Tuesday, October 25, 2011

1MoreMuslim on Allah's Adulterous Sexual Relationship with a Book

Time for a consistency check. 1MoreMuslim recently posted:

It amazes me how Christians are swift in denying the Son as a generated God. Wherever you say Jesus is the SON , you are saying Jesus is the generated. Unless words have no meanings to you.

Here 1MM throws down the gauntlet. Either Jesus is the Son of God (in which case he was generated and had a beginning), or the word "Son" is completely meaningless. Of course, I've already explained the "Fallacy of False Dilemma" to 1MoreMuslim, but now he's going to have to learn the hard way.

According to the Qur'an, Allah is with the "Mother of the Book":

Qur'an 13:39—Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

Qur'an 43:2-4—By the Book that makes things clear—We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.

So the Qur'an tells us that Allah isn't alone. He's with the "Mother of the Book." But according to 1MoreMuslim, words like "Mother" and "Son" can only have the same literal meanings they have on earth. Otherwise, they are completely meaningless. And since the Qur'an is a perfect book, it can't contain meaningless words. Thus, the term "Mother," when used in the Qur'an, must have the same literal meaning it has on earth.

The obvious implication is that there is a "Mother" in heaven. If she's a mother, then she has produced an offspring. The offspring, in this case, is the Qur'an (and other revealed books). Of course, this raises an unavoidable question. Who did the Mother of the Book have sex with in order to produce the Qur'an? ANSWER: Since Muslims tell us that the Qur'an is Allah's word, Allah must have had sex with the Mother of the Book to produce the Qur'an.

But it gets worse. According to the Qur'an, Allah has no wife:

Qur'an 72:3—And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son.

Hmmm. If Allah had sex with the Mother of the Book, and Allah has no wife, then Allah is guilty of either fornication or adultery (depending on whether the Mother of the Book was already married). Hence, Allah should either be given 100 lashes or be stoned to death.

There are two other alternatives, however. First, the "Mother of the Book" could be Allah's sex slave, in which case Surah 4:24 allows him to rape this "Mother" all he wants. Second, since Muta (prostitution permitted in early Islam) hadn't been abrogated when Allah had sex with the Qur'an's mother, the "Mother of the Books" could be a prostitute, and Allah may have paid for a temporary marriage.

The only way around all of this would be for 1MoreMuslim to claim that the word "Mother" doesn't necessarily have he typical human implications, e.g. "having sex and producing an offspring." But he's already ruled out that approach.

Welcome to consistency, 1MoreMuslim.

Psalm 7:15—"He has dug a pit and hollowed it out,
And has fallen into the hole which he made."

87 comments:

D335 said...

That is DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

I may steal it and quote it without a permission ^^

KUDOS!!!

David Wood said...

D335,

You have my full permission to steal any of my arguments and quote them without permission!

Sam said...

D335, you can also read this: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/filial_terms.htm

PYEM Ministry said...

Oh no :( Dang David you are cooking muslims left and right indiscriminately these days! LOL

1moremuslim and/or whatever muslim is or will be reading this post and the comments: YOU ARE BELIEVING A BIG LIE! Jesus died and resurrected and it's a historically accurate universal truth that we can verify by analyzing evidences that are found both inside and OUTSIDE the bible. Also, 3000 years of prophecies found in the OT speaks in favor of Christians, not muslims/atheists. You have nothing to prove to us as Quran, Islam and Muhammed have absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER! SHOW US ONE MIRACLE FROM EITHER ALLAH, QURAN OR MUHAMMED. SHOW US ONE PROPHECY FROM QURAN, ALLAH OR MUHAMMED. JUST ONE!

You will find NONE!

D335 said...

I realize THOUSAND implications regarding fallacy of false dilemma and how to rebuke the mistake.
Making it easier to dump the same argument back especially the "Son of God" remarks.

-Aisha, mother of all believers. She and 12 others spawn directly 1.6 billion muslims today! Her "raheem" must be quite huge!
The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are [in the position of] their mothers. [Quran 33:6]

- Allah wife's name is Al Fatiha!
‘There is no salâh for one who does not recite the mother (essential chapter al Fatihah) of the book and more.
(Muslim 394, Abu Dawood 822 and Ibn Hibban 1783.)

- How to kill a mother.
Stab the heart. For Quran try sura yaseen, the heart of the Quran.

- Why blast yourself in a subway to gain entry to paradise? Go to your mommy and touch her feet!
Allah's prophet once said "Paradise is at the feet of the mothers"

------------------------------
(Proverbs 1:22)
“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?

Nicky said...

"(For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations (debates), and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Cor 10:4-5

1 MM: David has pulled down all your debates. stop hardening your heart to the truth.

dillo45 said...

One word: WOW
Again you did a nice Job brother David.
God bless you

Matlin said...

David, I just want to say one word...BRILLIANT!!!!

MalbecMemoirs said...

The way your mind works David in both defending the Gospel and breaking down Muslim logic, is simply amazing!

Kim said...

@1MoreMuslim
I suggest you stop trying to talk sense into these people. After reading this post I understand now how they are only interested in insulting and interpreting the Quran in the most disgusting ways. Leave them be, you've done your job. They will remain as ignorant and blind as ever. That's their nature. I'm going to do the same.

David Wood said...

Kim said: "@1MoreMuslim
I suggest you stop trying to talk sense into these people. After reading this post I understand now how they are only interested in insulting and interpreting the Quran in the most disgusting ways. Leave them be, you've done your job. They will remain as ignorant and blind as ever. That's their nature. I'm going to do the same."

TRANSLATION: "1MoreMuslim, our apologists thrive on inconsistency and deception. But whenever we try to distort and misrepresent Christianity or Islam here on Answering Muslims, people quote sources and scholars to refute our claims. Moreover, whenever we use silly arguments against Christianity, these people demand consistency and show that the same silly arguments would apply to Islam. Since we can never succeed on a blog where people quote sources and use logic, we might as well give up."

SGM said...

@ Kim,

Dear Kim, please don’t stop searching for the truth. In defending your faith, you are actually finding the truth. One point to reiterate, the incosistancy. When 1MM states that, “Wherever you say Jesus is the SON , you are saying Jesus is the generated.” I believe you agree with him on this. However, when same logic is applied to any of the Quranic verses, somehow we are interpreting quran in disgusting way. I did not hear you say anything to 1MM, why he is interpreting biblical teaching in disgusting way.
I hope that these dialogues may become a means to open all of the Moslems eyes to see the truth.
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Come to the loving God and his Son to have eternal life.

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

"@1MoreMuslim
I suggest you stop trying to talk sense into these people. After reading this post I understand now how they are only interested in insulting and interpreting the Quran in the most disgusting ways. Leave them be, you've done your job. They will remain as ignorant and blind as ever. That's their nature. I'm going to do the same."

Don't play dumb with us. You know exactly what David was attempting to do--i.e., to show Muslims that 1) literal interpretations of things that were meant in another way can incorrectly lead one to the wrong understanding, as in what 1mm was doing with the term "Son"; and 2)the absurdity of not recognizing that some things just aren't meant to be taken literal because they have other meanings determined by context: both local and overall.

There was nothing disgusting about what David was trying to get across since he was suggesting that the logical extrapolation he was setting up was in fact his view of things, given the previous response by 1mm. I know that you knew that before you tried to make a spin on things. Your spin was an attempt to deny that David's example had merit and was indicative of the Muslim way with logic. You simply failed in your attempt to discredit his example.

Since you have failed, just admit that what he said makes sense from a logical perspective and reflects the Muslim's idea that God's son has to be literal in meaning and not relational, as Christians have come to understand it from scripture. No orthodox Christian will hold to a notion that Jesus is in any way a biological product of sex, therefore a part of creation with a beginning.

Like I said in another topic, you should take your own advice instead of trying to obfuscate what we say by calling us ignorant or whatever other word you choose.

simple_truth said...

I totally agree with you, David, on your logical deduction. It makes the point very effectively, IMO. There is no room for a Muslim to wiggle out of your logical argument.

Billy said...

I see a pattern:
1.Kim is pleading with 1mm to stop debating on this blog
2.Kim chooses to abstain from debating on this blog
3.Osama’s co-religionists pleaded with him last year not to debate Act17

It appears that David & Sam are causing profound embarrassment to the Islamic outfit. I presume David and Sam are willing to debate—Why aren’t the Muslims willing to stand up and defend their Allah and their prophet?

