On Youtube | Main Page | Best way to Convert non-Muslims to Islam | Debate PowerPoints | Scientific Miracles | Authors' Section | Quran Search | The 9/11 lie
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
verse 5:73 attacks the notion that God could have partners in his divinity. The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God. If it is taken in its context, the implication can be drawn from q 5:72 and 75 that one of these is Jesus, while from the firm emphasis on his and his mother's human needs in q 5:75 (“Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger [q.v.]… and his mother was a woman of truth [q.v.]; they had both to eat foodâ€; see food and drink; prophets and prophethood ), it is even possible to infer that the other was MaryWhether or not this is the intention in q 5:73, the second reference in the Qurān to three deities makes such an accusation explicit. This is in q 5:116: “And behold! God will say: ‘O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say to people (al-nās), “Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?â€â€™ He will say, ‘Glory to you ! Never could I say what I had no right .’†In what is intended as an eschatological interrogation of Jesus, God brings up a claim evidently associated with him, that he encouraged people to regard himself and Mary as gods besides God (min dūni llāh). The implication is that Christians made him the source of the wrong belief they hold Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God . As such, it could be understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshiped. .
The Christians of the seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by the clouds of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collyridian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a goddess.
Understanding the GODHEAD. Just as I am a mother, a daughter, and a wife...just because I act in a mother role at one time does not discount that I am still a daughter and a wife. To me God is the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Letter #432 from James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries of Phoenix, Arizona (Part a)Dear Mr. McKinsey. I felt that some of your comments should be addressed.The main thing to be noted in your response of September, 1990 was your continued misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It is one thing to disagree with the Trinity; but it is obvious that you do not even have a basic understanding of the doctrine itself. You had alleged in the December, 1989 issue of BE that Jesus' statement in John 5:37 ("And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape") is contradicted by visions of Jehovah God in the OT. I pointed out that this is not so; that Jesus is speaking of the Father in John 5:37, and the One who is seen in the OT is the Son, Jesus Christ. Your response was typical of those who refuse to listen to what their opposition is saying. You wrote, "If you can use the Trinity at will, so can I. God and Jesus are identical, remember!" Please feel free to "use" the Trinity if you would like, but might I suggest that you learn what the doctrine is before you commit yourself to print? God and Jesus are identical? What does that mean? The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one eternal being of God that is shared fully by three eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Any person who would even glance at (for example) the Athanasian creed would know that the doctrine differentiates between the terms "being" and "person." One being, three persons. The Father is not the Son, Mr. McKinsey. So, your statement, "God and Jesus are identical, remember" is a meaningless one, only showing an abysmal lack of understanding of the doctrine itself. When you say the "text is guilty of a blatant lie" you are only showing how blatant is your ignorance of that which you seem only overjoyed to attack. When Jesus (the Son) said that no one had seen God's form or heard His voice, He was referring to the Father, and since it was the Son who was seen and heard in the OT, no contradiction exists, since the Son is not the Father.... I don't expect you to admit an error--you seemingly view yourself as being as inerrant as I believe the Scriptures to be--but others read your materials, and for their benefit I point out your error.Dear Mr. White. You began your monologue on the Trinity with the comment that I "do not even have a basic understanding of the doctrine itself." That is relatively easy to understand since neither you nor anyone else does either. The only human being who could understand the Trinity would be someone who could also visualize a square circle or a two-sided triangle. There is nothing to understand since the entire concept is preposterous on its face. Yes, Jesus is God; no he is man. Since that makes no sense, it is immediately changed to: No, he is the god/man, man and god simultaneously. And since that makes no sense either, many Christians are candid enough to admit it's a "mystery" that can't be understood by anybody. It has to be taken on faith. You claim that within the Godhead or "being" are three persons, each of which is