Is Jesus the God of the Old Testament?

[John]

I've seen this suggestion mooted by a couple of people on this ng, and
wondered how prevalent this belief is.

It holds too many questions for me to take the possibility seriously, eg
who was in Heaven when Jesus was on the Earth?

Also the difference in the God of the Old Testament and how Jesus
conducted His earthly existence are like chalk and cheese.

[Timreason]

I think we have to try, in our minds, to 'Step out of Time'. Somehow,
God is not bound by Time and Space in the way that we are. Time and
Space are created things that the Creator 'transcends'.

Thus, I believe that the God who walked in the cool of the evening in
the Garden of Eden is the same God who was born and laid in a manger,
and who was crucified on the Cross. Indeed, that is biblical, and can be
read at the start of John's Gospel.

Opponents of the Doctrine of the Trinity often argue about how could
Jesus pray to Himself as Father and so on - but if we simply accept that
the things of God are naturally way, way above our understanding, and
instead just trust God in faith, then that's a good start.

Tim.

[John]

According to the bible, Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and at the end of the age will hand back the Kingdom to the Father.
Even allowing for being outside of time, surely there must be two
entities up there, Three if you count the Holy Spirit as well.

(Undecided as to whether the Holy Spirit is the combined Spirit of God
and Jesus or a seperate entity)

Also the |Father knows the end of time but Jesus didn't/doesn't.

I do accept I am probably the heritical one here

[Timreason]

Well, it's 'angels on a pinhead' stuff. Does the Father literally have
hands? I take this stuff as metaphorical, a kind-of shadow
representation of mysteries well beyond our understanding. (Was going to
say 'ken', but will avoid confusion as a certain poster has dispensed
with capital letters at the start of names...)

I've often heard it described as there being only One God, but existing
somehow in relationship, hence the three 'Persons'. The Athanasian
Creed spells out the 'Official Line':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 01:32, John wrote:

> I've seen this suggestion mooted by a couple of people on this ng, and
> wondered how prevalent this belief is.

It is Scriptural. To take one example: the NT states that Jesus created
everything, the OT states that YHWH created the heavens and the earth.
Ergo: Jesus and YHWH are identical.

> It holds too many questions for me to take the possibility seriously, eg
> who was in Heaven when Jesus was on the Earth?

Er - you do understand the doctrine of the Trinity, don't you?

> Also the difference in the God of the Old Testament and how Jesus
> conducted His earthly existence are like chalk and cheese.

What utter nonsense. Go read the Old Testament rather than basing your
opinion on one or two highly publicised stories. Gracious, forgiving,
guiding, helping, loving, what more do you want? But if you want the
other side, Jesus excoriating the pharisees, casting out the money
changers, warning that He will be judge - and, of course, killing
Ananias and Saphira.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 13:55, John wrote:

> According to the bible, Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father,
> and at the end of the age will hand back the Kingdom to the Father. Even
> allowing for being outside of time, surely there must be two entities up
> there, Three if you count the Holy Spirit as well.

It's called the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 14:33, Timreason wrote:

> I've often heard it described as there being only One God, but existing
> somehow in relationship, hence the three 'Persons'.

A heresy called "modalism".

> The  Athanasian Creed spells out the 'Official Line':
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

The various creeds don't make a lot of sense, but you gave the reason
for that in an earlier post: they are humans attempting to define
something (Some One) far beyond our understanding.

However they do define orthodox Christianity, so are not without usefulness.

[John]

On 02/01/2024 16:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 01:32, John wrote:
>
>> I've seen this suggestion mooted by a couple of people on this ng, and
>> wondered how prevalent this belief is.
>
> It is Scriptural. To take one example: the NT states that Jesus created
> everything, the OT states that YHWH created the heavens and the earth.
> Ergo: Jesus and YHWH are identical.

So there was only one God in Heaven, YHWH, who would later become Jesus
on earth. What's your view on John 17:5?

>
>> It holds too many questions for me to take the possibility seriously,
>> eg who was in Heaven when Jesus was on the Earth?
>
> Er - you do understand the doctrine of the Trinity, don't you?

Does anyone?

Please explain who Jesus was praying to, and why would he pray if he was
already (equal to) God. Please explain how Jesus is now seated in
heaven at the right hand of God if they are one and the same. If Jesus
is equal to the Father why does he hand everything back to Him at the
end of the age. During Jesus's visit to Earth, was the God in Heaven who
He called his Father, YHWH?

These are questions I seek answers to (there may not be any) please
don't see it as an attack on your beliefs.

Reading the bible, I see only John the Gospel writer and the writer of
Hebrews as believing Jesus was God. The other writers, especially Paul,
see Jesus as the Son of God. Yes, there's Philippians 2, but it does
depend how you read it.

[Timreason]

On 02/01/2024 16:22, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 14:33, Timreason wrote:
>
>> I've often heard it described as there being only One God, but
>> existing somehow in relationship, hence the three 'Persons'.
>
> A heresy called "modalism".

I find the thing is an absolute minefield of heresies!

That's why I leave it to the Creed to define it.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 02/01/2024 17:30, John wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 16:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>>
>> Er - you do understand the doctrine of the Trinity, don't you?
>
>
> Does anyone?
>

That was my reaction, too.

Tim.

[Timreason]

This morning I was mulling this over as I brushed my teeth. I thought
about quantum physics. No-one understands it, yet it fits with
experimental observations.

I assume you will have heard of the 'Double Slit Experiment' (if not,
you can Google it of course.) How can one photon pass through two slots
at once? How come it doesn't do that, if anyone is looking to see which
slot it goes through. How can things be only probabilities, until
someone is looking, when they 'collapse' into definite states?
There's even more weirdness, such as future particles interacting with
earlier ones, 'spooky action at a distance' and so on.

If we can't understand or visualise the Creation, how could we expect to
understand the Creator!

Tim.

[Muhammad]

On 02/01/2024 01:32, John wrote:

John you heretic ;)

For Christianity, the simple answer to the title of the thread is, YES.

The reason you have questions is that you're likely left with numerous
resultant possibilities. All can't be held simultaneously as they
rationally and logically contradict, and some possibly deficient
independently too, but are needed as a formation to the ideology that
backs up the 'faith'.

This conundrum, is further expounded by the concept of the Trinity. The
Trinity, having its own problems, is its 'saving grace'. It will act as
a filter. However, you'll be left with similar if not more issues to
deal with if, again, you try to complete the circle. Thus, you simply
can't hold the range of possibilities in whatever order simultaneously,
for they will always rationally and logically contradict.

IMO, the only way to get around that is, to accept the circle can't be
complete, and carry on in faith.

In Islam the figures Christianity refers to as: Father, is God, Jesus,
is a Prophet of God, The Holy Ghost, is Angel Gabriel. I'll simplify how
this works. God is in Heaven (God is one, and only one, He doesn't have
any partners), God does not come to earth, he sends his creation to do
his work. The Angel gives a message from God to the messenger (Jesus),
for the messenger to relay it onto his audience. The purpose of the
Angel is also to facilitate the messenger (according to God's remit) in
carrying out his religious duty, acting as a support. This viewpoint
solves the problem of the incomplete circle. I know it can be
scrutinised, but it doesn't fall apart like a house of cards.

---

I've probably said it too often and bored many with it (in this NG). But
I believe the Christians following Jesus were one of the Ebionite sect,
that believed Jesus was a Prophet, born of Virgin Mary, they also denied
that Jesus died...

[Timreason]

On 02/01/2024 22:47, Muhammad wrote:
> All can't be held simultaneously as they
> rationally and logically contradict,

Read anything about quantum physics lately? The world seems to be built
on such things!

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 18:33, Timreason wrote:

> I find the thing is an absolute minefield of heresies!

It is indeed - and mainly because we are talking about something we know
nothing about.

> That's why I leave it to the Creed to define it.

I have very little confidence that the Creeds have it right either, but
at least they define orthodox Christianity. I accept them as the best
fallible humans can do to define the undefinable.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 17:30, John wrote:

> So there was only one God in Heaven, YHWH, who would later become Jesus
> on earth.  What's your view on John 17:5?

There is only One God (in heaven or on earth) but we believe in One God
in Three Persons.

> Please explain who Jesus was praying to, and why would he pray if he was
> already (equal to) God.  Please explain how Jesus is now seated in
> heaven at the right hand of God if they are one and the same.  If Jesus
> is equal to the Father why does he hand everything back to Him at the
> end of the age. During Jesus's visit to Earth, was the God in Heaven who
> He called his Father, YHWH?

No, they are not an attack on my beliefs (or an attack on anyone's
beliefs), just a display of massive ignorance about the doctrine of the
Trinity. I suggest that you do some reading on the subject - Wikipedia
is probably a reasonable starting point - and you will find your
questions being answered.

> Reading the bible, I see only John the Gospel writer and the writer of
> Hebrews as believing Jesus was God. The other writers, especially Paul,
> see Jesus as the Son of God.  Yes, there's Philippians 2, but it does
> depend how you read it.

It is generally accepted that the full realisation of Jesus' divinity
took a while to sink in. However even St Paul makes statements that are
entirely in accord with the divinity of Christ - Philippians 2:6
Colossians 1:15-17. John, as the last author of the New Testament,
therefore contains the fullest and clearest statement of what is now
Christian orthodoxy (John 1:1-3).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 18:53, Timreason wrote:

> If we can't understand or visualise the Creation, how could we expect to
> understand the Creator!

The exact illustration I use in my sermon on the Trinity. One slide says,

"Creation is complicated. Why do we expect the Creator to be simple?"

That is the mistake the Muslims make; they cannot conceive of God except
as a sort of bigger human.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 22:47, Muhammad wrote:

> The reason you have questions is that you're likely left with numerous
> resultant possibilities. All can't be held simultaneously as they
> rationally and logically contradict

Yes, as Tim pointed out, reality is rationally and logically
contradictory - but it is still real.

In the same way, some of the things we believe about God are
contradictory, but that does not make them any less real.

[Madhu]

* Timreason <un1l3c$2q08u$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:36:29 +0000:

[Posted by (the much missed) "Maverick" on alt.christnet.christianlife
> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:34:03 -0800
> Message-ID: <1g6kch1h46spgulq06170bms3ripjeaq7b @4ax.com>
]

Once I was a Catholic. I was baptized, made my first Communion, my
Confirmation, and I wore a Cross with Jesus on it around my neck.

