Jump to content
Zavon

How do you refute Trinity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

They feel guided by Allah just as we do. 

I get that, but to what end?

The average Christian that I've met, when asked about trinity will explain it as they've been taught it, but have no personal details as to how they know. For the most part, they can't wrap their head around it, only accept it. They can't really talk about it because to think otherwise is blasphemous, ( catch 22), so they put it in the back of their mind hoping it doesn't become a problem. If they could be honest, ( or read their scriptures), they would admit that there's too much in the NT that notes the differences. Statements of unison are not statements of equality, nor partnership, nor oneness. Even in their churches, worship God, praise Jesus, ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why the separation in activities?

They are continually exposed to the contradictions and taught not to see them. It's the same leverage used in every religion because it works so well. 

You can't condemn sheep for being sheep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Son of Placid said:

I get that, but to what end?

The average Christian that I've met, when asked about trinity will explain it as they've been taught it, but have no personal details as to how they know. For the most part, they can't wrap their head around it, only accept it. They can't really talk about it because to think otherwise is blasphemous, ( catch 22), so they put it in the back of their mind hoping it doesn't become a problem. If they could be honest, ( or read their scriptures), they would admit that there's too much in the NT that notes the differences. Statements of unison are not statements of equality, nor partnership, nor oneness. Even in their churches, worship God, praise Jesus, ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why the separation in activities?

They are continually exposed to the contradictions and taught not to see them. It's the same leverage used in every religion because it works so well. 

You can't condemn sheep for being sheep. 

I would agree that many religions use such leverage except the path that the Supreme King exposed me to for my own sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2017 at 7:10 PM, King-Ali said:

How do you refute the Doctorine of Trinity? How do you persuade someone following trinity that their religion is not right...

so there a number of ways.Some simple questions:

1) Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit 3-in-1 or  separate entities?

2) Are they all eternal or did one come before the others?

  • if one came before, then the Trinity is not a true trinity because one of them is superior to the others.

3) If they are all eternal and Jesus died on the cross, then for at least 3 days there were only 2/3 Trinity or some sort of a Duality. And if God dies, how is He eternal.

10 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 Wouldn't you agree that our understanding of tawhid is like idolatry when compared to the way the Imams (peace and blessings be upon them) have understood or embodied tawhid?

Not at all.

1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

I get that, but to what end?

The average Christian that I've met, when asked about trinity will explain it as they've been taught it, but have no personal details as to how they know. For the most part, they can't wrap their head around it, only accept it. They can't really talk about it because to think otherwise is blasphemous, ( catch 22), so they put it in the back of their mind hoping it doesn't become a problem. If they could be honest, ( or read their scriptures), they would admit that there's too much in the NT that notes the differences. Statements of unison are not statements of equality, nor partnership, nor oneness. Even in their churches, worship God, praise Jesus, ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why the separation in activities?

They are continually exposed to the contradictions and taught not to see them. It's the same leverage used in every religion because it works so well. 

You can't condemn sheep for being sheep. 

well said brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

How has this got anything to do with yielding to the words of the devil? 

Your impetuous emboldened reply only goes to prove what I said.

Horse Hockey! <---as Col.Potter use to say on MASH.

What l "proved" is you chose the Words of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I get that, but to what end?

The average [person-ed.] ... can't wrap their head around it, ...

You can't condemn sheep for being sheep. 

Oh YES you can.

Sura xxxiv:31-33

Sura xxxix:70-72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Oh YES you can.

Sura xxxiv:31-33

Sura xxxix:70-72

relevance? Ah, yeah. unbeliever = anyone not Shia.

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Horse Hockey! <---as Col.Potter use to say on MASH.

What l "proved" is you chose the Words of Satan.

K, you tell me what I choose and what I don't. May as well tell me what I am and what I'm not while you're at it. Once you have me slotted, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Son of Placid said:

1]   relevance? Ah, yeah. unbeliever = anyone not Shia.

2]  you tell me what I choose and what I don't. May as well tell me what I am and what I'm not while you're at it. Once you have me slotted, let me know.

1] Not so, My Boldfaced reply to your 26July post. quad vide.

