Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?

[Duncan]

Post 303:

Post 304:


My friend, I’m still trying to understand what you meant when you said the word Word in John 1:1 should be translated as the word plan.

I mean, I appreciate the full course meal you’re preparing for me, but I’m just an infant when it comes to learning what you know! I need milk, not solid food: Please help me first understand the simple truth that the word plan should be used instead of the word Word. After I know that, we may move on to maters that require more spiritual maturity of me! Right?

I remember my talk with reverand Morris couple of years ago, I asked him a question : "Where does Jesus say - "Iam God," or "Iam equal to God," or "Worship me". And Reverend Morris took a deep breath and, he quoted the most oft-repeated verse of the Christian Bible--John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Please note, these are not the words of Jesus. They are the words of John (or whoever wrote them). Acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as being the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born And Phil claimed no divine inspiration for them. No matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarised) we will accept them for what they are worth.

Brothers do you know since the manuscripts of the 27 Books of the New Testament are in Greek, a Christian sect has produced its own version and has even changed the name of this selection of 27 Books to "CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES"! I asked the Reverend whether he knew Greek? "Yes," he said, He had studied Greek for 5 years before qualification . I asked him what was the Greek Word for "GOD" the first time it occurs in the quotation - "and the Word was with God"? He kept staring, but didn't answer. So I said, the word was HOTHEOS, which literally means "THE GOD". Since the Europen (in cluding the North American) has evolved a system of using capital letter to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words HOTHEOS is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered - God.

"Now tell me, what is the Greek word for God in the second occurrence in your quotation - "and the Word was God"? The Reverend still kept silent. Not that he did not know Greek, or that he had lied - But, he knew more than that, the game was up. I said the word was TONTHEOS, which means "a god".

According to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this word God a second time with a small "g" i.e. god, and not God with a capital "G"; in other words TONTHEOS is rendered "a god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.

I told the Reverend "But in 2corinthians 4:4 you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small "g" when spelling GOD - "(and the devil is) the god of this world." The Greek word for "the god" is HOTHEOS the same as in John1:1. "Why have you not been consistent in your translation?" "If Paul was inspired (?) to write hotheos - the God for the Devil, why begrudge him that capital 'G'?"

And in the Old Testament, the Lord said unto Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoach"Exodus7:1. "Why do you use a small "g" for "GOD" when referring to Moses instead of a capital "G" as you do for a mere word - 'WORD' - "and the Word was God."?

"Why do you do this? Why do you play fast and loose with the Word of - God ?" I asked the reverend. He said, "I didn't do it." I said, "I know, but I am talking about the vested interests of Christianity,who are hell bent to deify Christ, by using capital letters here and small letters there, to deceive the unwary masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital and small letters were dictated by God."

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Hey spockrates hope you are doing well, allow me to give you my version on John 1:1. `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' My task is not to explain what this text actually means, but to demonstrate that it does not clearly present Jesus as God. The first point is that there is a difficulty in conceiving that the Word is with God on the one hand, and is God on the other.

The first clause states that there is a distinction between the Word and God (since the one is with the other), while the second states that they are one and the same. As it stands the sentence does not make sense. It does make sense, however, if we realize that the word theos in Greek used here is an equivalent of the Hebrew word Elohim. Now Elohim can mean God, gods, a god, judge, exalted one, and even angel. The first word refers to God, while the second to another entity.

The reference to another entity clearly shows the Word not to be the God with whom the Word is. Indeed some scholars point out that a better translation would be: `and the Word was a god'. This also appears to me to be somewhat forced. One of the other alternatives should probably be chosen.

The Christian claim depends on John 1:14, `The Word became flesh.' If this is taken to mean that the Almighty God became flesh, or became incarnate as a human being, this would entail a change in the essence of God, which is both logically and Scripturally unacceptable. Note that this text does not say that Jesus is God.

It is an interesting fact that the Qur'an calls Jesus the Word of God without any of its adherents suggesting that the expression `clearly' presents him as God. Surely referring to Jesus as the Word of God is coherent with Islamic belief and terminology, and does not imply deity.

