Proof, denying the divinity of Jesus, peace be upon him

[Abu Hassanain]

Salam 

I don’t plan necessarily engage in this discussion. I’ll leave other others to it.

John 5 30 he can do nothing by himself

John 17 3 he distinguishes himself from the father indicating there’s only one God

John 14 28 he says the father is greater than him

Mark 10 18 is upset when he has called good and discusses good as a equality only attributed to the one God

Luke 21 32 it’s subscribed to him that his kingdom was coming before the death of the people who were talking to him. I am that generation which proved false, no matter what mental gymnastics people do to make it sound good 

Mathew 26 64 he denies being God before the high priest

https://al-islam.org/jesus-through-shiite-narrations-mahdi-muntazir-qaim

The above book is written by a very nice scholar. He spent over 20 years in the seminaries, as well as he was helping create one of the first joint Urdu and Farsi seminary in Iran if I’m not mistaken. He has gone over all the issues relating to Jesus peace upon him that if a sincere question reads them Inshallah he would get affected.

Like I said, I’m gonna post this information and step back. I don’t have the time for this particular project, but I think it’s worthwhile tagging all the people who frequent this subsection and people who from their post I assume have some kind of background with Christianity better than I

@Abu Hadi @Borntowitnesstruth @Ashvazdanghe@Qa'im @Abu Nur @Northwest @ServantOfMahdi @notme

Edited August 27, 2025 by Abu Hassanain
Typo

[Jeffrey-N]

Salam. I've seen almost all of these before these are the most common Muslim attacks on Jesus.

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

John 5 30 he can do nothing by himself

A parallel example in which Jesus further elaborates is in the same chapter John 5:19

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

John 17 3 he distinguishes himself from the father indicating there’s only one God

The only/one true God is a title often given to the father (1 Timothy 2:5)

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

John 14 28 he says the father is greater than him

Depends on what you mean by greater. While for example King Solomon was greater than the people in status, the people were just as human as Solomon. Jesus is fully God just like the father.

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

Mark 10 18 is upset when he has called good and discusses good as a equality only attributed to the one God

That's interpretation is dumb. He questions the man that calls him good without knowing he is God. He's making a point about not just going around calling people.

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

Luke 21 32 it’s subscribed to him that his kingdom was coming before the death of the people who were talking to him. I am that generation which proved false, no matter what mental gymnastics people do to make it sound good 

You believe this is a false prophecy?? Giving 'false' prophecies does seem like something a Muslim would do so maybe if this were a false prophecy that would prove Jesus was a Muslim.

2000 years of Christianity is unaltered by verse. There are lots of ways to interpret this to get out of the contradiction. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

Mathew 26 64 he denies being God before the high priest

 He affirms being the son of God here. Not sure how he denies being God.

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

The above book is written by a very nice scholar. He spent over 20 years in the seminaries, as well as he was helping create one of the first joint Urdu and Farsi seminary in Iran if I’m not mistaken. He has gone over all the issues relating to Jesus peace upon him that if a sincere question reads them Inshallah he would get affected.

I'll try reading it. How late are these narrations we have though.

1 hour ago, Abu Hassanain said:

Like I said, I’m gonna post this information and step back. I don’t have the time for this particular project, but I think it’s worthwhile tagging all the people who frequent this subsection and people who from their post I assume have some kind of background with Christianity better than I

@Abu Hadi @Borntowitnesstruth @Ashvazdanghe@Qa'im @Abu Nur @Northwest @ServantOfMahdi @notme

I'm still going to defend my religion, but it's okay if you don't respond.

[ServantOfMahdi]

On 8/28/2025 at 1:29 AM, Jeffrey-N said:

Salam. I've seen almost all of these before these are the most common Muslim attacks on Jesus.

A parallel example in which Jesus further elaborates is in the same chapter John 5:19

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

The only/one true God is a title often given to the father (1 Timothy 2:5)

Depends on what you mean by greater. While for example King Solomon was greater than the people in status, the people were just as human as Solomon. Jesus is fully God just like the father.

That's interpretation is dumb. He questions the man that calls him good without knowing he is God. He's making a point about not just going around calling people.

You believe this is a false prophecy?? Giving 'false' prophecies does seem like something a Muslim would do so maybe if this were a false prophecy that would prove Jesus was a Muslim.

2000 years of Christianity is unaltered by verse. There are lots of ways to interpret this to get out of the contradiction. 

 He affirms being the son of God here. Not sure how he denies being God.

I'll try reading it. How late are these narrations we have though.

I'm still going to defend my religion, but it's okay if you don't respond.

Just wanting to know your views, do you really believe that before Jesus (عليه السلام) was born, the believers in the Old Testament, the 'Chosen People of the Covenant', the Israelites, the community of Moses (عليه السلام), in all their 2 millennium + history, did believe in the Trinity the Christian way even for a second? Not for a debate here, just wanna know your honest views. A simple yes or no will suffice to tell a lot about your sincerity in and devotion to knowing and believing in the truth. Waiting.

Edited January 31 by ServantOfMahdi

[Guest Peter Noorzad]

On 1/31/2026 at 6:56 AM, ServantOfMahdi said:

Just wanting to know your views, do you really believe that before Jesus (عليه السلام) was born, the believers in the Old Testament, the 'Chosen People of the Covenant', the Israelites, the community of Moses (عليه السلام), in all their 2 millennium + history, did believe in the Trinity the Christian way even for a second? Not for a debate here, just wanna know your honest views. A simple yes or no will suffice to tell a lot about your sincerity in and devotion to knowing and believing in the truth. Waiting.

The word hadn't become incarnate yet. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in the Bible, so was the son. If you're asking about the people of the old covenant believing in a trinity including the incarnate word of God, being Jesus Christ, the word that became flesh, then how would that work when the word was not incarnate yet?

[ServantOfMahdi]

11 hours ago, Guest Peter Noorzad said:

The word hadn't become incarnate yet. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in the Bible, so was the son. If you're asking about the people of the old covenant believing in a trinity including the incarnate word of God, being Jesus Christ, the word that became flesh, then how would that work when the word was not incarnate yet?

That's the point. You'll never answer it keeping it simple and to the point. Does God the Son really need a body of flesh and bones to exist? Isn't he the son even without a physical body? Didn't he exist before becoming flesh? Wasn't he "God the Son" before that? 

If the Son existed eternally, then the Trinity existed eternally. If the Trinity existed eternally, then why did none of God’s prophets clearly teach it, and why did the covenant people of God never believe it? If the Son was truly “God the Son” even before incarnation, then incarnation doesn’t solve the historical absence of Trinity belief among Israelites — it only proves the doctrine appeared later in theology, not in the original faith.

The Israelites followed strict absolute monotheism — “God is One,” not three co-equal persons. No prophet clearly taught Trinity, no Jewish sect believed it, and Judaism still rejects it today. Even historically, the Trinity doctrine developed centuries later through church theology and councils. So at best, it’s a later theological development — not the original belief of Moses’ community.

This is a very simple historical yes/no question. If it needs paragraphs instead of a yes or no, that usually means the answer is uncomfortable, not complicated. So — did Israelites believe God is three co-equal persons before Jesus — yes or no?

 

[Abu Nur]

Very simple proof How Jesus is not God:

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God' John 8:54-55

This can only comes from man who is not God. But unfortunately what truth can we ever agree if we can interpret everything according to our bias? 

[Abu Nur]

What Prophet Isa (عليه السلام) and all the prophets have reached is the state where their acts and God is same, this is the state:

When I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. 

Because Isa (عليه السلام) came to teach the Bani Israel that what they lack, which is the spiritual life, someone of them understood but many did not because of their literalist understanding of religion they thought this is shirk. This is the same way how Salafis and Wahhabis sees Sufis. 

Then later Christians did not understand this either, but instead of seeing as shirk, they went to accept the shirk nature, instead of saying that Isa (عليه السلام) is human who acts according what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) loves and prefer, they went to say in the Essence they are same.

Edited February 4 by Abu Nur

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

Very simple proof How Jesus is not God:

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God' John 8:54-55

This can only comes from man who is not God. But unfortunately what truth can we ever agree if we can interpret everything according to our bias? 

“I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other.” (Isaiah 42:8)
Here Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) glorify Himself! If Jesus was God, then he should glorify himself. But he said my glory is nothing. If God and Jesus have same Essence, then they should have same and equal glory (and it is something and not nothing), because God is glorified because of His Essence. 

Edited February 4 by Abu Nur

[Guest Nice geezer]

Look, 

It doesn't make any difference what faith you follow as long as you are genuinely following with pure devotion.

Anyone can take texts out of context from any holy book or scripture and twist and shout..

