both Allah and yahweh go by over like 400 names but are supposedly vehemently opposed to being called something else…

>>28951

Except he did numerous times, and his disciples worship him in numerous places. But you're probably a typical low IQ Muslim cherry picker.

Funny how you say our scripture is somehow corrupted (despite having over 5000 manuscripts of it probably making it the best preserved work of the ancient world and showing a 98.3% textual purity; however when we take into account that most of these are spelling/grammar mistakes or word order difference which do not effect the meaning of the text then it actually becomes 99.5% textually pure) but then when you see even the smallest thing that might somehow be expedient to you, magically it becomes one of the non-corrupted parts.

>>29007

>"A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it" -Proverbs 29:11.

>"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." -1 Peter 3:15-16

The only ones that are blind to their cherrypicking are themselves, and as this thread shows they only feign blindess out of malice, but that is no excuse to defile yourself. You are baptized member in the Body of Christ, and even I did not follow the head in all things in this thread, but no excuses can be made, only forgiveness asked.

>>29007

>muh 5000 manuscripts

Too late to matter. It's written by literal-who's and none of it can be traced to Jesus with certainty. We can only say for sure that Jesus even existed because the Quran says so, otherwise even that would be doubtful.

>cherrypicking

it's not cherrypicking. We take what is confirmed as true by the Quran. Anything that contradicts the message of the Prophets or are obviously absurd nonsense made up by heretics making a mockery of Jesus and God we reject, simple as that. So since the Quran says that references to the Prophethood of Mohammed, peace be upon him, then we can certainly point out such instances in your scripture and you're obligated to believe that. We're not obligate to believe in anything in your scripture not confirmed by the Quran. So we are perfectly consistent, but you are not, since you end up not believing in either scripture fully.

You're guilty of cherry picking in the eyes of jews as well ironically. Any prophesy that Jesus didn't do you conveniently say will just happen when he returns.

>>29012

>half a millennia divorced from

Now you're the hypocrite for adopting an atheist materialist approach. That's the problem with you christians. You can not be consistent in arguing with jews and Muslims at the same time. Against the latter you have to become atheists and deny revelation.

>reliable historiography

Except you believe in the bible canon because it was decided upon by the church. You did not arrive at it through historiography, which at best, can only say what Jesus MAYBE said, whereas revelation would be definite. The bible does not provide certain knowledge of historical events in any way. It's written by anonymous people relying on hear-say. It's contradictory and shows clear signs of development of theology.

>I'm not sure what the islamic stance on jewish messianic expectations are, but neither Muhammed not your version Jesus fullfilled them either, so a hypocritical point like this doesn't really hold water.

First of all, unlike you, we're not bound by the old testament. So you're the only one being hypocritical here. We don't have to defend the OT or claim that Jesus has to come back or other such cop-outs. Secondly, Mohammed, peace be upon him, fulfilled several prophecies mentioned in your scripture that we can obligate you with, but there is nothing you can claim we have to believe in from your scripture. That's the position you are in whether you like it or not.

You christians have to cherry pick quotes from the old testament in order to prove that Jesus was the messiah. When jews then show all the other prophecies mentioned in the OT saying what the messiah was supposed to do, christians have to invent cop-outs such that Jesus will fulfill them on his second coming. But he's the messiah now not just then right? So that's hypocritical, because christians believe the OT in its entirety.

But for us there's no such case. You can not obligate us to accept in anything from the bible. So there's no way for us to be hypocritical here. You're the only ones cherrypicking from the bible, not us.

>>29012

The table is missing some things. Let's add for example

>God, the Father: is not human

>God, the Father: is all-knowing

>Jesus, the son: is human

>Jesus, the son: is not all-knowing

>>29013

>Now you're the hypocrite for adopting an atheist materialist approach.

I have a much easier time believing the words of those who lived in Jesus's time than those from a man who never met Jesus or anybody who knew Jesus. The scriptures are called the new testament because they are exactly that, a testament of the events that happened from those who were there. As a historian in training, I simply see no reason to trust a 6th-century arabian's take on the matter instead.

>Except you believe in the bible canon because it was decided upon by the church.

The writings of the church fathers show that the epistles and the gospels were trusted as sacred scripture within years of them being written, if nobody believed in the scripture until the Council of Trent codified the canon the Church would be a very different organization indeed.

>The bible does not provide certain knowledge of historical events in any way. It's written by anonymous people relying on hear-say.

A compilation of oral tradition collected from those who knew Jesus certainly would be imperfect in all of the ways all historiographical information tends to be. That does not mean that a 6th-century Arabian take on the matter is any more trustworthy. I understand that you believe the Quran is straight from the mouth of God, but if the Quran's take is so grossly inconsistent with the earliest historical records of Jesus and his disciples' teachings then that authenticity unverifiable and is highly questionable at best. And, if it cannot maintain continuity with the messages God spoke through the prophets of Israel and denies their authenticity, most notably scrapping the entirety of their messianic tradition, then those suspicions are doubled. Believing the testimony of Jesus's followers on Jesus's ascension and his own words about the second coming is one thing, both his word and the entirety of revelation is another. If neither of us is going to accept the authority of the other's scriptures or respect the other's beliefs then this debate will never be constructive. Even if I respect you as a person, which as a masterpiece of God's creation I absolutely do, it is clear that the reverse isn't true. I simply want to lay out the bare facts of which text is far more likely to be accurate in regards to Jesus's teachings.

>>29020

>I have a much easier time believing the words of those who lived in Jesus's time

No contemporary accounts of jesus resurrection outside of christian fairy tales.

>who never met Jesus or anybody who knew Jesus

The authors of the NT never met Jesus, and they knew him only through hear-say.

>That does not mean that a 6th-century Arabian take on the matter is any more trustworthy

Again you're an atheist materialist. Convenient.

>grossly inconsistent with the earliest historical records of Jesus

christian polemics aren't "historical records". There are no historical records of jesus rising from the dead let alone being god.

>if it cannot maintain continuity with the messages God spoke through the prophets of Israel and denies their authenticity, most notably scrapping the entirety of their messianic tradition, then those suspicions are doubled.

Christians are the last people to try to make this argument. As Muslims we believe all Prophets worshipped the same God. You however worship a God that is different than what all earlier Prophets worshipped. They all worshipped a God that was not a human. You do. Christianity is the furthest thing removed from the tradition of Abraham. Since you keep pointing out that Muhammed, peace be upon him, was Arab, then I'll point out that Arabs are descendant of Abraham both in blood and religion and the cousins of the israelites. Your roman and greek pagan ancestors are much removed them all.

>it is clear that the reverse isn't true.