2]  You are not "slotted" or stereotyped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

 

 

 

 

Salam,

Yes.  The doctrine came after the time of Jesus Christ.  It is like many of the doctrines of Islam (which have come after the time of the Prophet (S))..... think of the Aqeeda (Creedal) Texts of Shi and Sunni Islam. Christians also needed to have a formal creed, and that is what the Church Fathers set out to do.  Who put together the Aqida of Muslims?  Did the Prophet (S) or the Shia Imams (as) do that?  Of course not.  It was the scholars of Islam that did that (and for good reason, it was needed for as a clarification and as an explicit response to questions and confusions that arose from the Muslim Ummah) .  But I am just giving an analogy between Islam and Christianity and as such showing the similarity between Aqida and Christian Creed will not be a one to one correspondence.  A difference (for instance) is that In Christianity the Church Fathers are given a kind of spiritual authority from Heaven through the institution of the Church (and this believed by Catholics or or by the Eastern Orthodox Church...and someone can correct me if I am wrong about this).  So what the Church Fathers say carries (or should carry) more weight in Christainity than what some Scholar of Islam says about Islamic Doctrine in Islam (unless of course, we have in mind Muslims who are recognized as Awliya...those besides the Imams (as) of course)       

So the doctrine may not have always been there but the reality of the Trinity (for Christians) was always there for it is an eternal reality or Truth (as they will say...for those who believe in it).  That reality, if truly understood, is not in conflict with the perspective of Divine Unity.  Most Christians don't have the capacity to understand that reality... but this is the case with most Muslims who don't have the capacity to understand the reality of Tawhid.  How many Muslims truly understand the reality of Tawhid?  Wouldn't you agree that our understanding of tawhid is like idolatry when compared to the way the Imams (peace and blessings be upon them) have understood or embodied tawhid?

 

 

 

Ws,

What about the rest of my questions?

Can we come to a common ground regarding the concept of trinity and its origin? 

If I were to say that the concept of trinity has no backing in the Bible and if I were to say that the concept of trinity is a man made concept that was created without the approval of prophet Jesus(as), would you agree? And if you argue that they had the prophets approval, then why the need to define it after his gone or would you say such a concept of trinity is not that big of an issue to bring forth? To me it is a huge "game changer".

To me, the concept of trinity, justifies calling prophet Jesus(as) the son of God in accordance with the christian faith, if the concept of trinity was not there then it would make no sense to say that prophet Jesus(as) is the son of God, praying to his father God, actually it still doesnt make sense that God on earth would pray to God somewhere ells, not even the man made concept of trinity can make it sound logical. 

God died because he wanted to save men from the wrath of God so that God would not punish them and as long as you love the son of God who is God, God the father of God, not the God who died in order to save you from God, God wont send you to hell. Sounds logical to you?

 

Also, you cannot compare the stuff that came from fallible men as divine rules to the concept of infallible Imams(as) of the shia faith who cannot say anything wrong. There is a very fundamental difference between these two who makes the comparison invalid in this scenario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

If I were to say that the concept of trinity has no backing in the Bible and if I were to say that the concept of trinity is a man made concept that was created without the approval of prophet Jesus(as), would you agree? And if you argue that they had the prophets approval, then why the need to define it after his gone or would you say such a concept of trinity is not that big of an issue to bring forth? To me it is a huge "game changer".

8

The Trinity is arguably in the Bible but not explicitly by NAME.  It is like how a particular way of understanding "Imamat" is argued by Shias to be in the Quran (at least implicitly if not explicitly).  Forget Imamat....  what about TAWHID.  Is "Tawhid" explicitly mentioned in the Quran? No, and it doesn't have to be.   In the same way, "Trinity" is not explicitly mentioned but it is arguably in there. So in the Bible the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned.  In Mathew we find:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

I love these discussions (by the way) because they make me read the Bible and when I do these verses really speak to my heart (I am surprised they don't speak to you...but I don't blame you).  These are more:

Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I and the Father are one.

 

Honestly, for me at least, especially after reading these verses, I would like to say that TRINITY is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.   Let us be fair, honest, and objective when looking at other religions just as we would expect others to be objective, fair and honest when looking at our religion (Islam) and our Book (Quran).   

Quote

To me, the concept of trinity, justifies calling prophet Jesus(as) the son of God in accordance with the christian faith, if the concept of trinity was not there then it would make no sense to say that prophet Jesus(as) is the son of God, praying to his father God, actually it still doesnt make sense that God on earth would pray to God somewhere ells, not even the man made concept of trinity can make it sound logical.

