Search the Community

Salaam I have a query, I read the Lord's prayer recently. and I fail to see HOW this is haram?????? "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." What is haram about this ??? Its asking Allah to give us rizq, forgive us and save us from evil? how is it haram?? @A

Salaams I thought I'd share this lecture by Dr. Chris Hewer (A Christian) on Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) especially for this month of Muharram, which I feel respects Imam Hussain(عليه السلام) and his marytrdom. He has other lectures of course, but this talk focuses more on the aspect of martyrdom between the faiths that serve to broaden understanding. I thought this would be helpful for those who identify as Christians to be able to relate.

Assalamu aleikoum Brothers & Sisters, i think that many people would be probably shocked of this info. This Church (mother of the other Christian Churches, except Nestorian and partly Tewahedo) is in fact pagan bloodthirsty worship of the sun - go google photos ,,Christianity Sun worship". The Latin Church after Constantine's accepting of Christianity many pagan traditions became part of that faith and the Roman Empire started never-ending war against the ,,pagans" and heretics, for example war against Christian Arianism faith or later crusades against the Muslims, Orthodox (Eastern) Christians, Christian Albigensians and later against the northern and eastern European Pagans. And also how this bloodthirsty ,,Church" behaved towards my people - the Romani people (known as Gypsies, the G-word is somewhat racist), when we were called by the Catholic ,,Church" Pagans or filthy unbelievers even in Europe we were Christian as the local population but we took religion little bit differently than the local White-European population and it was what ,,Church" saw as herezy - it was a part of Witch-hunt and Inquisition. Another example of this sick bloodthirsty ,,religion" is a way how al-Andalus (Spain and Portugal) was re-Christianised and what happened after it, yes i am speaking about the Inquisition and also about Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of Americas and Inquisition there. Also there were pogroms on the Jews done or at least supported by this ,,Church" and the Jews often found freedom of religion in Muslim lands, same way as after fall of al-Andalus. And i should also mention the European Wars of Religion between the Catholic Church and it´s daughters Reformed Churches, which was very bloody and inquisition was working in enormous scale. After the 30 years war between the Catholics and Lutherans in the lands which were regained by the Catholics happened bloody re-Catholisation which in the Czech Lands took life of at least 60% of population and in Hungary around 40%, re-Catholisation was orchestrated by the Church and by the Austrian state. Christianity got under control because of French Revolution which was not only anti-Monarchist but also anti-Catholic and in general anti-Religious, this formed modern-day Europe, if this revolution was not successful Europe and Americas would be probably till now in Dark Ages and full of bloodshed of the innocents. But wait this is not an end of the story! I have to mention that the Catholic Church also supported Nazi Germany and Independent State of Croatia (Nazi pro-German state) which both were doing genocide of the Jews, Romani people, Serbs, Poles and other people who were seen as inferior races. I mentioned before that the Catholic (Latin) Church is a mother of other churches, i must to mention that also other churches supported witch-hunts, anti-Jewish pogroms and called the Romani people pagans which led to genocides of the Romani people. And this is not still the end of a story because last shadows of reality of this Church and it´s daughter Churches we see in Africa where the Christianity is often still so bloodthirsty as it was in Europe before and in fact we have seen it in Europe (or Asia?) recently when the Armenian Catholics started (again) doing genocide of the Muslims in nowadays Eastern Turkey (between 1830 to 1916) and of the Azerbaijanis (since 1830´s with some pauses in all the lands of Azerbaijan and last time between 1988 to 1994 in Azerbaijani land of Karabakh) and also we have seen how Orthodox Christians many times did genocides of the Muslims in Bosnia (many times since 1790´s, last time between 1992 to 1995), Kosovo (last time in 90´s), western part of Turkey (1919-1922), Algeria (Africa- done by the Catholics - 1830 to 1962) Cyprus (1960´s to 1974) and Lebanon (Asia - done by the various Christians - 1975 to 1995).

All four Gospels record Jesus as saying, "Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God." Bible says that God is not man ‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19) ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9) Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40) ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22) ‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31) ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5) The Bible says that God is not a son of man ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19) The Bible often calls Jesus ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’ ‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40) ‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27) ‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28) ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10) ‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27) In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).