Hi. Duncan, and thanks! So, are you saying the correct translation of the Ancient Greek is this, where the word different is implied?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a [different] god.
​

 

[rrobs]

My friend, I’m still trying to understand what you meant when you said the word Word in John 1:1 should be translated as the word plan.

I mean, I appreciate the full course meal you’re preparing for me, but I’m just an infant when it comes to learning what you know! I need milk, not solid food: Please help me first understand the simple truth that the word plan should be used instead of the word Word. After I know that, we may move on to maters that require more spiritual maturity of me! Right?

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning."​

Also, check this out: The LOGOS of John 1:1 - First a Plan, Then a Person | kirbyhopper.com

Hope that helps. If not, let me know. Take care.

 

[Duncan]

Hi. Duncan, and thanks! So, are you saying the correct translation of the Ancient Greek is this, where the word different is implied?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a [different] god.
​

No problem my friend, what I mean brother is what we have in the quotation "and the Word was with God" the Greek Word for "GOD" was HOTHEOS, which literally means "THE GOD" but since the Europen has evolved a system of using capital letter to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words HOTHEOS is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered - God.
However in the second quotation - "and the Word was God" was TONTHEOS, which means "a god".
So basically its a game of translation, they did it in corinthians 4:4 and also in Exodus7:1

Now allow me please to share with you what God said to Marry in the Quraan: [And mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. [Chapter 3, verse 45]

He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” [The angel] said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. [Chapter 3, verses 46-48]

Here my friend are just few passages of one chapter, I cant put everything about Jesus peace be upon him since its quite long.

But also I woul like you to keep in mind John1:1 are not the words of Jesus. They are the words of John (or whoever wrote them) and every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible That i have spoken to in th past that those words are of of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born And Phil claimed no divine inspiration for them. No matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarised) I mean you are welcome to look into it.

But please do ask me if you need anything

 

[Sp0ckrates]

No problem my friend, what I mean brother is what we have in the quotation "and the Word was with God" the Greek Word for "GOD" was HOTHEOS, which literally means "THE GOD" but since the Europen has evolved a system of using capital letter to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words HOTHEOS is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered - God.
However in the second quotation - "and the Word was God" was TONTHEOS, which means "a god"... But please do ask me if you need anything

I mean, I’m assuming you’re not an Ancient Greek scholar who has examined the extant manuscripts of John’s gospel yourself, but if you are, please provide a link to one of your published works on the subject.

If you’re not, that’s fine. I’m no Ancient Greek scholar, either! Should we then who are not experts on the subject defer to those who know better how to translate the Greek text to English? I have read many different translations, and I’ve only found one that translates John 1:1 as you do—the official Bible of the Watchtower organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve heard from Ancient Greek scholars that this is a translation replete with errors, including John 1:1.

But do you know of a reputable New Testament translation that words the first sentence of the gospel as you suggest?

 

[Duncan]

I mean, I’m assuming you’re not an Ancient Greek scholar who has examined the extant manuscripts of John’s gospel yourself, but if you are, please provide a link to one of your published works on the subject.

If you’re not, that’s fine. I’m no Ancient Greek scholar, either! Should we then who are not experts on the subject defer to those who know better how to translate the Greek text to English? I have read many different translations, and I’ve only found one that translates John 1:1 as you do—the official Bible of the Watchtower organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve heard from Ancient Greek scholars that this is a translation replete with errors, including John 1:1.

But do you know of a reputable New Testament translation that words the first sentence of the gospel as you suggest?

No actually i am not a Greek scholar and I have no knowledge but I studied the bible in Greek, Hebrew and Arabic, and i had discussion with people of the book who had great knowledge of the Scriptures. to be honest with you my friend I traveled to get the information I have but the expertise i gave you was not from me it was from erudite Chretien scholar that I spoke to one of them was thomas McElwain most welcome to look at his work

Reputable new testament translation I dont know any, I believe unfortunately the Bible is corrupted with human interference.

but allow me to ask you what is it you believe in ?