You have no respect for me nor my time. Hence I'll not fall for your trolling again.

A christian, who believes the entire belief system of every single Prophet before Jesus has been abrogated, let alone their laws, accusing Muslims of rejecting the Abrahamic tradition? That has got to be the joke of the century. Christianity is a roman pagan sect and has nothing at all to do with Abraham or Israel. As for the jews themselves then they were continuously massacred by the christians even up until the 20th century, whereas under Muslim rule the jewish communities thrived and produced some of the greatest jewish scholars in history. Religious jews generally admit that Muslims worship the God of Moses whereas they don't want anything to do with christianity. So what the hell kind of ”continuity with the messages God spoke” is this christian troll on about? No messenger of God ever told people to worship a human or a trinity.

>>29021

>The authors of the NT never met Jesus,

Uh how about John? You should probably read a little bit of the facts before commenting and showing us all you know nothing

>>29050

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship,_date,_and_origin

>>29064

>why do you need an intermediaries to tell you your religion?

Asking why we need imams is the same as asking why we need preists or pastors. Also, imams never ask us to use them as intermediares between us and Allah (swt). Baptists (as any sola scriptura prot Church) are just misguided as they use a Bible made by the Catholic church and are still subject to their man-made philosophies.

SAGE because (you) tried to have trini discussion outside of your containment thread

To emphasize a point, I am posting this in as many Quran translations as possible. This is from Surah Al-Anbya, verses 98

-99

>Dr. Ghali: Surely you AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIPED APART FROM ALLAH are gravel for Hell; you will herd (yourselves) down to it. If these had been gods, in no way would they have herded themselves down to it; and all of them are therein eternally (abiding).

>Muhsin Khan: Certainly! You (disbelievers) AND THAT WHICH YOU ARE WORSHIPPING NOW BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it. Had these (idols, etc.) been aliha (gods), they would not have entered there (Hell), and all of them will abide therein.

>Pickthall: Lo! ye (idolaters) AND THAT WHICH YE WORSHIP BESIDE ALLAH are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come. If these had been gods they would not have come thither, but all will abide therein.

>Sahih International: Indeed, you [disbelievers] AND WHAT YOU WORSHIP OTHER THAN ALLAH are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to [enter] it. Had these [false deities] been [actual] gods, they would not have come to it, but all are eternal therein.

>Yusuf Ali: Verily ye, (unbelievers), AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come! If these had been gods, they would not have got there! but each one will abide therein.

>Mufti Taqi Usmani: Surely, you AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIP OTHER THAN ALLAH are the fuel of Jahannam.. There you will have to arrive. Had they been gods, they would not have arrived at it, and all of them will remain there forever.

>Abdul Haleem: You [disbelievers] AND WHAT YOU WORSHIP INSTEAD OF GOD will be fuel for Hell: that is where you will go- if these [idols] had been real gods they would not have gone there- you will all stay there.

>Abul Ala Maududi(With tafsir): (21:98) (They will be told): "Verily you AND THE GODS YOU WORSHIPPED BESIDE ALLAH are the fuel of Hell. All of you are bound to arrive there.5(21:99) Had these indeed been gods they would not have gone there. But (as it is), all of you shall ever abide in it."

>Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran: Certainly you ˹disbelievers˺ AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIP INSTEAD OF ALLAH will be the fuel of Hell. You are ˹all˺ bound to enter it. Had those idols been ˹true˺ gods, they would not have entered it. And they will be there forever.

Emphasis mine. My point is: if people who believe in the incarnation are wrong, than we are worshipping Jesus besides Allah. According to this verse, Jesus will than go to Hell as punishment. Of course, this contradicts other verses, so we now have a couple possible takeaways:

>1. Jesus is God, and those who worship Jesus are worshipping the true God. They will enter paradise, in line with Surah 2:63

>2. Jesus is not God, Christians are pagans; keeping in line with 4:171 and 5:73. Jesus and the Christians goes to Hell

>>29668

>Jesus will than go to Hell as punishment.

Jesus(pbuh) didn't worship himself. He was not Christian.

>>29669

I quoted nine translations and put the key phrase in all caps just so there would be total clarity, and you would not be confused, yet you still missed the point. Are you doing this on purpose?

Let me spell it out, and possibly make it clearer than last time.

There is a major world religion known as Christianity. Christians worship Jesus Christ, claiming him to be the incarnation of the eternal God. The Quran says Jesus is not God, and that you must not worship him.

There is a sizable portion of humanity that worships Jesus, as they believe him to be God. However, the Quran calls that idolatry, saying not to worship Jesus.

Jesus is the avatar of God, or so say these people who pray to him and worship him. Islam teaches something different, denying that Jesus is divine at all.

Now, look at the Quran, 21:98-99.

>Abdul Haleem: You [disbelievers] AND WHAT YOU WORSHIP INSTEAD OF GOD will be fuel for Hell: that is where you will go- if these [idols] had been real gods they would not have gone there- you will all stay there.

>Abul Ala Maududi(With tafsir): (21:98) (They will be told): "Verily you AND THE GODS YOU WORSHIPPED BESIDE ALLAH are the fuel of Hell. All of you are bound to arrive there.5(21:99) Had these indeed been gods they would not have gone there. But (as it is), all of you shall ever abide in it."

>Dr. Ghali: Surely you AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIPED APART FROM ALLAH are gravel for Hell; you will herd (yourselves) down to it. If these had been gods, in no way would they have herded themselves down to it; and all of them are therein eternally (abiding).

>Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran: Certainly you ˹disbelievers˺ AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIP INSTEAD OF ALLAH will be the fuel of Hell. You are ˹all˺ bound to enter it. Had those idols been ˹true˺ gods, they would not have entered it. And they will be there forever.

>Mufti Taqi Usmani: Surely, you AND WHATEVER YOU WORSHIP OTHER THAN ALLAH are the fuel of Jahannam.. There you will have to arrive. Had they been gods, they would not have arrived at it, and all of them will remain there forever.

>Muhsin Khan: Certainly! You (disbelievers) AND THAT WHICH YOU ARE WORSHIPPING NOW BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it. Had these (idols, etc.) been aliha (gods), they would not have entered there (Hell), and all of them will abide therein.

>Pickthall: Lo! ye (idolaters) AND THAT WHICH YE WORSHIP BESIDE ALLAH are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come. If these had been gods they would not have come thither, but all will abide therein.

>Sahih International: Indeed, you [disbelievers] AND WHAT YOU WORSHIP OTHER THAN ALLAH are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to [enter] it. Had these [false deities] been [actual] gods, they would not have come to it, but all are eternal therein.

