Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Pre-Existence of Jesus

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In the book of John it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD then it goes on to say and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Yeshua himself said in Luke that he saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.

Yeshua said in John "Before Abraham was I AM"

Yeshua also tells the Father to glorify him with the glory which he had with him BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

In John 6:41,6:38 Jesus talks about coming down from heaven.

In Micah it shows that the Messiahs goings from everlasting.

These are just a few that show Jesus did not begin when he was born around 2000 years ago but he PRE-EXISTED. There is no doubt God's Word came down from heaven to save humanity. 

I will allow you to say you believe it is corrupted but you will not be able to say Jesus pre-existence is not taught.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could Yeshua say he saw Satan fall from heaven ? He was born around 2000 years ago after that happened? 

How could he say he existed before Abraham? Even the Jews were baffled when they heard him and said, "you are not yet 50 years old and have seen Abraham."

How could any normal man say he shared Glory with God before the World was?

Either Yeshua was the biggest blasphemer in history or he was telling the truth....

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

In only pointing to the words of Prophet Jesus(a), he often spoke and related to those he taught in parables as part of what was revealed to him by Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) just as we find in Aesop's fables the kernels of wisdom & truth encapsulated by the personification of animals in tribulation and stories, not meant to be taken literally, but neither to be dismissed outright as fiction - but for moments of deep reflection and contemplation.

Edited by Joshua Bin Medellin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joshua Bin Medellin said:

In only pointing to the words of Prophet Jesus(a), he often spoke and related to those he taught in parables as part of what was revealed to him by Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) just as we find in Aesop's fables the kernels of wisdom & truth encapsulated by the personification of animals in tribulation and stories, not meant to be taken literally, but neither to be dismissed outright as fiction - but for moments of deep reflection and contemplation.

Thank you for your comment Joshua Bin Medellin.

You are correct in that Jesus spoke in parables.

The parables we're stories were Jesus was describing things of the kingdom of heaven in a way that is easily understandable to us humans.

For instance the laborers for the vineyard story. Jesus as well told parables to illustrate a moral lesson and to show love and mercy, for instance the story of the good Samaritan.

Basically in a parable Jesus would speak a story to produce a spiritual lesson.

As for the scriptures I posted they don't strike as parables or stories to teach a lesson. They are statements about himself.

For instance in John 8:48-59 Jesus was answering the Jewish peoples accusations. 

In John 17:5 what was recorded by John was a prayer directed to the Father, asking the Father to "glorify him with the glory he once shared with him before the World Was" it does not strike me as a parable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to share another beautiful passage in Luke we're like many other verses has spoken to my heart showing me how Jesus is the Lord who dealt with the Jews in the Torah and Tanach.

Luke 13:31 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 9/29/2021 at 4:29 AM, tek91 said:

In the book of John it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD then it goes on to say and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Yeshua himself said in Luke that he saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.

Yeshua said in John "Before Abraham was I AM"

Yeshua also tells the Father to glorify him with the glory which he had with him BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

In John 6:41,6:38 Jesus talks about coming down from heaven.

In Micah it shows that the Messiahs goings from everlasting.

These are just a few that show Jesus did not begin when he was born around 2000 years ago but he PRE-EXISTED. There is no doubt God's Word came down from heaven to save humanity. 

I will allow you to say you believe it is corrupted but you will not be able to say Jesus pre-existence is not taught.

Did Jesus' soul pre-exist?

All these passages can be interpreted one way or another. 

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 
 
Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible mutliplicity of godhead in Semitic thought. 
 
There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". He makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independantly claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 
 
This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references. 
 
None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these seperate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities seperately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 
 
Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a seperate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these seperate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a seperate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 
 
By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes.
 

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 

Hello Nad_M

You are correct that Jesus never said he was the Father. Like we claim the Father did not come down it was his Word which is eternal and is ONE (Echad) in unity with God and is the manifestation of God.