Peace be upon you guys this my refute on the trinity which I wrote a while back but have not posted, I felt that it needed some final touches which I finished I hope you guys can benefit from this refute. The refute of the Trinity Many trinitarians claim that they believe in one God, but can not explain the doctrine of trinity since it limits God or becomes irrational, in one why or another it does not make sense nor is it supported by scripture at all. The doctrine of the trinity is believed to be The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. They are 3 distinct persons that are of one essence( or substance) and are equal persons that are co-eternal but are one. Some “trinitarians” believe that God the Father takes on three modes, He takes on the Son and The Holy Spirit and also returns back to being God the Father. These “trinitarians” are not regarded as trinitarians despite their claim of saying they are trinitarian, in reality, theologically they are not trinitarian rather they are modalists. Does the Law of Moses recognise the trinity? Do the unaltered scribes and book of the prophets recognise the trinity ? Deuteronomy 4:15-19 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heavens, the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heavens, which the LORD your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them.” Exodus 20:2-5 “I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the houses of bondage. You shall have no other gods upon My face. You shall not make for yourselves a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a zealous God, who visits the iniquity of the father’s upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me...” “There is no one like The Lord our God” -exodus 8:10 “The Lord He is God; there is none other besides Him” -Deuteronomy 4:35 “The Lord He is God; in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other” -Deuteronomy 4:39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no God besides me” -Deuteronomy 32:39 “Hear O’Israel The Lord our God, The Lord is one” -Deuteronomy 6:4 Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that he should lie, not a Son of Man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change.” Isaiah 44:24 “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone” 2 Chronicles 6:18 But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! 2 Chronicles 2:6 But who is able to build a temple for Him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain Him? Who then am I to build a temple for Him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before Him? 1 Chronicles 17:20 “O Lord, there is none like You, and there is no god beside You according to all that we have heard with our ears.” “You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth” -2Kings 19:15 “You are great, O Lord God; for there is non like You, Nor there is any God beside You” -2 Samuel 7:22 “The Lord is God there is no else” -1 King 8:60 “You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth” -2Kings 19:15 “You alone, Lord, is God” Isaiah 37:20 Before there was no God formed, And there will be none after me” -Isaiah 43:10 “I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides me” - Isaiah 44:6 “ I am the Lord, and there is no other; Beside me there is no God” Isaiah 45:5 “Surely God is with you and there is none else, No other God.” Isaiah 45:14 “Is it not I, The Lord? And there is No other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior,There is none except Me” Isaiah 45:21 “I am God, and there’s no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9 Isaiah 40:25 “To whom will you compare Me? Or is my equal? Says the Holy One.“ Isaiah 40:18 “To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him?“ Isaiah 46:5 “With whom will you compare Me or count Me equal ? To whom will you compare Me so we are alike?” Says the Lord” Isaiah 45:6 “In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am Lord and there is no other.” The Law and the prophets make it clear that God is one wholly, and their no other god next to God and He is omnipresent (everywhere). Jews and the prophets believe God is one Wholly and He is omnipresent, omnipotent, the All knowing, the All Seeing, transcendent, He is out of time and space, He is not confined in a place and has no abode and their is no other god next to Him and no one is like Him. Trinitarians say that God is a spirit, this teaching is from a pagan called tertullian. “Under the influence of Stoic philosophy, Tertullian believes that all real things are material. God is a spirit, but a spirit is a material thing made out of a finer sort of matter.” ‘History of Trinitarian doctrines, stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy’. He(Tertullian) believed that God is a spirit, this contradicts the Law and the prophets. The Law makes it clear that God is not a spirit and has no form, nor does God have a spirit like humans do. If God was a spirit(I.e an angelic figure) then he would be limited, since He will be no longer the All-seeing, nor omnipresent nor omnipotent and is no longer Transcendent since humans can see spirits(angels) and no longer unique since he is like a spirit which contradicts the Law. If God was a spirit like our spirit which we have, then He would be very limited aswell and also makes God like human beings which makes us gods going by tertullian’s pagan teaching since God is a spirit like our spirit which then contradicts the Law and the prophets. Trinitarians say that God exists in The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons who are of the same essence( or substance). Heres the first problem, if the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence(or substance) as God the father, then they are also a God beside God the Father since they are of one essence(or substance) and distinct persons. How many Gods do we have now... three or one ? The second problem, other trinitarians say God the father exists in the Son and the Holy Spirit and the Father at the exact same time, the problem arises then if God the Father is the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Father at the same time then God is omnipresent and at the exact same time not omnipresent , and omnipotent and at the exact same time not omnipotent, and All-Seeing and the exact same time not All-seeing, And Transcendent and at exact same time not Transcendent, limited and unlimited at the exact same time. That’s absolutely irrational and illogical. 3. trinitarians say that, God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are of the same essence(or substance) but are one. In the 2nd paragraph two of the trinitarian philosophies have been refuted. Now we know that the Holy Spirit and the Son are really limited and have a form and an abode since they are obviously physical beings, that which has these attributes are not to be worshipped nor worthy of worship. Some trinitarians hint out or imply that The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit together make a powerful team called “God” which implies a one triune God. Now here’s the issue, the fact that “the Father” is God, 1 Corinthians 8:6 “6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live”, this shows that their is an contradiction to this trinitarian philosophy and also shows that God is limited which then nullifies God’s omnipotence and also shows that their are other lower gods beside God Almighty . This as clearly shown contradicts the Law and the Prophets. 4. Trinitarians have came up with many new philosophies to explain the trinity which are still irrational and illogical, some trinitarians say that, God is three persons in one being, now the many issues rise with this philosophy. The first one is we have to ask the question is what is the name “the Father” attributed to ? Many times you hear the trinitarians call God “the Father” which is supposedly one of God’s name. And who is “the Father” ? 1 Corinthians 8:6 “6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live”. Now 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes it clear that “the Father” is God Himself, the name “the Father” is attributed to God and is not a different entity rather the Father IS that one being, Paul calls that being who is the necessary existence who is also called many names, “the Father”. God is a being but a completely unique being which is transcendent, no one knows God’s essence, it is through God’s creation we get to know Him and find Him. The heavens and the earth are a reflection of some of God’s attributes just like a mirror thus through His creation we get to know Him and believe in Him. Saying the father, the son and the Holy Spirit is three persons in one being is very problematic since we now know that the Father is God who is a unique being, this new trinitarian philosophy believes the Father is a different entity from this other being(which is God) that the trinitarians brought in, the fact that the trinitarians say that the Father, who is God Himself, is in that being( i.e God) shows that their are two Gods since the Father is God and they are putting the Father in that strange being(God). What the trinitarians are doing is they are shifting between modalism and having 3 (or 4 in this new philosophy) Gods thus they are stuck in the middle. The trinity is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that are of one essence who are distinct persons that are co-eternal but are one. If the The Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence with the Father, who is God, then they are also Gods beside God Almighty and the fact they are eternal also makes them Gods beside God Almighty since God Almighty is eternal. If then we go by this new philosophy which the trinitarians brought up which is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one being. That philosophy is Implying that these three persons are part of God’s essence Or it can also imply that God takes on the form of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in other words God takes on three modes which is modalism. Now if the three persons are part of God’s essence then their is a big issue, we now know that the Father is God ( 1 Corinthians 8:6), if the Father is God then their are two Gods. One God, the Father, which is part of the being’s(i.e God's) essence and also the Son and the Holy Spirit is part of that strange being’s essence aswell. This is blaspheming God and limiting Him in many ways. If the Son and the Holy Spirit is part of God’s essence then this is limiting God and contradicts God being the uncreated Necessary existence. The Holy Spirit is divided in to two and they are both completely different things. One it is a title to angel Gabriel and the other it is God’s gift of power to strengthen ( strengthening godly people and people appointed by Him). So if they say part of God is the Holy Spirit, meaning God’s power, then that’s irrational since that’s God’s ability not nature. And if it’s Gabriel then that’s also irrational since angels are also limited beings just like human beings and also God would not be unique. Like wise the Son cannot be part of God’s essence since a human is also very limited and God would not be unique, Numbers 23:19 - “God is not a man, that he should lie, not a Son of Man(human), that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” And also the fact that this new trinitarian philosophy implies that the Son and the Holy Spirit are part of God’s essence shows that God is made out of three parts which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit which then nullifies God being the necessary existence (I.e Uncreated) or either God is limited and unlimited at the exact same time (which is absolutely irrational and illogical) or God takes on three modes (which also limits God and brings other big issues considering this new philosophy since it believes the Father ,who is God, is a different entity to the “being”) or their are three Gods (which is clearly polytheism) or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make up a team called “God” (which raises a lot of conflicts and limits God). In one way or another the trinity is irrational and illogical an cannot be explained because it’s illogical and irrational! If you think you got it right you didn’t, that’s why some call it a “mystery”. Part 1. Some trinitarians try to explain the trinity in a way that does not lead to modalism or 3 Gods or even 4 Gods here’s how some trinitarians try to explain the trinity, “The trinity consists of three personalities of God which are united in essence and being. The three persons of the Godhead are distinct in function and action, but yet, they share a common essential nature and existence. Thus, while the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit, being distinct personalities of the Godhead, they yet share the common essence of God but are not understood by Christians to be three seperate Gods” Here’s the first issue we get into when we read this explanation, “the trinity consists of three personalities of God which are united in essence and being.” This part of the explanation is showing modalism since the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are the personalities of God. If they are the personalities of God then God is taking the form of the Father, the son, and Holy Spirit, which is modalism in other words God is taking three modes. Then it further more the explanation says “which are united in essence and being”. We now know that the Father is God himself( 1 Corinthians 8:6) , the name “the Father” is attributed to God it’s not a personality of God which God takes on (i.e switches to) rather its His name. The fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit share (I.e are united in) the essence and being with the Father then they are also Gods since they share the same ESSENCE and BEING with the Father who is God and are DISTINCT. This part of the explanation is switching between modalism and having 3 Gods and it is not being consistent. Let’s read further more of this explanation, “The three persons of the Godhead are distinct in function and action, but yet, they share a common essential nature and existence. Thus, while the Father is not the son and the Holy Spirit, being distinct personalities of the Godhead, they yet share the common essence of God but are not understood by Christians to be three seperate Gods”. Here are the first two issues bump into again, this explanation is switching between Modalism and having three Gods or maybe even four. The fact that they share the same essence with God and the same existence makes them Gods and the fact they say the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of the Godhead and they also claim that they share the same essence with God makes them Gods beside God Almighty so that’s 4 Gods now, then the explanation starts contradicting itself by switching to Modalism and also perhaps God being limited and unlimited at the exact same time which is irrational and illogical, by saying “Thus, while the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit, being distinct personalities of the Godhead, they yet share the common essence of God but are not understood by Christians to be three seperate Gods”. Again the fact that they share essence with the God makes them Gods aswell and If God exists in the three personalities then God is limited and unlimited at the exact same time which is irrational and illogical and has been refuted refer back to my 2nd paragraph, and also it’s switching to Modalism and back to having three or perhaps 4 Gods, the explanation is not consistent and it either leans to Modalism or having three or 4 Gods. Also the fact that in the whole explanation it includes, “the trinity consists of three personalities of God which are united in essence and being.” Shows that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence and being (keeping in mind that according to this trinitarian philosophy the Father is not God himself rather it’s a personality) shows a lot of contradiction, the Holy Spirit is not the Son so it doesn’t share the same essence as the Son and the Holy Spirit is not the Father so it doesn’t share the same essene with the Father and the Son is not the Holy Spirit so it doesn’t share the same essence with the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father so the Son does not share the same essence with the Father and the Father is not the Son so the Father doesn’t share the same essence with the the Son and the Father is not the Holy Spirit so the Father doesn’t share the same essence with the Holy Spirit. If they all share the same essence then who’s essence are they sharing? Is it the Son, the Father or the Holy Spirit? Or they sharing each others essence?