I prayed at night, said my Rosary, went to Confession, and said all the
Hail Marys and Our Fathers to which I was sentenced by the priest.

Hopelessly enamored of sin myself, yet appalled by the sins of others, I
longed for Judgment Day and a trial before a jury of my peers--this was
my only chance to escape the flames which I could feel already licking
at my feet.

I was in a California Youth Authority institution at the time, having
trans- gressed the laws of man--God did not indict me that time; if He
did, it was a secret indictment, for I was never informed of any charges
brought against me.

The reason I became a Catholic was that the rule of the institution held
that every Sunday each inmate had to attend the church of his choice.

I chose the Catholic Church because all the Negroes and Mexicans went
there. The whites went to the Protestant chapel.

Had I been a fool enough to go to the Protestant chapel, one black face
in a sea of white, and with guerrilla warfare going on between us, I
might have ended up a Christian martyr--St. Eldridge the Stupe.

It all ended one day when, at a catechism class, the priest asked if
anyone present understood the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

I had been studying my lessons diligently and knew by heart what I'd
been taught.

Up shot my hand, my heart throbbing with piety (pride) for this chance
to demonstrate my knowledge of the Word.

To my great shock and embarrassment, the Father announced, and it
sounded like a thunderclap, that I was lying, that no one, not even the
Pope, understood the Godhead, and why else did I think they called it
the mystery of the Holy Trinity?

I saw in a flash, stung to the quick by the jeers of my fellow
catechumens, that I had been used, that the Father had been lying in
wait for the chance to drop that thunderbolt, in order to drive home the
point that the Holy Trinity was not to be taken lightly.

I had intended to explain the Trinity with an analogy to 3-in-1 oil, so
it was probably just as well.

--Eldridge Cleaver (1935-1998)

[Timreason]

On 03/01/2024 09:58, Madhu wrote:
> * Timreason <un1l3c$2q08u$2 @dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:36:29 +0000:
>> On 02/01/2024 17:30, John wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2024 16:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>>> Er - you do understand the doctrine of the Trinity, don't you?
>>> Does anyone?
>> That was my reaction, too.
>
> [Posted by (the much missed) "Maverick" on alt.christnet.christianlife
>> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:34:03 -0800
>> Message-ID: <1g6kch1h46spgulq06170bms3ripjeaq7b @4ax.com>

[snipped for brevity]

>
> I had intended to explain the Trinity with an analogy to 3-in-1 oil, so
> it was probably just as well.
>
> --Eldridge Cleaver (1935-1998)
>

Ha ha! Thanks for that. Just about ALL analogies on this lead to
heresies of one description or another.

As for me, I came up with the idea of taking a piece of dowel rod,
cutting off a length the same as the diameter, and then cutting slopes
on each side, resulting in a shape which, placed behind a shadow-screen,
would appear as a triangle, circle or square depending on how it was
positioned between the light source and the screen. One shape, appearing
as three identities. (I'm fairly sure I actually made this thing, but
where it is now I've no idea).

The local vicar told me which heresy it lead to, can't remember which
one she said. Probably 'Modalism'. That can be shown to be a heresy from
scripture. [I've posted a link below, but it's one of those links about
four miles long, so whether it will work, I'm not sure.]

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html#:~:text=The%20heresy%20of%20modalism%20has%20been%20around%20since,the%20Son%2C%20and%20one%20for%20the%20Holy%20Spirit.

Tim.

[Muhammad]

I'm sorry Tim.

I've not done much science related reading, not for a long time. I don't
mind watching the odd documentary or program. But, your comment, as I
had a 30mins to spare, thought I'd look at double slit exp'...

Before I get into my understanding of the experiment.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Something that is God's creation,
something that is observable to something that is not to us. And it is
in desperation to explain something that can't be.

Now, in order to make the Trinity make sense, we need to study the most
difficult science subject (I know, I did it at college). Is that how God
works. Where does that put the layman, that doesn't have the capacity to
understand such difficult concepts.

It's a challenge for some in this group to accept the blatantly obvious.

The explanation of the Trinity, knowing how it was a development of
Christian minds, is enough to write it off. Instead, Christianity has
doubled down on the conjecture and ran with it.

No Prophet or Messenger of God, refers to God in the notion of the
Trinity. It wasn't taught by Jesus, it wasn't even taught by Paul. The
verses in the Bible that would be interpolated to hint to a Triune
Godhead were found to be a forgery, not present in the earliest sources.

..when the photon splits, it is still a photon. It does not change its
state of being as far as we can observe. Albeit, some research states in
theory every photon should be seen as two distinct halves, whether they
drastically change composition independently, cease to function a
complete, in that change of state, I believe isn't something we can
observe; but likely are equal. Jesus and the Father, and the Holy Spirit
are not equal. The single photon splits into two, the Trinity is 'three
persons'. Also, it would appear photons possibly have a method of
communication (maybe even lesser form of consciousness). Yet Jesus did
not know the Tree was not in season to bear fruit (while on earth), nor
did he know the time of the hour... The experiment is only possible with
atoms, molecules, electrons and photons, and not on larger items even as
small as a grain of sand. The Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit remain
distinct and separate, they're never one like the photon i.e. one state
in union. That is why Jesus is sitting on the 'right-hand side of the
Father', they're both not 'sitting' in the same place. Jesus himself
states to rely on the Father, a Father that he prays to, worships and
asks for help. The Holy Spirit surely existed in the time of Jesus on
earth, yet we don't find Jesus worshipping, seeking or talking to.

If we start getting to John 1, 'in the beginning was the word'... A word
by its characteristic is a result of something that existed prior to it,
and thus, can't be equal to. The cause of a word by its nature exists
prior to the word. Thus, the word is a creation. The creation is not
equal to the creator; and they're not the same...

I'm sorry.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/01/2024 10:42, Timreason wrote:

> As for me, I came up with the idea of taking a piece of dowel rod,
> cutting off a length the same as the diameter, and then cutting slopes
> on each side, resulting in a shape which, placed behind a shadow-screen,
> would appear as a triangle, circle or square depending on how it was
> positioned between the light source and the screen. One shape, appearing
> as three identities.

Clever, but very far from what we believe about the Godhead.

[Timreason]

On 03/01/2024 20:59, Muhammad wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 08:26, Timreason wrote:
>> On 02/01/2024 22:47, Muhammad wrote:
>>> All can't be held simultaneously as they rationally and logically
>>> contradict,
>>
>> Read anything about quantum physics lately? The world seems to be
>> built on such things!
>>
>
> I'm sorry Tim.

You don't need to be. From what follows, it is clear to me that you took
what I said as an attempt at drawing an analogy. It wasn't. I was simply
pointing out that our human reason and logic don't work when we look too
closely at the Creation - and that demonstrates the limitations of our
ability to comprehend. If the Creation is beyond our comprehension, then
the Creator is also, and even more so.

But to clarify, I was not attempting to draw any similarity between
photons and the nature of God.

> You're comparing apples and oranges.

I hope I've now explained that. Yes, they are apples and oranges, but
then, I wasn't trying to compare them.

Much of what follows seems to assume I was trying to draw an analogy. I
wasn't.

But you don't need to say sorry!

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/01/2024 20:59, Muhammad wrote:

> You're comparing apples and oranges.

Actually he isn't. He is merely making the point that just because
something seems contradictory, is no evidence that that thing is false.

Logic and reason would argue against quantum physics, just as logic and
reason argue against the notion of the Trinity. Unfortunately, despite
logic and reason, quantum physics appears to be true - and in the same
way, even though our puny human logic and reason boggle at the notion of
Trinity, it can still be true.

[John]

On 03/01/2024 09:36, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 17:30, John wrote:
>
>> So there was only one God in Heaven, YHWH, who would later become
>> Jesus on earth.  What's your view on John 17:5?
>
> There is only One God (in heaven or on earth) but we believe in One God
> in Three Persons.

I can understand the concept where there are 3 entities, which make up a
Godhead, but to me (and I'm not saying I'm right) YHWH is the Father,
who is described as God in the OT.

In the NT, God is still the Father, who the Jews and early Christians
recognise as God. Jesus is God's Son, with God from the beginning, and
coming to Earth as a human.

Mark 10:18 is interesting, and sprang to mind earlier tonight. What are
your thoughts on what Jesus said here?

Rest snipped but I have read your comments.

[John]

On 02/01/2024 22:47, Muhammad wrote:

> John you heretic ;)

I know!

> In Islam the figures Christianity refers to as: Father, is God, Jesus,
> is a Prophet of God, The Holy Ghost, is Angel Gabriel.

That's a new one on me, is there any particular reason why Gabriel is
the Holy Ghost?

Thanks for your other comments as well.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/01/2024 22:58, John wrote:

> I can understand the concept where there are 3 entities, which make up a
> Godhead, but to me (and I'm not saying I'm right) YHWH is the Father,
> who is described as God in the OT.

YHWH is certainly described as God in the Old Testament, but that would
be true even if YHWH was another name for Jesus!

> Mark 10:18 is interesting, and sprang to mind earlier tonight.  What are
> your thoughts on what Jesus said here?

Jesus was seeking to find whether by kneeling to him, the young man
acknowledged that He was God.

Interestingly, the commands that Jesus quoted to the young man all come
from the second table of the Law. When the young man asserted that he
had kept all of them, Jesus then turned to the first table and showed
that in fact he had another god before God - his wealth.

[Muhammad]

On 04/01/2024 20:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 20:59, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> You're comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Actually he isn't.

The experiment is, therefore, the analogy breaks on scrutiny.

> He is merely making the point that just because
> something seems contradictory, is no evidence that that thing is false.
>
> Logic and reason would argue against quantum physics, just as logic and
> reason argue against the notion of the Trinity. Unfortunately, despite
> logic and reason, quantum physics appears to be true - and in the same
> way, even though our puny human logic and reason boggle at the notion of
> Trinity, it can still be true.
>

Most of what you mention is answered in the parts of post snipped.