If you're going to be a Musim, be a good Muslim, if you're a Christian, be a good Christian etc... Religion is just a gateway to the Almighty Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

To condemn others because they're different faith is sin. 

In Islam, everyone is seen as a brother, a woman is seen as sister, an elderly woman - mother, an elderly man a Baba... Christ said treat others as you'd want them to treat you. Both Isa and his mother feature prominently in the Qu'ran. There may be superficial differences in faiths that's to be expected as over thousands of years documents erode, messages and meanings change, but faith remains steadfast. 

If you want to know what people have seen if they survive after being clinically dead, research NDE (Near Death Experiences). 

[Leslie P]

On 2/3/2026 at 7:34 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

That's the point. You'll never answer it keeping it simple and to the point. Does God the Son really need a body of flesh and bones to exist? Isn't he the son even without a physical body? Didn't he exist before becoming flesh? Wasn't he "God the Son" before that? 

<snip>

This is a very simple historical yes/no question. If it needs paragraphs instead of a yes or no, that usually means the answer is uncomfortable, not complicated. So — did Israelites believe God is three co-equal persons before Jesus — yes or no?

 

No.

The Holy Spirit appears regularly in the OT (e.g. Judges 3).

C1 Jews believed that God appeared on earth, as the Burning Bush, as a Pillar of Cloud and Fire, as a human at Mamre etc. Jesus was the next in that list.

Jesus did what only God could do, rescuing humanity from death. So His followers found that when they were talking about Jesus, they had to be talking about God.

The ingredients are in the OT for the Trinity. Just not the word.

[ServantOfMahdi]

36 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

No.

The Holy Spirit appears regularly in the OT (e.g. Judges 3).

C1 Jews believed that God appeared on earth, as the Burning Bush, as a Pillar of Cloud and Fire, as a human at Mamre etc. Jesus was the next in that list.

Jesus did what only God could do, rescuing humanity from death. So His followers found that when they were talking about Jesus, they had to be talking about God.

The ingredients are in the OT for the Trinity. Just not the word.

So the answer is “No” — Israelites did not believe God is three co-equal persons before Jesus. That already concedes my point.

 

Now adding that the Spirit appears in the OT, or that God appeared as a bush, cloud, fire, or human form, still does not equal the Trinity. None of those Israelites concluded:

“God is three co-equal, co-eternal persons.”

 

A manifestation is not a separate divine person. God appearing through creation is different from saying one being eternally exists as three distinct persons.

 

And notice the shift:

My question was historical — “Did Israelites believe in the Trinity before Jesus: yes or no?”

The answer given was “No.”

After that, the argument changed to:

“The ingredients were there” and “followers later realized it.”

 

But that means the doctrine itself was not actually believed by Israelites before Jesus. It was a later theological conclusion, not an established Israelite belief.

[Leslie P]

Thanks for the reply.

Of course the Israelites didn’t believe in the Trinity. Jesus hadn’t arrived yet.

But they did believe that God turns up. Because Jesus did what only God could do, that told the disciples that God had turned up.

You’re right, of course, that later on people came up with all sorts of clever ideas. However, the only important question is whether the disciples, who knew far more about Jesus than anyone else, thought that He was God.

There is a whole load of evidence that they did.

[ServantOfMahdi]

2 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply.

Of course the Israelites didn’t believe in the Trinity. Jesus hadn’t arrived yet.

But they did believe that God turns up. Because Jesus did what only God could do, that told the disciples that God had turned up.

You’re right, of course, that later on people came up with all sorts of clever ideas. However, the only important question is whether the disciples, who knew far more about Jesus than anyone else, thought that He was God.

There is a whole load of evidence that they did.

But notice how the discussion has now completely moved away from the original question.

 

At first, the issue was:

“Did Israelites believe God is three co-equal persons before Jesus?”

The answer became “No.”

 

Now the argument has shifted to:

“The disciples later believed Jesus was divine.”

 

Those are two very different claims.

 

Even if, for argument’s sake, some disciples came to view Jesus in an exalted or divine sense, that still would not prove that ancient Israelites believed in a triune God beforehand. It would only prove that later followers developed new interpretations after Jesus.

 

And saying “God turned up” still doesn’t establish the Trinity either. In the OT, God appearing through a bush, cloud, angel, or human form never led Israelites to conclude:

“One God eternally exists as three co-equal persons.”

 

That doctrine came later through theological debates and councils trying to explain Jesus’ status.

 

So the original point still stands:

The Israelites before Jesus did not believe in the Trinity, and the Trinity was not part of Israelite theology.

 

 

You say, “the only important question is whether the disciples thought Jesus was God.”

 

How do we even establish that reliably?

 

The Gospels themselves are not firsthand signed eyewitness documents written directly by “the disciples” in the modern historical sense. The traditional attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were attached later, and even many Christian scholars acknowledge the texts are formally anonymous. Mark and Luke were not even among the Twelve disciples to begin with.

 

On top of that, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, not in the everyday language Jesus spoke, and they already reflect developing theology. That is why the portrayal of Jesus becomes progressively more exalted:

 

- In the earlier Synoptics, Jesus speaks mainly as a prophet, messiah, servant of God.

- In John, written later, the language becomes far more theological and explicit.

 

So appealing to “what the disciples believed” is not as straightforward as it sounds.

 

Then comes Paul — a man who never met Jesus during his earthly life, was not among the original disciples, yet became the dominant theological voice of Christianity. Much of later Christian doctrine is filtered through Pauline theology.

 

And importantly:

Paul never teaches the fully developed Trinity either. The formal doctrine of “three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one essence” came centuries later through church councils and theological debates.

 

So the historical sequence actually looks like this:

 

1. Ancient Israelites did not believe in a Trinity.

2. Jesus preached within Jewish monotheism.

3. Later followers increasingly exalted Jesus.

4. Pauline theology accelerated that process.

5. Centuries of debates eventually produced the formal Trinity doctrine.

 

That is very different from saying:

“The Israelites already believed in the Trinity and Jesus merely revealed it clearly.”

 

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was finalized gradually through multiple church councils, but the two biggest milestones were:

 

1. First Council of Nicaea

 

Called by Constantine the Great in 325 CE.

 

This council declared the Son to be “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father against Arius, who argued Jesus was created and subordinate.

 

However, the Holy Spirit’s status was still not fully defined here, so the full Trinity doctrine was not yet complete.

 

 

2. First Council of Constantinople

 

This is the council that effectively completed the classical Trinity formula.

 

It affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit and established the doctrine of: “One God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

 

If the Trinity were already the clear and original belief of all prophets and disciples, there would not have been centuries of fierce disputes, excommunications, and imperial councils needed to define it.

 

 

And this is exactly where church history becomes very important.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was not handed down as a universally agreed formula from the beginning. Before the major councils, Christians themselves were deeply divided over who Jesus actually was.

 

Many early Christians believed Jesus was subordinate to God, created by God, or distinct from the one supreme God in a lesser sense. Arius and many others openly rejected the idea that the Son was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

 

The dispute had become so severe that an empire-wide council was needed to settle it politically and theologically.

 

And even after Nicaea, the controversy did not end. There were decades of conflict afterward because many Christians still disagreed with the new formulation. The full doctrine of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three co-equal, co-eternal persons sharing one essence” was only solidified later at the .

 

So historically, the sequence looks like this:

 

1. Ancient Israelites did not believe in the Trinity.

2. Jesus preached within Jewish monotheism.

3. Early Christians themselves disagreed heavily about Jesus’ nature.

4. The Gospels were written anonymously decades later and already reflect theological development.

5. Paul’s theology greatly elevated Jesus’ status and shaped later Christianity.

6. Centuries of debates and councils finally produced the formal Trinity doctrine.

 

That is not what you would expect if the Trinity had always been the clear belief taught by all prophets, Israelites, and disciples from the beginning.

Edited May 28 by ServantOfMahdi

[ServantOfMahdi]

2 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply.

Of course the Israelites didn’t believe in the Trinity. Jesus hadn’t arrived yet.

But they did believe that God turns up. Because Jesus did what only God could do, that told the disciples that God had turned up.

You’re right, of course, that later on people came up with all sorts of clever ideas. However, the only important question is whether the disciples, who knew far more about Jesus than anyone else, thought that He was God.

There is a whole load of evidence that they did.

But notice how the discussion has now completely moved away from the original question.

 

At first, the issue was:

 

“Did Israelites believe God is three co-equal persons before Jesus?”

 

The answer became “No.”

 

Now the argument has shifted to:

 

“The disciples later believed Jesus was divine.”

 

Those are two very different claims.