It is not supposed to make sense to everyone.  But as someone who is really involved in the mystical tradition of Islam and other religions, It makes perfect and complete sense to me (alhamdulillah).  It is wonderful and beautiful to be able to see the different religious traditions without them necessarily negating each other (or excluding one another) -- I really thank God for this... and if it is good for you, may He allow you to see this as well inshallah).  If I were you I would not focus on other religions but focus on your own religion and go deep within it (focusing on other religions seem to be distracting you from your real work).  

But my point is the following:  Trinity is not in conflict with logic (it is supra-rational but not rational).  This is the same with understanding God.  To truly know Allah one has go "beyond" his rational faculty and into his heart's spirit.  He will find that such a knowledge is not in contradiction or is not in opposition to his reason but that it is more than what his reason can grasp.       

Quote

God died because he wanted to save men from the wrath of God so that God would not punish them and as long as you love the son of God who is God, God the father of God, not the God who died in order to save you from God, God wont send you to hell. Sounds logical to you?

It makes sense to me.  rather beautiful  I should say.  (I honestly mean it).  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The Trinity is arguably in the Bible but not explicitly by NAME.  It is like how a particular way of understanding "Imamat" is argued by Shias to be in the Quran (at least implicitly if not explicitly).  Forget Imamat....  what about TAWHID.  Is "Tawhid" explicitly mentioned in the Quran? No, and it doesn't have to be.   In the same way, "Trinity" is not explicitly mentioned but it is arguably in there. So in the Bible the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned.  In Mathew we find:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

I love these discussions (by the way) because they make me read the Bible and when I do these verses really speak to my heart (I am surprised they don't speak to you...but I don't blame you).  These are more:

Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I and the Father are one.

 

Honestly, for me at least, especially after reading these verses, I would like to say that TRINITY is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.   Let us be fair, honest, and objective when looking at other religions just as we would expect others to be objective, fair and honest when looking at our religion (Islam) and our Book (Quran).   

 

What do you mean "our religion" and "our Book"? It says your religion is "NOTHING" on your user profile.

I feel like you only answer the questions you feel you have a good answer for.

What about all my other questions? 

Why do you even compare the holy Quran to the Bible? According to you, the Bible is not holy, so why would you compare the content of a book which contains purely divine revelations with the content of a book who man has meddled with and distorted to fit their personal agendas? 

What do you mean Tawhid has not been mentioned in the holy Qur'an? Do you want me to recite all the ayahs?

Have you heard surah Al-Ikhlas?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

 

What do you mean "our religion" and "our Book"? It says your religion is "NOTHING" on your user profile.

 

interesting isn't it?

Quote

I feel like you only answer the questions you feel you have a good answer for.

That is a good start.  At least you are saying that I have good answers to the questions I choose to answer (alhamdulillah).

I feel can write a whole book in response to your questions.  But I don't think you would read it or be receptive to it.  

My point regarding "tawhid" is that the word "tawhid" is not mentioned in Quran.  In the same way the word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible.  But the teaching is there as I pointed out with those verses.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

@eThErEaL Do you think Quran has any verses that objects trinity? or are there any verses from the Quran that objects certain concepts of Christianity?

What is your view regarding this?

Every sacred religion has an inward and an outward, an essence and a form, a kernel and a shell, an esoteric and an exoteric dimension.  The outward of every sacred religion is different but the inward of every sacred religion is in fact all One Religion (this is called sometimes as Din al-Fitrah, Din of the Hanifs, Primordial Religion or Religion of the Heart, it is Al-Islam or Universal Submission but in the most universal sense of the term ).  Quran is against almost everything outward regarding Christianity.  It has to be, because if it were not against the outward form of Christianity (if it were not against everything that distinguishes Christianity from Islam) the two religions would not be different outwardly (they would not be two different religions).  For example, a tree has to have properties which are opposed to a mountain, if they did not have any opposing properties whatsoever then they would be the same thing!  But this is not God's plan of course.  He intends to create different paths for different people.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Every sacred religion has an inward and an outward, an essence and a form, a kernel and a shell, an esoteric and an exoteric dimension

Yeah, but my point is that Allah clearly rejects the doctrine of trinity because it has no ground. You say that the idea of trinity is in the bible, and compare that with Imamat. However, bible has been altered, so how will you know whether that was the word of god?