God, but there is only one God. You have three distinct entities all of whom are God. That's three gods and the word "persons" can't be used to hide that fact. Moreover, you play a shell-game with the word "God," "being," or "Godhead." On the one hand, it represents a general term encompassing the persons within the Trinity and when expediency dictates it is immediately switched to represent an actual being whom you call God. Christians are often accused of being tritheists, believers in three gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. When they try to turn the "Godhead" into a being, they could just as well be called quartheists. The Father is God; Jesus is God; the Holy Ghost is God, and the Godhead, or "being" as you call it, is God. What an absurdity! To make matters worse, you ignore all the biblical verses that clearly say God is one and indivisible. There is none like him nor is there any beside him. He is a unity.You say, "learn what the doctrine is before you commit yourself to print," while I suggest you learn what the doctrine is not before you commit yourself to pap. The doctrine is not rational in any sense of the term. It is a hopeless muddle that must be taken on pure faith. There is nothing rational or logical involved. And for you to imply there is, only exposes the duplicity to which Christian apologists will go to foster an image at odds with reality. You say that "the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one eternal being of God that is shared fully by three eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." Stop and think about what you just said, James. What does the metaphysical concept "shared fully" mean? You mean you have a being within a being? How could a being be within another being? Parasites live within other beings but they are still separate and distinct. They are in no sense the same being as you say God and Jesus are. You say that "any person who would even glance at (for example) the Athanasian creed would know that the doctrine differentiates between the terms 'being' and 'person'." No it doesn't. It merely says there is a difference. It doesn't prove it or even attempt to do so. It doesn't define it. It doesn't even quote scripture to prove it or show were scripture makes such a distinction. Even if the Bible made such an assertion, logic is clearly to the contrary. It merely says as much and you are suppose to believe. The Catholic Church wrote that creed and you have swallowed it completely. That's pure, blind faith, my friend. Incidentally, according to your rendition of John 1:18 ("No man has seen God at any time, the unique God, who is in the bosom of the Father...") the Father encompasses God, not the other way around. Consequently, if either one is greater than the other, then the Father must be greater than God.You say, "The Father is not the son, Mr. McKinsey." There you go again, off into the wild blue yonder. Is Jesus God? According to you, yes. Is the Father God? According to you, yes. Therefore, James, if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn the simplicity of your error. Two things equal to a third are equal to each other. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then, it logically follows that Jesus is identical to the Father. You say, "The Father is not the Son." Oh, yes he is! Under your line of reasoning, he has to be. I can remember debating several fundamentalists many years ago on this point. They said Jesus is God and the Father is God, but that does not mean Jesus and the Father are the same. An analogous situation according to them is that a cat is an animal and a dog is an animal, but that doesn't mean a cat is a dog. The error of their ways lies in the fact that they failed to realize that "cat" is not equal to "animal." Neither is "dog." Jesus, however, is identical to God and so is the Father. Therefore, Jesus and the Father must be identical to each other. Moreover, the word "animal" does not represent a "being" or "person." Like the word "Godhead" it's nothing more than a general term, a rubric, a category like the words "mankind" or "humanity." It does not refer to a specific, living being or person of some sort. You can talk to the latter; you can't converse with an abstraction. You can talk to a beautiful lady; but you can't converse with beauty.To put it another way, either Jesus is God or he isn't. If he is God as you claim, then God and Jesus are identical. Otherwise they differ in some respect, in which case he couldn't be God. If they differ in any respect, be it ever so minute, then he lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa. What you want is for two things to be the same but not be identical. Here, again, your muddle is exposed. If two things are the same, then they are identical. If they differ in any respect, whatever, then they are neither the same nor identical. Plainly put, if Jesus is not the same as God, then he isn't God.Letter #477 from James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona (Part a)Dear Mr. McKinsey.... The majority of your attempted response to my discussion of the Trinity takes the form of nothing but ridicule. You claim that no one understands