The Purple Marquise said...

@Kim :You said: "@1MoreMuslim
I suggest you stop trying to talk sense into these people. After reading this post I understand now how they are only interested in insulting and interpreting the Quran in the most disgusting ways. Leave them be, you've done your job. They will remain as ignorant and blind as ever. That's their nature. I'm going to do the same."

No Kim! David Wood was not trying to be "insulting" or "interpret the Quran in disgusting ways". What he was doing was a form of argumentation which in philosophy and logic is called "Reductio ad absurdum" (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") which is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

Dr. Wood took 1MoreMuslim's silly argument about the necessity of a literary meaning to Jesus Christ being the Son of God and applied it to Umm Al Kitab (Mother of the Book) and showed that if the only valid meaning for Son of God is "one generated through a sexual act" then on which ground does he reject the application of the same literary meaning of the word "mother" in "Mother of the Book" which would result in the sexual images that Dr.Wood described?

You can see 1MoreMuslim's argument's absurdity and offensiveness when it is applied to Islam, but why can't you see the same absurdity and offensiveness when this same argument is applied to Christianity?

So instead of getting carried away by the sexual images and getting all self-rightous and taking umbrage try to use your logical faculties (if you have any) to understand what point was Dr. Wood trying to make.

Baron Eddie said...

Maybe the Bible would make more sense to our Muslims brothers and sisters if it was written like Quran :

Alif, Lam, Ra.

Alif, Lam, Meem. ... etc

and if anybody asks us what it means we would reply : Allahu Aalam
الله اعلم (God knows best) ...

That is my answer for any question they will ask me ...

Allahu Aalam

Deleting said...

simple_truth, kim checked out of the conversation a long, long time ago.
Now she's only interested in adjectives and back handed insults...like she always has been.

Kim said...

[43:2]
(By the Scripture which maketh plain) he says: and I swear by the Scripture which makes plain the lawful
and unlawful, the commands and prohibitions that that which will happen has already been decreed; it is
also said Allah swore by the (Ha) and (Mim) and also by the Scripture which makes plain the commands and
prohibitions, the lawful and unlawful,
[43:3]
(Lo! We have appointed it) We have spoken it, i.e. the Qur'an (a Lecture in Arabic) in the Arabic usage,
hence the oath, (that haply ye may understand) so that you may know what is in the Qur'an of the lawful
and unlawful, commands and prohibitions.
[43:4]
(And lo! in the Source of Decrees) in the Guarded Tablet, (which We possess) where it is written, (it) i.e. the
Qur'an (is indeed sublime) exalted, noble and glorious, (decisive) in explaining the lawful and the unlawful,

Royal Son said...

Baron: Funnily enough - 11:1, 12:1, and 15:1 all begin with these symbols, and the verses state that they are signs of a clear book.

And yet the Muslims tell us that the signs themselves are not clear, that only Allah knows. Funny isn't it? Something which is supposed to represent the clarity of the Qur'an is in fact obscure and indecipherable.

It's interesting to note that the Umm al-kitab has resurfaced. Since Kim abandoned the earlier thread discussing it, I doubt she is going to be able to explain it here either.

David: Well done brother.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Radical Moderate said...

@1Milimeter

AGAIN THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

PLEASE MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT PLEASE :)

donna60 said...

Kim, I understand your arguement. In your Koran, it doesn't use the word "mother, it uses the word "source of decrees>"

My own personal copy, which is translated by M H Shakir, Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc;Elmhurst NY; Thirteenth U.S Editiion;2002 pg326
quotes this verse this way:

Surah XLIII 4: :And surely it is in the original of the Book with Us, truely elevated, full of wisdom."

So the question is whether or not the translations that use the term "mother" are accurate.

An online copy of the Koran uses these various translations, offers this:


Transliteration
Wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladaynalaAAaliyyun hakeem

Sahih International
And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted and full of wisdom.

Muhsin Khan
And Verily, it (this Quran) is in the Mother of the Book (i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz), before Us, indeed Exalted, full of Wisdom.

Pickthall
And Lo! in the Source of Decrees, which We possess, it is indeed sublime, decisive.

Yusuf Ali
And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.

Shakir
And surely it is in the original of the Book with Us, truly elevated, full of wisdom.

Dr. Ghali
And surely it is in the Mother (i.e., the Essence; the preserved tablet) of the Book, close to Us, indeed ever-exalted, ever-wise.


So since even Muslims scholars use the term mother, do you know a way to resolve this? I know that if I am doing a word study, I turn to an online Strong's Concordance. Is there an online Arabic Concordance that you could point us to that demonstrates that the Arabic word doesn't mean "mother"?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ kim thank you for continuing to expose Islams and Muslims contradictions, hypocrisy and inconsistencies!

Zack_Tiang said...

Good post. 1MM gets shot down once again.
I doubt he will post a comment in this thread... just like he didn't in the other one.

Fisher said...

Hah! This is reductio ad absurdum at its very finest. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful what arguments you make, otherwise you just might find them being hurled back at you with devastating force.

Baron Eddie said...

In Arabic says "وَإِنَّهُ فِي أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ لَدَيْنَا لَعَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ"

Um means mother

copy and paste أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ in Google translate you will get
"Mother of the Book"

Quran in English is not Quran but "shubha lahum Quran" ...

Baron Eddie said...

Royal Son: that is right "INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST! "

Why Allah did not explain it?

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Why it is there?

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

I am not just saying that to make fun of anybody but it is confusing and I feel frustrated trying to understand it ... oh well

search 4 truth said...

@ KIm Again you post verses that have no relevance or bearing on the topic and the factual irrefutable conclusion David has produced!

Is this what you would deem a rebuttal? LOL!

D335 said...

@Donna60

Umm = mother

Royal Son said...

I wonder if Kim believes that God has sons by the tons, and what that means.

D335 said...

@Brother Divine Search Engine.
(who else? :P, plus let david focus on the "osa-liath" /Os-zilla with slingshot)

I've got a question here.

Bible in arabic translation (per arabic word which is infused into my language) is also Khitab or Buku (book-oo). Meaning exactly book or books (sing/plur).
And in Holy Bible [Al-kitab = the bible = the book(s)] we have a collection of books clearly OT (Perjanjian Lama)and NT (Perjanjian Baru).
Perjanjian = Agreement /Deal= Covenant.

But in Quran they are referred to as "Surat /Sura /Surah", in which is a section of 114s of the Quran.
A sura in my native language (which is infused from arabic) is either a chapter or a letter (a form of mail), but not a book /khitab(buku)

Now this is the question:
What is meant with Quran 43:3-4?
[3]We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand.
[4]And verily, IT IS IN the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.

as in the arabic "it is in" Umm-i Al-KITABi.
Quran is referred first as WITHIN the The Bible? Was Muhammad (the one who can't read or write) declared that Quran was a mere translation of The Holy Bible in arabic?

(pointing also that Quran was completed after Muhammad's death)
--------------------------------
I understand that muslim scholars clearly mentioned Al-Fatiha as the Ummi Alkitabi, as in:

‘There is no salâh for one who does not recite the mother (essential chapter al Fatihah) of the book and more.
(Muslim 394, Abu Dawood 822 and Ibn Hibban 1783.)

But isn't that the word of Muhammad himself, and the scholars to make a tafsir (interpretation) of Muhammad's saying? Again the Al-Fatiha itself is not written in Sahih Muslim 394, Abu Dawud 822 or Ibnu Hibban 1783). It is (Al-Fatiha)merely printed as an addition within the brackets.
--------------------------------

The Purple Marquise said...

@Kim: I don't understand! Are you trying to deny that Quran mentions "Mother of the Book"? Are you trying to hide behind an inaccurate translation or am I missing something? What did you mean by posting those irrelevant verses?!!

Here it is in arabic:

وَإِنَّهُ فِي أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ لَدَيْنَا لَعَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ 43:4

I don't know if you can read arabic script but there it is : أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ

Um=Mother + Al Kitab=The Book

Sahih Internation translation: "And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted and full of wisdom."

Plain and clear!!! Now we all do agree that the word "mother" here is not used in a physical and literal sense. But it seems that according to 1MoreMuslim that's impossible, because either the words are always used in their literal sense only or according to him "they become meaningless"! Hence David's post!!!