>Yusuf Ali: Verily ye, (unbelievers), AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come! If these had been gods, they would not have got there! but each one will abide therein.

This emphasis is mine. Now, this verse is saying that people who worship false gods go to Hell, and also their false gods themselves go to hell. So if I worship a golden calf, I will be thrown in the fire with a golden calf. If I worship Satan, I will be thrown in the fire with Satan. If I worship an idol, I will be thrown in the fire with the idol.

However, many people worship Jesus. They follow a religion called Christianity where they pray to Jesus, and refer to him as the incarnation of God. They say that God, incarnate as Jesus, came to humanity to save the sinners. Christians strive to reach God by worshipping Jesus Christ, alongside God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

This presents a problem, as in Quran 21:98, it claims that if you worship something which isn't God, it will be thrown in hell fire with you. It says

>Verily ye, (unbelievers), AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come! If these had been gods, they would not have got there! but each one will abide therein.

>Verily ye, (unbelievers), AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH, are (but) fuel for Hell!

>AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH

>AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH

>AND THE (FALSE) GODS THAT YE WORSHIP BESIDES ALLAH

So if Jesus isn't God, and he is worshipped, he will go to Hell. This is what the Quran teaches.

>>29668

>>29670

Lmao so I guess the answer to my question is “no”

>>29670

>So if Jesus isn't God, and he is worshipped, he will go to Hell

Of course not, don't be silly.

>This is what Qur'an teaches

No, it isn't. It's a verse you cherry picked. Qur'an isn't like the Bible, where you can pick and choose. It's an entire book, the whole of which needs to be read. Islam isn't a cafeteria.

At least read the whole surah. https://quran.com/21

>>29667

>bawww don't be mean to me

Man up, kid. It's a tough world.

>>29675

I’m fine with you people acting like this, it’s the fact that you act like this and also say you don’t that gets me. Is my God the true God? Is my scripture the true scripture? The Quran says so, and you say you follow the Quran, but then you say that my God is a false God and my scripture is a lie and I am a dog for believing it.

>>29676

I've never claimed to not act like this.

>Is my God the true God?

No. You don't worship God. You worship God's prophet.

>Is my scripture the true scripture?

No. You have added to it and perverted it. You often follow Paul more than you do Jesus.

>The Qur'an says so

No, it doesn't. The Injil is not your "New Testament".

>I am a dog for believing it

Nobody's calling you a dog.

>>29677

>No. You don't worship God. You worship God's prophet.

And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

So your book say that the Christian God is the God of Muslims. You Muslims say differently.

>No. You have added to it and perverted it. You often follow Paul more than you do Jesus.

>No, it doesn't. The Injil is not your "New Testament".

Then the Quran has been corrupted. It speaks of a Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. If no such books exist, then the Quran must be incorrect and these verses are irrelevant to the modern world. Another explanation though would be that the Quran is speaking of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels as they do exist, and Muslims only falsely say that those books are wrong. Once again, the Quran says one thing, you say another

>Nobody's calling you a dog.

Your board owner did. Read through the thread since the beginning, Christians are called liars, pagans, and dogs

>>22830

>>22870

>>27076

>T-the Quran t-totally says the king james bible is authentic haha that means we should continue following christianity and Islam is false

The fact that this laughable nonsense is one of their most oft-repeated "arguments" really tells a lot about the state of trini apologetics.

Just consider the fact that a jew(or a unitarian christian) will easily post the isolated verse in which Jesus is quoted in the bible as saying that the OT should be followed and that the schema is the correct creed. So judaism is more correct than christianity case closed right?

>>29678

>Your board owner did.

None of those posts are by the BO.

>So your book say that the Christian God is the God of Muslims.

That's because there is literally only one God. You can't worship a different God because there isn't a different God. You worship a prophet of God thinking he is God. Do you not see the difference?

>>29682

So people who worship Zeus and Prometheus are worshipping the same god as you? Get real

>>29684

Look, I know you're just changing IP so you can't get banned, but you seriously can't be this stupid.

>>29685

>>29686

Look, you and I both agree there is one god. But there are many hundreds of entities referred to as god. Those that are not the true God are false gods.

Christians worship one such entity, are Christians worshipping the true God or a false god?

>>29685

>>29686

Also, since you obviously know that this board has ips, why are you samefagging?

>>29016

>The Father is greater than I

The Son is begotten of the Father in the sense that the Father is the origin from which the Son proceeds, the Father is not greater in terms of temporal order nor in terms of a superior nature (since they are co-eternal and share the same nature), it is somewhat analogous to light proceeding from fire, the two go hand-in-hand although we say light proceeds from fire, and we say they share the same essence, they are of one nature. As far as analogies go this is sufficient to point us in the right direction. And this maintains a real distinction between the two Father/Son and Fire/Light, you can't collapse both persons into one, because the light that comes into the world is not univocal to its fire source.

And we have verses showing us that he is the Word of God and the Word was God, John 1:1, and became flesh and dwelt among us. And that 'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.' John 1:3, puts the Son above the category of created(made) things. And it is through him that all created things came to be.

>If Jesus(pduh) was God which he isn't than why would he say 'my God' and not himself?

Because in his humbled incarnate form (hebrews 2:9) he was both man and God, yet could speak about the Father as his God, also as an exemplar showing us how to relate to God, so it's not surprising to see Christ pray or prostate to his Father or get baptized…He has a human nature and a divine nature.

>If Jesus truly were a god, he wouldn't beat around the bush, he would be explicit like Allah (swt) was in the OT about his godhood. Jesus (pbuh) wouldn't hunger, he wouldn't feel fatigue, he wouldn't feel pain, he wouldn't be subject to the laws of time.

This expectation is similar to the jews expecting a lightning wielding Samson messiah, instead of a meek and humble servant riding a donkey around Judea, speaking in parables and socializing with sinners and healing the sick.

He doesn't have to declare explicitly every few paragraphs that he is God in the flesh, because his sheep hear his voice regardless. I don't see how you can take John's Gospel seriously and try to pick it apart without realizing the straightforward implications that the Son is truly divine God, and uncreated and everything in creation belongs to him and was made through him.

>>29692

>that the Son is truly divine God

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QkAKmf8iKRU

>>29678

>Then the Quran has been corrupted. It speaks of a Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. If no such books exist, then the Quran must be incorrect and these verses are irrelevant to the modern world.

The idea that God's revelations get fundamentally corrupted or perpetually lost to the point of being ineffectual is very dangerous. A lot of self-proclaimed prophets make this claim, like the Bahai guys and the Mormon prophets and new-age Hindu gurus. They need to rely on this idea in order to superimpose their teachings and interpretations into religion, they all claim they are 'correcting' what was lost.