However, the fact that Allah clearly rejects it (Quran 5:73) shows that this doctrine was was completely false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Yeah, but my point is that Allah clearly rejects the doctrine of trinity because it has no ground. You say that the idea of trinity is in the bible, and compare that with Imamat. However, bible has been altered, so how will you know whether that was the word of god?

However, the fact that Allah clearly rejects it (Quran 5:73) shows that this doctrine was was completely false. 

Let us assume the Quran completely rejects the Trinity (which I don't think is true since The Quran says "desist from saying three, it would be better for you") then I am fine with it based on the explanation I gave in my previous post regarding outward and inward dimensions of religion.  I am fine with it because Quran is not meant to outwardly conform to Christianity.

The doctrine of Trinity is true because it makes perfect sense when understoood from a mystical point of view (it can be verified with the heart).  Trinity is a sacred doctrine for Christians, not only because it is in the Bible but also because God cannot possibly misguide so many millions of people over successive generations.  He would not let that happen.    

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

interesting isn't it?

No, not really. I could not care less in fact, it makes no difference to me what you call yourself.

In either makes you look like you forgot to change your religion to whatever it is you believe since you are at least evidently agnostic.

Or it makes you seem like one of those super enlighten special snow flakes that loves attention and being told that they are so much smarter than others.

Either way, none of the above reasons are really interesting, just boring, you get a lot of those on the internet.

 

5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:
Quote

God died because he wanted to save men from the wrath of God so that God would not punish them and as long as you love the son of God who is God, God the father of God, not the God who died in order to save you from God, God wont send you to hell. Sounds logical to you?

It makes sense to me.  rather beautiful  I should say.  (I honestly mean it).  

It makes perfect sense to you? 

... Okay.

 

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:
Quote

I feel like you only answer the questions you feel you have a good answer for.

That is a good start.  At least you are saying that I have good answers to the questions I choose to answer (alhamdulillah).

I feel can write a whole book in response to your questions.  But I don't think you would read it or be receptive to it.  

No. I said "I feel like you only answer the questions you feel you have a good answer for."

This does not mean that I think your answers are good but that YOU think your answers are good.

It is quite evident that you are a selective reader and also selective in what questions you choose to address. These attributes makes it pretty pointless to discuss with you since you will read what you want to read only.

I am still waiting for the answer to the rest of my questions, if you dont know the answer or feel like you have a hard time coming with a good (in accordance with you personally) answer, then please just admit it instead of avoiding them.

I dont really know if theres a point continuing this discussion with you.

 

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

The doctrine of Trinity is true because it makes perfect sense when understoood from a mystical point of view (it can be verified with the heart).

It makes perfect sense to you out of a "mystical point of view" and thats why its true? Thats the level of your reasoning?

With that type of reasoning everything can be announced as sensible.

 

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Trinity is a sacred doctrine for Christians, not only because it is in the Bible but also because God cannot possibly misguide so many millions of people over successive generations.  He would not let that happen.  

Please give me your definition of something sacred.

You concluded that the Bible does not have the same status as the holy Quran because humans have changed it and added to it and removed from it.

Your second argument does not make much sense either because first of all God does not misguide people, He guides the ones that are humble enough to follow, it is people themselves who misguides themselves. He gives the options and encourages you to reflect and think and remain humble in order to achieve something from your reflection and thinking.

Have you heard about prophet Noa(as)? Almost all of mankind had become misguided, not because of Allah swt misguiding them but because they did not want to be guided thru his prophet and sure enough Allah swt drowned them all.

Both your arguments fail, and you base the splitting of the one God into three on such arguments?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

"desist from saying three, it would be better for you")

'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.'

I feel there are no 'ifs' and 'buts' when it comes to this verse. Many of the tafsirs of our knowledgeable scholars indicate that this doctrine is completely wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

No, not really. I could not care less in fact, it makes no difference to me what you call yourself.

In either makes you look like you forgot to change your religion to whatever it is you believe since you are at least evidently agnostic.

Or it makes you seem like one of those super enlighten special snow flakes that loves attention and being told that they are so much smarter than others.

Either way, none of the above reasons are really interesting, just boring, you get a lot of those on the internet.

 

It makes perfect sense to you? 

... Okay.

 

No. I said "I feel like you only answer the questions you feel you have a good answer for."

This does not mean that I think your answers are good but that YOU think your answers are good.