Now let's not forget about the fact that in one of the previous threads when we were discussing Allah's swearing by the fig and the olive in Sura 95, 1MoreMuslim referred me to Tafsir Ibn Kathir to check out what fig and olive stand for and Ibn Kathir says that "The Fig" might mean the "Nun Mosque of Noah on mount Judi" and "The Olive" probably stands for "The Mosque of Solomon in Beit Al Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem)" ....I didn't see 1MoreMulsim then fussing and complaining: "DON'T WORDS HAVE ANY MEANING ANYMORE????!!"

donna60 said...

D335

Okay, but Umm wasn't a transliteration in the passage I quoted, that I saw.

Transliteration
Wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladaynalaAAaliyyun hakeem


Which one of these words mean "mother"?

Also is there an online Quranic word studies website, such as Blue Letter Bible? or Strongs?

The reason that this is important to me, is that I can take your word for it, that Surah 43:4 uses the word for "mother" but I can't use the arguement with a Muslim on Soda Head, for example, without some authoritative reference.

I don't speak Arab. I speak American English, and a smattering of high-school Spanish.

David Wood said...

Donna said: "Which one of these words mean 'mother'?"

The "ommi." "U" can be transliterated as "U" or "O" in English, because the sound is somewhere in between. That's why the second caliph's name can be spelled as "Omar" or "Umar."

"Omm alkitab," translated literally, means "Mother of the Book." Some translators interpret the "Umm" figuratively, and therefore translate it as "source" (because a mother is the "source" of her son). The point of the blog post is that 1MoreMuslim has ruled out all non-literal translations of words like "Mother" and "Son." Hence, he's stuck with the literal translation and the literal meaning, which leaves him with an actual "Mother" of the Qur'an, who procreates through sexual intercourse with Allah.

Of course, 1MoreMuslim is free to take back his claim and apologize for his error, but that would be a rare day in paradise.

D335 said...

@Donna

I'm affirming what David said.

In our culture and especially language of bahasa Indonesia, arabic language is infused heavily into our words.

Here you call mother as either ummi, ommi,(especially muslim communities) as well as ibu, mama, mami /mommy, enyak (the last ones are different cultures since we are a nation of at least 100 cultures). We also deeply infused with Chinese words, Malayan originals (Bahasa) and a few hard words from English.

We also refer to:
-God as Allah (big confusion everytime we read English forums)
-Jesus still Yesus, or sometimes Yeshua or Yahweh. Only muslims refers to Isa.
-Lord is clearly Tuan /Tuhan (divine master)or master.
-Holy Bible exactly Al-kitab
-Christian = An-Nasara /Nasrani.
-Jews = Al Yahood or Yahudi.
-Abba = Abbi = Father
-Rabi = Rabuni = Rabbi = Religious Teacher.
-The masses = Jemaat /Umat /Ummah.
-Book or just a book is Khitab/ Buku (book-oo).
-Sura = Surat = Surah = letter /mail or chapter.
even;
-Assalamualaikum as asking permision or greeting before entering a house. Answer: Walaikumsalam Wr. Wb.


Therefore our Christian culture is using the same terminology as the Indonesian muslims do as well. Not only here, but I believe in many muslim majority nations, the same terminology is used by both Muslims and Christians.

However this arabic words been subject to debate, such in neighboring countries that BAN the words that only specifically allowed to be used by the muslim only, such in Malaysia.

That is why arabic language is sometimes understood subconciously when we hear the arabic word.


D335

D335 said...

@David
Oh yeah, I had a question to Bro. Sam about Umm-Al-Khitabi, but maybe you can help answer it too.

"which is -The mother- of -HOLY BIBLE-."

There is no confusion in our language that ALKITAB is exactly HOLY BIBLE (Christian Bible).

But does 43:4 mentioned in the Umm-Al-Khitabi refers to the Christian Bible of OT and NT? Eventho I realize Hadith is trying to tell that Al-Fatiha (which is only a Sura and not a book) that is the mother of the book.

Thanks in advance.

CristoTeAma said...

Wow 1MM f you were honest to yourself, you would quit islam, i am not saying christianity is TRUE but if you dismiss it for these arguments then you should quit islam...

Royal Son said...

D335: The funny thing about hadith speaking of Umm al Kitab being Surat al Fatihah is that the interpretation itself renders the Qur'an pretty much unintelligible, because Surah 3:7 says that a book was given to Mohammad, in it are verses that are Muhkamat (clear), THEY are the Umm al kitab. Others are unclear (Mutashabihat), and those who have a perverse heart pursue the meaning of these verses when NONE KNOW THEIR MEANING EXCEPT ALLAH.

So you have a division of clear and unclear verses. According to Hadith, the clear verses are in Surah al Fatihah which is 1 chapter of the Qur'an, only seven verses.

Logically, this means that the remainder of the Qur'an: 113 chapters, are UNCLEAR.

Thus in contrast to the Qur'an's claims about itself being a clear book, it is emphatically unclear, and can only be understood by Allah.

It's a wonder that Muslims would invite us to Islam when they cannot even understand their holy book.

1MoreMuslim said...

The title of this post should be : Straw Man.

“He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the
Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God . . . that which has come
forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one . . .He is made
second in manner of existence – in position, not in nature.”

Tertullian, The Apology.
I don't what made David Wood spend his precious time writing a post against me , just because I have stated what an old Christian used to say, and still saying. Did I even pronounce words like "Sex", "Not eternal"? NO. But this is a further proof that the word Generated is a blashemy by itself. Otherwise I don't see why David went mad about it!
So DR Wood, are you willing to deny that Jesus is generated?

D335 said...

Thank you Royal Son

David Wood said...

Ha! Ha! Ha!

1MoreMuslim, is that the best you could come up with in response to this post? A quotation from Tertullian??? And you've quoted him as if he's authoritative Scripture!

Funny, I always quote the Qur'an and the Hadith, and I use your respected commentators to show that my interpretations line up with the classical Muslim interpretations.

You couldn't come up with any Christian scripture to justify your absurd claim about Jesus (which, if you recall, was based on your assertion that terms like "Mother" and "Son" can only have a literal interpretation). So now you're tossing Tertullian at us! That's what I call "desperation."

Royal Son said...

Brother David:

I can't understand the inconsistency from Muslims. On the one hand they'll brush off the term Son of God for Jesus as insignificant because God has "Sons by the tonnes" citing numerous examples in the Old Testament to refer to persons who were close to God, whether angels, or men, or whatever. Then on the other hand, they will insist that such a designation is blasphemous since God doesn't have a consort, implying that the term implies a sexual union.

So if the term Son of God could refer to a person simply being close to God, then how not even more so to apply to Jesus Christ who enjoys an eternally harmonious relationship with the Father?

D335 said...

another thing to learn from 1mm.

Muslim + Authoritarian = Islam

- Muslim apologists deliberate use of non-authoritative references to go against Christian apologists.

- Muslims believe that if Quran requires Hadith therefore Bible needs some official /authentic commentary also.
This idea however nice is a serious breach to hold an current authority words rather than the original scripture.

-If Quran is without a contradiction, therefor remove Hadith and you will have...>>> nothing at all.
Remove commentary from the bible and you still have... ??? The same old bible. OUCH.

-Fatwa Blunder, result of too many authoritative figures making morality laws that often contradict each other, mostly unnecessary or out of no importance at all.
Authoritative figures derived these fatwas blindly from Quran or Hadiths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/africa/11iht-fatwa.4.6098135.html
(warning: extremely funny "breast-feeding fatwa!)

The same idea is in Roman Catholic morality laws, i.e. Is it okay for catholic women to use hormonal birth control? Then it's up to the pope to answer.

The Purple Marquise said...

1MoreMuslim: As usual you are playing the fool and bringing up non-sequiturs! David's response was to this sentence of yours: "Wherever you say Jesus is the SON , you are saying Jesus is the generated. Unless words have no meanings to you."

So what is the meaning of "son being generated" in a literal sense of the word which you insisted on? Tell us what if it is not physically! Do you know any other way how "sons" are generated in this world?

So why now you are trying to pretend that you meant something else (not physical or sexual)?

And Tertullian is not an author of the scripture. But even when you read the quote that you brought up, without any reference I might add (learn the habit of posting references Muslims! How else can we check if you are lying or quoting out of context?) he never said that the Son was physically generated.

All he was trying to belabor all be it in a rather convoluted way was to say that The Son if of the same substance as The Father meaning he IS God just like the father! Not that he is somehow created or physically come about or generated through sex or anything remotely helpful to your position. So drop this nonsense about Tertullian who is of no authority to us anyway.