But that's not how God operates. If a message is worth revealing it's worth preserving continuously. 'The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God remains forever.'

>>29729

>God's revelations get fundamentally corrupted or perpetually lost

We believe God's message to mankind is monotheism and that all Prophets were Muslims, a way of life that was never lost. You on the other hand believe that God's message was irrelevant and needed to be completely changed. It's now all about the trinity and someone dying for your sins and venerating icons which has nothing to do with the previous Prophets or their religion what-so-ever.

>A lot of self-proclaimed prophets make this claim

The exact same thing can be said about "gradual revelation" or whatever it is you call worshipping a trinity that not a single Prophet before Jesus(and including him) did. Not to mention your holy-ghost inspired church councils that can keep adding new obligatory tenets of creed. There's no good reason why anyone should believe that mormon was not inspired by the holy ghost but believe your thousands of church leaders were. That's why you on your board have to define christian as someone who believes in some creed formulated over 300 years after Jesus. You don't define christian as someone who believes in the bible, nor as someone who believes in the creed that Jesus is said to have taught(ie the one from the torah which you believe will send you to hell if you proclaim).

>they all claim they are 'correcting' what was lost.

As opposed to Jesus who only came to tell jews that they should all keep on doing what they're up to now.

And as a christian you have to believe parts of the jewish scriptures have been lost anyway due to all the non-existing prophecies "quoted" from the torah in the new testament.

>>29730

>If a message is worth revealing it's worth preserving continuously

which is what happened through a whole line of Prophets sent to mankind, ending with Mohammed, peace be upon him.

Also, your creeds and church councils were performed why? Because christians all knew the correct message? No. It was because of corruption. So the prophets of the church, all claiming to be inspired by the holy ghost of course, took it upon themselves to correct what had been corrupted by christians. New doctrines were added and the false messages attributed to God were said to be distinguished from the correct messages attributed to God.

The trinity is a problem only if you think man's intuition trumps God's revelation,and if you don't understand the person/essence distinction.

>>29747

I would agree if you can prove that the trinity is from revelation. Since no prophet from Adam's (as) time to Noah (as) and even Abraham (as) worshiped a triune god, then we can safely assume neither did Jesus (as), and that it's a later addition, which isn't a big stretch, seeing that many false verses have been inserted in the bible.

Salvation isn't in the ambiguous, nor does it come from some councils interpretation. That would be a great injustice, if to be saved you have to believe something that isn't clear cut in the bible and earlier scripture. It's safe to assume God is 1 and unique, with only 1 person/self.

>According to your bible Jesus (as) says the MOST important commandment is tawheed

Mark 12:28-31 New International Version (NIV)

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

>According to your bible God isn't a man (obviously lol)

Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

>According to your bible God can't be tempted, but satan tempted Jesus (as)?

James 1:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Repent and join the true faith of Jesus PBUH, monotheism.

>>29751

>Since no prophet from Adam's (as) time to Noah (as) and even Abraham (as) worshiped a triune god, then we can safely assume

Neither did any prophet prescribe hajj to mecca as a foundation of the religion that must be observed, nor praying towards the kabba 5x per day.

>It's safe to assume God is 1 and unique, with only 1 person/self.

It's safe to assume the former, not the latter, since he revealed himself in a triune way.

And Allah isn't even 1 person/self. He is transcendent being. He is not a personal God, one that manifests, meets and communicates with his creation personally. He is forever removed from you and your experience. All you have access to is created things and that's all you'll ever have access to.

>>According to your bible Jesus (as) says the MOST important commandment is tawheed

The triunity of God maintains his oneness of being/essence just fine.

>Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)

>God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent

This verse is prior to the incarnation. The qualifier is the main point of the verse, i.e "that he should lie". Of course he's no man in such a sense. He is also far greater than man or human nature. So that verse is not a problem, since he has two natures.

>13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

>>According to your bible God can't be tempted, but satan tempted Jesus (as)?

That verse says he can't be tempted and this is true…i.e he can't fall into temptation. A being could "try" to tempt God, but he would never succeed…i.e there is nothing that would make him fall into temptation. Your other verses were very genuine questions, this one is a play on words, come on.

>Repent and join the true faith of Jesus PBUH, monotheism.

There is nothing in Islam for me. It has no personal God who loves his children and wants to be found and related to personally.

>>29755

>It has no personal God who loves his children and wants to be found and related to personally.

Well, you've just proven that you know nothing about Islam.

>>29755

>Neither did any prophet prescribe hajj to mecca as a foundation of the religion that must be observed, nor praying towards the kabba 5x per day.

That's not salvation, it's works, which sometimes differ from each ummah. Tawheed is the only constant. Moot argument.

>It's safe to assume the former, not the latter, since he revealed himself in a triune way.

Where exactly?

>And Allah isn't even 1 person/self. He is transcendent being. He is not a personal God, one that manifests, meets and communicates with his creation personally. He is forever removed from you and your experience. All you have access to is created things and that's all you'll ever have access to.

Hows that relevant? He doesn't have to become human to know how it feels, just like a computer technician doesn't need to BE a computer to know how it works. He (swt) is a personal God, he communicates with his creation through created means:

"And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise." 42:51

In the same way your only access is Jesus (as), a created thing. God can't be removed from any experience, painful or enjoyable, because he is behind every cause and effect, and thus is always 'with' us. That's why we can pray directly to God, we don't need priests or saints as intermediaries. In short, you are limiting God.

>The triunity of God maintains his oneness of being/essence just fine.

So Jesus says one, but you say three? Hmm, im gonna stick with Jesus.

>This verse is prior to the incarnation. The qualifier is the main point of the verse, i.e "that he should lie". Of course he's no man in such a sense. He is also far greater than man or human nature. So that verse is not a problem, since he has two natures.

What a cop out, that's not an explanation at all, I can just as easily reject your excuse, since it has no basis. According to your bible God can't change, and isn't a man, you can't just say "but that's before he transformed into a baby". And even if he didn't lie as you claim, he still repented many times in the bible, so how do you explain that off I wonder?

>That verse says he can't be tempted and this is true…i.e he can't fall into temptation. A being could "try" to tempt God, but he would never succeed…i.e there is nothing that would make him fall into temptation. Your other verses were very genuine questions, this one is a play on words, come on.

Then why would satan even try to tempt him if he knew he was a deity?

>There is nothing in Islam for me. It has no personal God who loves his children and wants to be found and related to personally.

Basically you follow what "feels good", im pretty sure hindus also feel good with their elephant gods and such until they reach hellfire. Poor argument.