That is taught and I have shown without a doubt his pre-existence.

Just like many times in the torah and tanach God is in heaven and his Spirit was on the Earth dwelling and speaking and edifying Prophets in like manner his Word came down from heaven and manifested the Eternal Father that we cannot see to us.

If the Father were to come down the whole universe would fall and humanity would die as no man can see God and live.

Yeshua was the physical manifestation of the Father in the flesh. That is why after Thomas asked him to show him the Father Yeshua replied that he has long been with him and still did not understand IF YOU HAVE SEEN HIM YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER.

Hmm very intesting would you not agree?

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". He makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independantly claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 

Why then was Jesus called Lord? Why did he refer to himself as Lord? Why did David in the OT call Messiah Lord if Messiah was just a prophet and not more?

Why did Yeshua lament to Jerusalem who rejected him. "You shall not see me henceforth until you say Blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord"

Why also did Yeshua tell us No one comes to the Father but through him? Does not that tell us we need to pray to him? That he is the only mediator?

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 

God cannot be seen but there are many instances in the hebrew text which show that God was seen by prophets and even spoke with them..

Hmmm could that be a physical manifestation? 

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 

What did Yeshua mean when he said these statements in the book of John

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

And this

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Isnt that showing that he and the Father do the same or have the same attributes?

7 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".

We both agree God is one but I have shown and have yet to be reffuted that the Hebrew word used for ONE supports the Christian view of Unity.

The Hebrew word used in the book of Deuteronomy is Echad which has been shown as a Unity of ONE for instance Adam and Eve becoming ONE(Echad) flesh or the stones to build the temple all being one (Echad)

God was not signifying that his form was 1 in numerical value. If that was the case he would have used the word Yachid which is the hebrew word for absolute oneness or the numerical value of one.

So Muslins need to completely stop using the argument.

1 + 1 + 1 does not = 1

God describes himself as a Unity of One not a numerical value of one.

Peace

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

The Hebrew word used in the book of Deuteronomy is Echad which has been shown as a Unity of ONE for instance Adam and Eve becoming ONE(Echad) flesh or the stones to build the temple all being one (Echad)

Each of the things in the Torah described with echad are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Of course Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism.

Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12.

The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Please answer the following:

Did Jesus' soul preexist?

 

There is no mention of Jesus soul as far as I am aware off. 

I will not mention anything that is not scriptural. I will not give my two cents but just what is taught in our books.

The scripture states that Jesus himself did not start to exist when he was born as a baby.

John and from Jesus own mouth gives us evidence for this.

According to Jesus own words he came down from heaven, shared glory with God before the World was, witnessed satan fall from heaven like lightning and existed before the prophet Abraham.

Would you agree that this is true?

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

of the things in the Torah described with echad are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Of course Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism.

Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12.

Im not saying a trillion. Did you read anything I said? The hebrew word echad does not say absolute one or numerical one. That word belongs to Yachid.

In deuteronomy God was not explaining that his nature is 1 as the word he would have used for 1 is Yachid.

God was explaining that he is ONE (ECHAD) basically not to go after the other pagan gods that were worshipped by the egyptians and others and that he alone should be worshiped. He was not giving his essence and nature a numerical value. 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, tek91 said:

There is no mention of Jesus soul as far as I am aware

I know that, and this is because the idea of a preexisting Jesus is a later development forced upon scriptures, creating countless problems known today as "mysteries of the trinity".

So this preincarnate Jesus was in a non human form. Jesus was "something minus the soul".  Once that "something" assumed human form, the soul was added. After his resurrection and ascencion, the soul remained attached to him. He became in heaven a God with an additional part he did not have before. 

Jesus started as a God minus soul to God plus soul. 

God increases in nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Im not saying a trillion.

Sure. But if the Hebrew "one" may mean more than one, why not a trillion?