 

[Super Universe]

Speaking about his second coming, Jesus said,

"But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matt 24:36.
​

I understand Trinitarians say that it was the "man part" of Jesus that didn't know the day and hour. Scripturally, it's not the best argument given that there are no verses that mention a "man part" of Jesus.

But we'll assume Jesus had a God part as well as a man part. But why doesn't the third person of the trinity know the day and hour? Is he also part God and part man?

Jesus is not part of the Trinity. I know this is something you will not accept. The universe is much more complex than you thought. The trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. God does work that only God can do so He needs someone He can trust to do other work in the universe. That is why the Eternal Son and Mother Spirit are part of the trinity.

When Jesus said this He was referring to the day that He will return to earth (maybe 1,000 years from now) and be seen by all of humanity because we will evolve and become "meek" and the earth will be a paradise because humans will no longer be violent and selfish. Beings who have ascended to heaven will also return to the earth at that time.

God controls evolution, so, what Jesus is saying is that only God knows when humans will evolve. The angels do not know, although they monitor things closely and can tell when an evolutionary event is nearing.

Humans have inflated ego's. You always think everything Jesus said was for you, sometimes Jesus said things that the humans did not understand but the angels understood.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

No actually i am not a Greek scholar and I have no knowledge but I studied the bible in Greek, Hebrew and Arabic, and i had discussion with people of the book who had great knowledge of the Scriptures. to be honest with you my friend I traveled to get the information I have but the expertise i gave you was not from me it was from erudite Chretien scholar that I spoke to one of them was thomas McElwain most welcome to look at his work

Reputable new testament translation I dont know any, I believe unfortunately the Bible is corrupted with human interference.

but allow me to ask you what is it you believe in ?

Thank you for asking! I read an English translation of the Koran years ago.

I believe with certainty there is one God. I believe the one God answers my prayers, for this God has done so in ways unexplainable by mere coincidence. I believe all religious texts I have accessed are ambiguous to such a degree that they lend themselves to different and even contrary interpretations, and the Bible is no exception. I believe the different and contrary religions, sects or denominations claiming the same religious texts as their own are the result of such ambiguity. The logical inference of this is the God must want us to continue wondering.

This leads to another inference: The God has an appreciation for genuine and sincere philosophers, or lovers of wisdom. For in seeking wisdom they are seeking the one who is the source of such.

Please let me know if you have more questions!

 

[Duncan]

Thank you for asking! I read an English translation of the Koran years ago.

I believe with certainty there is one God. I believe the one God answers my prayers, for this God has done so in ways unexplainable by mere coincidence. I believe all religious texts I have accessed are ambiguous to such a degree that they lend themselves to different and even contrary interpretations, and the Bible is no exception. I believe the different and contrary religions, sects or denominations claiming the same religious texts as their own are the result of such ambiguity. The logical inference of this is the God must want us to continue wondering.

This leads to another inference: The God has an appreciation for genuine and sincere philosophers, or lovers of wisdom. For in seeking wisdom they are seeking the one who is the source of such.

Please let me know if you have more questions!

Hey Spockrates, thank you for your honest reply and while reading what you said a verses of the Quran came to my mind allow me to share it with you

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

I have a question, the God you believe in is he Jesus peace be upon him or God the unique creator ?
and the other Question while reading the Quran what are the ambiguous thing you came across?

thank you and hope to read you soon

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Hey Spockrates, thank you for your honest reply and while reading what you said a verses of the Quran came to my mind allow me to share it with you

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

I have a question, the God you believe in is he Jesus peace be upon him or God the unique creator ?
and the other Question while reading the Quran what are the ambiguous thing you came across?

thank you and hope to read you soon

Thank you. I believe I’m uncertain, though the logical inference I find from the New Testament books of the Book is that there is one God in three persons, and this one God is in Jesus, making him both God and man. Whether this is true, I suppose depends on the reliability of the authors. This God who is in Jesus is the creator these authors assert.

I find the comparison of these two passages shows an ambiguity. I don’t want to say it’s a contradiction, as that would mean the text is corrupt or not from the God. It’s more likely the text is ambiguous and so can be interpreted another way of which I’m unaware.