>>29757

>That's not salvation, it's works, which sometimes differ from each ummah

Your salvation is by works, Islamic salvation is works-based, so a pillar of your religion determines your fate. Yet Abraham and the patriarchs would call your hajj "bidah", from their point of view. God reveals what he chooses, he is always one, in our religion this has never been contradicted, instead more nuances have been revealed about that oneness.

>Hows that relevant? He doesn't have to become human to know how it feels, just like a computer technician doesn't need to BE a computer to know how it works. He (swt) is a personal God, he communicates with his creation through created means:

It's not about him "knowing how it feels" it's about us being able to relate to him as persons relating to a personal creator. You cant have a personal relationship to something that is forever purely transcendent with no immanence in creation. Allah doesn't communicate with man since Allah doesn't enter creation and man is stuck within creation (whether its earth or heaven or hell). Thus all you have access to are other created beings, trees, angels, animals, demons, people, stars….some of these created things claim to be agents for this Allah. And that's all you'll ever have, even in your "heaven". There's no communion or communication with God. There's no holy spirit within you, there are no energies of God manifesting in creation, you are not even made in his image.

>In the same way your only access is Jesus (as), a created thing. God can't be removed from any experience, painful or enjoyable, because he is behind every cause and effect, and thus is always 'with' us. That's why we can pray directly to God, we don't need priests or saints as intermediaries. In short, you are limiting God.

Since he creates ex nihilo and is not immanent in his creation you are forever cut off from the object of your worship. And he is an object, not a subject. Do you understand the impossible gap you have due to creation ex nihilo plus having a purely transcendent God?

If Islam taught creation via emanation then you could say he is always "with us" but he is not. There is an ontological schism between created things and Allah, the two are infinitely separated, since created things come out of the abyss of nothingness via creation ex nihilo. And Allah is forever beyond his creation, the two are mutually exclusive "entities". Phenomena that will never meet nor communicate or partake of one another.

Our God overcomes this problem because he "fills all things" and will be "all in all" – he is truly omnipresent and his particular energies and theophanies also enter creation itself. Not only that but we are made in his image, and we are temples for the Holy spirit. You are neither. You are like any other created thing….and forever separated from Allah by an infinite chasm of "ex nihilo" creation, it's insurmountable from your side, only God can overcome this gap if he enters within creation itself. Created things can never on their own bridge the gap. Even your sufis are on a hopeless journey, unless the real God takes pity on them…. But Allah prefers to be secluded and safe beyond all created things, and so no created thing can access him or relate to him, all worship of him is like empty gestures to an unknown God.

The true God is omnipresent, he transcends creation and his energies are immanent within it. He is infinite, nothing limits his presence. It's not the same as your Allah. Allah transcends creation and that's it. He is not immanent in it. Neither as incarnate, nor as Holy Spirit, nor as theophanies or energies. Allah is basically the Greek Monad with some Arabic trappings attached to it. You're worshiping an impersonal transcendent, abstract "entity".

We have the Holy Spirit within us, we have Christ incarnate, we have God's energies acting within creation letting us experience part of the Divine ourselves, and draw closer to him in this life, and even the next. You have no such potential because Allah is purely transcendent.

>So Jesus says one, but you say three? Hmm, im gonna stick with Jesus.

Jesus taught the apostles, they are the ones who quote him, we have to accept the whole revelation, not cherry pick it to fit some made up apocrypha that came centuries later. And when we let revelation speak for itself the trinity is the logical conclusion, not all past generations were lucky to have this mystery available to them. It's God's prerogative how he chooses to reveal himself, at what rate and to what degree.

>>29757

>Basically you follow what "feels good", im pretty sure hindus also feel good with their elephant gods

When I say there's nothing in Islam for me I mean there is nothing there that requires worship, since like you said its core truth is just "tawheed" and everything else is secondary stuff added to it, depending on the "ummah" aka cultural relativism. I know God exists and God is one, tawheed is fine, but simply knowing this doesn't compel me to worship such a God or pray to him. It feels like deism. If God was the Greek Monad I would just shrug my shoulders and go on with life; he has no need for my worship, he isn't a person, we aren't his children, we aren't made in his image, he is an absentee landlord; and I have no need for secondary "rules" that certain "prophets" attach to this transcendent Monad, like making "hajj" or "circumcision" or "dietary rules" because they really do feel secondary and irrelevant and their promise of heaven and hell becomes dubious, can't be taken seriously.

Only the Christian God actually makes worship sensible and possible and meaningful. Of course God exists and is one, but I am only able to worship a God who is personable and interested in me and immanent in creation, I can't worship an impersonal "force", aka the Unmoved Mover or some Monad in itself. It's not about feelings, it's about truth. I don't worship impersonal forces, even if they created me. Only the Christian God is person [three persons actually, one being]. While Allah is one being and no person.

>>29757

>Then why would satan even try to tempt him if he knew he was a deity?

Same reason Satan doesn't submit to God? Pride? Vanity? Self-deception? Poor understanding? Who knows why Satan is fighting a losing battle against the impassable God?…but he does it willingly.

So it's not surprising to see him try to tempt God incarnate.

>>29762

Islam's definition of God isn't the idea of a cold, uncaring observer. You're right in that we believe the creator is unique and different from everything, but that doesn't mean He never interacts with his creation.

First, we have the idea that God is behind everything. If God wasn't there, or he didn't do anything, the universe would grind to a halt. He portions good and bad things for everyone, and he makes everything happen.

Second, he reacts to our actions. There are many deeds in Islam that cause sins to be forgiven, and He is always the one forgiving them. There are some deeds where he tells the angels about how satisfied he is about the person doing them. He cares enough to show interest in our actions.

Third, prayer itself is a conversation between the person praying and God. Not only does the second point come up constantly in prayer, God himself has a response to every line in Surah 1, which is recited every unit of prayer.

Fourth, there will be some big interactions that happen later. We've got this idea called the Day of Judgement, where everyone will be brought back after death and asked about the choices they made in life. God will be the one asking the questions. We'll all meet him, whether we want to or not. On top of that, those who have been granted Heaven will live with Him within it, and will have no problem interacting with Him.

Worship in Islam is for the sake of the worshiper. It's our way of reaching out to God, and He responds whenever we do it. Ignoring worship only hurts us in the end.

>>29751

>19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent

The point of that verse is that God is not one who is a liar nor one who needs to repent. This is a simile. Drawing a comparison via analogy.

''The Lord goes out like a mighty man,

like a man of war he stirs up his zeal;

he cries out, he shouts aloud,

he shows himself mighty against his foes.'' - Isaiah 42:13:

This passage says he is like a man, one who is mighty and loud and ready for action. But God is more than man since he is infinite and has divine nature, even with the incarnation he is far more than man.