-meaning the Father and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Son, and the Father and the Son share the same essence as the Holy Spirit, and the Father and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Father. If that is the case that means the Holy Spirit is God since it shares essence with the Father( 1 Corinthians 8:6) and it’s also the Son(jesus) and it’s also itself. Same concept as illustrated is like wise with the Son and the Father. This is also irrational and also shows that their are three Gods who take on modes of each other. This explanation obviously and clearly contradicts the Law and the prophets. Part 2. Some trinitarians try to explain the trinity through a parable but end up switching between having three Gods and Modalism thus it is not consistent. Here’s a explanation of the trinity from a trinitarian. “ imagine, if you will, a great river. Our river flows along its course until it reaches a certain point where we cut two additional channels, and the water now flows into all three. One channel leads to a hydroelectric dam, where the water cascades and electricity is generated. The second channel flows into a depression creating a lake where we can fish, swim, and otherwise recreate ourselves. The third channel is used to float logs to a downstream sawmill. After these three channels find their use, they are directed back together, uniting, and continuing on downstream. Though each of these three channels is put to a different use (distinct personality, if you will) they all retain the same essence of being water from this particular river(having the proportions of dissolved chemicals, oxygen content and etc.) The water in any one channel is the same as the other two (but not necessarily very same as water from some other river in some other channel). They share the same nature and reality, though each find differing uses, following differing paths, etc. This is crude picture of the Godhead, with the three personalities of God sharing the same being and essence, Yet God manifesting Himself in three distinct ways to interact with mankind according to His purposes.” In order to go in completely depth of this parable we first need to understand God properly (i.e the concept of God) so here’s explanation of the proper concept of God. Their is only one God meaning one Wholly. Deuteronomy 6:4 reads in Hebrew “shema Yisroel Adonai eloheinu Adonai echad” “Hear O’Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one”. God is omnipresent (I.e everywhere) and His omnipotent, omniscient and has no form (Deuteronomy 4:12, 4:15-19, exodus Exodus 20:2-5, Numbers 23:19), He has no abode, 2 chronicles 6:18 “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!”. 2 chronicles 2:6 “ But who is able to build a temple for Him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain Him? Who then am I to build a temple for Him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before Him?”. And their is no one like God and and it blasphemy to give God earthly, human or animal attributes or any attributes of His creation an example is having a son or adopting one otherwise God would not be unique. “I am God, and there’s no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9 Isaiah 40:25 “To whom will you compare Me? Or is my equal? Says the Holy One. Isaiah 40:18 To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him? Isaiah 46:5 “With whom will you compare Me or count Me equal ? To whom will you compare Me so we are alike?” Says the Lord” Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change.” “Before there was no God formed, And there will be none after me” -Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 44:6-8 “So said the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts, "I am first and I am last, and besides Me there is no God. And who will call [that he is] like Me and will tell it and arrange it for Me, since My placing the ancient people, and the signs and those that will come, let them tell for themselves. Fear not and be not dismayed; did I not let you hear it from then, and I told [it] and you are My witnesses; is there a God beside Me? And there is no rock I did not know.” 1 Chronicles 17:20 “O Lord, there is none like You, and there is no god beside You according to all that we have heard with our ears.” Isaiah 44:24 “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone” God is outside of time and space and He is transcendent and the All-seeing and the All-hearing and this world is a reflection of Him (i.e some of his attributes) just like a mirror. Now that we know true concept of God which Judaism believes in and jesus came to confirm(Mathew 5:17-20), let’s examine the parable that has been given by a trinitarian. Here is the first issue we bump into in the parable, “ imagine, if you will, a great river. Our river flows along its course until it reaches a certain point where we cut two additional channels, and the water now flows into all three.” Now the river is representing God(whom is called the Father) and the addition two channels are representing the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now In the beginning the additional channels did not exists their was only one channel the two were added later on. Now this is blasphemy since it’s implying that God is limited and unlimited at the same time and that God takes on the form of the Son and the Holy Spirit and God is himself at exact time which is Modalism and also showing that God is limited and unlimited at the exact same time, and also that two other Gods were created since they didn’t exist before which contradicts Isaiah 43:10. This is simply blasphemy and has been refuted. Let’s read further more in this parable, “One channel leads to a hydroelectric dam, where the water cascades and electricity is generated. The second channel flows into a depression creating a lake where we can fish, swim, and otherwise recreate ourselves. The third channel is used to float logs to a downstream sawmill. After these three channels find their use, they are directed back together, uniting, and continuing on downstream. Though each of these three channels is put to a different use (distinct personality, if you will) they all retain the same essence of being water from this particular river(having the proportions of dissolved chemicals, oxygen content and etc.) The water in any one channel is the same as the other two (but not necessarily very same as water from some other river in some other channel). They share the same nature and reality, though each find differing uses, following differing paths, etc.” Now this part of the parable shows that the Son and The Holy Spirit share the same essence with the first channel(which is the Father) and also the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father share each other’s essence since the parable mentions “The water in any one channel is the same as the other two (but not necessarily very same as water from some other river in some other channel). They share the same nature and reality, though each find differing uses, following differing paths, etc.”. Further illustration, meaning the Father and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Son, and the Father and the Son share the same essence as the Holy Spirit, and the Father and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence as the Father. If that is the case that means the Holy Spirit is God since it shares essence with the Father( 1 Corinthians 8:6) and it’s also the Son(jesus) and it’s also itself. Same concept as illustrated is like wise with the son and the Father. This is also irrational and also shows that their are three Gods who take on modes of each other. This part of the parable clearly contradicts the Law and the prophets. Lets read further more on this parable, “This is crude picture of the Godhead, with the three personalities of God sharing the same being and essence, Yet God manifesting Himself in three distinct ways to interact with mankind according to His purposes.” Now we’re back to Modalism and "the Father” is seen as a personality not the name of God, we know that the Son is jesus and the Holy Spirit is divided into two, one being the gift of God to strengthen and the other is a title of angel Gabriel. And “the Father" is the father of Christ meaning that God is the father of jesus and also He is the Son(Jesus) and also the Holy Spirit, meaning God manifests Himself in these three personalities which is Modalism. No matter how hard trinitarians try to explain the trinity in one way or another it blasphemes God and contradicts the law and the prophets. It either leans to Modalism or having three Gods or maybe even four. The parable is clearly inconsistent it switches between Modalism and three Gods or even four. Part 3. Other trinitarians try to explain the trinity by using an egg and as a parable by saying, “the egg consists of three things, the shell, the egg white and the yolk. These share the same essence and are one.” Now the shell is not the egg white and is completely different to the egg white and likewise it’s not the Yolk and completely different to yolk and the egg white is completely different to the shell and the yolk and is not the yolk or the shell, and the yolk is completely different to the shell and the egg white and is not shell and the egg white. These three things do not share the same essence which leads to the theology that teaches God is made up of three parts which nullifies God being the necessary existence (i.e uncreated). And further more leads to theology of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit makes up a team called “God” I’ve already refuted these two theology’s in my 3rd paragraph and 4th paragraph. Now that the doctrine of the trinity has been refuted, trinitarians will try to take words, idioms, verses and metaphors out of context to support the doctrine of trinity although we have proved the doctrine of the trinity irrational nevertheless we’re going examine some of the deceptions that the trinitarians try to do to other people to support the doctrine of the trinity and try to convince them about the trinity, the trinitarians say that the Shema is complex unity and not absolute one alone and no other. They make this claim because the word “Echad”, which means “one” in Hebrew the same way “one” means “one” in English, is a complex unity by quoting some verses that doesn’t use the word “Echad” in a literal sense rather in complex unity such as Genesis 2:24 “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one(Echad) flesh.” Now over here obviously the word “Echad” is not used in the literal sense rather it’s a complex unity, so the word “Echad” in the shema is a complex unity hence the trinity. Now the these trinitarians don’t show you the verses were the word “Echad” is used the proper way which is absolute one and no other. So they would perhaps convince the ignorant the word “Echad” is a complex unity. But the word “Echad” is all over the bible sometimes it’s used in a complex unity and some times it’s used in a literal sense which is its actual form and meaning, absolute one and no other, to understand the word “Echad” you have to look at the context, weather it’s being used in a complex unity or being used in a literal sense which is its actual form and meaning. Here is a example of two verses that use the word “Echad” in its literal sense, which is its actual form and meaning. Deuteronomy 17:6 “By the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the one liable to death be put to death; he shall not be put to death by the mouth of one(Echad) witness.” Deuteronomy 19:15 “One(Echad) witness shall not rise up against any person for any iniquity or for any sin, regarding any sin that he will sin. By the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be confirmed.” As clearly shown the word “Echad” is not a complex unity in these verses rather it is used in its actual form and meaning, which is absolute one and no other. So when the word “Echad” is used in a complex unity a person must read it in context to understand what meaning is implied in the word “Echad”. Now in the shema it reads, Shema(Hear) Yisroel (O’Israel) Adonai(the Lord) Eloheinu( our God) Adonai(the Lord) Echad (is one). No where does the shema show the word “Echad” is used in a complex unity sense rather it’s clear that the word “Echad” is used in its actual form and meaning, which is absolute one, one Wholly, one and no other, that’s as clear as you can get. If the shema used the word “Echad” in a complex unity sense then the Shema should say, “Hear O’Israel the Lord the Father, and the son and the Holy Spirit our God the Lord is one(Echad)” Or “Hear O’Israel the Lord our God the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one(Echad)” Which is obviously not the case. The trinitarians try very hard to force to in the doctrine of the trinity by taking words, metaphors, idioms and verses which is blasphemy and a shame. Another deception that trinitarians try to do is show that the word “Elohim” is plural hence doctrine of trinity is present. Now in Tanakh their are other words that are also plural but are also absolute singular for example the word “shamayim” in Hebrew which means “heaven” and also “heavens” is used many times in the Tanakh, the word “shamayim” is used in a absolute singler form and also sometimes used in a plural form. The word “Elohim” has many meanings(I.e expressions) and also can be singler and also plural. When “Elohim” is used in the plural form it can be referring to false gods and as an expression an example it can also mean “Judge” which can we can see in Exodus 7:1 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘See! I have made you a judge(elohim) over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.’ Also the word “Elohim” is used as an expression again like in Psalms 82:6 “ I have said you are elohim (godly), and are all sons(godly servants) of the Most high” over here “elohim” is used as an expression of a persons righteousness and devotion to God. When the word “Elohim” is used to refer to the one true God, it is used in its absolute singular form, and the “im” at the end is a plural of majesty/royalty and when the word “Elohim” is used to refer to the one true God it’s pronounced “Alohim” not “Elohim”. Many trinitarians try to deceive people by forcing the doctrine of trinity in the word “Elohim” when the word “Elohim” is used in a singler form in many places and also other words that are like it that can be plural such as “shamayim” are also used in a absolute singular form. And also the word “Elohim” has many other expressions and also is used in a absolute singular and plural as I have shown. In short the possibility of the doctrine of trinity being present in the word “Elohim” is not possible since it’s irrational, illogical and not consistent and contradicting as I have shown aswell. Another deception that the trinitarians bring up is the “I am” Argument. The “I am” argument is another big scam and lie, in Exodus 3:14 in Hebrew it says “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh”, “Ehyeh” is just a word which means “i will” and also “I will be” in exodus 3:12 God tells Moses “Ehyeh(i will be) immek(with you)”. “I am” in Hebrew is “Ani” not “Ehyeh” the world “Ehyeh” is used so many times across the Hebrew bible and it has nothing to do with God’s name it’s just a word. Many times does the world “I am” occur in the Tanakh here a few examples, “I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides me” - Isaiah 44:6 “ I am the Lord, and there is no other; Beside me there is no God” Isaiah 45:5 “I am God, and there’s no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9 In all of these passages and many more in Hebrew the word “I am” it says “Ani” not “Ehyeh”. “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 is “I will be what I will be” or also “I shall be what I Shall be” “Ani” means “I” and also “I am”; “Ani hu” means “I am he” Another deception that the trinitarian bring up is an example they quote, Malachi 3:1 1“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.” the say since the passage says “Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His temple;...” and the messenger is John the Baptist then this shows that Jesus is God. Little do these trinitarians know these verses are not interpreted in a literal sense rather it is an expression meaning God’s representative, an example is Genesis 32:28 in the Christian bible “28Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God” but in Hosea 12:4 it says he struggled with an angel although in genesis it says Jacob struggled with God, the reason being it is because the interpretation of the Torah translates these kind of passages as God’s representative not God himself fighting Jacob, walking on earth and etc at first glance it would seem their is a contradiction but that’s because they haven’t understood the interpretation of certain idioms, when a verse says God will come and etc it means God’s representative not God Himself. So in Malachi when it says “Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His temple;...” it is saying God’s representative whom you are seeking will be in God’s temple. The Jewish Bible interprets genesis 32:28 correctly while the Christian bible misinterprets the passage here’s the Jewish bible interpretation, 29And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God and with men, and you have prevailed." These kind of idioms are common and are all over the Tanakh these passages are not be taken in a literal sense. Another example is Judges 5:4 “4Lord, when You went forth out of Seir, when You marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens also dripped; also the clouds dripped water.” God didn’t literally went out of Seir rather it was God’s representative, these verses are not to be taken literally. Another deception that the trinitarians bring is the incident of Thomas, Thomas was simply saying an expression the same way nowa days people say the expression “O my God” when they see something. Thomas was in shock when he saw that Jesus was alive since he initially thought Jesus was dead. Did the man(who is tertullian) who came up with name trinity(trinitas) did he believe that the Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity is equal with the Father and The Son? Or did he believe The Son(jesus) and the Holy Spirit was a lower God beside God the Father? New Bible Dictionary, “The term trinity is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries.” — (1996, “Trinity”) The New Bible Dictionary goes on to explain that, “the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is ... To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity.” However, it wasn't until 381, “at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed.” Wikipedia states what Tertullian believed on the Godhead: Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. The man who came up with the trinity explained it different to what the trinity is explained today. Many trinitarians say the God exists in Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit, this has always been refuted as shown above, it is irrational and illogical. Tertullian says that The father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are of one substance. Now going by Tertullian’s philosophy, The Holy Spirit and The Son are lower Gods beside God the Father since they are of one substance and distinct persons. Tertullian says The Son had a beginning, if The Son had a beginning then he’s created, that which is created is limited and is definitely not a God. Also the divinity of the Holy Spirit wasn’t affirmed when the NT was paganise’d, there were still major debates on the divinity of the Holy Spirit until 381 AD. Although tertullian held on to the view that the holy spirit is divine person but not equal with God the Father and also had a beginning. If these doctrines were made later on and did not exists in the time of the apostles and Jesus nor did some of them exist in the time of tertullian then the trinity doctrine has absolutely zero basis or support. Mathew 5:17 makes it clear that Jesus came to fulfil the Law and unaltered prophets message. If you read further more in the same chapter you will see jesus tells his followers to uphold the commandments and if you neglect any one of them you will be the least in the kingdom of God(paradise). This shows that Jesus believed in pure monotheism as the Jews and the previous prophets did. Also the the verses nullifies the teaching that jesus died for your sins to not be doomed. Rather it shows that you are responsible for your own actions and you have to follow the commandments and teachings to achieve salvation. This teaching of jesus dying for your sins is a Pauline teaching that was added, and it made it to all four gospels later on by the pagans adding it to the four gospels. Tertullian however did introduce pagan ideas into the worship service. He taught oblations for the dead and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of worshipers. He also dipped people three times to baptize them. Tertullian freely admitted that he had adopted these ideas from pagan teachings and could not support them from Scripture, but he thought that if Christians adopted some heathen rituals of the pagans that they would find it easier to join Christianity. Today what the trinitarians teach is Paul’s religion and later pagan teachings that were made later on and was forced into the four gospels. Does John chapter 1 support the trinity? Many Trinitarians use the 1st chapter in the gospel according to John to prove the trinity, the issue here is does the first chapter of John really support the trinity or is it a deliberate mistranslation in hopes to support the trinity? Let see the important parts of the passages that are used to support the trinity... John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the word and the word was with Ho Theos and the word was theos. It was with Ho Theos in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that had been made. The “him” part in John1:1-3 can legitimately be translated as “it” and not “him” the only reason why it has “him” and not “it” is because trinitarians believe the word is jesus and the word is God thus it should be “him” not “it”. Now the trinitarians have done a big blasphemy on this passage and here’s why, when the passage says “and the word was with God”, the word “God” over here in Greek is “Ho Theos” which means “The God” which is a direct reference to the only one true God, in Aramaic it would be “Allaha” and in Arabic “Allah” the term “Ho Theos” translates the word “Allaha” literally. Then after that passage it says “and the word was theos” now the word “theos” over here can have many meanings to it, it can refer to kings, chiefs, judges or even refer to false gods and also mean divine. The proper translation of this part of the passage is “divine” then the next passage says “it was with God in the beginning” now the word “God” in this passage in Greek is “Ho Thoes” referring to the one true God. Now if the word was God then it would say “Ho theos” instead of just “theos”, the word “theos” can have many meanings if the gospel of John intended to show jesus is God the it would blatantly say “and the word was Ho theos” which is not the case. Now a question arises what are these passages really talking about ? Here’s a long answer. John 1:1-3 “1In the beginning was the word(Let their be) and the word(Let their be) was with God and the word(Let their Be) was divine. 2It was with God in the beginning. 3Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that had been made.” John 1:1 is actually referring back to the book of Genesis when God uses the expression “Let their Be” to bring the existence of the earth and what’s in it. The term “Let their Be” is a expression of God’s decree(command). When it says “the word was with God” what it’s actually saying is that the expression of “Let their Be”,Which is the decree, was in God’s foreknowledge, God had already willed to create the heavens and earth and has also created a decree for it to be decreed at certain point of time. That decree and will was already in God’s foreknowledge, thus it says “it was with God in the beginning”. And when the passage in John1:1 that says “and the word was divine” what’s its pretty much conveying, is that the word( i.e the decree, which is the expression “Let their Be”) is from God, it was a divine order. John 1:3 should be easy by now and it pretty much shows that, without God’s decree and will, nothing that has been made would be made. Now John1:4-5 is actually a pretty easy part now since we know the proper interpretation of John1:1-3. John1:4-5 4In it(the word) was life, and that life was the light(guide) of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. Over here when it says “in it(i.e the word) was life” that life is jesus himself, jesus was also in God’s foreknowledge and part of God’s will and decree but was appointed at a certain point of time in this case, and the the passage says “and that life was the light of all mankind” the passage shows that Jesus was the light(meaning the guide) of all mankind, this passage shows that Jesus came to bring guidance and bring people to a righteous path and adhere to the radical monotheism which the prophets and Messengers before him taught to their own people and across other countries. In John1:14 when it says “and the word became flesh” this verse is showing that God’s decree was decreed and it was manifested thus it became flesh. If you put this verse between verse 9 and 10 you will fully understand the verse aswell and what it’s conveying. John 1:6-14 6There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to bear witness about the light(Messenger), that all might believe through him. 8He was not the light(Messenger); but came to bear witness about the light(Messenger). 9The true light(Messenger) that gives light(guidance) to everyone was coming into the world. 10It(the word) was in the world and, though the world was made through it(the word) the world did not recognise it(the word). 11He went to his own people, and his own people did not accept him. 12But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to be godly servants of God 13They are reborn—not because of natural decent nor of the desire or will of mankind, but reborn for God. 14The word became flesh and made its dwelling among us. We have seen it’s glory, the glory of the LORD’s one and only Messenger. That’s term “son of God” in Jewish traditions and shown in the OT is metaphor referring to godly prophets and Messengers who are close to God spiritually and chosen by God to convey a message from God. The term “son” used in verse john 1 verse 14 is added by the pagans since they believed in the Greek methodology and other pagan beliefs. Trinitarians will show some verses that they take out of context to show that Jesus existed before the world thus he must be God since God is uncreated(i.e eternal) and from Him all things came. Here is a verse that the trinitarians take out of context to support this claim. John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began.” Now what the trinitarians don’t show is verse 6 and 7 which then will lead a person to a rational conclusion and give the proper interpretation, here’s verse 6 and 7, John 17:6-7 6“I have revealed You to those whom You gave me out of the world. They were Yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. In verse 6 it says “I have revealed You to those whom You gave me out of the word.” Now if God gave jesus those who follow him(jesus) outside of the word, which is implying/hints out before the world was created, then those who follow him are also Gods since they also existed before the world was created. Obviously that is blasphemy and polytheism. What verse 6 and verse 5 actually shows is that their was a another realm which our spirits existed, which is similar to purgatory realm, were we testified that God is our LORD and their is no other and we also testified to Jesus’s prophethood and messiahship, as we continue to read verse 6 it says “They were Yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.” Verse 6 shows that we followed God since we testified that He is our LORD, and God made us testify to Jesus’ prophethood and Messiahship, since God glorified him by making him a prophet and messiah thus all the people in the spiritual realm testified to Jesus’ prophethood and messiahship and gave him special importance. What verse 5 is showing is, Jesus is praying to God to glorify him with the glory that he had, before the world was created, in the spiritual realm where everyone testified to his prophethood and messiahship while God was a witness over him and us, in the world aswell. This will happen when Jesus returns and everyone will testify to Jesus’ prophethood and messiahship. And also the verses show that Jesus is supplicating to God if jesus is God then who is he supplicating to ? Or what’s even worse how many Gods are their ? A God praying to another God? Trinitarians try to use 2 Corinthians 13:14 to try an show that the trinity existed in Paul’s epistle, let’s examine the verse... 