Something being difficult or not conforming to expectation isn't an
evidence for the Trinity. There's a myriad of things on earth, that we
can't quite figure out.

[Muhammad]

In Islam, Angel Gabriel isn't called "The Holy Ghost".

I was highlighting what the entities of the Trinity in Christianity are
seen as in Islam.

In Islam, Gabriel is the greatest of all angels. He's the one God sends
to his prophets and messengers, to give his message.

[Timreason]

On 05/01/2024 15:36, Muhammad wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 20:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 20:59, Muhammad wrote:
>>
>>> You're comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>> Actually he isn't.
>
> The experiment is, therefore, the analogy breaks on scrutiny.
>

At which point I screamed and tore my hair out...

Why did I even bother to compose a nice reply explaining to him that it
was NOT intended as an analogy.

Duh!

Tim.

[John]

Thanks for the explanation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/01/2024 15:36, Muhammad wrote:

> Something being difficult or not conforming to expectation isn't an
> evidence for the Trinity. There's a myriad of things on earth, that we
> can't quite figure out.

Exactly - so why do you object to the Trinity on the basis that you
can't quite figure it out?

The truth or falsity of a teaching does not depend on your ability to
comprehend it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/01/2024 18:33, Timreason wrote:

> Why did I even bother to compose a nice reply explaining to him that it
> was NOT intended as an analogy.

He is so desperate to maintain his unbelief that he is totally unable to
make any effort to understand something that might undermine his unbelief.

[Muhammad]

On 05/01/2024 18:33, Timreason wrote:

Which is why my posts also included:

[Muhammad]

On 05/01/2024 20:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 15:36, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> Something being difficult or not conforming to expectation isn't an
>> evidence for the Trinity. There's a myriad of things on earth, that we
>> can't quite figure out.
>
> Exactly - so why do you object to the Trinity on the basis that you
> can't quite figure it out?
>

The objection is NOT as simply as that. And you know it isn't.

Arguments against the Trinity:

Not revealed in the Bible - OT or NT (was forged into the text)
Not taught by any prophet of God, including Jesus
Not taught by the disciples
Not even taught by the major designers of the faith, Paul.
Brought through minds of men many years after the leaving of key figures
Holy Ghost was seen as an anomaly, to somehow had to be added into the
Godhead
The first Christians did not believe the notion...

(happy snipping)


Added to that long list is, that it does not make sense in any way. The
Bible itself says, God is not the author of confusion. But, your entire
foundation is built upon confusion and irrationalities.

Everything about it screams, man-made, not revealed.

You can claim the meetings that lead to the formation of the Trinity
were inspired, that is your choice. You're left with no other option.

Coming back to the Double Split Experiment 'explanation', which is not
an analogy.

That confusion is only based on our ability to observe. However, if we
developed the tools to do so, that confusion would be removed. It is not
necessarily a rational contradiction. As, when we don't observe, the
behaviour different to when we observe.

The Trinity is not a matter of being observes or not, it contradicts
what are supposed to be the keys statues of faith, the Bible itself.

I've mentioned it in the past, Christianity has an ideology set outside,
which it looks to find in the Bible. The ideology imposes itself onto
the text, whereas the text should be the one designing the ideology.

> The truth or falsity of a teaching does not depend on your ability to
> comprehend it.
>

God is not the author of confusion.

[Timreason]

On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:

>
> God is not the author of confusion.
>

Try telling that to Einstein.

I'll leave you to explain quantum theory, and once you've done that, I
will give you more credence over your explanations about God.

Tim.

[Timreason]

But of course, the very fact that there are "a myriad of things on
earth, that we can't quite figure out" means that likewise, we cannot
rule OUT the Trinity purely on the basis that we cannot comprehend it.

So just as our inability to comprehend it isn't evidence FOR it, neither
is it evidence AGAINST it.

Einstein didn't like quantum theory because it defies our logic and
reason - yet (in the case of quantum physics) evidence has shown that
quantum theory works when applied in practice.

So, if you want to claim the Trinity must be wrong just because it
doesn't fit human logic and reason, you are in the same position as
Einstein. You can't disprove something on that basis alone.

What it DOES show, is that human logic and reason has its limitations.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:

> Arguments against the Trinity:
> Not revealed in the Bible - OT or NT (was forged into the text)
> Not taught by any prophet of God, including Jesus
> Not taught by the disciples
> Not even taught by the major designers of the faith, Paul.
> Brought through minds of men many years after the leaving of key figures
> Holy Ghost was seen as an anomaly, to somehow had to be added into the
> Godhead
> The first Christians did not believe the notion...

Your points have been adequately answered in previous years. Jesus
warned us against casting pearls ... until you show a willingness to
learn I shall leave it there.

[Muhammad]

This is a context, in which I'm not going to argue against the Bible. By
all means, you don't have to accept it.

[Muhammad]

Erm...No they haven't.

If you mean by snipping, making stuff-up to portray as my opinion and
then you going onto answer questions which you developed on my behalf;
that may be it. But, certainly my questions were never answered adequately.

I've said it before, in faith you can accept, but the history of your
faith and scripture reject the notion. That leaves faith, which doesn't
always require an adequate answer. So be it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/01/2024 13:25, Muhammad wrote:

> But, certainly my questions were never answered adequately.

Your questions were answered perfectly adequately, but a) your poor
English led you to misunderstand some of the things that were written,
and b) your determination not to accept the truth made you remarkably
(and regrettably) closed-minded. So even if you did understand the reply
given you, you refused to accept it and the easiest way of evading truth
was to claim that for some reason or other it didn't answer your question.

Your recent response to Tim's use of quantum mechanics to make a point
illustrates both a) and b) above.

[John]

On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:

Given that Ken's disengenious response to this I'm going to attempt to
answer your questions, remember I'm an ex-Christian but I have a pretty
good knowledge of the New Testament so here goes.

> Arguments against the Trinity:
>
> Not revealed in the Bible - OT or NT (was forged into the text)

Ephesians 4:4-6 has a reference to the 3 persons, but as individual, not
as one entity. The same goes for Matthew 28:19-20 where Jesus urges his
disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 2
Corinthians 13:14 Paul signs off mentioning all 3 and finally 1 Peter 1:2

Unless you were a trinitarian I would argue these verses don't assume a
trinity, and suggests to me they are seperate entities.

However I would state that they are of equal importance

> Not taught by any prophet of God, including Jesus

Trinitarians would argue that Matthew 28:19-20 points that way.

> Not taught by the disciples

Trinitarians would argue that Peter's epistle points that way.

> Not even taught by the major designers of the faith, Paul.

2 Corinthians 13:14?

> Brought through minds of men many years after the leaving of key figures
> Holy Ghost was seen as an anomaly, to somehow had to be added into the
> Godhead

As I said I think the Holy Spirit as equally important. I personally
believe that they are part of the Godhead but are seperate entities.
Whilst I believe in one sense they are (as) one I don't think there is
one manifestiug as 3 persona.

Just as an aside, I think Romans 8:9 is interesting, where it mentions
the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as being the same, so as I
said in an earlier post, it may well be that the Holy Spirit is both a
part of God and Christ, although the bible also speaks of Him as
seperate. (Acts 15 a good example)

Read John 14:15-27 which to me gives a clear example of the role of the
Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians.

> The first Christians did not believe the notion...

This is probably true, I think it's an idea developed as Christianity
grew. John's gospel (written in c95, was the first to say Jesus was
specifically God*, so it may well have become an established belief by
then. However in all the other authors (apart from perhaps Hebrews)
believed or suggested Jesus was God Almighty.

The unitarian view (at least as explained by Jeff) is that Theos can
also refer to a representative of God.

NB: I'm neither Trinitarian or Unitarian, probably half way between the two.

[Muhammad]

On 07/01/2024 19:55, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 13:25, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> But, certainly my questions were never answered adequately.
>
> Your questions were answered perfectly adequately, but a) your poor
> English led you to misunderstand some of the things that were written,
> and

How conveniently racist of you.

My English is more than good enough. Unlike yourself, I'm not a servant
to the English language.

Sure, I didn't proofread my posts, as I have a life too, but they did
portray my point.

> b) your determination not to accept the truth made you remarkably
> (and regrettably) closed-minded.

Truth is a foreigner to you, Ken. I don't think it's a concept you
understand. I exposed you many a time for lying and misrepresenting.

> So even if you did understand the reply
> given you, you refused to accept it and the easiest way of evading truth
> was to claim that for some reason or other it didn't answer your question.
> > Your recent response to Tim's use of quantum mechanics to make a point
> illustrates both a) and b) above.
>

No it isn't.

You're really sweeping from the bottom of the barrel.

Why mention something like Quantum Mechanics, when you can't defend its
position from the first hurdle.

Like you give it a try...you'll fail as always. Then, you can like now,
at a later date, claim the coloured foreigner didn't understand English,
what can I do.

--------

If you did answer the questions adequately, copy and paste your
responses to the questions raised.

You're now reminding of the Australian Pastor, I'd discussed the Trinity
online with over a decade ago. He too claimed to have answered
questions, which he claimed the Holy Spirit answered for him. Obviously
he was lying (a trait perhaps), he didn't answer anything. Perhaps you
too could gain help from the Holy Spirit.

[Timreason]

On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:

>
> Why mention something like Quantum Mechanics, when you can't defend its
> position from the first hurdle.
>

Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit.

You said the Trinity cannot be understood using human logic and reason,
right?

You effectively claimed that because it cannot be understood with human
logic and reason, that proves it can't be true, right?

I pointed out that quantum physics also can't be understood using human
logic and reason, but despite that, it works.

Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot be
understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.

Tim.

[Muhammad]

On 07/01/2024 23:03, John wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:
>
>
> Given that Ken's disengenious response to this I'm going to attempt to
> answer your questions, remember I'm an ex-Christian but I have a pretty
> good knowledge of the New Testament so here goes.
>

[Thanks]

I've read the Bible...

The points you've made, I have been through them in the past. For all of
them, more clearer verses contradict the claim.

Disclaimer:
If Paul is being used as the primary source for form the Trinity, then
it should be done with straight away. Most if not all Bible scholarship
know, Paul didn't profess the Trinity, a dual Godhead or sort perhaps at
most, but what we have now, not a chance.