This is why we have Jihad so you can just cut their heads off instead of listening to them talk

>>29757

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Jesus, is in fact, Jesus/Father/Holy Ghost, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, the Holy Trinity. Jesus is not God unto himself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning triune diety made useful by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost components comprising a full God as defined by the Bible.

Many Christians worship a modified version of the Father every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of the Holy Trinity which is widely worshipped today is often called “Jesus”, and many of its worshippers are not aware that it is basically the Son and the Holy Ghost, developed by the Father. There really is a Jesus, and these people are worshipping him, but it is just a part of the God they Worship.

Jesus is the son the diety in the Trinity that allocates the prayers to the other dieties that you worship. The son is an essential part of an operating Trinity, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete Triune God. Jesus is normally worshipped in combination with the Father: the whole Trinity is basically The Father with Jesus added, or Father and son. All the so-called “Jesus” churches are really churches of the Father/Son.

>>30507

Nice try mushrik but you're the ones that burned critics on the stake whereas the Muslims held debates against christians throughout history. But then again you're compulsive liars and have no shame making stuff up about God, so it's not hard for you to lie about Muslims.

>>30508

Thanks a lot for describing the bureaucracy in the godhead.

>>29761

faith without works is dead

>>29761

I guess from Adam to Moses they all worshiped a transcended impersonal god, until he decided to reveal himself as actually 3 in 1.

>>29761

>>29762

You seem you have a flawed conception of God, that he is absent or somehow not omnipresent if he doesn't step inside the creation itself. Well that's a fallacy, since being "omnipresent" is simply having perfect information about everything, everywhere at every time. The feeling of being present in a space is simply the sum total of all sensory information (sound, visual, touch, space, smell, ect) But God's knowledge is infinite and thus he has an infinite understanding of every particle and it's direction at what time and more, with no delay, such as our nerves have a few nanosecond delay. So in that way, he actually would know his creation on a deeper than personal level, deeper than if he were to downgrade into human form and just use our senses for information.

>>30514

That's pretty much how they believe it. For the first epoch of man's existence there was no God until the trinity. God literally didn't exist to them until the 1st century "AD". I find it kind of sad, honestly.

>>30514

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Adam and Eve spoke with God and walked with him in the Garden.

Moses spoke with God as well. The trinity has always been operative since God has been manifesting in the world since the beginning of creation.

>>30580

>>30580

>Adam and Eve spoke with God and walked with him in the Garden.

>Moses spoke with God as well. The trinity has always been operative since God has been manifesting in the world since the beginning of creation.

How does that indicate a 3 in 1 god? Both jews and muslims can explain communicating with God without implicating a physical body.

>>30605

>How does that indicate a 3 in 1 god?

It indicates that God is transcendent and immanent in his creation. The details were revealed later.

>both jews and muslims can explain communicating with God without implicating a physical body.

the power of the trinity to mediate between the transcendent and immanent is not available to jews or muslims since they lack the Triune God that personally manifests and relates to man.

You claim that your Allah spoke to a creature at some point in time? but your theology doesn't allow Allah, nor his attributes, to enter creation, no? Can you separate Allah's voice form himself? Can there be two eternal, perfect things separated from each other? Or are you comfortable with Divine incarnation/manifestation in principle?

>>30611

>The details were revealed later.

the very same details that are REQUIRED for salvation ? lol

>>30611

>the power of the trinity to mediate between the transcendent and immanent is not available to jews or muslims since they lack the Triune God

"this thing isnt available to you because you dont believe in it"

this is circular logic, you're selling me something I dont NEED! God can communicate with us thought angels, messengers or veils

>>30613

>salvation

Salvation was by faith in God and is still by faith in God. If you reject God's revelations and incarnation then you don't really have faith in the living God who relates to man personally.

>"this thing isnt available to you because you dont believe in it"

>this is circular logic

That's not circular that's true. If a person disbelieves in a cure then he will remain sick even when the doctor presents the cure.

>God can communicate with us thought angels, messengers or veils

Veils? Cloaks? What?

Does your God and his attributes manifest/enter/incarnate within creation? If not, then how does he communicate personally with any created being?

>>30615

>Does your God and his attributes manifest/enter/incarnate within creation? If not, then how does he communicate personally with any created being?

This was already answered here >>30515

>>30615

>If you reject God's revelations and incarnation

Why is it so hard to figure out the trinity in the new testament that it takes several councils of hundreds of scholars, just to explain the BASIC foundation of your religion. It's like if it took muslims 800 years and many councils of imams to figure out the shahada from the quran. Very ridiculous.

>That's not circular that's true. If a person disbelieves in a cure then he will remain sick even when the doctor presents the cure.

It is circular, since you ASSUME it's true. medicine has actual proof of working

assuming the trinity is true then telling jews they are blind because they dont find it is circular logic

and im pretty sure jews know their old testament more than you

>how does he communicate personally with any created being?

By transmitting information to the creation.

>>30623

whats the difference

>>30659

>The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

ok, then you are a dummy because I say so, and what I say is true since I am smarter than you (a dummy)

>>30580

>Moses spoke with God as well.

When the Bible speaks of Moses or others as seeing Jehovah God it means that they see a manifestation of his glory, and this is usually given by means of an angelic representative of the Almighty. Hence it is that Exodus 24:16 speaks of “the glory of the LORD” abiding upon Mount Sinai, rather than Jehovah himself, when Moses and others were reported as seeing “the God of Israel”.

Exodus 33:20

But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”

And also

Mark 10:18

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

refutes your claim about Jesus (as)

>>30659

>After 200 years

Hadiths started being written down earlier than large parts of your bible(which to this day you can't even agree on what it contains) and all hadiths have connected chains of known people. Transmitters of hadiths were hundreds taking from hundreds, whereas your bible was written by a handful of unknown people. What is funny though is that your fundamental creed was written down after 400 years. Jesus did not know your creed. The disciples didn't. The literal-who's that wrote your bible didn't since they kept misrepresenting it. You literally had a bunch of people and sects, everyone with different ideas of who Jesus was, just making stuff up about him and writing works of polemics and then someone centuries later decided that yup we're gonna go with these ones.

>>30648

It took you 400 years to decide the bible wasn't enough to describe who Jesus or God was.

>>30680

>Jesus = jew on a stick

nice /pol/ memes you got there big guy.

>>30681

>For any Trinis here contemplating converting to Islam.

So if we convert to Islam will we be bitter and immature like you?

>>30688

>, i was unironically bitter an immature before I read the Qur'an.

so nothing changed.

k.