14May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. We can clearly see that Paul is distinguishing between Jesus Christ and the “love of God” and the Holy Spirit. Paul himself believed the holy spirit is a gift from God. 1 Thessalonians 4:8 ...the very God who gives you His holy spirit.” The question arises did Paul believe in a trinity or was he a dualist ? 1 Corinthians 8:6 “6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live” Paul makes it clear that “the Father” is God, not the Son nor the Holy Spirit. If Paul was a trinitarian he would say, “there is but one God, the Father the Son The Holy Spirit,...” Paul calls God “the Father” the same way Prophet Ezra, Daniel Jeremiah called God “Allah”. Ephesians 1:3 “3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” Romans 15:6 6so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We can clearly see that Paul is distinguishing God from Jesus and that Jesus has a God and that God is the father of Jesus. Colossians 1:3 “3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” Philippians 2:5-7 5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. Now in verse 5 Paul is telling the people to have the same mindset as Jesus amongst each other then he continues on in verse by saying 6 “who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” and he go’s in verse 7 by pretty much saying jesus took on a form of a human. In verse 6 Paul says “Who being very nature God” over here Paul believes Jesus to be God(i.e divine) but then as we continue on in verse 6 Paul says “did not consider equality with God Almighty something to be used to his own advantage” Now over here Paul is distinguishing Jesus from God Almighty but he also believes jesus was also a God beside(i.e next to) God but Jesus who is the second God manifested himself in a human form ,as verse 7 shows, so that he is no longer equal to God Almighty rather he is limited. Now this is obviously a heresy and dualism since Jesus is a God beside(i.e next to) God Almighty, despite jesus manifesting himself in a human form because in nature he is a God beside(i.e next to) God Almighty except he is a limited God beside(i.e next to) God Almighty. This is obviously not Monotheism at all and contradicts the Law and the prophets. So if the trinitarians try to use Paul’s epistles to show the trinity then they have to believe there are either two Gods or three Gods since Paul believes Jesus was a God beside(i.e next to) God Almighty but he limited himself so he is no longer equal to God by not being like God Almighty. Jesus himself didn’t claim he was God rather explicitly denies being God and also rebukes being called the Son of God. Mark 10:17-18 “17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.” Jesus questions the questioner for calling him “good teacher” the reason being is because he didn’t want any sort of praise not even a minor praise and says “No one is good EXCEPT GOD ALONE” this incident clearly shows Jesus is not God. Another argument that the trinitarians bring is they say Jesus said “I and the Father are one” this is a deception, they simply quoting a verse and taking it out context and not reading it in context, let’s have a look at the context. John 10:27-39 “27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.” 31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “elohim (godly people)” ’ ? 35If he called them ‘elohim(godly people)-(Psalms 82:6),’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own [representative] and sent to the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the son of God’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.” In john 10:32 we see that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus had meant by “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30). And in john 10:33 they accused him of blasphemy. Now, had Jesus been God, or had he and God been one in a literal sense then he wouldn’t have hesitated to clarify the matter at that point. Jesus at that point said, “Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?” What he was trying to say was that if the Jews called “I and my Father are one” blasphemy then they should call what was written in their law “You are gods” blasphemy too. The reasoning behind this is “You are elohim” does not mean that you, the Jewish Messengers, are Gods, it is rather an expression. It just means that you are godly people. The same applies to “I and my Father are one.” It does not mean that Jesus is God or that he and God are the same literally. It’s just an expression meaning they are one in purpose. More elaborated explanation for those who try desperate attempts. 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “elohim (godly people)” ’ ? 35IF HE(Allaha) CALLED THEM ‘elohim(godly people)-(Psalms 82:6),’ TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD CAME—AND SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own [representative] and sent to the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the son of God’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. In verse 35 jesus crystal clearly points out that Pslams 82:6 is about God’s Messengers (Messengers receive divine scripturelike David,Moses,job,Ezekiel,Enoch,Noah. Prophets of God don’t receive any divine scripture rather they confirm the truth contained within the scripture), then in verse 36,right after, jesus says,”WHAT ABOUT THE ONE WHOM THE FATHER(Allaha) SET APART AS HIS VERY OWN [REPRESENTATIVE] AND SENT IN TO THE WORLD?” Then jesus takes advantage of Psalms 82:6 that he used to refute their false accusation and says, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the son of God’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.“ as Pslams 82:6 calls the Messengers of God “sons of the Most Hight(El Elyon)”. In verse 37 jesus makes it clear that he does these good work with not his own authority rather with God’s authority and Jesus tells them to not believe in him if he does these without God’s authority, Jesus was simply carrying out God’s commands and purpose. Which he make clear in the next verse, “38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the father.” it is clear as daylight jesus was just a messiah, prophet, Messenger of God. Another argument that the trinitarians say jesus is God they bring the incident with Philip the disciple, 8Philip said, “Master, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and that the Father is united me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father... who is doing His work. 11Believe me when I say that I am united with the Father and the Father is united with me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Jesus was making clear to Philip that it is through him(jesus) God was known and he(jesus) manifested God’s glory by carried out God’s commands and purpose and displaying God’s glory. So Jesus was making it clear that if you have seen God’s glory, which Jesus and other prophets have manifested, then you have seen the Father because it is through them you knew God. All prophets are a manifestation of God’s glory, an example is prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:5 “When I had not yet formed you in the womb, I knew you, and when you had not yet emerged from the womb, I had appointed you; a prophet to the nations I made you.” Prophet Jeremiah was already in God’s foreknowledge, Jeremiah was part of God’s will and decree and at a certain point of time that decree was decreed thus it become manifest. Another example is when prophet Ezekiel raised the dead alive, Ezekiel 37:4-12 4And He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.' 5So says the Lord God to these bones; Behold, I will cause spirit to enter into you, and you shall live! 6And I will lay sinews upon you, and I will make flesh grow over you and cover you with skin and put breath into you, and you will live, and you will then know that I am the Lord." 7So I prophesied as I was commanded, and there arose a noise when I prophesied, and behold a commotion, and the bones came together, bone to its bone! 8And I looked, and lo! sinews were upon them, and flesh came upon them, and skin covered them from above, but there was still no spirit in them. 9Then He said to me, "Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, O Son of Man, and say to the spirit, 'So says the Lord God: From four sides come, O spirit, and breathe into these slain ones that they may live.' " 10And I prophesied as He had commanded me, and the spirit came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, a very great army, exceedingly so. 11Then He said to me, "Son of Man, these bones are all the house of Israel. Behold they say, 'Our bones have become dried up, our hope is lost, we are clean cut off to ourselves.' 12Therefore, prophesy and say to them, So says the Lord God: Lo! I open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and bring you home to the land of Israel Jesus was no different he displayed God’s glory so that they may believe in the one true God and the jesus’ prophethood. An example of this is John 11: 3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Master, the one you love is sick.” 4When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s messenger may be glorified through it.” 5Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days, 7and then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.” 8“But RABBI,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews there tried to stone you, and yet you are going back?” 9Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. 10It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light.” 11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” 12His disciples replied, “Master, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16Then Thomas said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” Jesus Comforts the Sisters of Lazarus 17On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18Now Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. 21“Master,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22BUT I KNOW THAT EVEN NOW GOD WILL GIVE YOU(jesus) WHATEVER YOU ASK.” 23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the [eternal] life. The one who believes in me will live....26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27“Yes, Master,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the messanger of God, who is to come into the world.” 28After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” 29When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. 32When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Master, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34“Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Master,” they replied. 35Jesus wept. 36Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead 38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39“Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Master,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.” 40Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” 41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “FATHER(God), I THANK YOU(God) THAT YOU(God) HAVE HEARD ME. 42I KNEW THAT YOU(God) ALWAYS HEAR ME, BUT I SAID THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE STANDING HERE, THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU(God) SENT ME.” 43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” Did jesus do miracles by the permission of God ? John 11:22 “22BUT I KNOW THAT EVEN NOW GOD WILL GIVE YOU(jesus) WHATEVER YOU ASK.” yes most definitely. why did such miracle take place ? John 11:4 “...it is for God’s glory so that God’s messenger may be glorified through it.” John 11:41-42 41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “FATHER(God), I THANK YOU(God) THAT YOU(God) HAVE HEARD ME(jesus). 42I KNEW THAT YOU(God) ALWAYS HEAR ME(jesus), BUT I SAID THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE STANDING HERE, THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU(God) SENT ME(jesus).” so God’s glory can be displayed that the people know that Jesus is God’s Messenger and revere Jesus. In short Jesus was the manifestation of God’s glory like the previous prophets so the people may believe in God, His message, His messengers and His prophets. Jesus explicitly rebukes being called the Son of God, Luke 4:41 “41Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Messiah.” It is clear that Jesus rebuked them because they were calling him the literal son of God when deep down they knew he was the Messiah not the literal son of God as the verse clearly states. Jesus was already preaching and healing so demons and later on the Pharisees are trying their hardest to give a accusation in order to get him executed so Jesus was constantly explaining himself and being clever with his preaching. Verse 43 jesus explicitly says he must go preach the the good news of the covenant of God and in verse 42 people are tying to make him stay. So in short Jesus was already preaching and he had to face false accusations from the demons then later on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. The term “son of God” has been used in the OT many times and it is used as an metaphor to those who are Messengers of God (i.e those who have received scriptures from God) and are spiritually close to God. Their are some verses in the gospel according to John which show that Jesus was originally in heaven and then was conceived by saint Mary. But to clear all these contradictions, the oldest gospel is Mark and then Mathew is like Mark with some added words that are pagan and Greek methodology elements and then Luke which perhaps was written by Luke the companion of Paul. Mathew 5:17-20(The Law and the Prophets) is the measuring rod that is to be used when reconstructing the bible and the base is the gospel of Mathew, and the gospel of Mark also helps a lot with reconstructing the bible and also parts of Luke and John. In these four gospels their is truth and when the truth that is in the 4 gospels is combined and put in chronological order the Evangel becomes a reliable book, thus is how the truth within these gospels is intended to be persevered thus only the true sincere followers of Christ will find if they strive hard and use reason, logic and commonsense. Obviously and sadly not many people will find that path they will go astray as jesus prophesied in Mathew 7:13-14 “13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14.But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to [eternal] life, and only a few find it.” Unfortunately many “Christians” have entered the wide gate which lead to go astray and have pagan beliefs and perhaps also be wicked. The truth that is contained within the 4 gospels must be preached to these lost sheep in order to live a righteous life and fulfil the proper religious obligations to achieve eternal life which is paradise.