Personally, I don't take Paul's testimony seriously. I believe, he
didn't actually follow Jesus. He was a revisionist, that changed the
original faith.

>> Arguments against the Trinity:
>>
>> Not revealed in the Bible - OT or NT (was forged into the text)
> >
> Ephesians 4:4-6 has a reference to the 3 persons, but as individual, not
> as one entity.

Yes

> The same goes for Matthew 28:19-20 where Jesus urges his
> disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Matt' 28:19-20, is considered to be added at a later date. The quote, as
is presented, is not found in the earliest copies.

Scholarship, unanimously agrees, Matt and Luke use Mark, that formula,
nor any specific reference to it is made in the earliest recorded baptisms.

Moreover, what Trinitarians conveniently leave out is (Matt 28)v21 which
states: "and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded
you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Surely, if Jesus is with the disciples, they've no need for Paul. Unless
Jesus lied.

Then we have the issue, what did Jesus command them. Not what Paul or
the early Church fathers would have them accept.

John 20:17 “…'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and
your God”.

Means Jesus is returning to his and our God. Does God have a God.

In John, other verses show Jesus praying, that his disciples could be
one with God, as he is, so they all can be one. If Jesus' prayer is to
be accepted, and the disciples were going to be ONE with Jesus and God,
then why just limit it to a Trinity. They're all ONE, surely Jesus'
prayer was accepted, was it not.

John 17 "That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, *THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US*: that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
that they may be one, even as we are one:

> 2
> Corinthians 13:14 Paul signs off mentioning all 3 and finally 1 Peter 1:2
>
> Unless you were a trinitarian I would argue these verses don't assume a
> trinity, and suggests to me they are seperate entities.
>
> However I would state that they are of equal importance
>

I don't see them being equal. Paul many a time makes distinctions, to
not see that verse with a Trinitarian lens. Albeit, in complete
isolation, perhaps.

For example, in Romans 1 "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called
to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and
from the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Corinth' 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom
all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." Even
here, Paul makes a distinction, but in context, you can get to a Godhead
of the Father and Jesus.

The Holy Spirit, I believe Paul, views as somewhat a guiding Angel from
God, not as a God.

>> Not taught by any prophet of God, including Jesus
>
> Trinitarians would argue that Matthew 28:19-20 points that way.
>

Yes. Believed to be added later.

>> Not taught by the disciples
>
> Trinitarians would argue that Peter's epistle points that way.
>

"... And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people...The God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
*SERVANT* Jesus." (Acts 3)

>> Not even taught by the major designers of the faith, Paul.
>
> 2 Corinthians 13:14?
>

Above.

>> Brought through minds of men many years after the leaving of key figures
>> Holy Ghost was seen as an anomaly, to somehow had to be added into the
>> Godhead
>
> As I said I think the Holy Spirit as equally important.  I personally
> believe that they are part of the Godhead but are seperate entities.
> Whilst I believe in one sense they are (as) one I don't think there is
> one manifestiug as 3 persona.
>
> Just as an aside, I think Romans 8:9 is interesting, where it mentions
> the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as being the same, so as I
> said in an earlier post, it may well be that the Holy Spirit is both a
> part of God and Christ, although the bible also speaks of Him as
> seperate.  (Acts 15 a good example)
>
> Read John 14:15-27 which to me gives a clear example of the role of the
> Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians.
>
>
>> The first Christians did not believe the notion...
>
> This is probably true, I think it's an idea developed as Christianity
> grew.  John's gospel (written in c95, was the first to say Jesus was
> specifically God*, so it may well have become an established belief by
> then.  However in all the other authors (apart from perhaps Hebrews)
> believed or suggested Jesus was God Almighty.
>
> The unitarian view (at least as explained by Jeff) is that Theos can
> also refer to a representative of God.
>

Yes.

In John 10:34 Jesus is supposed to have used the word "Theo" when saying
to his audience, "is it not written in your law, that you are Gods".

Were they Gods? NO. Did Jesus call them GODS? NO.

The Hebrew equivalent, would be Elohim, which in addition to meaning
GOD, it can also mean Judges...

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/2316.html

> NB: I'm neither Trinitarian or Unitarian, probably half way between the
> two.
>

I know Trinitarians claim they have HINTS here and there, but the
reality is, they continually reject the clearer more explicit verses
which reject any such motion, in favour of unclear verses.

Then, they'll tell you, you can't work out Quantum Mechanics,
[understand English], therefore...our Trinity could be correct.

Thanks for the response.

[GB]

On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:

> My English is more than good enough.

I simply assumed that English is your first language. Is that really not
the case?!


I'm very much against criticising Ken, for a couple of reasons:

He seems to manage a prodigious workload. I can only envy his ability.

He has an awful lot on his plate at the moment.

[Muhammad]

On 08/01/2024 18:42, Timreason wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:
>
>>
>> Why mention something like Quantum Mechanics, when you can't defend
>> its position from the first hurdle.
>>
>
> Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit.
>
> You said the Trinity cannot be understood using human logic and reason,
> right?
>

A straw man of my argument, but go ahead...

> You effectively claimed that because it cannot be understood with human
> logic and reason, that proves it can't be true, right?
> > I pointed out that quantum physics also can't be understood using human
> logic and reason, but despite that, it works.
>

I'll DUMB it down, so you get it.

The double slit experiment, is expected to do something. That expectant
result is achieved when no monitoring takes place. Therefore, IT WORKS,
as expected.

The problem is we can't seem to capture how that works. Our existing
monitoring technique displays the anomaly. Thus, it is not true, the
experiment defies human logic, it defies our recording capabilities —
note the nuance difference.

I would go with the idea, that there's a duality of transfer, waves and
particles...

> Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot be
> understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.
>

See above.

Quantum Mechanics is a complex subject. For which, over time and
development, answers can be found.

The Trinity is a manufactured concept, which you claim to be complex,
but it isn't. No new data is going to present itself, unless you produce
a new/another Bible. The Bible is meant to be the source, which you
argue against time and time again, in favour of the 4th century ratified
notion.

------

NOTE:
I wasn't just referring to the Trinity in my original post, it was
numerous Christian beliefs and ideas, for which I said 'The Trinity,
having its own problems, is [their] 'saving grace'. However, it does not
solve everything, it produces it own difficulties.

And, everything combined produces as range of possibilities that can't
be held simultaneously. Meaning they all cant be true, thus, you can't
complete the circle, except by way of faith.

---

My argument wasn't simply that the Trinity doesn't make sense, therefore
it must be wrong. You needed to dumb down my argument for your own sake,
so you could try to argue against it. That is your choice.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:

> My English is more than good enough. Unlike yourself, I'm not a servant
> to the English language.

That is noticeable.

> Like you give it a try...you'll fail as always. Then, you can like now,
> at a later date, claim the coloured foreigner didn't understand English,
> what can I do.

Try learning English.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 18:42, Timreason wrote:

> Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot be
> understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.

Quite so.

Unfortunately, although you and I, with our background of Greek logic,
can understand a syllogism, Muslims and easterners in general do not
have that background and formal logic just passes them by.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 19:30, GB wrote:

> He has an awful lot on his plate at the moment.

Your kindness is appreciated.

[Muhammad]

On 08/01/2024 19:30, GB wrote:

GB, my Jewish bro'

I've been in this forum for many years. Let's say I've rattled a few
feathers in challenging Christian beliefs.

A number of years ago, multifaith dialogue was a hobby of mine, and this
forum, along with another where I discussed (let's say) Judaism light
with someone presenting themselves as a Rabbi…

[In the past I considered changing faith, Judaism was last in the queue.
Thus, I read the Bible (in order) and couldn't come to terms with
Christianity, which led to a better study of Islam. That is what
prompted me into these forums]

As I tried to answer posts from several users, many a time being the new
member (with questions), I didn't proofread my messages (I was working,
at Uni…). My text, I admit, contained grammatical and spelling errors,
but, the message presented within was easy enough to understand.

Here, as I've been outed as coloured, fluent in more than one language,
I would argue English being my primary language — it comes to be that,
Ken, likes to use throw dirt, and hopes something sticks. Instead of
honest discussion.

The idea, that I can't, write or read to Ken's standard of English,
therefore can't understand. The argument is, in disagreement, it must
be, my lack of understanding of the English language stopping me from
coming to terms with concepts Ken claims to have explained adequately.

I left the forum (and all others), due to irregularities in moderation,
racism…I only came back as I wanted to write something on the Palestine,
Israel issue, and blind western support…

I don't think I'll stay much longer…

[Muhammad]

Copy and paste your adequate responses to me, on the points I raised, in
context and show my responses.

If you adequately answered my points, without contradicting your own
Bible.

On offer, my recorded conversion in to your Christian sect, at your Church.

---

When you resort to your racist minded bigoted replies, it shows you've
lost the argument.

[Muhammad]

Jesus wasn't born in Athens.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <unhl3o$1lgm8$4 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 8 Jan 2024 20:14:50 +0000:

Not so, in this case imo. Remember First Order Logic when applied to
arguments on the trinity (or quantum) has been thrown out. It shouldn't
be used it to establish the second point.

[Madhu]

* Muhammad <unhmkf$1ls2g$1 @dont-email.me> : Wrote on Mon, 8 Jan 2024
20:40:47 +0000:

> I left the forum (and all others), due to irregularities in

> moderation, racism...I only came back as I wanted to write something on
> the Palestine, Israel issue, and blind western support...

I think there is an informed "western support" on the Israeli issue
here, it is not "blind" though it ends up seeming blind that way for us
on the outside.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 20:40, Muhammad wrote:

> The idea, that I can't, write or read to Ken's standard of English,
> therefore can't understand.

You have improved over the years, but frequently you wrote just plain
gibberish. And you misunderstood what was said to you - and not just by
me but by others as well.

What was particularly annoying was that when things were explained to
you, you just blithely carried on with your mistakes. The most easily
detected was your misuse of "their", "there" and "they're", so after a
while we didn't bother to correct you, just waxed sarcastic and ignored you.

It is the same with the Trinity; your misunderstandings have been
explained but you just carry on repeating the same old thing -
misunderstandings, failures in logic, or just plain mendacity, and your
recent response to another poster is typical.