 

Even if, for argument’s sake, some disciples came to view Jesus in an exalted or divine sense, that still would not prove that ancient Israelites believed in a triune God beforehand. It would only prove that later followers developed new interpretations after Jesus.

 

And saying “God turned up” still doesn’t establish the Trinity either. In the OT, God appearing through a bush, cloud, angel, or human form never led Israelites to conclude:

 

“One God eternally exists as three co-equal persons.”

 

That doctrine came later through theological debates and councils trying to explain Jesus’ status.

 

So the original point still stands:

 

The Israelites before Jesus did not believe in the Trinity, and the Trinity was not part of Israelite theology.

 

You say, “the only important question is whether the disciples thought Jesus was God.”

 

How do we even establish that reliably?

 

The Gospels themselves are not firsthand signed eyewitness documents written directly by “the disciples” in the modern historical sense. The traditional attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were attached later, and even many Christian scholars acknowledge the texts are formally anonymous. Mark and Luke were not even among the Twelve disciples to begin with.

 

On top of that, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, not in the everyday language Jesus spoke, and they already reflect developing theology. That is why the portrayal of Jesus becomes progressively more exalted:

 

- In the earlier Synoptics, Jesus speaks mainly as a prophet, messiah, servant of God.

- In John, written later, the language becomes far more theological and explicit.

 

So appealing to “what the disciples believed” is not as straightforward as it sounds.

 

Then comes Paul — a man who never met Jesus during his earthly life, was not among the original disciples, yet became the dominant theological voice of Christianity. Much of later Christian doctrine is filtered through Pauline theology.

 

And importantly:

 

Paul never teaches the fully developed Trinity either. The formal doctrine of “three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one essence” came centuries later through church councils and theological debates.

 

So the historical sequence actually looks like this:

 

1. Ancient Israelites did not believe in a Trinity.

2. Jesus preached within Jewish monotheism.

3. Later followers increasingly exalted Jesus.

4. Pauline theology accelerated that process.

5. Centuries of debates eventually produced the formal Trinity doctrine.

 

That is very different from saying:

 

“The Israelites already believed in the Trinity and Jesus merely revealed it clearly.”

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was finalized gradually through multiple church councils, but the two biggest milestones were:

 

1. First Council of Nicaea

 

Called by Constantine the Great in 325 CE.

 

This council declared the Son to be “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father against Arius, who argued Jesus was created and subordinate.

 

However, the Holy Spirit’s status was still not fully defined here, so the full Trinity doctrine was not yet complete.

 

2. First Council of Constantinople (381 CE)

 

This is the council that effectively completed the classical Trinity formula.

 

It affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit and established the doctrine of:

 

“One God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

 

If the Trinity were already the clear and original belief of all prophets and disciples, there would not have been centuries of fierce disputes, excommunications, and imperial councils needed to define it.

 

And this is exactly where church history becomes very important.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was not handed down as a universally agreed formula from the beginning. Before the major councils, Christians themselves were deeply divided over who Jesus actually was.

 

Many early Christians believed Jesus was subordinate to God, created by God, or distinct from the one supreme God in a lesser sense. Arius and many others openly rejected the idea that the Son was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

 

The dispute had become so severe that an empire-wide council was needed to settle it politically and theologically.

 

And even after Nicaea, the controversy did not end. There were decades of conflict afterward because many Christians still disagreed with the new formulation. The full doctrine of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three co-equal, co-eternal persons sharing one essence” was only solidified later at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE.

 

So historically, the sequence looks like this:

 

1. Ancient Israelites did not believe in the Trinity.

2. Jesus preached within Jewish monotheism.

3. Early Christians themselves disagreed heavily about Jesus’ nature.

4. The Gospels were written anonymously decades later and already reflect theological development.

5. Paul’s theology greatly elevated Jesus’ status and shaped later Christianity.

6. Centuries of debates and councils finally produced the formal Trinity doctrine.

 

That is not what you would expect if the Trinity had always been the clear belief taught by all prophets, Israelites, and disciples from the beginning.

Edited May 28 by ServantOfMahdi

[Leslie P]

Thanks again for the reply. I won’t be able to reply daily, but I will keep coming back, because this is all so important, and I feel you understand the issues.

I’m not interested in the dry philosophical discussions that happened centuries after Jesus. I want to know what He thought He was.

We must look at how we can work that out. But first I want to look at a question: what do you think Jesus’ mission on earth was?

[ServantOfMahdi]

1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

But first I want to look at a question: what do you think Jesus’ mission on earth was?

From a historical and even Gospel-based perspective, Jesus’ mission was primarily to call people back to the worship and obedience of the One God, preach repentance, reform corruption, revive the spirit of the Law, and guide the Children of Israel.

 

Even in the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from God:

- He prays to God.

- Says “the Father is greater than I.”

- Calls the Father “the only true God.”

- Says he was sent by God.

- Admits limitations in knowledge (“of that hour no one knows… not even the Son”).

 

Those are not the natural words of a co-equal Almighty God speaking about Himself.

 

Historically, Jesus appears far more in line with the prophetic tradition of earlier Israelite prophets:

a messenger empowered by God, not God Himself.

 

And notice something important:

If Jesus’ core mission was to reveal that God is a Trinity and that he himself is the second person of a triune God, then it is strange that:

- Ancient Israelites never understood that.

- The disciples themselves remained confused on many theological issues.

- The New Testament nowhere contains a clear, systematic Trinity doctrine.

- Christians spent centuries arguing over Jesus’ nature before councils finally defined orthodoxy.

 

If the Trinity were truly the central message, we would expect Jesus to plainly say something like:

“God is three co-equal persons, and I am the second person of that Trinity — worship me accordingly.”

 

Instead, what we repeatedly see is Jesus calling people to worship and obey the One God who sent him.

(Please either quote my reply or mention me @ServantOfMahdi so that I can be notified you've replied to me. God bless you.)

[Leslie P]

On 5/29/2026 at 11:30 AM, ServantOfMahdi said:

From a historical and even Gospel-based perspective, Jesus’ mission was primarily to call people back to the worship and obedience of the One God, preach repentance, reform corruption, revive the spirit of the Law, and guide the Children of Israel.

 

Instead, what we repeatedly see is Jesus calling people to worship and obey the One God who sent him.

(Please either quote my reply or mention me @ServantOfMahdi so that I can be notified you've replied to me. God bless you.)

Thanks for the reply.

Three questions:

What evidence do you have, apart from the Qu’ran, that those were His aims?

How well did he succeed with those aims?

 

And, separately, the C1 Israel of Jesus was buzzing with expectation that the Kingdom of God would arrive. This was to be the Biggest Event of all time. What do you think a C1 Jew would understand by the phrase “Kingdom of God”?

I’m making sure we understand each other when we come to discuss why the disciples believed Jesus was God. I will be channelling the magnificent N.T.Wright for all this.

 

[ServantOfMahdi]

3 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply.

Three questions:

What evidence do you have, apart from the Qu’ran, that those were His aims?

How well did he succeed with those aims?

 

And, separately, the C1 Israel of Jesus was buzzing with expectation that the Kingdom of God would arrive. This was to be the Biggest Event of all time. What do you think a C1 Jew would understand by the phrase “Kingdom of God”?

I’m making sure we understand each other when we come to discuss why the disciples believed Jesus was God. I will be channelling the magnificent N.T.Wright for all this.

 

Thanks. A few points.

 

First, I am not appealing to the Qur'an here.

 

You asked what Jesus' mission was. I'm answering from sources Christians themselves accept.

 

When I say Jesus came to call people to God, repentance, righteousness, and the Kingdom of God, that's not as a Qur'anic claim; rather as what the Gospels themselves repeatedly depict him doing.

 

The burden is actually the other way around: where does Jesus plainly state that his mission was to reveal that God is a Trinity, or that he himself is the second person of a triune God? If that was his central mission, we would expect it to dominate his preaching. Instead, what dominates his preaching is the Kingdom of God, repentance, obedience to God, and fulfillment of God's will.

 

Second, regarding success:

 

If his mission was to call people back to God and announce God's Kingdom, then by Christian standards he succeeded.

 

If, however, his mission was to teach that God is three co-equal persons and that he is God incarnate, then it is difficult to explain why:

 

- The term "Trinity" never appears in Scripture.

- The doctrine is never systematically taught by Jesus.

- Early Christians fiercely disagreed about Jesus' nature.

- Major councils centuries later were needed to define orthodoxy.

 

A doctrine that requires centuries of debate to formulate does not look like the central message that Jesus spent his ministry preaching.

 

Third, on the Kingdom of God:

 

A first-century Jew would not normally hear "Kingdom of God" and think, "God is a Trinity."