It is quite evident that you are a selective reader and also selective in what questions you choose to address. These attributes makes it pretty pointless to discuss with you since you will read what you want to read only.

I am still waiting for the answer to the rest of my questions, if you dont know the answer or feel like you have a hard time coming with a good (in accordance with you personally) answer, then please just admit it instead of avoiding them.

I dont really know if theres a point continuing this discussion with you.

 

It makes perfect sense to you out of a "mystical point of view" and thats why its true? Thats the level of your reasoning?

With that type of reasoning everything can be announced as sensible.

 

Please give me your definition of something sacred.

You concluded that the Bible does not have the same status as the holy Quran because humans have changed it and added to it and removed from it.

Your second argument does not make much sense either because first of all God does not misguide people, He guides the ones that are humble enough to follow, it is people themselves who misguides themselves. He gives the options and encourages you to reflect and think and remain humble in order to achieve something from your reflection and thinking.

Have you heard about prophet Noa(as)? Almost all of mankind had become misguided, not because of Allah swt misguiding them but because they did not want to be guided thru his prophet and sure enough Allah swt drowned them all.

Both your arguments fail, and you base the splitting of the one God into three on such arguments?

 

I don't think I can continue this conversation after what you have just said.  Inshallah some other time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

'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.'

I feel there are no 'ifs' and 'buts' when it comes to this verse. Many of the tafsirs of our knowledgeable scholars indicate that this doctrine is completely wrong. 

I forgot about that verse.  So yes that is a verse clearly against the Trinity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

'They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. 

I am not a trinitarian myself but I am certain trinitarians agree with this. Maybe Muhammed was familiar with a Christian sect that believed there were three Gods, but if so, where are they today? And if not, whats the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

'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.'

I feel there are no 'ifs' and 'buts' when it comes to this verse. Many of the tafsirs of our knowledgeable scholars indicate that this doctrine is completely wrong. 

5:72 is pretty straight forward as well. 

There's still confusion here. The first half of 4:171 says; 

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. 

Note it says Jesus is, #1 a messenger, #2 His word, #3 a spirit from Him. Many things in the scriptures are mentioned in threes. 

Everybody is focusing on the messenger. The physical person of Jesus. A flesh and blood god. It doesn't matter how you look at it, the physical person of Jesus could not be anything more than a vessel, just like every Prophet, so why is Jesus given such status? How could it ever come to this?

It's a longer study but ties in with #2, "His word". Why is this here?

Does it confirm the opening of the Gospel according to John? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don't think I can continue this conversation after what you have just said.  Inshallah some other time. 

Sorry eThErEaL We are warned in Matthew 7 about pouring your heart out in front of those who prefer to destroy it.

Kinda tough dealing with someone who sits on the only pinnacle of truth, can say whatever they like because everyone else is beneath them. It happens every time school lets out, and a sign that prejudice is still part of the curriculum.

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, andres said:

I am not a trinitarian myself but I am certain trinitarians agree with this. Maybe Muhammed was familiar with a Christian sect that believed there were three Gods, but if so, where are they today? And if not, whats the problem?

Most Muslims will not be able to accept how the Trinity can possibly be reconciled with God's Oneness.  It requires a tremendous amount of patience,  open-mindedness, and not to mention (and this is perhaps the most important of all) a special fondness for Classical Medieval Mystical Philosophy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

5:72 is pretty straight forward as well. 

There's still confusion here. The first half of 4:171 says; 

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. 

Note it says Jesus is, #1 a messenger, #2 His word, #3 a spirit from Him. Many things in the scriptures are mentioned in threes. 

Everybody is focusing on the messenger. The physical person of Jesus. A flesh and blood god. It doesn't matter how you look at it, the physical person of Jesus could not be anything more than a vessel, just like every Prophet, so why is Jesus given such status? How could it ever come to this?

It's a longer study but ties in with #2, "His word". Why is this here?

Does it confirm the opening of the Gospel according to John? 

This is why I find Christianity very beautiful.  It is really direct in bringing out the message of God's immanence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Sorry eThErEaL We are warned in Matthew 7 about pouring your heart out in front of those who prefer to destroy it.

Kinda tough dealing with someone who sits on the only pinnacle of truth, can say whatever they like because everyone else is beneath them. It happens every time school lets out, and a sign that prejudice is still part of the curriculum.

In what way has he "poured his heart out"? And in what way have i destroyed it?