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48).​

The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).​

153 appears to say the God forgives the Christian, while 48 appears to say the God does not.

​

 

[rrobs]

Jesus is not part of the Trinity. I know this is something you will not accept. The universe is much more complex than you thought. The trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. God does work that only God can do so He needs someone He can trust to do other work in the universe. That is why the Eternal Son and Mother Spirit are part of the trinity.

When Jesus said this He was referring to the day that He will return to earth (maybe 1,000 years from now) and be seen by all of humanity because we will evolve and become "meek" and the earth will be a paradise because humans will no longer be violent and selfish. Beings who have ascended to heaven will also return to the earth at that time.

God controls evolution, so, what Jesus is saying is that only God knows when humans will evolve. The angels do not know, although they monitor things closely and can tell when an evolutionary event is nearing.

Humans have inflated ego's. You always think everything Jesus said was for you, sometimes Jesus said things that the humans did not understand but the angels understood.

Well, that sure is inflating a simple statement that only God knows the day and hour of Jesus's return.

Just curious, does the Urantia talk about Jesus evolving and becoming meek, the trinity of the mother, the eternal son, and the eternal God, beings ascending to heaven, etc? I don't mean to argue, I just wonder where you get those ideas.

Take care.

 

[Super Universe]

Well, that sure is inflating a simple statement that only God knows the day and hour of Jesus's return.

Just curious, does the Urantia talk about Jesus evolving and becoming meek, the trinity of the mother, the eternal son, and the eternal God, beings ascending to heaven, etc? I don't mean to argue, I just wonder where you get those ideas.

Take care.

The statement that only God knows the day and hour of Jesus return is not simple. It's very complex. It has more meaning to the angels than to humans. If you only want simple explanations, well, I'm sorry but there is nothing simple about our universe.

Does the UB talk about Jesus becoming meek? Jesus was always meek, well, except when He turned over the money lenders tables.

The quote about becoming meek isn't about Jesus becoming meek. It's about humanity evolving so they are no longer war like and power hungry.

As for the Trinity Mother, the Eternal Son, God, and ascended beings? The UB is over 1,800 pages, it explains all of those things but the concepts are difficult for many to accept because people want it all to be about them.

 

[Duncan]

Thank you. I believe I’m uncertain, though the logical inference I find from the New Testament books of the Book is that there is one God in three persons, and this one God is in Jesus, making him both God and man. Whether this is true, I suppose depends on the reliability of the authors. This God who is in Jesus is the creator these authors assert.

Hey brother well thank you for your honesty in your answer, so basically you described trinity and I think you believe in that as well. If it is correct what i am saying then it is very easy to refute the trinity just by using the bible, and you can yourself double check authenticity of the information I provide to you from the Bible and also from erudite scholars of Christianity that I myself studied from, but to do that I need your approval to engage into that debate of refuting the trinity. I dont want to bombarde with you informations for you not to read so waiting for the green light from you

I find the comparison of these two passages shows an ambiguity. I don’t want to say it’s a contradiction, as that would mean the text is corrupt or not from the God. It’s more likely the text is ambiguous and so can be interpreted another way of which I’m unaware.

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48).
The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).
153 appears to say the God forgives the Christian, while 48 appears to say the God does not.

Now regarding those two verses you sent me; allow me first to say, Its an honore for me to speak Arabic, and that is because the Quran is a book that came down in Arabic, so when I read it I understand it, Now the Quran cannot be translated from Arabic to english or any other language. The Arabic language has a very complex system of grammar and word formation. One statement can mean many things, and this is only possible in the Arabic language. Arabic is syntactical which means it cannot be compared to any other languages in terms of grammatical rules.

The shortest wording without any loss in the meaning is only in the Arabic language. It is also the most advanced language amongst world languages in terms of eloquence, literature and fluency. Thus, no other language can express the meanings in the world.

Because Arabic is a highly developed language, a translation of a text like the Quran never fully convey its deeper message. Despite pre-Islamic Arabs being highly skilled in Arabic, the Quran’s literary style stunned all of the poets and language experts of the time.