>>30689

muslims can post in any thread on /christian/, as long as you are respectful and not obnoxious, we don't have a "containment thread" you get lumped in.

>>30695

>refute a video

Not interested.

> And why you worship a jew on a stick when your forefathers asked you to worship god.

My conversion story is personal and experiential, it's not an argument to debate. But I'm confident that God is omnipresent, he resides in the world and transcends the world and he can incarnate, and there is nothing you can do about that.

>>30696

>All you can do is point out minor flaws in people

>minor

in fact they are huge and they are pushing you around like a flag in the wind.

>>30693

>we don't have a "containment thread"

First of all, /christian/ permabans any Muslim who isn't there to convert. Second, look at the state of /christian/. It's nothing but denominational infighting, "halp i can't stop touching my pee-pee" threads, /pol/-like "is racemixing a sin" threads, and "tfw no gf" /r9k/ threads. /christian/ is a genuinely terrible board and we don't want your filth infecting our board, hence containment.

>>30698

> It's nothing but denominational infighting

exaggerated, a lot of that has quieted down.

> "halp i can't stop touching my pee-pee"

yes, fighting lust is a big deal, /islam/ might have similar threads if you had more than 4 regular posters.

> /pol/-like "is racemixing a sin"

exaggerated, those are few and far between.

> "tfw no gf"

no, there are relationship threads, but nothing so juvenile.

It's a lively board, the reason you ban/contain Christians is because if you didn't this would become a Christian board, since so few muslims care to read/post here.

>>30701

>if you didn't this would become a Christian board

No … not it wouldn't.

>since so few muslims care to read/post here

It's a slow board because we have lives, wives, children, jobs, and things to do. We don't sit around in our homes posting on the internet 24/7.

>>30707

>It's a slow board because we have lives, wives, children, jobs, and things to do. We don't sit around in our homes posting on the internet 24/7.

I'm not saying you and your 4 regulars should be posting non-stop, that wouldn't work.

On /christian/ we have a big board population, so we don't need to do that.

>>30710

>sh*t attracts a lot of flies

You must be so proud.

>>30712

Yet, here you are, Strange.

I have a gas mask and hazmat suit.

>>30718

It's Sunday, shouldn't you be at church?

>>30719

It's night time here.

>>30710

/christian/ has a big board population because of the number of people using VPNs from getting permabanned for insulting Catholics and then spam whining their ban in every thread. /christian/ is also full of trolls that the mods there ignore, so the troll threads get dozens of replies. I wouldn't be too proud of /christian/'s large user base considering that /b/, too, has a large user base.

>>30720

Oh ok.

>>30722

Don't forget the LARPers. /christian/ has a whole lot of LARPers.

>>30710

Yet you and your fellow trinis seemingly can't get enough of coming here trolling, spamming porn, blasphemy etc.

>>30745

just an example. The mods on /christian/ are busy all the time.

Why do stick enthusiasts delete my arguments in a 'refuting islam' thread? Don't mods have actual trolls to censor. Complete deceit.

We got raided again by the cyber crusaders. And I saw your provocations and insults against Islam, muslims and this board. Are you claiming to be christians? I see no good character. Only satanic influence, satan wishes to extinguish Allah's light, the truth's light, the light of the world. Satan wishes to mislead you with your words and actions O you acclaimed followers of Jesus (as). And for us insulting the prophet (saw) is worst than killing. Insulting Allah (swt) is the worst fitna, the fitna of shirk. So what is wrong with you that you disobey the command of Allah and his prophets, to not take any Lords besides him, to not love any besides him, to not fight for any besides him. Yet you are ready to give your son's souls to the defend of the state of the descendants of apes and pigs. We would love for you to submit to the Lord of majesty, and to follow his law and live among us as brothers, pure and gentle. So what is wrong with you, so called christians, that you embark on a sinking ship, going deep in a dark cold ocean. You are destroyed, and we only call upon the unique God. So only a few days are between us O worshipers of the cross.

>>30862

So Saint Paul is more powerful than both God and his prophet? Lets read the Quran, shall we?

>Surah 6:115: And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

There we go. None can alter God's words.

>Surah 5:46: And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

>Surah 17:55: And your Lord is most knowing of whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And We have made some of the prophets exceed others [in various ways], and to David We gave the book [of Psalms].

Therefore the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are God's words. Nobody can alter God's words. By saying Saint Paul altered God's words which is nonsense in of itself, the Torah and the Psalms in their current versions predate Saint Paul, and there is no record of Saint Paul writing any gospel or modifying Gospels that existed. Especially considering the gospel of John was written after he died you are saying Saint Paul is more powerful than God and that the Quran didn't factor in the mighty strength of Saint Paul. The Torah, Psalms, and Gospel have not been modified or corrupted

>Surah 29:46: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Your God is my God, the God of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel? Well he is a holy trinity, and the Son died on the cross

>>30844

Maybe it's a response to the cyber jihadis that raid /christian/ every day.

>>30844

>bawwww don’t be mean to me

Man up, kid. It’s a tough world.

>>30866

>Your God is my God, the God of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel? Well he is a holy trinity, and the Son died on the cross

I'd like to see you say this to a jew and keep a straight face.

>>30869

nobody raids your irrelevant board

>>30872

indeed, that's why we're always gonna be at war

>>30915

>>30915

Neither the Church nor the bible nor the saints teach that.

>>30890

Raids happen but get squashed quickly. Also how many vpns have you used so far? You can't get enough huh

>>30915

>Mary is a God now too

This is some next level blasphemy I swear christians are nearly as stupid as Atheists

>>30915

If Jesus and Mary are Gods. How the ☻ did God create them when he himself is God.

Christianity is stupid

>>30915

>the absolute state of Muslim argumentation

So I gusss you can’t respond to the perfect logic shown here >>30894

>>30929

>You've been getting banned all day for your low quality troll threads lmao

Was thinking the same thing, and he keeps coming back, for free!

>>30930

coping that pic, thanks.

>>30932

copping* I guess is the right word?

for getting/grabbing?

>>30929

>look how many flies our sh*t attracts!

You must be very proud.

This board does not allow depictions of the prophets of Allah, not even in this thread.

>>30934

>your board is bad cause it’s irrelevant

<no it’s not, our board has way more users than yours

>uhh your board is ☻ cause ughggh it attracts flies

The Muslim mind

>>30936

>quotes two different people

lrn2 ID fgt

>>30939

I think you're taking "alter God's word" a little too on the nose. It is true that God's word cannot be altered. That doesn't mean it cannot be lied about.