 

The Kingdom of God referred to God's reign, God's rule, God's intervention in history, the restoration of Israel, the defeat of evil, the vindication of the righteous, and the fulfillment of God's promises.

 

N.T. Wright himself spends enormous effort explaining that first-century Jews were expecting the God of Israel to act decisively as King. That's not the same thing as expecting that God would reveal Himself as three co-equal persons.

 

In fact, that's the key issue here:

 

You keep moving from:

"Jesus announced the Kingdom of God"

 

to

 

"Therefore the disciples concluded Jesus was God."

 

But that conclusion needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

 

And even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that some disciples eventually came to view Jesus in divine terms, that still would not answer the original historical question:

 

Did Israelites before Jesus believe that God was three co-equal persons?

 

You've already answered that question with "No."

 

So we are now discussing a later development of belief, not an ancient Israelite doctrine.

Edited May 30 by ServantOfMahdi

[Abu Hassanain]

20 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply.

Three questions:

What evidence do you have, apart from the Qu’ran, that those were His aims?

How well did he succeed with those aims?

 

And, separately, the C1 Israel of Jesus was buzzing with expectation that the Kingdom of God would arrive. This was to be the Biggest Event of all time. What do you think a C1 Jew would understand by the phrase “Kingdom of God”?

I’m making sure we understand each other when we come to discuss why the disciples believed Jesus was God. I will be channelling the magnificent N.T.Wright for all this.

 

Salam

those following Judaism at the time we’re not waiting for God in flesh . They were waiting for a king or a ruler to establish a kingdom similar to the kingdom of Solomon peace from their perspective under rabbical law . 
 

The remaining believers were waiting for a profit to renew the law and remove corruption from society

wallahu Alam 

[Leslie P]

21 hours ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

Thanks. A few points.

<snip>

So we are now discussing a later development of belief, not an ancient Israelite doctrine.

Thanks once again for the reply. We can come back to the issues you’ve been raising, so I wouldn’t put too much time into them now.

Quote

to call people back to the worship and obedience of the One God, preach repentance, reform corruption, revive the spirit of the Law, and guide the Children of Israel.

Jesus had no impact at all on wider Israel.

Christians (1) removed Torah, and (2) started worshipping Jesus.

All in all, from your aims He was not just a failure, he made things worse.

The only evidence (NT) that these were His aims to begin with also says He was up to something far greater, dealing with Sin and Death and starting the Kingdom of God.

 

Your definition on the Kingdom of God is great, please bear in mind that this was The Greatest Event Ever for a first century Jew. The moment that God’s rule began.

Do you think the disciples believed that Jesus began the Kingdom of God?

[ServantOfMahdi]

2 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks once again for the reply. We can come back to the issues you’ve been raising, so I wouldn’t put too much time into them now.

Jesus had no impact at all on wider Israel.

Christians (1) removed Torah, and (2) started worshipping Jesus.

All in all, from your aims He was not just a failure, he made things worse.

The only evidence (NT) that these were His aims to begin with also says He was up to something far greater, dealing with Sin and Death and starting the Kingdom of God.

 

Your definition on the Kingdom of God is great, please bear in mind that this was The Greatest Event Ever for a first century Jew. The moment that God’s rule began.

Do you think the disciples believed that Jesus began the Kingdom of God?

I think you've actually highlighted the central issue.

 

You say Jesus had no impact on wider Israel, Torah was abandoned, and Christians began worshipping Jesus. But none of that tells us what Jesus himself intended. At most, it tells us what later Christians came to believe.

 

After all, Jesus himself was a Torah-observant Jew. He worshipped the God of Israel, prayed to God, taught in synagogues, affirmed the oneness of God, and repeatedly spoke of doing the will of the One who sent him. So if later Christians moved beyond practices that Jesus himself followed, that raises a historical question rather than answering one.

 

As for the Kingdom of God, I completely agree that for a first-century Jew this was the greatest event imaginable. The Kingdom meant God's reign being established, God's enemies being defeated, God's people being vindicated, and God's promises being fulfilled.

 

But that is precisely why I think we need to be careful not to smuggle the Trinity into the discussion.

 

A first-century Jew hearing "the Kingdom of God" would think about God's rule, God's victory, God's restoration—not that God is three co-equal persons.

 

So to answer your question directly: yes, I think the disciples came to believe that Jesus inaugurated or announced the beginning of God's Kingdom.

 

However, Christians themselves generally distinguish between the Kingdom's inauguration and its final fulfillment at Jesus' return. Many of the events associated with God's ultimate victory, final judgment, resurrection, and the complete defeat of evil are still understood as future. So the Kingdom question is more nuanced than simply saying, "Jesus arrived, therefore he must be God."

 

And even if I grant entirely that the disciples believed Jesus inaugurated God's Kingdom, the key step is still missing:

 

Why does that mean they believed Jesus was the one God of Israel?

 

In Jewish thought, agency is not identity. God can act through prophets, kings, judges, angels, and His Messiah without those figures literally being God Himself.

 

Moses was God's agent. David was God's anointed king. The prophets spoke with divine authority. Yet none were identified as the God of Israel.

 

So before moving from:

"The disciples believed Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom"

 

to

 

"The disciples believed Jesus was God"

 

you still need evidence for that specific transition.

 

And this brings us back to the original historical question.

 

You already agreed that Israelites before Jesus did not believe God was three co-equal persons. First-century Jewish expectations about the Kingdom did not include a Trinity either. The fully developed doctrine of the Trinity emerged only after centuries of theological debate and was formally defined in the fourth century.

 

So even if we grant that the disciples believed Jesus inaugurated God's Kingdom, that still does not establish that they believed in the later doctrine of the Trinity, nor that ancient Israelites held such a belief before him.

[DerekhHikmah]

On 5/31/2026 at 1:22 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

You say Jesus had no impact on wider Israel, Torah was abandoned, and Christians began worshipping Jesus. But none of that tells us what Jesus himself intended. At most, it tells us what later Christians came to believe.

 

After all, Jesus himself was a Torah-observant Jew. He worshipped the God of Israel, prayed to God, taught in synagogues, affirmed the oneness of God, and repeatedly spoke of doing the will of the One who sent him. So if later Christians moved beyond practices that Jesus himself followed, that raises a historical question rather than answering one.

One thing I've found interesting following this discussion and many others is that many Muslims seem to know Christian theology and church history far better than I would expect, and frequently better than many Christians. As a Christian myself, I've noticed that many Christians know their Bible but often have not spent much time studying subjects like Arianism, the development of Trinitarian theology, church councils, or how various doctrines were historically formulated.

This is a perfect response here from @ServantOfMahdi.

It seems many Christians forget that apostasy was a problem in the congregation from the very beginning.

Jesus warned about false teachers and misleading influences (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).

Acts 20:29-30:
"I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."

2 Thessalonians 2:3:
"Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first..."

2 Peter 2:1-3:
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects..."

Jesus and the first-century apostles repeatedly warned about doctrinal corruption arising from within Christianity itself.

When I look into the history of Nicaea, what I see is an imperial council called by Constantine, a political ruler, not an apostle or a prophet. From what I understand, he wasn't even baptized yet when the council was convened.

In Acts 15 we have a doctrinal issue involving circumcision being discussed directly by the apostles themselves. They arrived at a unanimous conclusion and wrote: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored..." (Acts 15:28).

My question has always been: what evidence is there that the same authority and divine approval present in Acts 15 was present at Nicaea nearly 300 years later?

If the doctrine was clearly taught by Jesus and the apostles, why did it require centuries of controversy, philosophical debate, imperial involvement, and church councils to define?

As a non-Trinitarian Christian, I've always found the debate frustrating because the same texts seem to be read in radically different ways.

On 5/31/2026 at 1:22 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

o to answer your question directly: yes, I think the disciples came to believe that Jesus inaugurated or announced the beginning of God's Kingdom.

 

However, Christians themselves generally distinguish between the Kingdom's inauguration and its final fulfillment at Jesus' return. Many of the events associated with God's ultimate victory, final judgment, resurrection, and the complete defeat of evil are still understood as future. So the Kingdom question is more nuanced than simply saying, "Jesus arrived, therefore he must be God."

On this point, I thought @ServantOfMahdi made an excellent observation, and I completely agree.

And I would point to Hebrews chapter 1 as one example.

Paul begins by saying:

"Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things..."

Notice the distinction. God appoints; the Son is appointed.

Then Hebrews 1:4 says:

"So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

Again, Christ receives, inherits, and is exalted.

Then Hebrews 1:8-9 states:

"God is your throne forever and ever... That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions."

The Son has a God.
The Son is anointed by God.
The Son is distinguished from God.