You claimed that St Paul doesn't teach the Trinity. You were shown that
he does, so promptly claim that Paul didn't write the passage in
question, that you reject him anyway, and he started a new religion and
so you can disregard him.

But, of course, you get all hot under the collar when questions are
raised about the Qur'an and its authenticity and authorship.

[Timreason]

On 08/01/2024 20:00, Muhammad wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 18:42, Timreason wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why mention something like Quantum Mechanics, when you can't defend
>>> its position from the first hurdle.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit.
>>
>> You said the Trinity cannot be understood using human logic and
>> reason, right?
>>
>
> A straw man of my argument, but go ahead...
>

Well, actually that's a good start. That was MY understanding of what
you were claiming. If you were NOT claiming that (just as I was NOT
using an analogy) fine, we're quits, we've just misunderstood each other.

[Reading further on, I've concluded that actually you DID claim that,
but that was only a PART of what you were claiming against Christianity.]

>
>> You effectively claimed that because it cannot be understood with
>> human logic and reason, that proves it can't be true, right?
>> > I pointed out that quantum physics also can't be understood using human
>> logic and reason, but despite that, it works.
>>
>
> I'll DUMB it down, so you get it.

LOL!!

>
> The double slit experiment, is expected to do something. That expectant
> result is achieved when no monitoring takes place. Therefore, IT WORKS,
> as expected.
>
> The problem is we can't seem to capture how that works. Our existing
> monitoring technique displays the anomaly. Thus, it is not true, the
> experiment defies human logic, it defies our recording capabilities —
> note the nuance difference.
>
> I would go with the idea, that there's a duality of transfer, waves and
> particles...

I think that suggests your understanding of it is even less than mine,
but even so, that's not saying much as NO-ONE understands it. It
completely denies our intuitive thinking.

>
>
>> Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot be
>> understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.
>>
>
> See above.

Not enough. If that was NOT your premise, you need to explain (as you're
dumbing it down) what your premise actually IS, instead of just bleating
that it wasn't what I'd taken it to be.

>
> Quantum Mechanics is a complex subject. For which, over time and
> development, answers can be found.
>

It's a theory, a manufactured concept. It's complex, but you seem to
think it isn't.

> The Trinity is a manufactured concept, which you claim to be complex,
> but it isn't.

Says you. I say it IS complex. Anyhow, complexity, or lack of, does not
relate to whether or not it is correct.

> No new data is going to present itself, unless you produce
> a new/another Bible. The Bible is meant to be the source, which you
> argue against time and time again, in favour of the 4th century ratified
> notion.

You and I both know that scriptures can be quoted that might be
interpreted to either argue for, or against, the Trinity. But better
minds than ours examined the matter hundreds of years ago and they were
thus closer in time to the actual events in the Bible than we are. Hence
the Creeds.

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible contains the writings of John, and he
describes the nature of Christ as being divine. Christ also says He
would send the Spirit, described as being 'One and the same' as Himself.

So, unless you think I can tear the writings of John out of my Bible,
AFAIC the Trinity stands.

>
> ------
>
> NOTE:
> I wasn't just referring to the Trinity in my original post, it was
> numerous Christian beliefs and ideas, for which I said 'The Trinity,
> having its own problems, is [their] 'saving grace'. However, it does not
> solve everything, it produces it own difficulties.
>
> And, everything combined produces as range of possibilities that can't
> be held simultaneously. Meaning they all cant be true, thus, you can't
> complete the circle, except by way of faith.
>

I, of course, believe we needed no further prophet after Christ, since
His ministry and sacrifice are fully sufficient in themselves.

I believe He died on the Cross and rose again during the third day.

As for you, you ARE saying that you don't accept the Trinity. Of course
you don't. So I was correct in that. Indeed, you have expanded it by
saying there's much more than that about Christianity which you don't
accept. But that does of course not change my assertion that you don't
accept the Trinity, mainly on the basis that it cannot be fully understood.

Tim.

[Timreason]

Which is my point. The lack of ability to resolve either of these
subjects using logic does nothing to prove OR disprove the veracity of
either.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 08/01/2024 20:47, Muhammad wrote:

> When you resort to your racist minded bigoted replies, it shows you've
> lost the argument.
>

You keep trying to play the 'racist' card, and although I've never been
a great defender of Kendall, in this instance I think it is unjustified.

Ken picks on all of us, with regard to spelling and grammar, including
me. I was educated in an English grammar school, and am White, born of
White English parents. I can claim to be more 'English' than Kendall!
But he's been merciless against me for years, which is why we all take
great delight in pointing it out whenever he trips up on matters of
grammar and spelling.

He hasn't treated you any different because of your skin colour or
ethnicity, and it is disingenuous of you to claim he has. I don't think
his behaviour is great, but he does treat us ALL with equal contempt!

Tim.

[Madhu]

* Timreason <univn4$1ufjf$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 9 Jan 2024 08:21:56 +0000:

> On 09/01/2024 02:42, Madhu wrote:
>> * "Kendall K. Down" <unhl3o$1lgm8$4 @dont-email.me> :
>> Wrote on Mon, 8 Jan 2024 20:14:50 +0000:
>>> On 08/01/2024 18:42, Timreason wrote:
>>>> Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot
>>>> be understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.
>>>
>>> Quite so. Unfortunately, although you and I, with our background of
>>> Greek logic, can understand a syllogism, Muslims and easterners in
>>> general do not have that background and formal logic just passes them
>>> by.
>> Not so, in this case imo. Remember First Order Logic when applied
>> to
>> arguments on the trinity (or quantum) has been thrown out. It shouldn't
>> be used it to establish the second point.
> Which is my point.

"Touche" (?)

> The lack of ability to resolve either of these
> subjects using logic does nothing to prove OR disprove the veracity of
> either.

Of course, your point stands, but not on the merit of Greek Logic,
which Ken was trying to drag back in and set up on a pedestal.

[John]

On 09/01/2024 08:16, Timreason wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, the Bible contains the writings of John, and he
> describes the nature of Christ as being divine.

I agree with that, although having read the whole of chapter 14 just now
I can't see how the trinity fits into it.

> Christ also says He
> would send the Spirit, described as being 'One and the same' as Himself.

Could you give me the passage this relates to please Tim?

[John]

On 08/01/2024 20:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:

I don't know about your Greek logic but I haven't got a scoobie on it,
and I doubt Tim has either, or indeed most Westerners.

[John]

LOL, it's all Greek to me as well Muhammad.

[John]

On 08/01/2024 20:40, Muhammad wrote:

> I don't think I'll stay much longer…

That would be a shame.

[John]

On 09/01/2024 03:48, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 20:40, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> The idea, that I can't, write or read to Ken's standard of English,
>> therefore can't understand.
>
> You have improved over the years, but frequently you wrote just plain
> gibberish. And you misunderstood what was said to you - and not just by
> me but by others as well.
>
> What was particularly annoying was that when things were explained to
> you, you just blithely carried on with your mistakes. The most easily
> detected was your misuse of "their", "there" and "they're", so after a
> while we didn't bother to correct you, just waxed sarcastic and ignored
> you.
>
> It is the same with the Trinity; your misunderstandings have been
> explained but you just carry on repeating the same old thing -
> misunderstandings, failures in logic, or just plain mendacity, and your
> recent response to another poster is typical.
>
> You claimed that St Paul doesn't teach the Trinity. You were shown that
> he does,

He doesn't.

> so promptly claim that Paul didn't write the passage in
> question, that you reject him anyway, and he started a new religion and
> so you can disregard him.

Muhammad didn't claim any of those things.

> But, of course, you get all hot under the collar when questions are
> raised about the Qur'an and its authenticity and authorship.

I think Muhammad gets "hot under the collar" because of the way you
treat him, being disparaging because he is a Muslim. If you were simply
raising questions over the Qur'an and it's authenticity that would be
fine, but you aren't

And if you are allowed to do that with the Qur'an, why can't he do the
same with the bible?

[John]

On 08/01/2024 19:26, Muhammad wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 23:03, John wrote:
>> On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:

>> The same goes for Matthew 28:19-20 where Jesus urges his disciples to
>> baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>
> Matt' 28:19-20, is considered to be added at a later date. The quote, as
> is presented, is not found in the earliest copies.

I don't think that's true. Could you point me to a source for that claim
please?

> Scholarship, unanimously agrees, Matt and Luke use Mark, that formula,
> nor any specific reference to it is made in the earliest recorded baptisms.

True.

> Moreover, what Trinitarians conveniently leave out is (Matt 28)v21 which
> states: "and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded
> you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
>
> Surely, if Jesus is with the disciples, they've no need for Paul. Unless
> Jesus lied.

I don't think Jesus would be physically present with them. Christians
believe Jesus is with them always.

> Then we have the issue, what did Jesus command them. Not what Paul or
> the early Church fathers would have them accept.
>
> John 20:17 “…'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and
> your God”.
>
> Means Jesus is returning to his and our God. Does God have a God.

I started this thread questioning whether Jesus was the OT God, I think
that's a good example of why I believe He isn't, although I do believe
that Jesus is divine.

> In John, other verses show Jesus praying, that his disciples could be
> one with God, as he is, so they all can be one. If Jesus' prayer is to
> be accepted, and the disciples were going to be ONE with Jesus and God,
> then why just limit it to a Trinity. They're all ONE, surely Jesus'
> prayer was accepted, was it not.
>
> John 17 "That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
> thee, *THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US*: that the world may believe that
> thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
> that they may be one, even as we are one:
>
>> 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul signs off mentioning all 3 and finally 1
>> Peter 1:2
>>
>> Unless you were a trinitarian I would argue these verses don't assume
>> a trinity, and suggests to me they are seperate entities.
>>
>> However I would state that they are of equal importance
>>
>
> I don't see them being equal. Paul many a time makes distinctions, to
> not see that verse with a Trinitarian lens. Albeit, in complete
> isolation, perhaps.

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were of equal importance. I've
just read John 14 looking for somnething Tim commented on. Jesus says
the Father is greater than I am, so they can't be equal.

> For example, in Romans 1 "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called
> to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and
> from the Lord Jesus Christ."