If God originally said, "Love thy neighbor" then that is what God said and absolutely nothing can change that. A person may come along and write, "Love thy White neighbor", but that does not change what God originally said. God's word is immutable. The Gospel used in that video … which version is it? KJV? NIV? Ignatius? Schofield? Which interpretation of Qur'an is it?

Nothing can change God's word, but everyone can misinterpret it or mistranslate it.

>Can St Paul alter Gods words

NO. LISTEN TO ME DUMB CHRISTIANS

PAUL NEVER LIED IN THE BIBLE. NOT DIRECTLY. HE TWISTED THE TRUTH, SO THE PEOPLE READING IT THOUGHT THAT BARABBAS WAS THE TERRORIST JESUS AND NOT JESUS OF NAZARETH.

All the stories in the New Testament are true but have been modified ever so slightly with words like "lord", "Christ", "Father" etc. so people would worship Jesus as a God.

I like how christians keep having to ban me from their board because they know my posts will wake up all the sleeping Muslims on your board, who only hav to read the Quran and they will convert immediately. Just like I did

Have fun enjoying the final days of Christianity

>>30931

Which perfect logic? I thought that was a pro muslim argument lol.

>>30944

I'm a /christian/, read the Quran twice. Not converting.

The Barabbas theory makes no sense when you keep in mind

>At no point in the Bible is Jesus of Nazareth called the "Son of the Father," or "Barabbas." He is referred to as the Son of God. So your claim that Jesus is only referred to as Barabbas crucified is null and void

>Mary, Jesus's mother, was at the foot of the cross. She knew her son

>When the apostles meet Jesus after the crucifixion, he has holes in his hands and feet. Is that Barabbas too? Are you claiming Barabbas ascended into Heaven?

>>30940

Changing the words to change their meaning is altering the words. Heck, under your definition, what's stopping people from doing that to the Quran? Maybe it did happen to the Quran, and the "not three" verse isn't actually the word of God. Maybe Muhammad was a faithful Orthodox Christian and we just need to take out the verses contrary to Orthodoxy Obviously that isn't true, I'm showing how absurd your viewpoint is

>>30945

Read the arguments leading up to it. Basically that post is saying that Islam is doublethink, as it is impossible to hold these two contradictory views

>The Christian scripture (or just the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel) are the word of God, and the Christian God is the same God as the God of the Quran (who clearly states that his word can not be corrupted)

>The trinity (the Christian God) is paganism and the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels which preach the trinity have been corrupted

>>30947

>what's stopping people from doing that to the Quran?

Nothing. People do it all the time, interpreting the original Arabic through their translation into other languages. That's doesn't change the original Qur'an, though. Let's try this again:

God says

>LOVE THY NEIGHBOR

Frank writes

>LOVE THY WHITE NEIGHBOR

Does that change God's word? No, it doesn't because that's not God's word, it's Frank's.

>>30948

God is telling you to spread this message? Are you a prophet?

>>30948

Paul didn't write the narrative of the resurrection. Paul was the last to proclaim Christ's resurrection

>>30949

You're being pedantic. You know what "changing God's word" means, and you nobody on Earth is claiming that writing a new form of scripture retroactively changes what God said. Stop acting stupid on purpose

>>30951

Then we agree that God's word cannot be changed. Now the question becomes: Is your KJV the true and original word of God?

>>30952

Why is the KJV relevant? We can read manuscripts of the Torah and Psalms dating back to before Christ (and Gospel manuscripts dating back to the early years of Christianity) that prove that

>God is Elohim who created the world with his Word and Holy Spirit, and incarnates on Earth as a man

>God has a son and that God will incarnate on Earth and suffer and be rejected

>Jesus Christ was the incarnate and eternal God who was crucified for the sake of humanity

When the Quran says that Jews have the Torah and Christians have the Gospel, it can only be referring to the Bible as it existed in 609 AD. Look at the Septuagint (2nd century BC) the Pe☻ta (2nd century AD) and the Vulgate (late 4th century) to see that those were teachings were long set by the time the Quran came around

Once again, you can not accept these contrary viewpoints

>The Christian scripture (or just the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel) are the word of God, and the Christian God is the same God as the God of the Quran (who clearly states that his word can not be corrupted)

>The trinity (the Christian God) is paganism and the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels which preach the trinity have been corrupted

>>30954

Schizo

>>30953

>We can read manuscripts of the Torah and Psalms dating back to before Christ

No we can't. Tiny fragments and scraps are all we have.

>When the Quran says that Jews have the Torah and Christians have the Gospel

It doesn't. It says the Jews HAD (were given) Torah and Christians HAD (were given) the Gospel. Do you understand the difference?

>>30954

Yeah, see, we don't do the LARPing thing on this board. You might want to head over to /fringe/ or somewhere like that.

If you're going to LARP as a prophet, go do it on >>>/fringe/

>>30947

The word of God can't be corrupted but it can be lied about. There's plenty of examples of fake scripture in the bible, like the stoning of the prostitute story.

Secondly, you assume that the torah contains the trinity, every jew on the face of the planet disagrees. Why can't jews make the same argument against you? Since you don't reject judaism as an original religion.

I don't know why we tolerate these polytheists subhumans on our board while they ban us on theirs.

>>30987

Polytheism: belief in many gods.

How many gods do Christians believe in? Oh yeah, one.

>>30987

Simple answer, akhi. Because we are better than them. If a homeless, hungry Christian asked me for bread, I would give it to him. Were I in the same situation, the Christian would (usually, not always) demand I convert before feeding me. On fridays at the mosque, there is a huge amount of food given to all comers without question. On sundays you must sit through the sermon in church before being allowed to eat.

We should not drop ourselves to their level. They have this thread. Let 'em have it even if they don't have something similar on their board(s). Though I think >>>/christ/ is more open, it's a very dead board.

>>30990

In terms of sharee’ah or Islamic terminology, shirk means ascribing a partner or rival to Allaah in Lordship (ruboobiyyah), worship or in His names and attributes.

You literally ascribe Jesus (as) as a partner to God in Lordship, worship and attributes. All 3 types of shirk. May Allah (swt) guide or destroy you whichever is best.

>>30992

>On fridays at the mosque, there is a huge amount of food given to all comers without question. On sundays you must sit through the sermon in church before being allowed to eat.

Lol so true, I can relate to that in my home country the give food to some poor peoples only with the condition of preaching to them their shirk. But thankfully my brothers troll them and do takbir after eating until the christians leave.

>>30987

You get banned for posting blasphemous troll comments.

>>30965

I am not a literal Prophet. But tell me something sir. Who is a messenger of Allah? How do you know a messenger of Allah?

Do you think im larping because you think I am lying about being shown the truth through the spirit?

Or do you think I am larping because you dont believe in my refutation of Christianity?