A discussion on reason, consciousness, and free will through the lense of evolution. I am putting this in the atheism section as the discussion is hosted by non believers (though miller of course is catholic).

Respected brothers and sisters I was wondering if you can aid me by sharing significant threads that have been opened in regards to debating any form of creed it would be highly appreciated, may Allah bless you all. @Mahdavist @Hameedeh @Gaius I. Caesar @AbdulKarim313_Austin/Nola @Haji 2003 @hasanhh @Ibn al-Hussain @Ibn Al-Shahid @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @Moalfas @Abu Nur @Muhammed Ali @notme@ali_fatheroforphans @King @The Green Knight @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @AkhiraisReal

Do you guys think unity between our these two religions would be good? (Unity as in support each other and focus on common grounds) I think so personally. And the comment I took a screenshot of, I agree with, because both religions are trying to serve God.

https://www.bbc.co.United Kingdom/news/United Kingdom-48146305 Is this report accurate in its suggestions, or somewhat off the mark? Murder of innocents is, blatantly wrong, and to have to still be saying that in the 21st century is beyond shamful. I would be interested to know whether the media have ever used the word 'genocide' when reporting the Muslim-on-Muslim killings.

Dr Hewer is an English scholar of Islam and Christianity. In a set of four lectures, he tries to explain Christianity to a Muslim audience. Part I Part II Part III Part IV Enjoy

I've saw on the news and youtube of young women being abused by men from South Asian/Middle Eastern/North African Culture under the name of Taharrush. Didn't the Prophet have daughters e.g. Fatimah, Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum, im sure Muhammad like any father would do damage to any man who tried to rape, humiliate, mutilate and kill his daughter/daughters. Im not religious or anything incase anyones asking, lost my way at 6 years old after cowards shot my da dead for no reason!

Wikipedia notes: as well as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh So, is YHWH the same as Allah? As a Christian, I certainly consider him my God, the only true God of all things, and the only one deserving of worship. I would consider Allah the Islamic "spin off" (I don't mean that in a rude or offensive way) of YHWH. Thoughts or other opinions/viewpoints?

Salaam Alaikum brothers and sisters! "But that day belongs to the Lord, the LORD Almighty-- a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes. The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood. For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the River Euphrates." Jeremiah 46:10 Thoughts on this verse? Do you guys think it is in reference to Imam Mahdi (as).

Getting Drunk Was Considered a Sin in Medieval Christianity بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم TIL that getting drunk was considered a sin in Medieval Christianity. Alcohol itself was considered permissible, but drinking to the point of inebriation was considered a subset of the deadly sin of gluttony. The full reddit thread on r/askhistorians can be found below, although I’ll quote the relevant parts: Click here to continue reading.