Most of Paul's letters start the same way.

> 1 Corinth' 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom
> all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus
> Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." Even
> here, Paul makes a distinction, but in context, you can get to a Godhead
> of the Father and Jesus.

Agreed,

> The Holy Spirit, I believe Paul, views as somewhat a guiding Angel from
> God, not as a God.

I think it goes further. The Holy Spirit plays a very important role in
a Christians life. Have a look at Romans 8 to see how important the
Holy Spirit is.

>>> Not taught by the disciples
>>
>> Trinitarians would argue that Peter's epistle points that way.
>>
>
> "... And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people...The God of
> Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
> *SERVANT* Jesus." (Acts 3)

Philippians 2:7

> Thanks for the response.

You're welcome.

[Timreason]

Oh, you've given me some work to do! I don't have the time right at this
minute, but ISTR it was the bit where Christ says He must go so that the
Spirit can come, and I also STR that a commentator said in the original
language the expression used meant 'One and the same', rather than
'another one like'.

If I get a chance I'll follow it up.

Tim.

[John]

Is it John 16:7? I can do the remaining research from there if it is.

[Timreason]

On 09/01/2024 12:12, John wrote:
>
> I didn't say they were equal, I said they were of equal importance. I've
> just read John 14 looking for somnething Tim commented on.  Jesus says
> the Father is greater than I am, so they can't be equal.

I think the usual interpretation of that is that Christ had chosen to
make Himself lesser for a time, for His ministry on Earth. Once He
returned to the Father, His 'Equal status' resumed.

Tim.

[Timreason]

That's a starter. I'm not sure if there are other references, but some
translations I think are considered poor by some commentators, since
they say things like "Another helper", but the notion that Christ had to
go before the Spirit could come suggests to me that Jesus, "God with us"
went to the Father and the Spirit instead came to be "God with us", the
presence of God among us, until the end of days.

Tim.

[Muhammad]

I wasn't being literal.

My opinion is, in part, western support is based on a Judeo-Christian
Messianic project...

[Muhammad]

On 09/01/2024 08:16, Timreason wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 20:00, Muhammad wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 18:42, Timreason wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 18:10, Muhammad wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why mention something like Quantum Mechanics, when you can't defend
>>>> its position from the first hurdle.
>>>>
>>

>> The double slit experiment, is expected to do something. That
>> expectant result is achieved when no monitoring takes place.
>> Therefore, IT WORKS, as expected.
>>
>> The problem is we can't seem to capture how that works. Our existing
>> monitoring technique displays the anomaly. Thus, it is not true, the
>> experiment defies human logic, it defies our recording capabilities —
>> note the nuance difference.
>>
>> I would go with the idea, that there's a duality of transfer, waves
>> and particles...
>
> I think that suggests your understanding of it is even less than mine,
> but even so, that's not saying much as NO-ONE understands it. It
> completely denies our intuitive thinking.
>

I'm not saying I have a complete understanding, but, my views were based
on scientists in the field.

>>
>>
>>> Hence your premise that the Trinity MUST be wrong because it cannot
>>> be understood using human logic and reason, does not stand.
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>
> Not enough. If that was NOT your premise, you need to explain (as you're
> dumbing it down) what your premise actually IS, instead of just bleating
> that it wasn't what I'd taken it to be.
>
>>
>> Quantum Mechanics is a complex subject. For which, over time and
>> development, answers can be found.
>>
>
> It's a theory, a manufactured concept. It's complex, but you seem to
> think it isn't.

"Quantum Mechanics is a complex subject..."

Elsewhere, I've stated physics is the most difficult subject area of
science.

I must've misunderstood your comment.

>
>> The Trinity is a manufactured concept, which you claim to be complex,
>> but it isn't.
>
> Says you. I say it IS complex. Anyhow, complexity, or lack of, does not
> relate to whether or not it is correct.
>
>> No new data is going to present itself, unless you produce a
>> new/another Bible. The Bible is meant to be the source, which you
>> argue against time and time again, in favour of the 4th century
>> ratified notion.
>
> You and I both know that scriptures can be quoted that might be
> interpreted to either argue for, or against, the Trinity. But better
> minds than ours examined the matter hundreds of years ago and they were
> thus closer in time to the actual events in the Bible than we are. Hence
> the Creeds.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the Bible contains the writings of John, and he
> describes the nature of Christ as being divine. Christ also says He
> would send the Spirit, described as being 'One and the same' as Himself.
>
> So, unless you think I can tear the writings of John out of my Bible,
> AFAIC the Trinity stands.
>

That's your point of view.

As I've said numerous time before, I can provide clearer verses which
deny the Trinity.

I agree, you can find verses which hint towards, that allude to etc.

My method is simple, Jesus's clear words take priority. His clear words,
are used to interpret his words which aren't clear. That acts as a
filter to the remaining commentators/writers. This is based on a greater
context, understanding how the Bible was compiled, the books, the
authors, their dating etc.

>>
>> ------
>>
>> NOTE:
>> I wasn't just referring to the Trinity in my original post, it was
>> numerous Christian beliefs and ideas, for which I said 'The Trinity,
>> having its own problems, is [their] 'saving grace'. However, it does
>> not solve everything, it produces it own difficulties.
>>
>> And, everything combined produces as range of possibilities that can't
>> be held simultaneously. Meaning they all cant be true, thus, you can't
>> complete the circle, except by way of faith.
>>
>
> I, of course, believe we needed no further prophet after Christ, since
> His ministry and sacrifice are fully sufficient in themselves.
>
> I believe He died on the Cross and rose again during the third day.
>
> As for you, you ARE saying that you don't accept the Trinity. Of course
> you don't. So I was correct in that. Indeed, you have expanded it by
> saying there's much more than that about Christianity which you don't
> accept. But that does of course not change my assertion that you don't
> accept the Trinity, mainly on the basis that it cannot be fully understood.
>

I don't accept the Trinity because:

It was never taught by any prophet of God, including Jesus.

It wasn't taught in the OT.

I would argue in context it wasn't taught in the NT - hence it wasn't
till the 4th century till it was ratified as authentic Christian doctrine.

- I understand your argument about those early-on. But, let's be honest,
4th century isn't exactly close to the source. I know it is closer than,
2024. However, today, we'll perhaps a greater depth in data, in being
able to analyse...for example, would it have been widely known in the
4th century, that Mark was used to produce Matt' and Luke...

I would argue, Paul in context doesn't teach the Trinity.

I would argue none of the earliest Gospels teach the Trinity...yes, John
the latest record, can be used to gain hints etc. Hints are not good
enough for me, especially when Jesus says his Father is his GOD and OUR
GOD. When Jesus prays for his disciples to be one with him and God, that
they all maybe one.

And

Based on the evidence that should put clear light upon the matter, it
doesn't make sense. As there's far clearer verses which reject it, from
figures that are meant to have greater authority.

Thus, my argument isn't as simple as it doesn't make sense (and it
doesn't). The evidence, its history in coming into being, the text that
is supposed to reveal it, in context doesn't...

[Muhammad]

On 09/01/2024 03:48, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 20:40, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> The idea, that I can't, write or read to Ken's standard of English,
>> therefore can't understand.
>
>

> It is the same with the Trinity; your misunderstandings have been
> explained but you just carry on repeating the same old thing -
> misunderstandings, failures in logic, or just plain mendacity, and your
> recent response to another poster is typical.
>

You understand the Trinity?

> You claimed that St Paul doesn't teach the Trinity. You were shown that
> he does, so promptly claim that Paul didn't write the passage in
> question, that you reject him anyway, and he started a new religion and
> so you can disregard him.
>
> But, of course, you get all hot under the collar when questions are
> raised about the Qur'an and its authenticity and authorship.
>

I don't.

Why you lie as often as you do, is beyond me.

Don't you recall thinking the Birmingham Quran manuscript was going to
be the 'silver bullet', and you were like: 'just you wait'. Well, I
waited, and the results came in my favour.

I put it to you, that even if we were being critical of the Quran, we
find the final compilation is given to us by the 'disciple' of Muhammad.
Which, for the sake of argument, is fine by me.

The Bible, in contrast, can't claim any such thing, even on lesser
critical analysis. It only comes to a similar conclusion, should near
enough no criticism be made of it.

[Muhammad]

Too time-consuming.

I'm far from retired, have children...

[Muhammad]

"Unfortunately, although you and I, with our background of Greek logic,
can understand a syllogism, Muslims and easterners in general do not
have that background and formal logic just passes them by."

White westerners have Greek logic, even though Ken was born in British
occupied India.

I was born in the UK, am University educated, in the UK, lived in the UK
my whole life, a brown man, Muslim, 'easterner'. Therefore, I don't have
that Greek logic.

Jesus wasn't Caesar's brother. He was an 'easterner'...

[Timreason]

I've said on here that you are British enough for me. But to Ken I'm
sure we're all "Whinging Pommie B*stards!"

Tim.

[Muhammad]

On 09/01/2024 12:12, John wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 19:26, Muhammad wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 23:03, John wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2024 10:23, Muhammad wrote:
>
>
>> Moreover, what Trinitarians conveniently leave out is (Matt 28)v21
>> which states: "and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have
>> commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the
>> age.”
>>
>> Surely, if Jesus is with the disciples, they've no need for Paul.
>> Unless Jesus lied.
>
> I don't think Jesus would be physically present with them.  Christians
> believe Jesus is with them always.
>

{snipped in places}

Neither, do I.

I understood it to meaning Jesus' teaching, that should they hold onto
them, it'll be as though Jesus will be with them.

>>
>>> 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul signs off mentioning all 3 and finally 1
>>> Peter 1:2
>>>
>>> Unless you were a trinitarian I would argue these verses don't assume
>>> a trinity, and suggests to me they are seperate entities.
>>>
>>> However I would state that they are of equal importance
>>>
>>
>> I don't see them being equal. Paul many a time makes distinctions, to
>> not see that verse with a Trinitarian lens. Albeit, in complete
>> isolation, perhaps.
>
> I didn't say they were equal, I said they were of equal importance. I've
> just read John 14 looking for somnething Tim commented on.  Jesus says
> the Father is greater than I am, so they can't be equal.
>

If I were to take Bible teaching alone...starting from the OT, in what
God says of himself. Jesus is not equal, that means he's not divine.
He's chosen and elevated in status compared to a normal 'man', but that
doesn't make him divine.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is NO God..."
(Isaiah 45:5).