Most Christians never ever read his works, even many who are ministers and pastors. So basically what he says has no bearing on Christian doctrine.

So your point is completely useless and you still haven't answered the Messiah question which was our topic. So get to it if you can! If not I suggest that you keep quiet since non of this nonsense that you are bringing up has anything to do with our topic which was about your ignorant God and/or prophet not knowing what a Messiah is!

D335 said...

making it a contrast to Tertulian joke by 1mm

My neighbor named his bicycle "Jesus". That means with interpretation:

1. Jesus is really a bicycle.
2. You can ride Jesus IF you believe in Jesus. Jesus can even stroll on water!
3. Lots of chicks love to ride Jesus. Jesus is Love!
OR.
4. The guy who named his bicycle is not an authoritative bible figure, or not even the writer of the scripture.
5. Or he could be a prophet and as per say if that "Jesus" is really Son of God, that means the Father is really Pop-Cycle! imagine that!

----------------------------------
So in another contrast, howbout if my neighbour named his bicycle "Muhammad".

1. Muhammad is really a bicycle.
2. You can ride Muhammad, but only if you submit! establish prayer and pay Zakat!. And if you try to ride it on water, it will SINK!
3. In Islam, Muhammad rides chicks not the other way around. Wait a sec, how's that possible? Women is the "TITLH" according to Allah. The dirt /plowing field!
OR
4. The guy who named his bicycle is not an authoritative Quranic /hadith figure, or not even the writer of the scripture.
5. But if he really is an authoritative figure, then Muhammad loves "kissing" asses on the saddle!
But FOR CERTAIN:
6. My neighbour will be dead for insulting Islam.

I know it's dry, But WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF FALLACY, where everything can be thrown right back at ya!

Radical Moderate said...

@1milmeter LOL thats it thats all you can come up with lol.

Well what is to be expected from a man who claims to be a medical doctor, beleives that 9 year old girls sexually matured faster in 7the century arabia.

A man who literrly wanted me to show him 9 year old girls so he could tell me which ones where sexually matured enough for sex.

A man who all though he claims to be a medical doctor beleives that sperm is created between the ribs and the backbone.

A man who believed that the "Slaves" went against Paul when they rebelled in the 1950's to end slavery in America.(To be honest not sure if he ment the civil rights movement or the actual civil war. But either way...)

The list goes on and on and on.

search 4 truth said...

Could you imagine how completely backward, ignorant, and subjective the world would be if it were all Islamic? I can, look at the responses from Muslims on this blog!

1MoreMuslim said...

Straw Man Again, I didn't rule out the figurative meanings of Words. It's Christians who ruled it out
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God in the figurative sense, like Moses and all the Sons of God in the Bible?

Straw Man #2, where did I say that Tertullian is an authority to you? I was simply quoting him. I know you are swift in rejecting whatever a Christian scholars say, that doesn't suit the purpose of your blog. Remember Anthony did that with W. Lane Craig.

I still don't understand the reason behind this post. Do you deny Jesus the Eternally GENERATED Son of God ? Why don't you come naked and say it clearly, instead of hiding behind some verses of the Quran?
Say it David: The Son is not Generated. If you can't , then you must agree with me that You worship a generated God. (whatever Generated means).

The Origin of this post is what I said to purple Marquise: Muslims don't worship a generated God , we worship the generator of all things. Notice that I called God the generator of things, in contrast with the generated God ( Jesus). How does that imply that I am talking about biological generation by sexual intercourse? I call this paranoia. Or may be it's Sexual obsession?

Fernando said...

1MoreMuslim... whate do you pretend with Tertulian's quote?

lets present here teh full quote:

«We hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has in-being to give forth utterance, and Reason abides to dispose and arrange, and Power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun it is still part of the parent mass. The sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun; there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled»...

whatsup doc?

Fernando said...

A, 1MM you can eben quote the nicean creed -- the synthesis of the most ancient dogmas of teh Christian faith -- that says that the son «is generated, not created»...

so: whate do you want to say? do you understand that these textes do say clearlie "generated", butt none say the Son was fisicaly generated?

poor soal of yours...

1MoreMuslim said...

David Wood:

Of course, Catholics are unrepentant misguided heretics:
What the Church teaches in this matter, leaning almost completely on Scripture, is that the Son proceeds from the Father by a process we call "generation" because the Son is the image of his Father. There is no sex involved, but since the Son (Jesus) is the perfect image of the Father and proceeds from the thought of the Father, there is some similarity between that and our experience of the relation between father and son Source : catholic education.org

I am still asking, why David has made this post. Somebody can tell me?

What Dr Craig says about this doctrine:

Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father...For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect Source: Reasonable faith.
This is a proof from Dr Lane about the dishonesty of evangelical Christians. You profess Doctrines secretly, but when you face Muslims you deny it all together.

dillo45 said...

@1mm

Isaiah 48:12-16

12Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
13Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
14All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
15I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

What is Jesus saying: I'm am the first and the last. also Jesus said that He created everything

so no, Jesus is not Generated, Jesus always existed

D335 said...

1mm, another skill-trait we learn from you muslims.

+ Bring forth another subject that has no bearing of whatsoever to the original subject.
(from God tortures baby to Tertulian and finally catholic standpoint of "generated")

+ and call them dishonest to get a quick reply.

I usually run out of patience at this point but I did learn something from your play. Turn it right back at ya!

*When your Allah swear, does it point to a certain -Higher- divine entity that Allah pray to?*

*Do you understand absolutely that Allah does pray! Salalahu Alayhi Wassalam! is there a Higher divine entity than Allah itself?*

*Do you discover what reality will be when if translated correctly Muhammad always pointed himself next to Allah! No prophets even dare to be in the same position as Muhammad! what's your view in that? Do you even pray that Moses is the prophet of Allah as well as Muhammad rasullullah? *

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MoreMuslim:

First of all learn to post quotes WITH REFERENCE once and for all!!!!! I have asked you already before to post your references when you give us a quotation! When are you going to learn this simple yet fundamental rule??!!

Anyway.... luckily I found the quote, or shall I say chopped up quote of yours on Dr. Craig's site's Q & A section and here is the full quote:

"....Protestants bring all doctrinal statements, even Conciliar creeds, before the bar of Scripture. In this case one has to say honestly that nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that God the Son is begotten of the Father in His divine, rather than in merely His human, nature. The vast majority of contemporary New Testament scholars recognize that even if the word traditionally translated “only-begotten” (monogenes) carries a connotation of derivation when used in familial contexts--as opposed to meaning merely “unique” or “one of a kind” as many scholars maintain--nevertheless the biblical references to Christ as monogenes (John 1.1, 14, 18; cf. Revelation 9.13)do not contemplatesome pre-creation or eternal procession of the divine Son from the Father, but have to do with the historical Jesus’ being God’s special Son (Matthew 1.21-23; Luke 1-35; John 1.14, 34; Galalatians 4.4; Hebrews 1.5-6). I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. This primitive understanding of Christ’s being begotten is still evident in Ignatius’s description of Christ as “one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and unbegotten, . . . both of Mary and of God” (Ephesians 7). There is here no idea that Christ is begotten in his divine nature. Indeed, the transference by the Apologists of Christ’s Sonship from Jesus of Nazareth to the pre-incarnate Logos has helped to depreciate the importance of the historical Jesus for Christian faith.....

.....To Be Continued

The Purple Marquise said...

Continuation....

"....Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.

So I regard God the Father as neither ontologically nor causally prior to God the Son, and I view Augustine and the Damascene’s views as extra-biblical and unfortunate."

Actually Dr.Craig's answer was much longer and for the purposes of space I will not copy all of it here but you can read it on:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5867

....To Be Continued

The Purple Marquise said...

....Continuation:

Now back to you 1MM: First of all why did you chop up Dr. Craig's quote and made it sound like he is saying that he agrees with the "diminished status of The Son" while he was actually totally against it and wrote that piece with the sole purpose of refuting such a notion?? Do you taking us for idiots? Did You think if you sensor parts of the quote that don't suit your purpose and don't give us the reference we would be too lazy to check for ourselves and will fall into your trap? Why are you so deceptive? This intellectual dishonesty brings shame and discredit upon you, 1MM!!