The teachings of Islam: Believe in God and the Prophet and obey them. Believe in divine justice and judgment after death and model your life so that you can survive the judgment satisfactorily. Honour, respect, help and obey your parents, even if they do not fulfil their obligations to you. But do not obey them if they ask you to commit a wrong. Help those in need financially and otherwise but without a motive and as far as possible, on the quiet. Do not let your generosity be commonly known. Have special consideration for disadvantaged groups, such as orphans, women, old people, strangers in town etc. Don’t deceive anyone in a private or in a trade transaction. Stick to patience in all adversities. If someone arouses your anger, forgive that person. Try and forgo your right to retaliate. Don’t treat a woman in distress as your heritage. Do not take advantage of women or of anyone weaker than you. Do not charge interest on a sum of money you lend someone. If a debtor finds it difficult to pay back the loan on the due date, reschedule the debt so that he has more time. And if you write the debt off completely, it is even better. Never let your courage fail you. Be brave. You live only once. If you have slaves, treat them as family. It will be better to let them go. And if they want to go, you must not stop them. But if they wish to stay, share your wealth equally with them. Be firm. Do not allow yourself to be unduly influenced. Behave in a manner where your behaviour is described as graceful, even if someone tries to bully you or acts unjustly to you. Judge justly. If you know that your son has committed an offence, speak against him in court, if you are asked to give evidence. Do not allow your love for your relatives to lead you to injustice. Always speak kindly, even if you wish to avoid a person, who wishes to mislead you or is otherwise a pest or a nuisance. Place your trust entirely in God and no one else. Do not bear false witness. Do not gamble. Do not consume intoxicating drinks. Reflect deeply into the mysteries of life. If you have committed a sin, ask for God’s forgiveness. If you have sinned against a human being, ask the person to forgive you before you seek divine forgiveness. And repent, that is, promise never to repeat the sin again Respect your guests and neighbours even if they are atheists or agnostics or belong to another religion. Be the first to greet people. In other words, when you meet someone on the street or elsewhere, greet him first, that is, before he tries to greet you. Repel evil with good. In other words, if someone does evil to you, do not respond to him with evil, rather with good. Do not engage with those who mock your religion. Leave them alone but depart from them gracefully. When your eyes fall upon a person of the other sex, lower your gaze or at least turn your eyes to something else. Sex outside a legal relationship is not permitted. Homosexuality is a very grave sin. Don’t be scared to go to battle in self-defence. Do not attack anyone except in self-defence. Always seek a peaceful solution to your problems. Do not resort to violence until your adversary does so. Give the other person the privilege of a first strike. Live simply. The Prophet’s own simple life is confirmed by the following scholars: Barnaby Rogerson, The Prophet Muhammad, 2003, p. 73: (1) Muhammad made no use of Khadijah’s wealth (other than to give alms to the poor) and maintained his same simple existence and his life as a merchant. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet, 1993: (2) Muhammad gave a large proportion of the family income to the poor and made his own family live very frugally. (p. 81) (3) Muhammad himself always lived a simple and frugal life, even when he became the most powerful sayyid in Arabia. He hated luxury and there was often nothing to eat in his household. He never had more than one set of clothes at a time and when some of his Companions urged him to wear a richer ceremonial dress, he always refused, preferring the thick, coarse cloth worn by most of the people. [Sayyid means leader] (p. 93) (4) He hated to be addressed with pompous, honorific titles, and was often seen sitting unaffectedly on the ground in the mosque, frequently choosing to sit with the poorest members of the community. (Page 230) Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ix, taken from the digitised version of Google Books, p. 324: (5) The good sense of Mahomet despised the pomp of royalty; the apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire, swept the floor, milked the ewes, and mended with his own hands his shoes and his woollen garment (6) Many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled on the hearth of the prophet. Washington Irving, Mohammed, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007, p. 94: (7) The style of living of the prophet himself was not superior to that of his disciple . . . He swept his chamber, lit his fire, mended his clothes, and was, in fact, his own servant. Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1923 (1997): (8) Mohammed was extremely simple in his habits. His mode of life, his dress and his belongings, retained to the very last a character of patriarchal simplicity. Many a time . . . had the Prophet to go without a meal. Dates and water frequently formed his only nourishment. (p. 120-121) (9) Modesty and kindness, patience, self-denial, and generosity pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathized tenderly . . . He shared his food even in times of scarcity with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. He would stop in the streets listening to the sorrows of the humblest. He would go to the houses of the lowliest to console the afflicted and to comfort the heartbroken. The meanest slaves would take hold of his hand and drag him to their masters to obtain redress for ill-treatment or release from bondage . . . At night he slept little, spending most of the hours in devotion. He loved the poor and respected them, and many who had no home or shelter of their own slept at night in the mosque contiguous to his house. Each evening it was his custom to invite some of them to partake of his humble fare. (p. 120)

Hello everybody, I am new to the community and I just have a question regarding the Shia Muslim view on the crucifixion of Christ. I have been interested in comparative religion as of late and I have been studying up on Islamic Christology just to get a better idea of it, and most of my focus has been on the Islamic view of Jesus's crucifixion which is central to my faith and I know can be of huge controversy between Christians and Muslims. As I understand it, the vast majority of Muslims (mainly Sunni) hold to the a substitution view on the death of Christ, that is, someone was made to appear like Christ (possibly Judas) and was crucified in his place instead while Jesus was assumed into heaven by the help of Allah. This seems to be in full agreement with Surah An-Nisa 4:57 where is explicity states, "That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not..." I have, however, come across alternative views and interpretations among with verse, particularly among Ahmaddiyas who advocate for a swoon theory, and I have also come across different theories among Shias, some holding to the traditional view that most Sunnis hold to, while others holding to a more esoteric view like the Ismaili's Shias, though I haven't been able to find a full explanation of their belief. As far as I understand it, some Sunnis don't consider Shias to be true Muslims due to these kinds of beliefs. Could anyone further explain the views on the crucifixion of Jesus in Shia Islam?

Why every time I that I mention Jesus and my love for him, the Muslim person I am speaking with goes into this script, (I feel like it is a script because diverse people have used the same words verbatim), of how they love Jesus too. They say, "One cannot be Muslim unless he believes in Jesus, I love Jesus, I love Jesus more than you" Honestly, this shows a great misunderstanding in the Muslim's person understanding. Do Muslim people realize that Christians do not love Jesus like as a prophet, we do not love him a religious duty. We surely do not love him in the context of a person from the Islamic faith would love him. We do not relate nor believe in him as someone from the Islamic faith. They might as well be two completely different people. (They have different life stories, deaths, resurrection, and prophecies told in the Koran and the Bible). Do Muslim people understand that when a Christian expresses their love for Jesus, they are referring to a love deeper than that of a mother, a child, or a husband/wife? This is a love of "savior", meaning: I was dead and he gave me life. I was poor and he gave me riches. I had ashes, he gave me beauty. He not only gave me life, but a blessed, abundant beautiful. I owe him my life. To me, this type of response to a Christian who talks about their love for Jesus reveals a wide gap of understanding from the Muslim person. Do you owe Jesus your life, did he stay with all night when you were alone and no one was there, did he sing to you songs and comfort and fill your heart with life, truth, and love? If not, then please don't tell me you love him, because you don't know him to love him. How do you love what you do not know? Maybe you love the idea of him, but not him. For example, a weak analogy would be you sharing about the birth of your son, and how much your son means to you and he is your life and your joy and your pride. The person you speak with who has never seen your son, nor knows him, says, "I love him too, more than you, I love him so much". He then says, "What's his name, I forgot" and goes his life without ever spending any time with or buying anything for your son. You would say, "Do not tell me you love my son, your words are just lip service, and flattery". Lip service and words are increasingly meaningless in this world when they have no action behind them. Does this frustration make sense, I always remind myself, the Muslim person has the best intention to make good relations with me, but they just do not understand as they should.