So Despite the Quran being revealed in Arabic does not mean its general message cannot be translated in other languages. However, those translations are not called Quran because they are actually the words of the translator and not God Himself.

Now the verses you quoted are absolutely clear as water, both verses are from chapter A-NISSA translated as " WOMEN" the two verses here are different and specific to certain people, i brake it down for you with a clear translation:

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. 4:48
here Allah say he will never forgive the one who associate someone else with him or have an equal to him, and he forgive to anyone else to whom he wish

The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, "Show us Allah outright," so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority.4:153
Now in this one he is talking about the people of the book means is Chrstian Jews but here was One of the odd demands which the Jews of Madina made to the Prophet (peace be on him) was that if he wanted them to accept his claim to prophethood he should have them either witness a book descending from the heavens or that each one of them should receive a writ from on high, confirming Muhammad's prophethood and the absolute necessity of believing in him.

I hope that give you some clarity, but please once again any question I will try and answer with my best ability

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Hey brother well thank you for your honesty in your answer, so basically you described trinity and I think you believe in that as well. If it is correct what i am saying then it is very easy to refute the trinity just by using the bible, and you can yourself double check authenticity of the information I provide to you from the Bible and also from erudite scholars of Christianity that I myself studied from, but to do that I need your approval to engage into that debate of refuting the trinity. I dont want to bombarde with you informations for you not to read so waiting for the green light.

Consider the light green! Please proceed, as I would much like to consider what you have to say about what the Book teaches.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Now regarding those two verses you sent me; allow me first to say, Its an honore for me to speak Arabic, and that is because the Quran is a book that came down in Arabic, so when I read it I understand it, Now the Quran cannot be translated from Arabic to english or any other language. The Arabic language has a very complex system of grammar and word formation. One statement can mean many things, and this is only possible in the Arabic language. Arabic is syntactical which means it cannot be compared to any other languages in terms of grammatical rules.

The shortest wording without any loss in the meaning is only in the Arabic language. It is also the most advanced language amongst world languages in terms of eloquence, literature and fluency. Thus, no other language can express the meanings in the world.

Because Arabic is a highly developed language, a translation of a text like the Quran never fully convey its deeper message. Despite pre-Islamic Arabs being highly skilled in Arabic, the Quran’s literary style stunned all of the poets and language experts of the time.

So Despite the Quran being revealed in Arabic does not mean its general message cannot be translated in other languages. However, those translations are not called Quran because they are actually the words of the translator and not God Himself.

Thank you. I should call such an “English translation of” the Koran.

Now the verses you quoted are absolutely clear as water, both verses are from chapter A-NISSA translated as " WOMEN" the two verses here are different and specific to certain people, i brake it down for you with a clear translation:

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. 4:48
here Allah say he will never forgive the one who associate someone else with him or have an equal to him, and he forgive to anyone else to whom he wish

The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, "Show us Allah outright," so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority.4:153
Now in this one he is talking about the people of the book means is Chrstian Jews but here was One of the odd demands which the Jews of Madina made to the Prophet (peace be on him) was that if he wanted them to accept his claim to prophethood he should have them either witness a book descending from the heavens or that each one of them should receive a writ from on high, confirming Muhammad's prophethood and the absolute necessity of believing in him.

I hope that give you some clarity, but please once again any question I will try and answer with my best ability

Yeah, yeah! Apples and oranges, here.

So, I have a question, please: In verse 48 of Women, what does, “associates others with Allah” mean? I mean, in English, an association is merely an organized group. Such associations can be made up of members and a leader, and the members might not have equal authority to the leader. However, the unequal members are still associated with the one having greater authority.

 

[Duncan]

Thank you. I should call such an “English translation of” the Koran.

Precisely an explanation of the meaning.

So, I have a question, please: In verse 48 of Women, what does, “associates others with Allah” mean? I mean, in English, an association is merely an organized group. Such associations can be made up of members and a leader, and the members might not have equal authority to the leader. However, the unequal members are still associated with the one having greater authority.