Besides after yourself being deceptive and dishonest you come here and accuse us of all things that you are yourself!!? Quit the paranoia and self-projection, 1MM. It is not us Christians who have secret doctrines that we hide from you Muslims! On the contrary it is you Muslims who have LOTS of very violent and embarrassing doctrines that you hide from the non-muslim world in order to avoid embarrassment and trick people into accepting or trusting Islam. Like the doctrine of armed Jihad against non-muslims and the doctrine of Dhimma to name just a few. And what you just did with Dr. Craig's quote was a great example of the doctrine of Taqiyaa in practice!

.....To Be Continued

The Purple Marquise said...

.....Continuation

We Christians have NO secret doctrine. The doctrine of trinity is a very complex issue and therefore finding the right wording for it is difficult. Why? Because we are talking about the nature of the eternal and infinite God with our limited and finite understand and vocabulary. You have the exact same problem in Islam. Read your own Islamic scholars and you will see they are not sure exactly what God is. Is he a physical being? Is he a spirit? Is he neither, etc... Theologians of all religions struggle to search for words that exactly and as closely as possible describe the God that they believe in while trying to avoide misunderstandings as much as possible.

If you would have read Dr. Craig's article carefully (which you didn't) and if you quoted it honestly and accurately (which you most definitely did not either) you would have understood that he was criticizing the wording of the official Nicene Creed and some of the Greek theologians because it makes it sound like The Son is somehow contingent upon the Father or lesser than Him. Then he goes on to explain that the "generation" or "proceeding" or "begetting" of the Son happens when he enters in the world in the form of the Man Jesus Christ, but not before that in the eternity past and he goes on to show how this is the correct view taught by the scripture.

So your objection is null and void. And NO Orthodox Christian believes that Jesus is a creation anyway. We all believe that He is the creator and "generator" of all things and The Greek theologians that Dr. Craig was criticizing also NEVER suggested that The Son being "generated" or "begotten" in any way shape or form made him not fully God or not the creator and "generator" of all things. They even enshrined it in the famous Nicene Creed:

" We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, NOT MADE,
of one Being with the Father.
THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS ARE MADE"

Now let me recap for you: It is not easy to exactly explain what God is (it doesn't matter if you are a unitarian or a trinitarian). Words might somehow cause equivocation. But I think I will be safe if I tell you some things that we most definitely DON'T believe about our God:

1. We DO NOT worship more than ONE God!

2. We do not believe that Jesus Christ is a different God than The Father and the Holy Spirit

3. We DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ is not FULLY GOD!

4. We DO NOT believe that The Son after incarnation and while on earth was not FULLY MAN as well as FULLY GOD!

4.We DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ is a lesser person than God the Father!

5. We DO NOT believe that The Son is a created being!

If one believes in any of these above mentioned things he would firmly belong to an officially heretical sect like Monophysite or Arian or Jehovah's witness, or Mormon sects. So don't worry! In bowing down your knee before Jesus Christ you are in no danger of bowing down to a "generated god"!! Because we DO believe that HE IS THE CREATOR AND GENERATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!


Now let me remind you yet again that you NEVER answered my questions about the meaning of Messiah according to Quran and now you jumped to this subject. Please deal with issues one by one 1MM. Where is your answer to the Messiah question? If you don't have any why are you here criticizing Christianity while you should be seriously soul searching about Islam or at least trying to come up with some credible and reasonable answer to this and many other problems with your own false and shallow religion!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey 1MM,

As I recall we have already discussed this elsewhere .

I spent a lot of effort explaining to you that “generated” is a relational term and not a qualitative or quantitative attribute of Jesus.

Don't you remember my pointing out that saying that the source of the Mississippi river is found in Minnesota in no way implies that Minnesota is superior to the Mississippi river?

When Tertullian says that the Son is eternally generated he is just saying that the Father is always sending the Son.

This is a description of the economic and not the ontological Trinity.

It tells you nothing about the being of the Son only about how the Son and the Father relate to each other.

The reason that evangelicals don’t often use that term is because not only is it not used in the Bible but it is often (purposely?)misunderstood by people like you.

Generally we find it to be better to just stick with what scripture says about God.

That is what I believe Craig means by exercising benign neglect.

Not dishonesty just submitting our speculations and language to the Word of God.

What would be dishonest in my view is pretending that you did not already know all of this


Peace

1MoreMuslim said...

At least , Purple Marquise is honest , she denied the doctrine of eternal generation before the incarnation.
I know Dr Craig doesn't like this doctrine also.

Then he goes on to explain that the "generation" or "proceeding" or "begetting" of the Son happens when he enters in the world in the form of the Man Jesus Christ, but not before that in the eternity past and he goes on to show how this is the correct view taught by the scripture.

It's clear that Dr Craig is embarrassed by this Doctrine, but someone else has a different view:

But first a definition and look at early Church history. It was the consistent belief of the early Church writers that the Lord Jesus was eternally begotten, or generated, by the Father without this implying that he was created. The fathers emphatically taught that the Lord was God fully and completely, and therefore uncreated.

that was Sam Shamoun (Yes, the guy who swears by creation).

You keep repeating the Messiah issue. Messiah-ship is not a central Doctrine in Islam, we can look what Messiah means in other places. But the problem is that you keep preaching Jesus as the Son of God without having a shred of idea about what SON means. NADA , NOTHING!

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM: You really are trying my patience by your willful ignorance! You speak as if you have caught us red-handed while doing something wrong or in the middle of some conspiracy! Nobody is embarrassed about anything here, OK??!! So don't get ahead of yourself!

Besides AGAIN you gave us quotes without reference. Is it so hard to be honest and post the reference so that we could read it and judge for ourselves whether you have been accurate or not!!!?

Here you are really making a storm in a teacup to distract from the fact that you totally and badly lost the previous argument and have nothing intelligent to say about it.

The fact that some of us still use the "eternally begotten" and some of us don't is not a big deal AT ALL. It all comes down to which exact wording each of us prefers in order to conway in the best way possible the relationship between God the Father and God The Son.

Now ALL OF US CHRISTIANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION no matter what creed formula we prefer believe that Jesus is ABSOLUTELY EQUAL TO THE FATHER! NOT CREATED! HE IS OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE AS THE FATHER AND THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE! PERIOD!!! END OF ISSUE! GOT THAT???!

The scripture never says that he was "eternally begotten" So according to Dr.Craig it is more consistent with out Universal Christian view of Jesus' absolute equality with the father to not use the unbiblical word "eternally" before the word "begotten" to improve and make our formula of faith more airtight and accurate! So that silly and people like you don't come here and fuss about it and accuse us of believing things that non of us believes! The Bible NEVER said "eternally" so we have ZERO obligation to use it.

Now since non of us from Tertullian to Sam Shamoun to Dr.Craig, to myself or anybody else EVER believed that either "begotten" or "generated" or "proceeded" whether "eternally" or after incarnation meant that Jesus is in any way a creation and not the creator or anything other than the total coequal with God then Father then the fact that some have put an unnecessary and unbiblical word in the formulation which they themselves don't agree with its possible implications that doesn't mean that you have stumbled upon some sort of Christian conspiracy which we are somehow embarrassed by or some major disagreement or something to that effect!

No sir! We all know what we mean by The Son being "begotten" and it AIN'T what you thought and hoped for! That's it! We kind of have different opinion about how best to formulate our common concepts about the Trinity. But we have ZERO disagreements about what those concepts are, or better yet said what those concepts ARE NOT!!

So I don't know what are you trying to prove by picking on the semantics of a creed that is trying its best (all be it imperfectly) to describe an ultimate reality which is infinitely greater than the capacity of our minds or the vocabulary in our languages.

But you still didn't explain why you tried to deceive us by totally mutilating Dr.Craig's comments in your previous post. I think you owe us an apology and a solemn pledge to behave more honestly next time. And also quit using quotes without reference to its source! Learn that already for the love of God!!!!

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM:....
Now we come back to the Messiah issue. You said: " You keep repeating the Messiah issue. Messiah-ship is not a central Doctrine in Islam, we can look what Messiah means in other places. "

I never said it was central doctrine of Islam. I said your prophet CLEARLY didn't know what it meant and I was right. Not only because he didn't even teach its meaning but because if he knew what it actually meant he would have never adopted it in relation to Jesus. Why, because by your own admission you have to come to our "corrupt" Bible to find out what it means. But when you do so you will find out that NON of the possible applications of this word fits Islamic Jesus.

Jesus was NOT a king so he could not be Messiah in that sense. The only other sense left is the Davidic Messiah the divine savior. But Islam denies that aspect of Jesus Christ altogether!