That is an explicit verse, it requires no interpolation. The divine by
non-equal status of Jesus contradicts clear verses like the above...

A lot more to this, but, I can only give short summaries in reply, which
don't fully qualify my opinion.

>
>
>> The Holy Spirit, I believe Paul, views as somewhat a guiding Angel
>> from God, not as a God.
>
> I think it goes further.  The Holy Spirit plays a very important role in
> a Christians life.  Have a look at Romans 8 to see how important the
> Holy Spirit is.
>

Important, but God, IMO according to Paul.

>
>>>> Not taught by the disciples
>>>
>>> Trinitarians would argue that Peter's epistle points that way.
>>>
>>
>> "... And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people...The God of
>> Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
>> *SERVANT* Jesus." (Acts 3)
>
> Philippians 2:7
>

I thought we were saying what Peter the disciple taught (those that
actually saw Jesus in the flesh), not Paul.

---

Matt' 28:19-20, is considered to be added at a later date. The quote, as

is presented, is not found in the earliest copies...

CORRECTION. [ You're making me do homework :) ]

The earliest script we have is 4th century, which contains the wording.
Prior to that there are no complete copies, or fragments of those
verses. So, why is it considered to be a latter addition.

Matt' uses Mark, Mark does not contain the formula. Luke uses Mark, Luke
does not contain that formula. Reference can be made to an earlier text,
the Didache, which does contain those words, "And concerning baptism,
baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living
water..."

The Didache is earlier than the synoptic Gospels, perhaps a similar if
not earlier period to Paul writings. However, those reading the Didache,
didn't take those verses to mean the Trinity (i.e. all THREE as part of
a Godhead). In the same text, Jesus and David are called servants of
God: "We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant,
which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the
glory for ever...We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge
which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant."

[In Islam, we have similar wording which invokes blessing upon Muhammad,
and we accept, we do because of Muhammad, holding him 'high', but not as
divine. The notion of divinity would lead to blasphemy. Likewise, we
hold Jesus in very high, not divine, but one of the greatest creation of
God]. Eastern people, eastern logic, eastern religions :)

So, no copies of Matt 28 prior to 4th century, and the earliest copies
contain the verses. I recall there was a Hebrew version which didn't
contain the words, but I can't recall the date or name of it.

Where's the problem...

Going back to Matt' 28-19-20. Eusebius quotes the word without the
Trinitarian formula numerous times. However, starts using the
Trinitarian formula in writings after the Council of Nicea.

Paul's writing do not allude to the baptismal Trinitarian formula, he
only baptises people in the name of Jesus - Romans 6...

Similarly, in Acts, which predates Matthew, people are baptized in the
name of Jesus only.

Now, there's an argument that Matthew is prescriptive, by other text is
only description of what happened. Without getting into that gymnastics,
it is true scholarly consensus is, that the wording is *most likely* not
original.

I would argue, when Jesus is supposed to have said: "...teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" is highly relevant
to those verses, and shouldn't be omitted from the interpretation. Jesus
does not teach the Holy Spirit is God, nor does Jesus teach of himself
to be God. Thus, teaching what Jesus himself did not teach, is not
exactly following Jesus' command.

[John]

On 09/01/2024 21:32, Muhammad wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 12:12, John wrote:

>> I don't think Jesus would be physically present with them.  Christians
>> believe Jesus is with them always.
>>
>
> {snipped in places}
>
> Neither, do I.
>
> I understood it to meaning Jesus' teaching, that should they hold onto
> them, it'll be as though Jesus will be with them.

For Christians it means that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, so it
goes deeper than just following Jesus's teachings.

>> I didn't say they were equal, I said they were of equal importance.
>> I've just read John 14 looking for somnething Tim commented on.  Jesus
>> says the Father is greater than I am, so they can't be equal.
>>
>
> If I were to take Bible teaching alone...starting from the OT, in what
> God says of himself. Jesus is not equal, that means he's not divine.
> He's chosen and elevated in status compared to a normal 'man', but that
> doesn't make him divine.

Jesus says in John about the joy he had with God before the world began.
Jesus also speaks of coming down from Heaven.

> "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is NO God..."
> (Isaiah 45:5).
>
> That is an explicit verse, it requires no interpolation. The divine by
> non-equal status of Jesus contradicts clear verses like the above...

I guess that weakens my Jesus is part of the Godhead theory, although
see my comments on Philippians 2:7 below.

Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

> A lot more to this, but, I can only give short summaries in reply, which
> don't fully qualify my opinion.

Understood.

>>> The Holy Spirit, I believe Paul, views as somewhat a guiding Angel
>>> from God, not as a God.
>>
>> I think it goes further.  The Holy Spirit plays a very important role
>> in a Christians life.  Have a look at Romans 8 to see how important
>> the Holy Spirit is.
>>
>
> Important, but God, IMO according to Paul.

I think Paul views the Holy Spirit as an integral part of the life of a
Christian. It is the Holy Spirit who hellps the Christian live a Holy
life. Look at verses 26-27, that's one heck of a powerful go between.

>>> "... And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people...The God of
>>> Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
>>> *SERVANT* Jesus." (Acts 3)
>>
>> Philippians 2:7
>>
>
> I thought we were saying what Peter the disciple taught (those that
> actually saw Jesus in the flesh), not Paul.

Sorry, I was backing up what Acts 3 said about Jesus being a servant.
Philippians goes deeper and says Jesus chose to be a servant, it also
says he was in the form of God, but did not see himself as equal to God.



Your comments on Matthew 28 snipped, no real dispute with what you say.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 08:16, Timreason wrote:

> I, of course, believe we needed no further prophet after Christ, since
> His ministry and sacrifice are fully sufficient in themselves.

Sufficient for what?

Certainly Christ's ministry and sacrifice are sufficient for salvation,
but suppose a group was contemplating the purchase of a church building
and two were available, apparently equally attractive? Might not a
prophetic word be useful in such circumstances?

In other words, I can think of numerous situations where a modern
prophet might be needed to give guidance to modern Christians. I don't
believe that a modern prophet would announce new doctrine - like you, I
believe that all necessary doctrine was given by Jesus and His disciples
- but there has always been a need for divine guidance as the church
faces new problems.

Read about Alexander Peden, the Scottish prophet, to see what I mean.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 08:52, Madhu wrote:

> Of course, your point stands, but not on the merit of Greek Logic,
> which Ken was trying to drag back in and set up on a pedestal.

Formal logic is now so accepted that people forget (or ignore) the fact
of its Greek origin.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 19:31, Muhammad wrote:

> It wasn't taught in the OT.

Every time the word "elohim" (god) appears in the Old Testament it is an
affirmation of the Trinity.

I don't know whether Arabic has this feature, but Hebrew has three
numbers. English only has two - singular and plural. In Hebrew you have
singular, dual and plural.

yad - hand
yadayin - two hands
yadim - three or more hands

Thus "elohim" means three (or more). Which is why, in Genesis 1, elohim
says "Let Us make man in Our image".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 10:35, John wrote:

> I don't know about your Greek logic but I haven't got a scoobie on it,
> and I doubt Tim has either, or indeed most Westerners.

The basic unit of Greek logic is the syllogism:

If A is true and if B is true, then C is true.

Of course there are multiple variants assessing the situations where you
have "or" instead of "and" or where "not" is introduced for one of the
clauses. It's all good stuff.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 10:53, John wrote:

> I think Muhammad gets "hot under the collar" because of the way you
> treat him, being disparaging because he is a Muslim.  If you were simply
> raising questions over the Qur'an and it's authenticity that would be
> fine, but you aren't

Actually, I wasn't the one who questioned about the Qur'an.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 08:35, Timreason wrote:

> Ken picks on all of us, with regard to spelling and grammar, including
> me. I was educated in an English grammar school, and am White, born of
> White English parents. I can claim to be more 'English' than Kendall!

He he!

But do you have a family tree going back to Ralf de Doune, given the
manor of Tiverton in Devon by William the Conqueror?

Not that such details matter in the least, especially as I strongly
suspect one or two of the links were on the wrong side of the blanket.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 19:47, Muhammad wrote:

> Don't you recall thinking the Birmingham Quran manuscript was going to
> be the 'silver bullet', and you were like: 'just you wait'. Well, I
> waited, and the results came in my favour.

I mentioned a news story about the MS and may have speculated about its
possible implications. I am not sure that the document is indeed "in
your favour".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript

Note in particular:

Keith Small, a Qur'anic manuscript consultant and fellow at the
University of Oxford, concurred with Holland, saying:

"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the
Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text
that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political
and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from
heaven."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 19:58, Muhammad wrote:

> White westerners have Greek logic, even though Ken was born in British
> occupied India.

New Zealand, actually.

> I was born in the UK, am University educated, in the UK, lived in the UK
> my whole life, a brown man, Muslim, 'easterner'. Therefore, I don't have
> that Greek logic.

University educated and you still can't use "there", "their" and
"they're" reliably? The standard of British education has indeed become
lamentable.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 20:36, Timreason wrote:

> I've said on here that you are British enough for me. But to Ken I'm
> sure we're all "Whinging Pommie B*stards!"

Not all. And not all the time.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 12:12, John wrote:

> I didn't say they were equal, I said they were of equal importance. I've
> just read John 14 looking for somnething Tim commented on.  Jesus says
> the Father is greater than I am, so they can't be equal.

"Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father as touching his Manhood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

[Timreason]

Good points. I meant sufficient for salvation.

I suppose another question I might ask myself, is why am I not a Muslim?

There are several reasons. To me, at best Islam is an unnecessary
add-on, rather like the 'Latter Day Saints' and their 'Book of Mormon'.

Likewise, Islam does not fit with my comprehension of the Fall and God's
redemption plan, which was put in place by Christ.

Islam is too proscriptive, to me it negates the whole New Covenant, and
therefore is again superfluous. Why not just return to Judaism?

There are all sorts of demands, the 'Pillars of Islam', I think they
call it. Praying set prayers at certain set times, facing in a certain
direction, wearing or not wearing certain clothes, and much more.