SalamAlaykum Brothers and sister I'm currently creating a simplified Tafsir which is very easy to read and the format is not boring, but coming across this ayat it has put it to a pause lol وَمَا جَعَلْنَا أَصْحَابَ النَّارِ إِلَّا مَلَائِكَةً ۙ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا عِدَّتَهُمْ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِيَسْتَيْقِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ وَيَزْدَادَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِيمَانًا ۙ وَلَا يَرْتَابَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ۙ وَلِيَقُولَ الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ وَالْكَافِرُونَ مَاذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِهَٰذَا مَثَلًا ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ جُنُودَ رَبِّكَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ وَمَا هِيَ إِلَّا ذِكْرَىٰ لِلْبَشَرِ {31} [Shakir 74:31] And We have not made the wardens of the fire others than angels, and We have not made their number but as a trial for those who disbelieve, that those who have been given the book may be certain and those who believe may increase in faith, and those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say: What does Allah mean by this parable? Thus does Allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases, and none knows the hosts of your Lord but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to the mortals. Let me put those parts I'm interested the most in bullet points ...and We have not made their number but as a trial for those who disbelieve, that those who have been given the book may be certain and those who believe may increase in faith, and those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt... According to the Tafsir, the number 19 which in this Chapter is about the angels, is also mentioned in the TORAH Here is the Question Can a knowledgeable brother or sister please tell me where in the TORAH and the Gospels it mentions anything to do with 19 Angels that Guard the Hell. Jazakallah Khairyan

As you probably know, Jesus (as) did not speak English ! The language he spoke was Aramaic. so the bible we see today is an English translation of the Greek translation of the Aramaic Bible. Here I will show to all Hussain-lovers and truth-seekers the actual name of imam Hussain (AS) in the new testament : *** Matthew 3:11 [ John the Baptists (prophet Yahya as):] ""I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." In the Aramaic text of course, there is a slight defference !!! The word translated as "Mightier" was actually a name. And the name is none other than Hussain i will give you links to the Aramaic text and Aramaic alphabet. you can search it yourself to make sure http://biblehub.com/aramaic-english-gospels/matthew/3.htm https://www.omniglot.com/writing/westernneoaramaic.htm Assalamu Alaik ya Aba Abdillah !

Asalamu aleykum wa rahmatullahi wa baraktuh brothers and sisters Its have been a while that I was visiting ShiaChat again. I want share some experience I made between the realtionship of Shia Islam and Orthodox Christianity and especially also in the eastern world. Orthodox Christians are well know as people from Eastern Europe like Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, etc. or in the Balkans like Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc. and also in the MIddle East in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey. I sometimes talk with a friend of Bulgaria and seems to have a very symphathy for Shia Muslims. He told me that both religions share similiarties in many views of practising religion itself and as also the suffer of the crusades (Orthodox Christians suffered from the 4th crusades, there have been in many centuries a conflict between Orthodoxy and Catholicism). Aswell he appreciate the support of shiite militias helping christian minorieties like Hezbollah many times did. Also take a look into this webpage from a Orthodox community which talk about the relation between the two religions: https://souloftheeast.org/2016/01/22/the-orthodox-shia-alliance/ What text impressed me really of this page was that part: " From the first, in the Shia-Sunni split, there have been interesting parallels with Christendom amongst the followers of Ali. Martyrdom is treated very seriously by the Shi’ites on account of the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala, which, in particular, is of a Christian type. The seventy-two followers of Husayn, who were hopelessly outnumbered in the fight against an army of five thousand, behaved chivalrously, riding out one at a time to draw the fighting away from their main camp, in order to protect the women and children who were with them; Husayn himself did the same thing, and fought in personal combat against the armies of Yazid, and was killed. His body and those of his followers were mutilated outrageously. But in that battle, they laid down their lives for their friends in the same way many military saints of our Church have done. This is not to say, naturally, that the Islamic theology they held to, with its Arian presuppositions, is correct or justified, or that Husayn (or Sheikh al-Nimr) should be treated as a saint by Christians. Only, rather, that the Shia Muslims have for their own prominent spiritual model, a type which (whether consciously or not) recalls the self-sacrifice of Christ." It was also a pleasure to read the comments and some are very interesting how they view us: "Mark Citadel says: January 23, 2016 at 2:34 pm Powerful article. I am very much interested in this topic, as Russian Christian Reactionaries are reaching for alliance with the Shia resistance in the Middle East. I think one can also draw a parallel in the semi-aristocratic nature of the priesthood. Sunni Islam is far more akin to Protestantism than anything else, in which anyone can become an Imam. Shia understand the need for the Traditional structures of warrior and priest in a far more authentic way. I was amazed to find the Alawite sect celebrate Christmas as we do!" "AriusArmenian says: January 26, 2016 at 5:12 pm I rejoice in the victories of the Syrian people over the head choppers and liver eaters that are backed by the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals and its Middle Eastern proxies. For me it is personal. I will never forget that a Syrian army of mostly Muslim young men fought and died to liberate and protect Christian Kessab after the Turk vermin opened the border to allow the Western backed jihadis to enter and kill Armenians. What did the West do? It backed the Turks and jihadi vermin. The US will back Turkey no matter what it does." Note i dont want to make any conflict because the man metioned Turkey. The relationship between Shia Islam and Orthodox Christianity is very common in the Middle East likewise the relation between Armenia and Iran especially during the time were the Ottomans persecuted the Armenians and they were accepted by the Iranians and also by Syrians and Lebanese. In Lebanon the famous founder of the Amal Movement Musa as-Sadr (R.I.P) had a good relation with Christians. On February 19, 1975, fathers of the Saint Louis Capuchin Cathedral in Beirut was the first time in the history of Islam and Christianity that a Muslim cleric was carrying out a Christian religious rite and that was Musa as-Sadr! During the disastrous civil war in Lebanon, he said in an interview: “One of the most important objectives behind the plots that struck Lebanon was to destroy the form of coexistence and national unity in Lebanon. When coexistence is targeted by a plot, the symbols of coexistence will definitely be the first to be attacked." “I do not suppose anyone in Lebanon to be a symbol of national unity as much as I am, because in addition to the cultural, social, and political contacts and all-out relations I have with all Lebanese sects, I reached a point that, three years ago at Saint Louis Capuchin Cathedral, I preached Christians during the Lent. No one in the world has reached such a position. That was just like a Christian clergyman preaching Muslims during the Friday prayers. So I became the symbol of national unity, and thus, the plot directly targeted me,” “We have gathered for the human being; the human being for whom religions came; the religious which were of the same origin, and each promised the emergence of the other, and acknowledged each other,” "Every bullet that is shot at a Christian town is as if it is shot at my home, heart, & children." - Sayid Musa Sadr A similiar untiy can be also find in Syria between the Alawites or the Shia minority toward the Orthodox Syrians. Since the independence of Syria againt the colonialist power of France, unity was a very important symbol even today with the government of Assad. In my opinion the eastern world is more open when its about the dialogue between Islam and Christianity (besides from any secretarian group). Instead in the western world it seems difficult to talk about it since the media and authors are potraying Islam far from Christianity. We really should be open about it instead of giving us judgements which nowadays sadly happen many times. Thats all what I have to say Wa aleykum salam

Dear All Calgary Alberta has thrown the gauntlet to other big cities in uniting religions instead of dividing them. An Inter-faith week was celebrated recently and winners were announced. For anyone interested, their website is http://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/ They are represented on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/world.interfaith.harmony.week/ The parent organisations are http://www.acommonword.com/ http://ammanmessage.com/ http://www.islambuddhism.com/ http://www.altafsir.com/ Also represented are http://rissc.jo/?mc_cid=ba39356111&mc_eid=aa0c94c60c and http://www.aalalbayt.org/en/ Let us hope our little planet could benefit from this peace venture. Cheers

Asalamu aleykum wr wb my brothers and sisters I want to ask you if there are any Quranic and Hadith sources for those Bible verses. My mother is a Christian lady and she show me that verses. Another question is: How is it that the Bible calls Jesus son of God and Allah swt should be the father? I found even enough Bible verses who explain that God is one and almighty, however this son and father thing is confusing me a bit, but I can remember there was something about the difference of the translation of the Bible like differences in Latin, Hebrew, Aramean and Greek. I would be glad if someone can send me good sources. Wa salam

Salam All, i am doubted on some specific issues regarding religions ... I dont know about every religion but most of religions make followers believe that GOD loves his creation.. well here are some points raised by me and I invite not only muslims but people of other religions too to comment on these questions Question number 1 : If you are born to a couple following a specific religion you believe that your religion is the truth.. Well, dont you think that a child is brainwashed to believe that? Question number 2: A child is innocent and obviously God has no Enmity with him/her why is that a specific child is born to a couple following the (so-called) right religion and the other is born to people following so-called false religion? Isnt it where we can say that God is unfair? Question number 3 : You guys Obviously believe that your religion is truth well for that i must ask you that if a child an innocent is placed in such area where there is no peer effect nor is there any one who can preach him anything.. He would turn out to be a follower of specific religion? This post is not made to offend anyone... I am sorry if i used some wrong words but questions are to be asked and i would invite infact I request all of You to answer

Beautiful.... A 6 min video definitely worth watching.

Space war, Vatican knowledge of extraterrestrials revealed in Podesta emails Aliens want to help mankind but fear our violent tendencies, according to an email exchange revealed by Wikileaks. Mails sent by astronaut Edgar Mitchell to John Podesta cite an impending space war and the Vatican’s knowledge of alien life. https://www.rt.com/viral/362272-podesta-emails-aliens-vatican/