So why does he call him The Messiah when in Islam he so clearly is not The Messiah! I have a theory: Muhammed learned that Jesus was called Messiah because he heard it from Christians but he didn't know what it meant (which is that he is the Savior Son of God and King of kings Messiah) So he parroted the title Messiah while denying all of the attributes that this title entails.

Now whether Messiahship of Christ is central to Islam or not is irrelevant. The fact is that by bringing this term into Islam Muhammad has brought an internal inconsistency into his religion which proves him to be a false prophet and an amateur plagiarizer!

That was my whole point and I think unless and until you bring us some logically coherent answer to it you have lost it and your prophet has been shown to be false!

1MoreMuslim said...

Purple Marquise:

The scripture never says that he was "eternally begotten" So according to Dr.Craig it is more consistent with out Universal Christian view of Jesus'


The Universal view in Christianity doesn't exist. Catholics call themselves Universal Church, they say the Son is eternally generated. Dr Craig doesn't like it, but he clearly states that it's a doctrine.

Plagiarism is when you steel from another book and claim it's only yours. The Quran over 100 times refer to the previous scriptures. So your accusation is void.
The Old t.

You say the Quran doesn't say that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah. Neither the OT says that. Then what? You still didn't give any argument why JEsus should be called THE MESSIAH other than " anointed by God" . Jesus was not a King, nor he was from the seed of David, nor he saved the world. If the NT claims that Jesus the Davidic Messiah, it's only for your loss.

I am still waiting for the reason why the Son is called Son? You have no reason whatsoever to call Jesus the Son of God.

Fernando said...

A, 1MM you can eben quote the nicean creed -- the synthesis of the most ancient dogmas of teh Christian faith -- that says that the son from all eternity «is generated, not created»...

so: whate do you want to say? do you understand that these textes do say clearlie "generated", butt none say the Son was fisicaly generated?

poor soal of yours...

Fernando said...

Oh man... dear 1MM... don't you really grasp that in the "ad intra" reallity of God all names tributed to G-d are analogical ones in comparison to the material world in wich we live on?

dear 1MM... do you undestand that one thing is being a generated son due to a biological occurence, and another thing is being a generated son in a spiritual way? have you never read someone saing thate Malkus Harrington was the Shakespear's son generated by the readings that english master?

lets make you a small diagram:

1) Jesus is said to be the Son of G-d by G-d Himself in several places off the NT...;

2) this can be undestood, as its also the case, as saying thate G-d gave the "masculine genetic information" thate origenated the body of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary...;

3) butt not only thate: Jesus, as others did, clearly said that His personal reallity preexisted His existence in this worlde...;

4) so, the first claim made my G-d in 1) was not limited to the human form of Jesus, butt also to the "previous" to that form off the eternal Son that revealed G-d as the eternal Father (because there was with Him an eternal Son)...

lets see iff you undestood this: who is older: the Father or the Son?

The Purple Marquise said...

1MM said: "The Universal view in Christianity doesn't exist. "

You are just parading your ignorance of what constitute orthodox Christianity. We have divisions in some of our peripheral doctrines and issues of authority in the church and the role of The Scripture, but you are wrong if you think that means that we agree on nothing! There are many essential doctrines that if you don't accept you are OUT! You will no longer be considered a Christian. The total and complete equality of The Son with The Father is one of them. Now whether the word "eternally begotten" better captures the unique relationship between the 1st and 2nd person of the Trinity or just "begotten" is a matter that not everybody agrees upon.

If you would have carefully read Dr. Craig's response you could have understood by now very clearly that even the Greek Theologians and Nicene fathers didn't mean to use the word "eternally" to indicate that The Son was less than The Father. Dr. Craig himself wrote that they protest very strongly to the notion that they are diminishing The Son's status by formulating the creed in this way. But in order to be SUPER CAREFUL with words so as to not make impressions that we do not intend to make Dr. Craig suggested to remove the adverb "eternally" from the formula to make it more trim and airtight so that no one would think that the Son is less than the Father! That's it! Please get it and stop pretending that you have uncovered some sort of great scandal within the church when you actually have done NOTHING of the kind.

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM: Then you said: "You say the Quran doesn't say that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah. Neither the OT says that."

NO!!! I didn't say that! I said the Quran says that Jesus IS the Messiah but it doesn't say what a Messiah is and when you look at the Bible to see what it is you see that NON of its uses suits Jesus of the Quran. Messiah is not "anointed by God" just like that!!! He is anointed to hold a certain office! No random prophet was called the Messiah in the OT and not even in your own Quran! They either had to be the King or the high priest or a sacrificial offering or the divine savior. Quranic Jesus was just a random prophet with no especial office! So you pulled this "anointed by God" out of nowhere and that shows again how shallow and ad hock the knowledge of Muslims is about this word! The anointment is not done just for fun or just in case or for its own sake! It is not done to prophets and soothsayers and holy men! It is done exclusively to officialize a person holding a very special office before YHWH. Jesus in Quran held no such office! And don't come back and say "prophethood" was his "office" because not other prophet and even Muhammed was called the "Messiah" in your Quran. There must have been something extraordinary about Jesus but in Quran there is non!

As far as your comment about OT not saying that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah I can only laugh out loud! OT was written before the birth of Jesus. So of course it doesn't mention by Jesus name. But we Christians believe that he fulfilled the Messianic passages and your Quran apparently agrees with us and not with the Jews who say he didn't fulfill them. Why else does your own Quran call him the Messiah?! If he wasn't the Davidic Messiah, then for crying out loud, what else can he be???? he is neither a king nor a high priest of the Temple of Jerusalem. So the ONLY option available is the Davidic Messiah! If you refuse that one you have nothing else left!

You said: "Jesus was not a King, nor he was from the seed of David, nor he saved the world. If the NT claims that Jesus the Davidic Messiah, it's only for your loss."

It bears repeating that if Jesus was non of those things that you mentioned then the Quran should have come out and said: "The Christians are wrong! Jews are right! Jesus was not the Messiah, because he was not a king nor did he save the world." But what Quran cannot do is to say that Jesus (a non king and non high priest) is the Messiah but deny that he is the Davidic savior! This is called INCONSISTENCY!!!!!

So for you to here again pick on me to prove to you that Jesus was the Messiah is rather desperate and ridiculous since your own Quran says that he is and the only Messiahship about Jesus that ever was an option for him given his circumstances in life is that of the Davidic Messiah. So now you want me to prove a premiss that is approved by your own Quran??? What is wrong with you!!?

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM: As far as his genealogy not coming from David I don't know where you are pulling your stuff from but the Bible CLEARLY and for the purpose of shutting up people like you lays out Jesus' genealogy with great detail in Luke 3:23–38 which goes back from her mother Mary to David and even to Adam! Now if you have any credible document unearthed from somewhere which proves this genealogy to be false present it. Otherwise keep your silence for ever and never again repeat this nonsense that Jesus was not from the seed of David!

Now we come to plagiarism: Muhammad never says that Quran is quoting its stories from the Bible. He pretends that in fact he knows about them independently from the Bible because supposedly Allah told him about those stories. He even in many many places get the story wrong and misunderstands the concepts such as in the case of the Messiah which shows that despite his pretenses to the contrary he didn't get to know about those stories independently from the Bible and through Allah, but in fact concocted them on the basis of hearsay and stuff that he heard from the Bible. By the way Bible was not his only source. He even plagiarized some apocryphal and secular writings and never mentioned those sources either! But he tried to pass his concoctions on as the "new bible" inspired by Allah when it is nothing but rehashed stories snached from here and there jumbled up together in an illogical and messy way! He most definitely IS a plagiarizer and a false prophet!

I tell you what The Son means when you 1.tell us exactly what Messiah means to Muslims WITH some logical and evidential justification for it 2. explain to us what "mother of the book" exactly means! 3. explain to us why exactly did you lie and misrepresent and chop up Dr. Craig's article in a way that its meaning was turned upside-down in order to give false credence to your silly conspiratorial assertions! If you answer these questions coherently then and only then maybe I will consider answering your questions!

D335 said...

I hope Purple wasn't mind if we put a "pre-fight" commentary of 1MM trying to bend PurpleMarquise "STEEL".

-------------------------------
1MM:

The scripture never says that he was "eternally begotten" So according to Dr.Craig it is more consistent with out Universal Christian view of Jesus'

The Universal view in Christianity doesn't exist. Catholics call themselves Universal Church, they say the Son is eternally generated. Dr Craig doesn't like it, but he clearly states that it's a doctrine.
---------------------------------
Commentary:
And before PurpleMarquise even enter the ring, 1MM already suffers one purple eye.