And Hebrews 1:13 quotes Psalm 110:

"Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."

Again, one sits at the right hand, while the other grants the position.

The same distinction appears in Daniel 7, where the Son of Man receives authority from the Ancient of Days, and again in Revelation 5, where the Lamb approaches the One seated on the throne and takes the scroll from His hand.

For me, these passages consistently show exaltation, authority, kingship, and divine appointment. They do not naturally read as one person of a co-equal Trinity speaking to or receiving authority from another.

Just my thoughts.

[Abu Nur]

On 5/30/2026 at 8:04 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

The Kingdom of God referred to God's reign, God's rule, God's intervention in history, the restoration of Israel, the defeat of evil, the vindication of the righteous, and the fulfillment of God's promises.

 

What I have learned from the New Testament Kingdom of God refers more of the purification of the heart so that the light and grace of God will shine upon it, it is like how our Prophet (saws) said:

"If it were not that the army of devils had surrounded the hearts of the children of Adam, they would see the kingdom of heaven"

Edited June 3 by Abu Nur

[Leslie P]

On 5/31/2026 at 6:22 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

I think you've actually highlighted the central issue.

 

You say Jesus had no impact on wider Israel, Torah was abandoned, and Christians began worshipping Jesus. But none of that tells us what Jesus himself intended. At most, it tells us what later Christians came to believe.

<snip>

So even if we grant that the disciples believed Jesus inaugurated God's Kingdom, that still does not establish that they believed in the later doctrine of the Trinity, nor that ancient Israelites held such a belief before him.

Thanks for your thoughts.

We will deal with the points you raise in due course, but we first need to make sure we’re on the same page about the ideas involved.

So we have that if Jesus’ mission was to promote the oneness of God, and reinforce Torah, He made things much worse. We have no evidence that was His mission. Also, C1 Jews were expecting the Greatest Event of all time to happen. The disciples believed that the Kingdom of God (KoG) had been inaugurated through Jesus.

Surely Jesus’ role as a prophet calling Israel out on the things you said is a very small side quest compared to founding the KoG, defeating Sin and Death?

How do you think Paul persuaded the disciples that everything they knew first hand about Jesus was wrong?

[ServantOfMahdi]

1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for your thoughts.

We will deal with the points you raise in due course, but we first need to make sure we’re on the same page about the ideas involved.

So we have that if Jesus’ mission was to promote the oneness of God, and reinforce Torah, He made things much worse. We have no evidence that was His mission. Also, C1 Jews were expecting the Greatest Event of all time to happen. The disciples believed that the Kingdom of God (KoG) had been inaugurated through Jesus.

Surely Jesus’ role as a prophet calling Israel out on the things you said is a very small side quest compared to founding the KoG, defeating Sin and Death?

How do you think Paul persuaded the disciples that everything they knew first hand about Jesus was wrong?

Thanks. I think we're still skipping over several crucial historical steps.

 

First, you're assuming that if later Christians abandoned Torah and worshipped Jesus (عليه السلام), then that must have been Jesus' (عليه السلام) intended mission. But that does not logically follow.

 

By that standard, whenever a movement changes after its founder's death, we would define the founder's mission by the later movement rather than by the founder's own teachings and practice.

 

Historically, Jesus (عليه السلام) himself lived as a Jew, taught as a Jew, worshipped the God of Israel, and observed Torah. Those are facts about Jesus himself. Whether later Christians maintained that pattern is a separate question.

 

Second, I don't see why founding the Kingdom of God and calling Israel back to God are being treated as opposites.

 

The Hebrew prophets consistently linked God's coming Kingdom with repentance, covenant faithfulness, justice, righteousness, and renewed obedience to God. A prophet calling Israel back to God is not a "side quest" to the Kingdom; that is exactly the kind of thing Israel's prophets did in preparation for God's reign.

 

Third, notice the shift in the argument.

 

Originally, the question was whether ancient Israelites believed in a triune God.

 

The answer was no.

 

Then the discussion moved to whether the disciples believed Jesus (عليه السلام) inaugurated the Kingdom.

 

I granted that they likely did.

 

Now the discussion has moved again to Sin, Death, and the Kingdom.

 

But none of those points, even if granted, establish the Trinity.

 

A Jew could believe:

- Jesus inaugurated God's Kingdom.

- Jesus defeated Sin and Death.

- Jesus is the Messiah.

- Jesus is uniquely exalted by God.

(عليه السلام)

And still not conclude that Jesus (عليه السلام) is the one God of Israel or that God is three co-equal persons.

 

That is the missing step that has yet to be demonstrated.

 

As for Paul, I wouldn't frame the issue as "Paul persuaded the disciples that everything they knew was wrong."

 

That's not my claim.

 

The historical question is much simpler:

 

Why should we assume that the mature theology of later Christianity is identical to the beliefs of Jesus' earliest followers?

 

The sources themselves show development.

 

Paul's letters are our earliest Christian writings. The Gospels come later. The Christology of the New Testament is not expressed everywhere in exactly the same way. And the major controversies of the second, third, and fourth centuries show that Christians themselves disagreed profoundly about who Jesus (عليه السلام) was.

 

That is why councils had to be convened in the first place.

 

If the matter had been obvious from the beginning—if Jesus (عليه السلام) had plainly taught, "I am the second person of a triune God and must be worshipped as such"—there would have been far less room for centuries of dispute among Christians themselves.

 

So my position remains straightforward:

 

I can grant that the disciples believed Jesus inaugurated God's Kingdom.

 

I can grant that they viewed him as the Messiah.

 

I can even grant that they viewed him as uniquely exalted by God.

 

None of those points, by themselves, demonstrate either:

(1) that the disciples believed Jesus was the one God of Israel, or

(2) that ancient Israelites believed in the later doctrine of the Trinity.

 

And those are the claims that still require evidence.

 

 

From a critical non-scriptural natural-theological and phenomenological approach:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear to align naturally with the innate theistic disposition with which human beings are born. Across cultures and throughout history, people instinctively conceive of God as a single, supreme, ultimate Being—the one Creator who stands above all creation. This intuitive recognition of a singular divine source is simple, direct, and easily grasped by the human mind. By contrast, the Trinity requires one to affirm that God is simultaneously one being and three distinct persons, a concept that is not self-evident to the natural human understanding of God and often demands philosophical explanations to avoid misunderstanding. If humanity is born with an inherent inclination to recognize and seek its Creator, it is reasonable to expect the core truth about God to be immediately intelligible to that innate disposition. The uncomplicated belief in one God corresponds naturally with this universal intuition, whereas the Trinitarian formulation appears as a later theological construct that goes beyond what the ordinary human perception of the Divine would arrive at on its own.

A doctrine that must be refined through generations of debate, enforced by councils, and explained through increasingly complex formulations hardly appears to reflect the simple and instinctive knowledge of God that humanity is born with.

From a strictly monotheistic perspective, the Trinity can be viewed as a form of sugar-coated polytheism.

 

 

From a critical historical approach:

The prominence of Arianism in the early centuries of Christianity also invites reflection on whether the earliest Christian understanding of God was closer to a unitarian conception than later Trinitarian orthodoxy. The fact that large numbers of Christians—including bishops and theologians—accepted a subordinate view of the Son suggests that belief in a co-equal, co-eternal Trinity was not universally regarded as the obvious or inherited faith of the earliest believers. While the question remains debated among historians, the Arian controversy itself may be seen as evidence that the path from primitive Christianity to Nicene Trinitarianism was neither simple nor uncontested.

Arianism did not disappear because people simply stopped believing it. Its decline was the result of a combination of theological, political, and historical factors.

1. The Council of Nicaea (325)

The emperor Constantine the Great convened the First Council of Nicaea, which rejected Arius's teaching and affirmed that the Son was of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, Nicaea did not immediately end the controversy.

2. Arians Remained Powerful

For decades after Nicaea, various Arian and semi-Arian groups enjoyed significant support. Several emperors favored them, and many bishops across the eastern Roman Empire opposed or reinterpreted the Nicene formula. In the mid-4th century, Arianism was arguably stronger than many people realize.

3. Theodosius and Imperial Enforcement

A major turning point came under Theodosius I. In 380 CE, he declared Nicene Christianity the official faith of the empire. The First Council of Constantinople reinforced Nicene doctrine, and imperial power increasingly favored Trinitarian bishops while marginalizing Arian clergy.

4. Survival Among Germanic Peoples

Arian Christianity survived for centuries among Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. Their missionaries had been converted by Arian Christians before Nicene orthodoxy became dominant.

