"I have a view that would allow this." - that alone should have been enough to dismiss your entire response but I'll respond to you anyway. You can think all you want - but any sane person knows that an All Loving God would make things simple for people at least the very basic tenets of faith . If he really meant 3 in 1, he would have stated that in clear and unambiguous way - or at the very least He wouldn't confuse people by stating otherwise (that God is One).
That makes no sense. We are not required to repeat mantras continuously. We do not have to know whether Jesus is God or was only empowered by God. Our method of salvation is far less trivial and far more profound than chanting whatever we are told to believe. I can and have been saved based on the merits of what Christ did. Not on some slogan I was told to believe.
The Holy Qur'an is a verbatim word of God - everything in it is God's word.
Is that why it says it is pure Arabic yet contains hundreds of words that existed previously in other cultures, has stories verbatum from far older and known heretical texts, or complete butchery of stories contained in the far earlier and more reliable Bible. Etc......I do not share your views. If you had said that that is what you claim it to be I could have just accepted that.
So the first one is God asking Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) to say :"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Al Quran, 112:1-4)"
No it is some words found in a suspicious book written by a very suspicious man.
and the second one is God is stating directly: "But they have attributed to Allah partners - the jinn, while He has created them - and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters without knowledge. Exalted is He and high above what they describe. [He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing. That is Allah , your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things." (Al Qur'an 6:100-102)
I am not sure why you think a non Muslim would care what the Quran says on the issue. Nor what you say it says on top of that. I do not speak against the Quran for effect but to illustrate how little effect it has concerning me. I do not believe the Quran has a divine source, I hope that does not offend you, but will not change my mind regardless.
Huh ? How do you read 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one' in any other way ? Only magic can make it read it as 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one (but in three confusing parts)' (God forbid).
Only precommitment to an ideology or an irrational strictly materialistic literal interpretation of "one" prevents it. God is one what. Do you know of a single thing that can be compared to God. You can not transfer things that are derived from natural law as to strictly apply to the supernatural. If you could miracles would not be possible. God can make the dead live yet you think you can put him in a container labeled "one" you invented. Not hardly. If the trinity is true then God is one being composed of three persons. I can't prove it true and honestly admit that. You can't prove it false yet claim you can and use insuffecient means in the attempt.
I see, but as the true Role model he forgot to mention that you should worship some other confusing parts of the 1 God ? Oh boy - are you saying Jesus created everything ? So Jesus Created a replica of himself as the Son(God), then the Holy Spirit and then once again the man Jesus via Mary(Created Himself through another Creation of Him) ? Then He killed himself and went back to Himself (Yet repeating to Himself 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me')? I don't think you wanna go that path. I'll leave it at that.
I can't begin to figure out what you said here.
First of all, there is a huge fallacy in that argument. Jesus never stated He is not a Hindu either. So does that mean we can claim He was a Hindu ? There are millions of other things He did not claim that He wasn't. But there is one thing that He clearly stated and you ignore that.
Did he act like a Hindu. No. Done.
But even after that I'll tell you that He actually did make it clear in the following statements of his :
"17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. Good teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
18 Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is goodexcept God alone." (Mark 10)
You might want to research this one a while. I do not claim to know for a fact which interpretation is true. Even scholars are devided. However one prominent one is that Jesus knew this man's heart. Actually I will just copy it here.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on
Matthew 19:17.
Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:
there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with
Deuteronomy 6:4,
but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words
at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good:
nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments",
Matthew 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.
He was kind of saying you call me a teacher yet assign me a title reserved for God. Do you not then know that it is God you are addressing.
I am honest enough unlike many to say I do not know if that is the correct understanding, but without any reason to consider your words more reliable than a well respected scholarly commentary I will stick with him. In truth I have yet to find a satasfactory explenation of this verse however I do not believe yours is correct.