The universal view in Christianity doesn't exist? are you sure?
Like all Christians believe not in Allah, (also stated in Quran) as you yourself 1MM declared that your own Quran is wrong. OUCH.
---------------------------------

1MM:
Plagiarism is when you steel from another book and claim it's only yours. The Quran over 100 times refer to the previous scriptures. So your accusation is void.
The Old t.
---------------------------------
Commentary:
AH-HA! Now you get where the "steel" came from.
That's purple eye numero DOS!

Quran refer to anything yet distort anything also.
Proof to us that Quran believe in the same teaching as Jesus and we would probably change our POV about Islam. Go ahead.
I'm not making it easy for purplemarquise, but come on, every words suffer errors!

Quran in fact is plagiarism of multitudes! 1. Quran stole everything 2. Changes everything.
----------------------------------
1MM:

You say the Quran doesn't say that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah. Neither the OT says that. Then what? You still didn't give any argument why JEsus should be called THE MESSIAH other than " anointed by God" . Jesus was not a King, nor he was from the seed of David, nor he saved the world. If the NT claims that Jesus the Davidic Messiah, it's only for your loss.

---------------------------------
Commentary:

Again this is to horrible, would 1MM suffers another purple eye to make both eyes look even!
Messiah: Redeemer figure, the deliverer, Savior! And yet Muhammad act as an intercession to save mankind?
Islamic view regarding Messiah: a title worth only inkblot on a paper.

That is why folks, it is a horror to watch 1MM get tackled by PurpleMarquise. Like a child getting hit by a moving truck.
---------------------------------
1MM:
I am still waiting for the reason why the Son is called Son? You have no reason whatsoever to call Jesus the Son of God.
---------------------------------
Commentary:
again 1MM is a glutton for punishment. Not only he forgot the whole commentary posted by David Wood which brought us all here, but now he has to explain WHY ALLAH made love to a book as in the "Mother of the Book!"
Would it be merciful for PurpleMarquise to keep banging 1MM arguments to the floor?

Let's go and see folks!

1MoreMuslim said...

Purple Marquise:
Luke 23
"3 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,"

Where is Mary there? Are you putting your words into the Bible Marquise? that is not good!

donna60 said...

1moremuslim

Heli was the father of Mary, since females were rarely mentioned in Hebrew family trees--four actually.

The family tree of Joseph, recorded in Matthew is different than the family tree of Mary in Luke.

Granted, they had ancestors in common, since they were both from the tribe of Judah. But the ancestry of Joseph contains Solomon, a son of David, by Bathsheba, and the ancestry of Mary contains Nathan, a second son of Bathsheba and David.

Please review these two family trees.

Fernando said...

Dear 1MM...

still waitting to your words on mie previous comments...

you saide [ignorantigely speaking of Luke 23]: Where is Mary there?... dear 1MM... that genealogy is from Joseph's side... as you know, and that's the same in islam -- I'm a former muslim, you know -- someone who assumes a baby even when he's not is biological father, he becames, for ALL effects, his father... and who gave birth to Jesus? Joseph? off course not... does it not present the name "Mary"? I explained that above...

butt you can always go the teh Gospel according with Mathew tosee Mary presented in Jesus' genealogy...

reassuming my previous comments to you: who's older: the Son or the Father?

dillo45 said...

@1MM

Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam, through a minor son of David, Nathan to Mary.

You see Joseph, because Joseph is the lawful father of Jesus. And it was a normal use 2000 years ago to write only the bloodline of the father.

Sam said...

Purple Marquise, you may want to peruse the following article concerning Jesus' genealogy since it silences 1MoreBlackStoneLicker: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/davids_seed.htm

What makes this all the more laughable is that 1MorePagan can't even give you a reliable source which traces Muhammad's genealogy to Ishmael: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael2.htm

So enjoy!

1MoreMuslim said...

D335:

I am glad that you entered this exchange, I hope you will benefit.

First of all, if you make a mockery about my type-o, you have to make sure you don't do one type-o yourself in the same sentence. " Proof to us that Quran believe in the same teaching as Jesus " lol. You can start by making the difference between proof and prove.

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM: Oh boy!!! Here we go again!!! I simply don't understand why you insist on asking questions that one way or the other don't help your case IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!! If you think by asking these irrelevant questions you are actually doing anything to exonerate Islam you are totally mistaken. These distractions cannot substitute for the fact that you have made NO CASE WHAT SO EVER to exonerate Muhammed from the charge of being ignorant of what The Messiah means and therefor by calling Jesus "The Messiah" falling into a theological inconsistency which is a HUGE evidence that he is a false prophet! This point until this moment stands unassalied!!!

As I explained to you already many times before, Jesus not being any earthly king of Israel nor the high priest of the temple of Jerusalem could NOT have been The Messiah in ANY OTHER WAY than the Messiah Son of David. Now if you were a Jew you could say: "Hey I don't like your reasons for calling Jesus The Messiah since he was not an anointed king nor he was a high priest nor it seems that he was the son of David because I don't trust the genealogy that Luke and Matthew provided. So he CANNOT be called the Messiah!" Fair enough! With him it is worth belaboring the evidence and explaining why this genealogy is trustworthy
and why other Messianic prophesies in the OT point to Jesus etc…

But you, 1MM, as a Muslim DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION OPEN TO YOU!!!!! DO YOU GET IT ALREADY!!! How hard is it to grasp this simple fact?!! You cannot come here and demand proof of Jesus' Messiahship because YOUR OWN QURAN tells you that HE IS THE MESSIAH!!!!!! Are you trying to disproof your own Quran????!!! How silly can you be??? The only question that you can ask as a Muslim is "what is The Messiah?" and to that I have already given an answer a hundred times!!!!!!!

What kind of silly Kamikaze line of attack is this that you are pursuing?? If you disproof that Jesus is the Messiah son of David then you have also in the process disproven Quran! Because Quran says Jesus is the Messiah too! And again it bears repeating one more time, since Jesus is not any king and nor is he any high priest then there is no other kind of Messiah left but the Son of David, you dummy!!!!! Give it up already!!!! You lost!!!

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM:

But since you in yet another brazen act of self-projection accused me of putting words in the Bible I send you a video which in detail explains the genealogy of Jesus found both in Luke's and Matthew's Gospels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavIXRNXCbY

I am simply too tired to write a whole essay about these genealogies. I have already done my job in this discussion and have proven my point! It seems that you have nothing intelligent to say in my response! Whether you like what you hear in this video or not is not my problem anymore! So don't come back here and complain!!! Since you are stuck with this fact buddy! Jesus IS the Messiah and your own Quran admits it!!! If you don't like it convert and become a Jew!!!!

You Muslims due to years of belligerent Jihadi attacks of conquest acquired the nasty habit of thinking that in all cases the best defense is to attack. But you must grow up and learn that in intellectual debates attacking for the sake of attacking without any purpose and use to it is a fallacy and a distraction and will NEVER bring you victory. A debate is not a battlefield! When you have the burden of proof and you are asked a relevant question you must answer it with an argument and/or facts not by attacking and asking your opponent irrelevant non-sequitur questions. Mud throwing is not debating. Asking questions that what ever the answer to will not help your case is nothing but a distraction and is just a waste of your's and your opponent's time and takes you nowhere. Learn that please!

By the way you still have to explain to us why you mutilated Dr. Craig's comments in order to make it give credence to your bizarre conspiracy theories when his real comments would prove you wrong and answer all your questions too! I am still waiting for you to apologize for that disgraceful practice and do not think for a second that I will let you off the hook on that account!

The Purple Marquise said...

@Sam: Dear brother Sam, thank you very much for the interesting and very decisive article about the genealogy of Jesus. I think now that it has come to light that even Al Tabari and Ibn Kathir agree with us that Mary and therefor Jesus WAS from the seed of David then this should silence 1MM already!

But as I have explained to him a million times already the Quran also agreed with us that Jesus was The Messiah and a messiah should be anointed to be king or high priest, but Jesus in the Quran is neither king nor priest. So the only other kind of Messiah left for him to be is The Messiah the Son of David and the Savior! Now if 1MM is not convinced by the evidence and thinks that Jesus is NOT The Messiah then that's fine! He can convert to Judaism tomorrow!

May our Lord bless you abundantly, brother Sam, especially to enlighten the Muslims!