the Trinity (seemingly, since you don't understand it, then no one else does, either). You state, "The only human being who could understand the Trinity would be someone who could also visualize a square circle or a two-sided triangle." This, of course, assumes your conclusion: that the Trinity is self-contradictory. But asserting what you wish to prove accomplishes nothing (though it will certainly impress some).Editor's Response to Letter #477 (Part a)Dear James. You are at it again. When will you ever learn? In the first place, your comment that my discussion of the Trinity takes the form of nothing but ridicule is utterly without merit and completely specious. The fact of the matter is that I deal in logic and you think of that as ridicule. I can't help but paraphrase Harry Truman who said, "I don't give them hell; I just tell them the truth and they think it is hell." Secondly, your comment that "this, of course, assumes your conclusion: that the Trinity is self-contradictory" is completely without standing. There is no assumption involved. It is contradictory and that is a fact. Thirdly, you fancy yourself well-read in apologetic literature but are apparently unaware of the fact that most of your own compatriots don't deny that the Trinity is a concept that defies logic and must be taken on faith alone. One can only assume that you are suffering under the laughable delusion that you are superior to those who have gone before. Many apologists not only admit there are no proof texts for the doctrine but freely admit the entire concept is incomprehensible. Support for this assertion is not hard to find. On page 168 in 508 Answers to Bible Questions apologist M.R. DeHaan states that, "The Trinity, that is, three persons in one is a mystery which is revealed in the Bible but cannot be understood by the human mind. Since man is finite, and God is infinite, this is one of those things which must be accepted by faith, even though it cannot be reasoned out. The Trinity cannot be explained but it must be believed because the Bible teaches it throughout." On page 55 of Basic Theology professor Ryrie of Dallas Theological Seminary alleges that, "Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must acknowledge that it is in the final analysis a mystery. We accept all the data as truth even though they go beyond our understanding." On page 25 in Essential Christianity apologist Walter Martin says, "No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man." On page 19 in The Bible Has the Answer apologists Morris and Clark state that, "the mystery of the Trinity is beyond the capacity of our finite and limited minds to comprehend." Later, on page 41 in the same book Morris and Clark state that, "the mystery of the divine-human nature of Christ is beyond our finite understanding.... The Bible simply presents as fact the great truth that Jesus Christ was both God and man. It does not try to explain how this could be, because it is inexplicable. It must be apprehended on faith alone,...." If you'll note, James, your fellow fundamentalists make no attempt to defend the concept rationally. Believers are told to believe it without understanding simply because the Bible says so. On pages 112 and 113 in Almah or Young Woman apologist Lawlor says, "All the difficulties and problems surrounding the mystery of the person of Christ will never be solved. The great difficulty is that of understanding how the Lord could have but one personality when he possessed two real natures, divine and human. How can these natures be united in the one Person? This is the "mystery of godliness.... There are some matters that are beyond us, which we shall never totally comprehend." "Totally comprehend"! Any Christian would be happy to be able to comprehend even a minute part thereof. Lawlor concludes, "we must finally fall upon our faces before the mystery of the eternal, almighty god in Christ, having come in flesh, and confess that we cannot explain Him." "Explain him"! Any Christian would be happy to even understand the Trinity, much less explain it. Talk about blind, unquestioning faith! The concept makes no sense; they admit it makes no sense, but we are to believe it, regardless. The problem lies not in the fact that it can't be understood by me but that it can't be understood by anyone, period. In the thick tome entitled Catholic Dogma, the catholic apologist Ludwig Ott says on page 75, "The dogma of the Trinity is, in fact, beyond reason.... Human reason cannot fathom the mystery of the Blessed Trinity even after the dogma has been revealed by God." So, you see James your incessant argument that I deny the Trinity because I can't understand it is pure Christian propagandistic rubbish and I wish to hear it no longer. You have prated that prattle long enough. If you can't come up with anything better, I suggest that you come up with nothing at all. Enough is enough. My patience in teetering on the edge of incivility. You'd do well to remember what Abe Lincoln said about keeping your mouth closed?
I know. I've studied astrotheology and read several books on Horus. But what's ironic is that Egyptian himself has a Sun disguised in his profile picture. So sad