Yes, in traditional Christianity, we do have 'Days of obligation' when
we are required to meet in worship, such as on the Lord's Day (or the
Sabbath, for Adventists) and other High Days such as Christmas and
Easter, for example. But these things are not the most central things.

AIUI the word Islam means 'Submission', specifically submission to God.
But in our own baptismal vows we do say "I submit to Christ".

To be fair, most Muslims I know, or have known personally in the past,
are polite, friendly and helpful people. Also, to be fair, ALL religions
have their share of extremists. But I don't recall any Archbishop of
Canterbury ever calling for anyone who used the Lord's Name in vain to
be killed.

Tim.

[Timreason]

I'm still (very slowly) researching - but it looks like I come from a
long line of agricultural workers, on both sides of the family. Not all
just labourers, though. Some owned small-holdings or were farm managers,
for example. I'm half East Anglian, and half Surrey/Sussex border, in
most recent times. Interesting, as I'm definitely not a gardener!

My DNA results also say some Scandinavian and a hint of Iberian blood.

Tim.

[John]

And Elohim said "Let us make man in our image"

Chapter 1 of Genesis refers to God (Elohim) as singular, and when it
says the Spirit of God, Elohim is also used. If the Holy Spirit is part
of Elohim how does that work.

To paraphrase I think it means And Elohim said to the angels, let us
make man in our image

Isaih 46:9 which says I alone am God, the word Elohim is also used, so
can be singular.

[Muhammad]

In Arabic and Hebrew, you can have a plural of 3 or more, and it doesn't
relate to the Trinity.

Ken knows this, (or should do) as he has been told of it in this forum.

The concept is equivalent to the royal "we". It has majestic
connotations, of position, status...in the context being used.

It has nothing to do with the Trinity. The plural form is NOT limited to
THREE, it is THREE or more.

Elohim, Elah...numerous other words, can relate to the singular one and
only God. Many of them have plural meaning, however, are used in the
muscular nouns to signify majesty.

The same words can also be used to signify false Gods...

The meaning is dependent on the context, whether it includes angels etc
or JUST God.

This is quite common, in Hebrew and Arabic, no-one uses to 'prove' the
Trinity, it is only those not familiar with the languages, that will
already know of the Trinity and think, 3!!!! You know what that means...

The ridiculousness of it, is, our Jewish brothers and sisters have been
reading that text for thousands of years (always known it to mean ONE),
they've had numerous prophets of God. None of them rendered it to mean
God is Three but ONE...

[Muhammad]

Which is where your premises on the subject-matter falls apart...

Deductive reasoning, does not dictate if 'A & B' might be true, then 'C'
is certainly true.

Your premise is false, as the premise is NOT CERTAIN. You're
manufacturing CERTAINTY, from an UNCERTAIN data set.

If in fact you were using "GREEK" logic, that logic would dictate,
something like the Trinity is manufactured, based on the data we have
available.

The Jews did not see God as a Trinity, nor did they teach others to view
God as Triune.

Going down the list of prophets and messengers: Noah, Abraham Isaac,
Aaron, Moses...and including Jesus, did NOT teach the Trinity. Thus,
when the Trinity is codified three hundred years after Jesus, it would
come as an anomaly to the pattern.

The certainty in data, from the start, if it were to be represented in
number, is a series of 1's. Would be:

1,1,1,1,1,1...1,1,1,1...1,1,1,1...

In the gaps and what follows, one can deduce the number is also 1, not 3.

I know, then we get into the idea of what is expected and Quantum
Physics, but, that would be moving away from the logic 'easterners and
Muslims' don't have.

[GB]

On 10/01/2024 15:46, Muhammad wrote:

> The ridiculousness of it, is, our Jewish brothers and sisters have been
> reading that text for thousands of years (always known it to mean ONE),
> they've had numerous prophets of God. None of them rendered it to mean
> God is Three but ONE...

Deuteronomy 6:4 says:
"Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."
שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד

Jews who are more religious than me say this twice every day, and it's
written on the scrolls that we attach to our houses.

In other words, the LORD is one (not three) is given great prominence in
the Jewish religion.

My probably oversimplified understanding is that Christians believe that
there is only one God, and that the Trinity represents different aspects
of that one God, so I don't see that there's any real discrepancy.

[Muhammad]

On 10/01/2024 09:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 19:47, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> Don't you recall thinking the Birmingham Quran manuscript was going to
>> be the 'silver bullet', and you were like: 'just you wait'. Well, I
>> waited, and the results came in my favour.
>
> I mentioned a news story about the MS and may have speculated about its
> possible implications. I am not sure that the document is indeed "in
> your favour".
>

Due to the style of writing, I can't read the script independently, but
I can read it alongside a modern print, and it is identical.

"...esult suggests that the manuscript dates back to the first century
of Islam, close to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (about 570–632)
and the rule of the first three Caliphs."

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/facilities/cadbury/birmingham-quran-mingana-collection/birmingham-quran/what-is.aspx

Therefore, the material the text is written in first century.

"The manuscript, written in "Hijazi script", an early form of written
Arabic, becomes one of the oldest known fragments of the Koran"

"David Thomas, the university's professor of Christianity and
Islam...says that "the parts of the Koran that are written on this
parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two
decades after Muhammad's death..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021

The content is the same minus, the writing style, and vowels
(grammatical markings).

http://sayoud.net/Folio_investigation.pdf

So, what's the issue with your chosen sources...

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript
>
> Note in particular:
>
> Keith Small, a Qur'anic manuscript consultant and fellow at the
> University of Oxford, concurred with Holland, saying:
>
> "This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the
> Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text
> that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political
> and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from
> heaven."
>

You've copied and pasted something, but I doubt you know what the actual
views of these individuals are.

Tom Holland, has been criticised on other matters, not just his position
on the Quran. His idea is that Makkah was created post-Islam, thus after
Islam spread. That means, there's been a conspiracy, which involves
hundreds of thousands of people from the ME (if not Millions), over
generations. Maybe Tom's following Greek logic, obviously, it's
something I won't get.

Their idea is, since the material the Birmingham Quran manuscript was
written on, using the earliest possible dating, to the late 500s. That
means the text pre-dates Muhammad mission. Obviously, such notion would
somehow tie-in with the conspiracy multi-generational conspiracy
mentioned above.

If I'm having to explain anything further than that, in how parchments
were used in those days, then I'll leave you with your troubles.

If I recall correctly, there was a manuscript found somewhere in Yemen,
which on testing, found the writing material had been cleaned many
times, and hints of someone rubbing/washing out possible mistakes. Or
perhaps the material was used to practice writing. That manuscript was
also similar, minus the obvious copy errors.

[Muhammad]

If you zoom out, you won't find a discrepancy.

As you say, Jews, mean and ONE and ONLY ONE.

Christians believe in ONE God. But, not as ONE and ONLY ONE, as you've
mentioned.

The Christian position is: The Father in Heaven = God; Jesus = God, and
The Holy Spirit = God.

That is not THREE God's, but ONE God = Trinity.

That in Judaism is blasphemy. For we know, the entity of Jesus is
separate to the entity of the Father...

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 11:26, John wrote:

> Isaih 46:9 which says I alone am God, the word Elohim is also used, so
> can be singular.

Hebrew has no other word for "god" (the singular form "eloh" is very
rarely used, so I believe) so using "elohim" in a singular is very
similar to use talking about "one sheep".

Nevertheless, I do think it is significant that in the language God
chose to use for His revelation of Himself, the word for "god" is a
plural, implying three (or more).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 15:46, Muhammad wrote:

> The concept is equivalent to the royal "we". It has majestic
> connotations, of position, status...in the context being used.

The royal we is a European construct. There is no evidence that ancient
kings ever referred to themselves in the plural. David exclaims, "I have
sinned", not "We have sinned". Nebuchadnezzar boasts, "Is not this great
Babylon that I have built", not "that we have built".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 16:28, GB wrote:

> Deuteronomy 6:4 says:
> "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."
> שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד

I am told - but do not know Hebrew well enough to assert or endorse what
I have been told - that the "one" (echad) is a collective "one", a word
that you might use for "one bunch of grapes", whereas if you wished to
single one individual grape you would use "yachid", also translated as
"one".

> My probably oversimplified understanding is that Christians believe that
> there is only one God, and that the Trinity represents different aspects
> of that one God, so I don't see that there's any real discrepancy.

No, that is a heresy known as Modalism. A perhaps more accurate
description is that offered by St Patrick when challenged by an Irish
king on the subject of the Trinity. He is said to have plucked a
shamrock and pointed to the three identical leaves which form the plant.

Even that illustration is lacking. I believe the best illustration is
given to us by God Himself, who declared that husband and wife are "one
flesh". There you have two-in-one, but in the Godhead you have three-in-one.

A husband and wife are one individual in two persons; the Trinity is one
God in three Persons.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 09:22, Timreason wrote:

> Good points. I meant sufficient for salvation.

And with that I completely agree.

> Yes, in traditional Christianity, we do have 'Days of obligation' when
> we are required to meet in worship, such as on the Lord's Day (or the
> Sabbath, for Adventists) and other High Days such as Christmas and
> Easter, for example. But these things are not the most central things.

Hear hear. And to not contribute to salvation.

> To be fair, most Muslims I know, or have known personally in the past,
> are polite, friendly and helpful people. Also, to be fair, ALL religions
> have their share of extremists. But I don't recall any Archbishop of
> Canterbury ever calling for anyone who used the Lord's Name in vain to
> be killed.

I wouldn't like to be so categoric about the mediaeval Archbishops, but
your point is taken.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 09:35, Timreason wrote:

> My DNA results also say some Scandinavian and a hint of Iberian blood.

I haven't bothered with DNA results but have no doubt they would be as
mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure race".

Oh, and when I visited Tiverton some years ago, I was suitably impressed
at how many Down s there were. "Downe" "Downes" "Downs" are all common,
but "Down" is not so common - but in Tiverton you have "Down" the baker,
"Down" the butcher and for all I know, "Down" the candlestick maker.
Which seems to bear out what the genealogy claims about the manor being
given to Ralf de Doune.