Very interesting question. As nouns the difference between association and associate, is that association is the act of associating while associate is a person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague.
The meaning of associating partners with Allah (Exalted be He) is to associate idols, righteous people, deceased people, leaders of some religious groups as partners with Him in worship. This practice is regarded as a form of major Shirk (associating others with Allah in His Divinity or worship).

I hope that answer your question brother

 

[Duncan]

Consider the light green! Please proceed, as I would much like to consider what you have to say about what the Book teaches.

Thank you for that, I always prefer to ask before.please brother take your time reading Its going to be very long.

Now according to the first two Ecumenical Councils of Church, God is three gods merged into one God. This one God is called the Trinity. This name of God does not exist anywhere in the New Testament! Also Jesus never mentioned the trinity and certainly did not explain it in the clearest way. However, to say that God is three, in Christianity, is a blasphemy of the highest order. All three parts of the Trinity are "coequal", "co-eternal" and "of the same substance." In other words, while the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sustain distinct relationships to one another, they share the same divine nature. For this reason, this doctrine as described is an "eternal mystery" because it was a human's fabrication. Unlike the "Byzantine monotheism" of Christianity that allows for a plurality within the divine essence, Islam and Judaism condemn such a pluralistic concept of God.

There are over 200 verses in the Bible that proclaim the unity of God, the Only Creator and the only Savior. The following verses are just samples:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus20:3).

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is One LORD." (Deuteronomy6:4).

"For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior." (Isaiah43:3).

"I am the First, and I am the Last, and beside me there is no god." (Isaiah44:6).

I have capitalized the letters in the above "First" and "Last," because these are attributes of God in Islam. Every time I hear these Names, I become overwhelmed with the concept that God is the First, nothing was before Him and the Last, nothing comes after Him. Human mind just can't comprehend this concept of First and Last. This shows the limited capability of the human mind.

"And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandment is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is One LORD "(Mark12:29).

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me" (John12:44-45).

"and that there is none other God but one" (I Corinthians8:4). "One God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians4:6).

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (I Timothy2:5).

With all the adaptations, adulterations and translations of the Old and the New Testament, the above verses are still there for anyone to recognize the Oneness of God. However, there are references in the New Testament to the trinity, in the First Epistle of John5:7-8.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."

The above verses exist only in the authorized King James Version and form the strongest evidence for the doctrine of trinity. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the King James Version has grave defects. Now this part, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" has been removed in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and many other Bibles. In the New Revised Standard, 1989, those same verses read as follows: "There are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." The differences between these recognized Bibles represent a theological crisis. The average Christian, as well as many Christian preachers and ministers may not be aware of the removal of the strongest verses advocating the trinity from their Bible! Any one should ask himself why these verses of the King James Version were deleted from later versions of the New Testament and how they were introduced in the first place! I would encourage you brother to search for those verses in different versions of the Bible. As a matter of fact, reading the same verses from different versions of the Bible can be a very confusing and frustrating experience.

Now we have in Matthew28:19 there is a reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without stating that they are one. This statement has nothing to do with trinity. In John14:11, it states that Jesus said, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." And in John17:21 "They (the disciples) all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." It is clear from the first verse that God and Jesus are one, but also in the second verse that the disciples are one in God and in Jesus. Now if Jesus is God because Jesus is in God, why are not the disciples being recognized as gods, as they all are one in Jesus and in God? If God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost form the trinity, then with the 12 disciples included, should they form One God with fifteen beings and not three? Moreover in Revelation4:5, John mentions the seven Spirits of God. Each Holy Ghost or Spirit is a God. It follows that the trinity includes God, Jesus, 12 disciples and 7 Spirits of God. Therefore the trinity should be 21 and not three!