5. Political Collapse and Conversion

As these kingdoms either fell or converted to Nicene Christianity, Arianism lost its institutional base. A key moment was the conversion of the Visigothic kingdom in Spain to Nicene Christianity in 589 CE. Without state support, bishops, churches, or major centers of learning, Arianism gradually faded.

6. Loss of Literature

Most Arian writings were not preserved as carefully as Nicene works. Since the victorious side usually controls what gets copied and transmitted, much of what we know about Arians comes from their opponents. This made it harder for later generations to inherit a living Arian tradition.

Historical Significance

The extinction of Arianism does not by itself prove whether it was true or false. Historically, it shows that theological outcomes in late antiquity were influenced not only by scriptural interpretation but also by councils, imperial patronage, ecclesiastical authority, and broader political developments.

This is one reason some modern scholars note that the triumph of Nicene Trinitarianism should not automatically be equated with the absence of significant alternative understandings of Christ in early Christianity.

Edited June 3 by ServantOfMahdi

[Abu Hassanain]

20 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for your thoughts.

We will deal with the points you raise in due course, but we first need to make sure we’re on the same page about the ideas involved.

So we have that if Jesus’ mission was to promote the oneness of God, and reinforce Torah, He made things much worse. We have no evidence that was His mission. Also, C1 Jews were expecting the Greatest Event of all time to happen. The disciples believed that the Kingdom of God (KoG) had been inaugurated through Jesus.

Surely Jesus’ role as a prophet calling Israel out on the things you said is a very small side quest compared to founding the KoG, defeating Sin and Death?

How do you think Paul persuaded the disciples that everything they knew first hand about Jesus was wrong?

Salam

what scripture chapter verse you have from the Old Testament to prove that the Jews were waiting for a messiah to defeat sin and death ?

Can you produce one clear verse the older New Testament that supports the Trinity explicitly ? 
 

What about the fact that the word son is used over and over for different people in the Old Testament?
 

What do you say the ancient of days mentioned in Genesis and again in the New Testament?

What do you say about the issue of Adam Howard no mother or father this issue in fact led many Mormon groups to conclude that Adam was the god of Israel in the Old Testament strangely enough 

 

[Leslie P]

On 6/3/2026 at 12:37 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

Thanks. I think we're still skipping over several crucial historical steps.

<snip>

This is one reason some modern scholars note that the triumph of Nicene Trinitarianism should not automatically be equated with the absence of significant alternative understandings of Christ in early Christianity.

Thanks for the reply. A lot of work there!

I would advise you to hold fire on your points. I am coming to them – here’s one now – but there’s a logical order to follow.

Imagine you’re Simon Peter 5 years after the just-a-prophet Jesus left.

You travelled with Jesus for 3 years, and got to know what he was saying pretty well. The notorious Christian killer Paul comes to you. He tells you that 5 years ago you watched Jesus die, but then you saw him resurrected several times. The world shattering Kingdom of God was started by him, and that Jesus was actually God made human.

Do you make Paul head of overseas mission or do you call security?

 

[ServantOfMahdi]

27 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply. A lot of work there!

I would advise you to hold fire on your points. I am coming to them – here’s one now – but there’s a logical order to follow.

Imagine you’re Simon Peter 5 years after the just-a-prophet Jesus left.

You travelled with Jesus for 3 years, and got to know what he was saying pretty well. The notorious Christian killer Paul comes to you. He tells you that 5 years ago you watched Jesus die, but then you saw him resurrected several times. The world shattering Kingdom of God was started by him, and that Jesus was actually God made human.

Do you make Paul head of overseas mission or do you call security?

 

That only works if Paul's theology is identical to what Peter believed, which is precisely the point under dispute.

 

You're asking me to assume the conclusion in order to prove it.

 

Historically, the question isn't whether Peter would trust Paul. The question is: what exactly did Peter and the earliest disciples believe about Jesus?

 

Saying Peter accepted Paul as a fellow believer does not automatically prove Peter accepted every later theological conclusion attributed to Paul, still less the fourth-century doctrine of the Trinity.

 

More importantly, your hypothetical quietly inserts the very thing that needs proving.

 

"The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead" and "the Kingdom was inaugurated through Jesus" are one thing.

"Therefore the disciples believed Jesus was God incarnate and part of a triune Godhead" is another.

↓

The second statement does not logically follow from the first.

 

A first-century Jew could believe that God raised and exalted His Messiah without concluding that the Messiah literally is the God of Israel.

 

So before asking whether Peter would appoint Paul or call security, we first need evidence that Peter himself taught the doctrine you're attributing to him. That's the point that cannot simply be assumed.

 

The premise is too simplistic. Early Christianity was not free of serious internal disagreements. Paul himself records a public confrontation with Peter/Cephas in Galatians 2:11–14, and Acts 15:36–41 records his sharp split with Barnabas. So the fact that Peter accepted Paul as a fellow apostle is not, by itself, evidence that Peter endorsed every theological conclusion later associated with Pauline Christianity.

[DerekhHikmah]

On 6/4/2026 at 2:51 AM, Abu Hassanain said:

what scripture chapter verse you have from the Old Testament to prove that the Jews were waiting for a messiah to defeat sin and death ?

I would like to go into this very point, because I think it may be a very good area for Christian and Muslim discussion to examine the differences here. To answer simply, there may not be one single verse that explicitly says, “The Messiah will defeat sin and death.” It is also likely true that many Jews living during Jesus’ life and ministry were not expecting a dying and rising Messiah. Not even the apostles and closest disciples initially understood this. For example, when Jesus began speaking about his coming death, Peter rebuked him, saying:

“Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this happen to you at all.” (Matthew 16:22)

It was only after Jesus’ resurrection that the disciples began to understand that these things had been foretold in the Scriptures. As Jesus himself explained:

“Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day.” (Luke 24:46)

However, there is a deep theme of atonement, sacrifice, repentance, purification, and reconciliation running throughout the Hebrew (OT) Scriptures. Now I would point first to the book of Hebrews in the NT, however, I understand that a Muslim would not accept Hebrews as revelation, so the question is not simply whether Hebrews teaches this. The deeper question is whether Hebrews is drawing its conclusions from patterns already present in the Torah and Prophets.

To begin, look first at the pattern established in the Torah. Before Israel is delivered from Egypt, they are commanded to observe the Passover. A sound one-year-old male lamb is selected, slaughtered, and its blood is applied to the doorposts of each household. (Exodus 12:1-12)

Verse 13 says:

“The blood will serve as your sign on the houses where you are; and I will see the blood and pass over you.”

Later, after Israel arrives at Sinai, Moses receives detailed instructions regarding worship and the Tabernacle. The instructions are given in Exodus chapters 25-28. Then in chapter 29, Aaron is appointed as High Priest, while his sons are appointed to serve as priests. Exodus 29:9 says:

“This is how you should install Aaron and his sons to serve as priests.”

The chapter continues with detailed instructions regarding sacrifices, offerings, and the use of blood in Israel’s worship. These sacrifices and priestly services were carried out continually as part of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.

Concerning the consecration of the altar, Exodus 29:36 states:

“You will offer the bull of the sin offering daily for an atonement, and you are to purify the altar from sin by making atonement for it.”

The result of this arrangement is given in verse 45:

“I will reside among the people of Israel, and I will be their God.”

However, the innermost compartment of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant resided, could only be entered one day each year. This was Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

The instructions are found in Leviticus chapter 16. On that day the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for himself, his household, and the nation.

Leviticus 16:16 says:

“He must make atonement for the holy place concerning the acts of uncleanness of the Israelites and concerning their transgressions and their sins.”

One goat was sacrificed and its blood was brought before God. The other goat remained alive, and Aaron confessed over it the sins of the people before sending it away into the wilderness.

Verses 21-22 state:

“Aaron will lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the errors of the Israelites and all their transgressions and all their sins... The goat will carry upon itself all their errors into a desert land.”

The Tabernacle exists because sinful humans cannot simply walk into God’s presence. This whole arrangement was put in place to keep Israel clean before God. One of the central problems here is sin, uncleanness, and separation from God. Or to use categories that you may appreciate, the issue involves purification (tazkiyah), nearness to God (qurb), intercession or mediation (shafa‘ah), divine guidance (hidayah), and reconciliation with God.

Notice also that Israel was not originally given a human king. In fact, when they later ask Samuel for a king, it is because they want to be like the nations around them. Originally, the entire priestly system assumes that reconciliation between God and man is one of the deepest issues. The Mishkan (Tabernacle) stood in the center of the camp, and the priests served as mediators between God and the people.

These sacrifices and rituals continued year after year. They were never intended to be occasional events. But that raises an important question: why? Even if one rejects the Christian conclusion, the question still remains: Why did God spend centuries building Israel’s worship around sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, and mediation if these themes were not central to His final purpose?