32 minutes ago, tek91 said:

God was not explaining that his nature is 1 as the word he would have used for 1 is Yachid

Yachid does not fit the sentence. Echad is used thousands of times all over the HB to mean an "absolute one” and not compound at all. This is the context of the schema as already explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

I know that, and this is because the idea of a preexisting Jesus is a later development forced upon scriptures, creating countless problems known today as "mysteries of the trinity".

So this preincarnate Jesus was in a non human form. Jesus was "something minus the soul".  Once that "something" assumed human form, the soul was added. After his resurrection and ascencion, the soul remained attached to him. He became in heaven a God with an additional part he did not have before. 

Jesus started as a God minus soul to God plus soul. 

God increases in nature?

I don't understand what you are saying.. 

So because the bible does not mention Jesus soul that means that the scriptures that I have shown that show the pre-existence is false. How do you connect these things.

I am starting to get the sense that you are threatened or feel that others will be threatened by those verses and are just throwing things at me to divert from those scriptures and distract from the evidence..

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yachid does not fit the sentence. Echad is used thousands of times all over the HB to mean an "absolute one” and not compound at all.

I am trying to tell you the meaning of Yachid is absolute one or 1 not echad.

Echad has been used to show a unity of one.

Would you agree with that?

Also why does God in the torah in the creation says Let us make man in OUR image and OUR likeness? Why was it plural and not singular?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

So because the bible does not mention Jesus soul that means that the scriptures that I have shown that show the pre-existence is false.

No, i have taken your interpretation of those passages as pointing to preexistence as true for argument's sake. I am now merely pointing out the consequences of such disputed interpretations. 

So did Jesus increase in nature post resurrection and ascencion to the Father?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Echad has been used to show a unity of one.

Metaphorically in a few isolated places, contrary to the hundreds of times it means an absolute one, as in the context of the schema as already explained.

And if echad implies more than 1, why 3 and not a trillion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Also why does God in the torah in the creation says Let us make man in OUR image and OUR likeness? Why was it plural and not singular?

Before getting to the well known semitic use of the majestic plural, as is amply seen in both the Quran and HB without any hint at plurality of nature, Why does Jesus say in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

No, i have taken your interpretation of those passages as pointing to preexistence as true for argument's sake. I am now merely pointing out the consequences of such disputed interpretations. 

So did Jesus increase in nature post resurrection and ascencion to the Father?

Im not understanding increase in nature what do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Metaphorically in a few isolated places, contrary to the hundreds of times it means an absolute one, as in the context of the schema as already explained.

And if echad implies more than 1, why 3 and not a trillion?

Ok, if you admit that One (echad) has been used to show unity then would you acknowledge that Father his Word and Spirit being echad is not contrary to Deuteronomys teaching of oneness.

If God was saying that his form and being is yachid or numerical value of 1 then my beliefs would have a roadblock. 

He used echad instead which is in alignment of my understanding of Gods complex unity.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Before getting to the well known semitic use of the majestic plural, as is amply seen in both the Quran and HB without any hint at plurality of nature, Why does Jesus say in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone?

 

Im really not getting your point.

in those verses Yeshua was adressing the subject of divorce and how the Echad God made men both male and female.

God is echad so he is referring to Gods divine Unity.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, tek91 said:

, if you admit that One (echad) has been used to show unity

In a metaphorical context, in reference to a multiplicity of subjects clearly apparent in the sentence. For example, as in any language, husband and wife becoming one/echad.

In the schema however, echad is in reference to a singular subject "your Lord".

Nowhere does the language allow for a multiplicity of entities in such grammatical construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, tek91 said:

in those verses Yeshua was adressing the subject of divorce and how the Echad God made men both male and female.

Yes, God not Jesus, created males and females. Why not "we" in this highly convenient passage where Jesus could have included himself in the plural as in Genesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

As for the trinity, it's really simple. Don't fall down into the rabbit hole of speculation that some try to crawl into. 