I have no interest in destroying anyones heart, especially since i do not gain anything in doing so. My sense of what is true and was is false is independent of his heart whether it is whole or it is destroyed.

If a person cannot stand being questioned regarding what they are saying without feeling hurt then they should remain quiet to begin with, as far as I know, we are all adults here.

I wish to understand my surrounding and in order to do so, I question my surrounding. You and others are part of my surrounding.

But I will tell you one thing, I usually refrain from discussing religion with Christians, not because I am afraid to but because I fear that in a discussion of what makes more logical sense, they will end up abandoning their religion in the end but I more so fear that their sense of pride will prevent them from adopting a religion which makes more rational sense, leaving them all together with no religion at all and I do not want that.

I believe the current religion of modern Christianity is more based on emotions than anything ells, the concept of trinity is a prime example, in this case the person in particular seems to base his sense of what is truth and sensible on "Classical Medieval Mystical Philosophy" whatever that actually means...

As I said before I am not out to hurt anyone or destroy anyones heart but I would like to expand my knowledge by asking and I would also like to increase my understanding of the answer by questioning the answer, just like Imam Ali(as) has said:

B-Rl6txCYAE5q-1.jpg

 

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don't think I can continue this conversation after what you have just said.  Inshallah some other time.

Which part of what I said makes you not be able to continue the conversation?

Your faith seems to be a mix of religions, making you a "special snowflake".

You saying you are able to write me books in response to my questions makes you deem yourself as "enlightened".

You thinking I and others would find your lack of clarity regarding your religious status "interesting" makes it look like you enjoy attention.

You call the holy Quran "our book" and at the same time you believe in trinity and at the same time you forget about ayahs who specifically condemns the concept of trinity. Is that a small thing to forget?

Me saying that I think you are a selective reader is evident from your own posts, me saying you are selective in what questions you wish to answer is evident from your own posts.

Or was it my bringing of the example of Prophet Noa(as) to show how your argument cannot hold what makes you not be able to continue?

Or was it me questioning you definition of what you yourself deem as sacred in relation to your previous statements?

 

Honestly brothers in humanity, our time to interact with each other in this short life is so limited, if you would count the seconds of interaction then perhaps we would stop beating around the bush. I do not wish to spend my short time interacting with you by trying to win your liking of me or by trying to play games. Lets be genuine and lets be straight forward.

To say that the one God is three is a huge statement, if your words could manifest, such statement would shake the mountains. You better be able to defend your statement, for sure you will be questioned about it, if not in this life by nobodies like me then in the grave by the angels and ultimately by the one and eternal God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Yes it is good news. But we should be cautious not allow something new to emerge. Because end of something is beginning of new thing .
    • Most Shi'a don't pray? May I remind you that being a tarik al salat might be worse than adultery.
    • What are the possible meanings of word "Kitab" in Quranic Arabic?
      It appears that it has a wide range of meanings e.g.,

       كِتَابٌ مَّرْقُومٌ
      Written Book (83:20)

      كِتَابٌ مَّعْلُومٌ
      Term made known (15:4)

      كِتَابٌ يَنطِقُ بِالْحَقِّ
      Book which speaks with truth

      لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ
      A Mighty Book (41:41)

      كِتَابٌ حَفِيظٌ
      A writing that preserves (50:4)

      And today while I was reciting the chapter 27, I found that the same word "Kitab" is used in the meaning of letter.

      كِتَابٌ كَرِيمٌ
      Honorable Letter (27:29)

      اذْهَب بِّكِتَابِي هَذَا فَأَلْقِهْ إِلَيْهِمْ ثُمَّ تَوَلَّ عَنْهُمْ فَانظُرْ مَاذَا يَرْجِعُونَ قَالَتْ يَا أَيُّهَا المَلَأُ إِنِّي أُلْقِيَ إِلَيَّ كِتَابٌ كَرِيمٌ


      So as per translations, "Kitab" possibly means "Book", "Record", "Writing", "Letter", "Term"...

      Please share with me if you know more possible meanings of word "Kitab" or its root word "Ka Ta Ba"..
    • Out of curiosity - what would you personally require to know that God exits? I mean, do you wanna see a big white fluff of cotton to know God exists or something like that?
    • So now we will have to define sense and perception. Sense is ability to think and perception is ability to understand. And when you understand and think obviously you will deduce somethings.
×