1MoreMuslim said...

Purple Marquise:

", since Jesus is not any king and nor is he any high priest then there is no other kind of Messiah left but the Son of David, you dummy!!!!! Give it up already!!!! You lost!!! "

Thank you marquise, you provided a practical evidence of what is a blind faith. you believe that Jesus is the Son of David, despite the clear testimony of the NT that he was not. The NT is at most silent about it. there is nothing about Mary in the genealogy.


What you ignore about the word "Messiah", just like in Hebrew the word has an linguistic meaning. It's derived from the root verb M.S.H , which means "to wipe" or "to rub". Jesus can be called Al Massih for many reasons. He was wiped from Sins, he rub the lepers and heal people... But as the Davidic Messiah he is a complete failure.

But still you didn't provide a single reason why Jesus should be called the UNIQUE SON of God, other than "the NT says it, you blindly believe it"

dillo45 said...

@1MM

Since you debating as a child, i will treat you as child

according to the Tanakh, the Messiah is God;
according to the Injil, the Messiah is God;
according to the Qur'an, The Messiah is not God.

See if you can spot the odd one.

But there are similarities between the Holy Bible and Qur'an

according to the Tanakh, Muhammad is a false prophet;
according to the Injil, Muhammad is a false prophet;
according to the Qur'an, Muhammad is a false prophet.

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM: This last comment of yours was probably the most bizarre and the stupidest of them all!!!

You say nowhere in the NT says that Jesus is from the seed of David??!!! You say the NT is silent about Jesus' ancestry? Have you ever even cracked open the NT you liar??? In addition to Matthews and Luke's genealogies we have this:

Luke 1:28-35

"The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of HIS FATHER DAVID, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’"

and this:

Mark10:46
46 Then they *came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
and this:

Luke18:35-38
" 35 As [j]Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 36 Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. 37 They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. 38 And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

.....to be continued

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM ....continuation
and this:

Matthew 15:22
And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.”

and this:

Matthew 21:6-9
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,

“Hosanna[a] to the Son of David!”

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”[b]

“Hosanna[c] in the highest heaven!”

and this:

Luke1:68-70
68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of David His servant

and this:

Romans1:1-4
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

and this:

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,

and this:

Revelation 22:16
“ I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

Silent indeed!!!!! Blind faith indeed! You are the blind one 1MM! The NT is chuck full of references to Jesus being the Son of David! There are many more verses which for the purposes of space I will not quote here. You can read the in the New Testament. It will do you good to read the NT which you very obviously never cracked open before trying to refute!

I think I have made my point beyond any reasonable doubt that the NT is MOST DEFINITELY NOT SILENT about the fact that Jesus IS the descendant of David and therefore the Davidic Messiah!

Since we believe in every word of the NT we don't even need to have the genealogy of Mary to know for a fact that according to the NT Jesus IS the Son of David! But it so happens that both Luke and Matthew wrote his genealogies with the sole purpose of proving that Jesus WAS indeed the descendant of David!

Why else would they write those long lists of names!!!?? Didn't they have anything better to do with their time and very expensive parchment? So your genius hypothesis is that they spent their time and valuable parchment to prove that the man that they believed was the The Messiah was NOT the son of David as everybody said he was supposed to be in order to be allegeable for Messiahship???? Where they trying to prove themselves wrong?? Is that what you are saying 1MM?

If you are interested to learn more about Jesus's genealogy read this article by Sam Shamoun:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/davids_seed.htm

Apparently even Ibn Kathir agrees with us that Jesus comes from the seed of David through Mary!

The Purple Marquise said...

1MM And then you said:

"What you ignore about the word "Messiah", just like in Hebrew the word has an linguistic meaning. It's derived from the root verb M.S.H , which means "to wipe" or "to rub". Jesus can be called Al Massih for many reasons. He was wiped from Sins, he rub the lepers and heal people... But as the Davidic Messiah he is a complete failure."

Mashallah 1MM! You really outdid yourself this time with your splendid display of genius! I didn't know that in addition to an amateur theologian you are also an amateur linguist and scholar of ancient Hebrew language! 1MM said that Messiah means "the one who wipes" and that settles it! Burn all your dictionaries people!

You are so desperate that you are making it up as you go!! Jesus was Masih because he wiped something?!!! Where on earth did you pull that from!!!??? Dummy, the word Massiah has had a meaning for thousands of years before you and your false prophet came along!!!!! You yourself admitted that you have to come to our Bible to find out what Messiah even means!!! Where in the Bible says that the Messiah means "wiped from sin"??? Messiah means "Anointed" not "wiped"!!!
There is no such Messiah as the one who wipes!! Nowhere! Not in the OT nor in the NT!!!

Now that all your efforts to find a meaning for Massiah as it was understood for thousands of years which could suit your Islamic Jesus failed you started to invent meanings for it??? Nobody knew what Messiah meant until 1MM came along?!! Which Muslim classical scholar even agrees with you? OT and NT most definitely don't! Both Jews and Christians have for 1000s of years understood this word in a different way. Now comes along 1MM and says that we all have been wrong for all these millennia! Messiah means not the anointed one, but the one who wipes or is wiped(what or by what or for what purpose we are not sure!), but anyway it has something to do with wiping and you just got it all wrong for 1000s of years!

.....To be Continued!

The Purple Marquise said...

@1MM:........continuation:

So great 1MM! You have come here and declared your fabulous revolutionary hypothesis that Messiah means the "wiper" or the "wiped" ! Fair enough! Now you have something called "THE BURDEN OF PROOF" on your shoulder! Feel its weight? Now you have the unenviable task of providing us with some evidence! You declared your rather strange hypothesis that Messiah means not "the anointed one" but "wiper of leprosy" or "wiped from sin" or just "rubbed" or "wiped" or what ever! PROVE IT! Give us at least ONE historical reference were Messiah was used in this way. Show us how linguists and archeologists have discovered that this was the correct usage of this word in the past. Show us that this was its proper usage in Hebrew language until somebody came along and duped everybody to think Messiah means anointed king of Israel or the future Messiah Son of David!

Remember all those verses you were parading before us about Saul being called messiah while accusing us of mistranslating the Bible because it was translated "the anointed"? What did he wipe? Was he also wiping off lepers? Why was he called messiah? Maybe my kitchen rag is The Messiah too!!! Because it regularly wipes my kitchen countertop!

You cannot pull things out of devil knows where and make bizarre claims and expect people to give up their 1000 year old notions just upon your say so. You have to have SOLID proof! So now stop posting nonsense here and get busy! Bring forth proof for your revolutionary linguistic hypothesis! Good Luck! Then after that and ONLY after that we can answer your question about "unique son of God" and all the other stuff that might attract your idle curiosity! But if you fail to bring forth proof then you must convert to Judaism since they are the only ones who agree with you that Jesus fails as the Davidic Messiah. Your Quran seems to disagree with you! So off you go in search of evidence for your bizarre linguistic hypothesis. if you fail to Judaism you convert! Deal?

Tatersalad said...

Here are your top ten terror tied C.A.I.R. leaders listed with an article attached defining their involvement and support of terror:





1. Ghassan Elashi

2. Muthanna al-Hanooti

3. Abdurahman Alamoudi

4. Siraj Wahhaj

5. Randall "Ismail" Royer

6. Bassam Khafagi

7. Laura Jaghlit

8. Nihad Awad

9. Omar Ahmad

10. Nabil Sodoun



http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/rogues-gallery-of-terror-tied-cair-leaders/

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim quoted and said:

Luke 23
"3 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,"

Where is Mary there? Are you putting your words into the Bible Marquise? that is not good!


My Response:

Actually the Greek term rendered as son in Luke 1:23 is the Greek word Huios, which often carries a legal sense of sonship.

This agrees with Jesus being the legal son of Joseph, through His marriage with Mary, and Joseph being a son in law of Heli.

The Greek word for son through descendancy is Teknon.

1MoreMuslim said...

Purple MArquise:

Moody Bible Institute Doctrinal Statement
Article I
God is a Person who has revealed Himself as a Trinity in unity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit—three Persons and yet one God.

Find the error.

dillo45 said...

@1MM

Isaiah 55:8-9
King James Version (KJV)
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God's creation is complex, why can't God Himself be complex?

How can you claim that you understand God better then all prophets in the Holy Bible.

Second, why do you compare the supernatural with the natural, just because 3 persons on earth can't be 1 person, does that mean God cannot exist that way.