Now, is there a precedent in the Tanakh for understanding the Temple arrangement as pointing toward something greater? Yes, there is, and not merely in one place. However, for the sake of brevity, I will point to Daniel chapter 9. Daniel was living in exile in Babylon near the end of the 70 years foretold by Jeremiah. In his prayer, he confesses the sins of Israel and seeks God’s mercy. While praying, the angel Gabriel appears and gives a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah.

Daniel 9:24 says:

“There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.”

Notice what Gabriel says the coming of Messiah will accomplish:

1. terminate transgression

2. finish off sin

3. make atonement for error

4. bring in everlasting righteousness

etc.

These are priestly categories, not merely royal ones.

The Messiah may accomplish restoration and kingship as well, but Gabriel’s language suggests that his mission involves something deeper than politics alone. Why does Gabriel describe the work connected with Messiah using the language of atonement, transgression, sin, righteousness, and the Holy of Holies if Messiah’s role is purely political?

This is where Hebrews enters the discussion. Hebrews addresses the very question of why the sacrifices continued year after year. Hebrews 10:1-4 says:

“For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect... for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.”

Hebrews references Psalm 110, where this was already hinted at when it says:

“You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:6; and 6:20)

The expected son of David is simultaneously described as a priest. Hebrews then argues that Jesus fulfills the role of both High Priest and sacrifice. In its view, the earthly priesthood, sacrifices, and Temple services were not ends in themselves but shadows pointing toward a greater heavenly reality.

Hebrews 7:11 says:

“If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Melchizedek and not in the manner of Aaron?”

This brings us back to Passover. Why was Israel redeemed through the death of a lamb? Not because the blood itself possessed magical properties. Rather, redemption was being taught through symbolic action. A life is given. Death passes over. Deliverance follows. That pattern stands at the beginning of Israel’s story.

The question, then, is not whether first-century Jews were all expecting a suffering Messiah who would defeat sin and death. Many clearly were not. The question is whether the Scriptures already contained a framework in which God’s final deliverance would involve sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, mediation, and the removal of sin.

From Passover to Yom Kippur, from Daniel 9 to Psalm 110, those themes are deeply embedded in the Tanakh. Hebrews argues that Jesus did not abolish those patterns but fulfilled them by becoming the High Priest through whom atonement is accomplished and everlasting righteousness is brought in. There is more I could go into, like Jesus presenting the value of his earthly life, represented by his blood, before God in heaven, and also the issue of the Kingdom and Christ taking his kingship which happens later, but I can address those in another post if anyone so wants, I just think this can be a really good start to get into the details of the differences of our faiths here.

[Abu Hassanain]

On 6/6/2026 at 4:46 PM, DerekhHikmah said:

I would like to go into this very point, because I think it may be a very good area for Christian and Muslim discussion to examine the differences here. To answer simply, there may not be one single verse that explicitly says, “The Messiah will defeat sin and death.” It is also likely true that many Jews living during Jesus’ life and ministry were not expecting a dying and rising Messiah. Not even the apostles and closest disciples initially understood this. For example, when Jesus began speaking about his coming death, Peter rebuked him, saying:

“Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this happen to you at all.” (Matthew 16:22)

It was only after Jesus’ resurrection that the disciples began to understand that these things had been foretold in the Scriptures. As Jesus himself explained:

“Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day.” (Luke 24:46)

However, there is a deep theme of atonement, sacrifice, repentance, purification, and reconciliation running throughout the Hebrew (OT) Scriptures. Now I would point first to the book of Hebrews in the NT, however, I understand that a Muslim would not accept Hebrews as revelation, so the question is not simply whether Hebrews teaches this. The deeper question is whether Hebrews is drawing its conclusions from patterns already present in the Torah and Prophets.

To begin, look first at the pattern established in the Torah. Before Israel is delivered from Egypt, they are commanded to observe the Passover. A sound one-year-old male lamb is selected, slaughtered, and its blood is applied to the doorposts of each household. (Exodus 12:1-12)

Verse 13 says:

“The blood will serve as your sign on the houses where you are; and I will see the blood and pass over you.”

Later, after Israel arrives at Sinai, Moses receives detailed instructions regarding worship and the Tabernacle. The instructions are given in Exodus chapters 25-28. Then in chapter 29, Aaron is appointed as High Priest, while his sons are appointed to serve as priests. Exodus 29:9 says:

“This is how you should install Aaron and his sons to serve as priests.”

The chapter continues with detailed instructions regarding sacrifices, offerings, and the use of blood in Israel’s worship. These sacrifices and priestly services were carried out continually as part of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.

Concerning the consecration of the altar, Exodus 29:36 states:

“You will offer the bull of the sin offering daily for an atonement, and you are to purify the altar from sin by making atonement for it.”

The result of this arrangement is given in verse 45:

“I will reside among the people of Israel, and I will be their God.”

However, the innermost compartment of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant resided, could only be entered one day each year. This was Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

The instructions are found in Leviticus chapter 16. On that day the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for himself, his household, and the nation.

Leviticus 16:16 says:

“He must make atonement for the holy place concerning the acts of uncleanness of the Israelites and concerning their transgressions and their sins.”

One goat was sacrificed and its blood was brought before God. The other goat remained alive, and Aaron confessed over it the sins of the people before sending it away into the wilderness.

Verses 21-22 state:

“Aaron will lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the errors of the Israelites and all their transgressions and all their sins... The goat will carry upon itself all their errors into a desert land.”

The Tabernacle exists because sinful humans cannot simply walk into God’s presence. This whole arrangement was put in place to keep Israel clean before God. One of the central problems here is sin, uncleanness, and separation from God. Or to use categories that you may appreciate, the issue involves purification (tazkiyah), nearness to God (qurb), intercession or mediation (shafa‘ah), divine guidance (hidayah), and reconciliation with God.

Notice also that Israel was not originally given a human king. In fact, when they later ask Samuel for a king, it is because they want to be like the nations around them. Originally, the entire priestly system assumes that reconciliation between God and man is one of the deepest issues. The Mishkan (Tabernacle) stood in the center of the camp, and the priests served as mediators between God and the people.

These sacrifices and rituals continued year after year. They were never intended to be occasional events. But that raises an important question: why? Even if one rejects the Christian conclusion, the question still remains: Why did God spend centuries building Israel’s worship around sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, and mediation if these themes were not central to His final purpose?

Now, is there a precedent in the Tanakh for understanding the Temple arrangement as pointing toward something greater? Yes, there is, and not merely in one place. However, for the sake of brevity, I will point to Daniel chapter 9. Daniel was living in exile in Babylon near the end of the 70 years foretold by Jeremiah. In his prayer, he confesses the sins of Israel and seeks God’s mercy. While praying, the angel Gabriel appears and gives a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah.

Daniel 9:24 says:

“There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.”

Notice what Gabriel says the coming of Messiah will accomplish:

1. terminate transgression

2. finish off sin

3. make atonement for error

4. bring in everlasting righteousness

etc.

These are priestly categories, not merely royal ones.

The Messiah may accomplish restoration and kingship as well, but Gabriel’s language suggests that his mission involves something deeper than politics alone. Why does Gabriel describe the work connected with Messiah using the language of atonement, transgression, sin, righteousness, and the Holy of Holies if Messiah’s role is purely political?

This is where Hebrews enters the discussion. Hebrews addresses the very question of why the sacrifices continued year after year. Hebrews 10:1-4 says:

“For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect... for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.”

Hebrews references Psalm 110, where this was already hinted at when it says:

“You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:6; and 6:20)

The expected son of David is simultaneously described as a priest. Hebrews then argues that Jesus fulfills the role of both High Priest and sacrifice. In its view, the earthly priesthood, sacrifices, and Temple services were not ends in themselves but shadows pointing toward a greater heavenly reality.

Hebrews 7:11 says:

“If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Melchizedek and not in the manner of Aaron?”

This brings us back to Passover. Why was Israel redeemed through the death of a lamb? Not because the blood itself possessed magical properties. Rather, redemption was being taught through symbolic action. A life is given. Death passes over. Deliverance follows. That pattern stands at the beginning of Israel’s story.

The question, then, is not whether first-century Jews were all expecting a suffering Messiah who would defeat sin and death. Many clearly were not. The question is whether the Scriptures already contained a framework in which God’s final deliverance would involve sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, mediation, and the removal of sin.