This is according to the Bible

Adam: 'One God'

Noah: 'One God'

Abraham: 'One God'

Moses: 'One God'

David: 'One God'

Jesus: 'One God'

Muhammad: 'One God'

(peace be upon all of them)

Paul, many years after the Death of Jesus, 

'Three gods, Jesus is one of them'

So who should I believe , Paul or all the Prophets of God. I'll take the word of the Prophets over Paul (some dude who made his living as a hired assasin)

It's that simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

a metaphorical context, in reference to a multiplicity of subjects clearly apparent in the sentence. For example, as in any language, husband and wife becoming one/echad.

In the schema however, echad is in reference to a singular subject "your Lord".

Nowhere does the language allow for a multiplicity of entities in such grammatical construction.

Your just making excuses the torah literally shows that echad is used to show a group of grapes being one, morning and evening being one, Adam and Eve becoming one flesh, the stones to build the temple all forming one.

You cannot deny this.

As to saying echad is singular absolutely not. Singularity is the definition of yachid.

Solidary one and only #1

 

yachid: only, only one, solitary

Original Word: יָחִיד
Part of Speech: Adjective; substantive
Transliteration: yachid
Phonetic Spelling: (yaw-kheed')
Definition: only, only one, solitary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes, God not Jesus, created males and females. Why not "we" in this highly convenient passage where Jesus could have included himself in the plural as in Genesis?

Yeshua did include himself he said he and the Father are one. He also said if you have seen him you have seen the Father 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the trinity, it's really simple. Don't fall down into the rabbit hole of speculation that some try to crawl into. 

This is according to the Bible

Adam: 'One God'

Noah: 'One God'

Abraham: 'One God'

Moses: 'One God'

David: 'One God'

Jesus: 'One God'

Muhammad: 'One God'

(peace be upon all of them)

Paul, many years after the Death of Jesus, 

'Three gods, Jesus is one of them'

So who should I believe , Paul or all the Prophets of God. I'll take the word of the Prophets over Paul (some dude who made his living as a hired assasin)

It's that simple. 

Hello Abu Hadi 

You missed the whole conversation in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, tek91 said:

I believe we went through this.

Yes and no answer was provided. Where was Jesus' soul in his preincarnate state? Here is a little help. It could not have been part of him until "the word became flesh". After his ascencion, where did that soul go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, tek91 said:

echad is used to show a group of grapes being one, morning and evening being one, Adam and Eve becoming one flesh, the stones to build the temple all forming one.

Sure. Metaphorically when multiple subjects are clearly laid out in the sentence. Never when echad refers to a singular subject as in the schema "your Lord is echad"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Yeshua did include himself he said he and the Father are one. He also said if you have seen him you have seen the Father 

That is another passage open to interpretation.

When Jesus speaks of the singular Creator's work, he had the perfect occasion to include himself in the godhead. But he doesnt. That is why trinitarians step in to do the work for him by piecing together passages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the trinity, it's really simple. Don't fall down into the rabbit hole of speculation that some try to crawl into. 

This is according to the Bible

Adam: 'One God'

Noah: 'One God'

Abraham: 'One God'

Moses: 'One God'

David: 'One God'

Jesus: 'One God'

Muhammad: 'One God'

(peace be upon all of them)

Paul, many years after the Death of Jesus, 

'Three gods, Jesus is one of them'

So who should I believe , Paul or all the Prophets of God. I'll take the word of the Prophets over Paul (some dude who made his living as a hired assasin)

It's that simple. 

They believe in one God, but the problem becomes with the Essence of God. There is two problems with the trinity. First, If trinity could ever be right first the Father,the son and the Spirit must be all same and one, but the trinity says the Father is not the son, nor the Spirit is the Father.

Second the nature of the Spirit and the son is problematic because they believe they are God, but they also have the  attributes of increasing and decreasing, ascending descending, limiting to space and time.

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...