From Passover to Yom Kippur, from Daniel 9 to Psalm 110, those themes are deeply embedded in the Tanakh. Hebrews argues that Jesus did not abolish those patterns but fulfilled them by becoming the High Priest through whom atonement is accomplished and everlasting righteousness is brought in. There is more I could go into, like Jesus presenting the value of his earthly life, represented by his blood, before God in heaven, and also the issue of the Kingdom and Christ taking his kingship which happens later, but I can address those in another post if anyone so wants, I just think this can be a really good start to get into the details of the differences of our faiths here.

Salam

I understand your argument, but it’s a implied and not a clear argument

It also means that all the Jewish scholars from the Pharisees to the Sanhedrin, all the scholars of the law Talmud Mishnah Midtash ZOhar etc almost 2 millennia of Jewish scholarship prior to Paul, as well as the early followers of Jesus peace upon him, the disciples and their students all initially understood the Bible and their traditions completely wrong

When we  the Shia are you that the other School got everything wrong there were fights and differences of opinions right after the death of our profit, peace and blessings be upon him here you are saying that even the faithful among the Jews completely misunderstood everything up into that point that there was not even a remnant that understood of the things to come, and that is very problematic because there should always be a small remnant who practiced the true faith 

No Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting this or under understanding it from the scripture so everybody got it wrong. Everyone got it surprised then suddenly the law doesn’t apply in a man who never even met. Jesus peacefully upon him, becomes greater than all of the disciples and his cousin.

You see why Muslims particularly the followers of the holy 14 take issue with this ? 

[ServantOfMahdi]

On 6/3/2026 at 9:04 AM, DerekhHikmah said:

When I look into the history of Nicaea, what I see is an imperial council called by Constantine, a political ruler, not an apostle or a prophet. From what I understand, he wasn't even baptized yet when the council was convened.

Trinitarianism was indeed much easier to accept for hearts still enamored with paganism back then as compared to Unitarianism. The widespread and rapid post-Nicaean proselytization says much in this regard.

On 6/3/2026 at 9:04 AM, DerekhHikmah said:

My question has always been: what evidence is there that the same authority and divine approval present in Acts 15 was present at Nicaea nearly 300 years later?

If the doctrine was clearly taught by Jesus and the apostles, why did it require centuries of controversy, philosophical debate, imperial involvement, and church councils to define?

These are questions that no person of integrity believing in Christianity can ignore without being dishonest with themselves.

On 6/3/2026 at 9:04 AM, DerekhHikmah said:

"Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things..."

Notice the distinction. God appoints; the Son is appointed.

Then Hebrews 1:4 says:

"So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

Again, Christ receives, inherits, and is exalted.

Then Hebrews 1:8-9 states:

"God is your throne forever and ever... That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions."

The Son has a God.
The Son is anointed by God.
The Son is distinguished from God.

And Hebrews 1:13 quotes Psalm 110:

"Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."

Again, one sits at the right hand, while the other grants the position.

The same distinction appears in Daniel 7, where the Son of Man receives authority from the Ancient of Days, and again in Revelation 5, where the Lamb approaches the One seated on the throne and takes the scroll from His hand.

For me, these passages consistently show exaltation, authority, kingship, and divine appointment. They do not naturally read as one person of a co-equal Trinity speaking to or receiving authority from another.

Yes quite significant observations. ↑↓

On 6/4/2026 at 12:21 PM, Abu Hassanain said:

What about the fact that the word son is used over and over for different people in the Old Testament?
 

What do you say the ancient of days mentioned in Genesis and again in the New Testament?

Ya Shaykh!

On 6/4/2026 at 12:21 PM, Abu Hassanain said:

What do you say about the issue of Adam Howard no mother or father this issue in fact led many Mormon groups to conclude that Adam was the god of Israel in the Old Testament strangely enough 

 Whoa! I never knew that!

[DerekhHikmah]

17 hours ago, Abu Hassanain said:

It also means that all the Jewish scholars from the Pharisees to the Sanhedrin, all the scholars of the law Talmud Mishnah Midtash ZOhar etc almost 2 millennia of Jewish scholarship prior to Paul, as well as the early followers of Jesus peace upon him, the disciples and their students all initially understood the Bible and their traditions completely wrong

Salam,

I understand your point here, I would say 2 millennia of Jews have largely also not recognized Jesus as a prophet or Messiah, so I would have to disagree with that majority. As for the early followers, I wouldn't say they misunderstood but had partial understandings of the prophecies and their fulfillment around Messiah and his role. I think they understood many things but came to understand other things more fully as events unfolded. For example, when Jesus entered the Temple and said: "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19. They nor the followers understand what he means. John then says "But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples recalled that he used to say this, and they believed the scripture and what Jesus had spoken." John 2:21,22.

17 hours ago, Abu Hassanain said:

When we  the Shia are you that the other School got everything wrong there were fights and differences of opinions right after the death of our profit, peace and blessings be upon him here you are saying that even the faithful among the Jews completely misunderstood everything up into that point that there was not even a remnant that understood of the things to come, and that is very problematic because there should always be a small remnant who practiced the true faith 

As for the remnant, I actually think there is a parallel here with Shi'i history. You believe that after the Prophet's death the majority did not fully understand or preserve what should have been obvious regarding Imam Ali. Likewise, from a Christian perspective, the majority of Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, while a remnant accepted him as Messiah.

Jesus tells his apostles the night before his death "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf." This phrase of a new covenant is not new, he is referencing the prophet Jeremiah, 31:31 "Look! The days are coming... when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant."

 

17 hours ago, Abu Hassanain said:

No Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting this or under understanding it from the scripture so everybody got it wrong. Everyone got it surprised then suddenly the law doesn’t apply in a man who never even met. Jesus peacefully upon him, becomes greater than all of the disciples and his cousin.

You see why Muslims particularly the followers of the holy 14 take issue with this ? 

I would say like above, Jeremiah as well as Daniel anticipate a "new covenant" now did Jesus' followers understand all the details of this covenant? Probably not right away, no. But this would remind them of the prophets. Jesus himself revealed this new covenant would not center around the physical location of Jerusalem, John 4:24 "Jesus said to her: "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father... the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." (John 4:21, 23)

Also, Isaiah 56:7 says speaking of foreigners: "I will also bring them to my holy mountain And make them rejoice inside my house of prayer. Their whole burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar. For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” This was not allowed in the first century temple, foreigners were not allowed into the courtyards of the temple in Jerusalem.

Again, Daniel mentions "terminating the transgression, finishing off sin, making atonement for error, anointing the Most Holy." These are priestly categories, not political.

When Daniel speaks of making atonement for error and bringing in everlasting righteousness, what do you understand those things to be referring to?

Perhaps this is one area where Christians and Muslims may read the same prophecy differently, but I think it is an interesting discussion because it seems to touch directly on the question you originally raised regarding sin, atonement, and the role of the Messiah.

[Abu Hassanain]

15 hours ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

Trinitarianism was indeed much easier to accept for hearts still enamored with paganism back then as compared to Unitarianism. The widespread and rapid post-Nicaean proselytization says much in this regard.

These are questions that no person of integrity believing in Christianity can ignore without being dishonest with themselves.

Yes quite significant observations. ↑↓

Ya Shaykh!

 Whoa! I never knew that!

salam

i live 2-3 miles walk from the oldest mormon community in north america, so i researched them for when they come doing their dawah. 

FLDS hoilds still doctrine still, and LDS kinda of hides it .

they said under brigham young that adam acheived prefection before the flood and becvame the heavenly father for this planet .

they also have in one of the last statements of joshep smith him saying that "as man is God was as God is man will be "

that the basis of their belief each man that acheives purfication would become god of his own planet 

same thing when PROSTANTS say father is GOD jesus is God and man is god 

when we delve into chtistanity like juadism and sunnism they are filled with stories narrations and teachings of a god who is human

i always thought the greek polythesism had alot of influnece on chrisain theology 

its funn the salafi scream shirk shirk shirk at us but when you look at theirbooks their god is more or less a giant man like greeks, jews, christains, and mormons 

wallahu alam 

[Leslie P]

On 6/6/2026 at 4:20 PM, ServantOfMahdi said:

That only works if Paul's theology is identical to what Peter believed, which is precisely the point under dispute.

us internal disagreements. Paul himself records a public confrontation with Peter/Cephas in Galatians 2:11–14, and Acts 15:36–41 records his sharp split with Barnabas. So the fact that Peter accepted Paul as a fellow apostle is not, by itself, evidence that Peter endorsed every theological conclusion later associated with Pauline Christianity.

Hi there.

 

Just to say I'm incredibly busy at the moment, but I'll reply in 2-3 weeks

[ServantOfMahdi]

5 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Hi there.

 

Just to say I'm incredibly busy at the moment, but I'll reply in 2-3 weeks

May God guide us both to the faith of His Prophets amen.