Let me tell you something about the eternal substance in Greek Philosophy, during the sixth and seventh centuries BC, the Greek Philosophers attempted to discover the building block of all matter (eternal substance). Thales of Miletus (640? -546? BC) suggested that water is the basic substance from which all matter is created. A more complex view was offered by Anaximander (611-547 BC), who held that the raw material of all matter is an eternal substance that changes into the known forms of matter. These forms in turn change and merge into one another according to the rule of justice, that is, balance and proportion. Heraclitus advocated that fire is the original source of matter, but he believed that the entire world is in a constant state of change and that a mixture of different matters produces most objects and substances. He considered the soul, for example, as a mixture of fire and water. Anaxagoras (500-428? BC) introduced dualistic explanation of the universe that is to say that the universe consists of living and non-living matters. He developed the concept of nous (reason), which he considered as an infinite and unchanging substance that entered into and controlled every living object. This concept of eternal substance was later adopted in formulating the doctrines of Christianity during the Ecumenical Councils of Churches, and that eternal substance was made to be the substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Some Christian apologists advocate that God shows us trinity everywhere:

♦ Time is divided into past, present and future and they are all time.

♦ Matter is divided into gas, liquid and solid and they are all matter.

♦ Coordinate is divided into X, Y and Z and they are all coordinates.

Anyone can assemble an argument for duality such as day and night, positive and negative, good and evil, etc. Anyone can assemble an argument from the very many natural facts to strengthen his claim. The Pyramid of Giza was exhausted in numbers to prove that it is a cosmic structure. So where does this leave us? Should we believe in duality, trinity, 15, or other numbers based upon these rationales? Should we ignore the strong argument in the Old and New Testament and in Islam about the Unity of God and follow human assumptions mixed with Greek philosophy?

When Jesus said in John14:9 "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," does this statement mean that someone can actually see God? Of course not. Jesus said in John4:24 that God is Spirit and in John5:37 "ye have neither heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his shape." Now, if God is Spirit according to John and Jesus is of the same substance as God according to Athanasius, then the substance of both God and Jesus is Spirit. It follows that humans should not be able to see Jesus, because he is spirit!

We now know how the Gospels were assembled and how the Ecumenical councils formulated the main doctrine of Christianity. The effect of the Romans on Christianity was enormous. The Sabbath was shifted to Sunday. December 25, which was the birthday of their sun god Mithra was made Jesus' birthday. The decoration of the Christmas tree with silver and gold was adopted in spite of its forbidding in Jeremiah10:2-5. The Roman Julian calendar made the Christian calendar.

The Quran affirms that Jesus is the Word of God, which is simply "Be and it is." as in Surah 19:35. This is the simple meaning of the Word of God. It is not the Logos of the Greek philosophy. It is the literal Word as John describes it in the start of his Gospel. It is the Word of God that created Jesus just like Adam. God created Adam without a father or a mother. Jesus was created without a father. An Islamic scholar stated that the four alternatives of human creation are as follows:

♦ God created Adam without male or female.

♦ God created female from male (Eve from Adam)

♦ God created humans from male and female (like all of us)

♦ To show us his total power of creation, he created male from female (Jesus from Mary)

The Holy Ghost is the most confusing member of the trinity. It was declared god in the second Ecumenical Council of Church in 381 AD. The Holy Ghost is presented on different occasions as a dove (Luke3:22); strong wind or flames of fire (Acts2:2-4); and the breath of Jesus on his followers (John20:22). In ancient India, a dove was considered the symbol of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God. In ancient Rome a dove or pigeon was the symbol of the female procreative energy and frequently a legendary spirit. The Christian Holy Ghost was given by the Father and the Son to do God's work among people. Jesus referred to this trinity when he commanded his apostles to go everywhere and persuade men to become his disciples and baptize believers "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew28:19). However, in this verse, Jesus did not state that these three entities are one. This is only the wishful thinking of the apologists, which usually attaches a complex explanation to any simple verse. In the miraculous birth of Jesus, Matthew(1:18) stated that Mary was pregnant by the power of the Holy Ghost. Luke(1:26-37) stated that God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary and that the Holy Ghost would come to her. What is then the Holy Ghost? The Quran declares the Holy Spirit as the Angel Gabriel that was sent to all prophets. Therefore:

God is God.

Jesus is a Prophet.

The Holy Ghost is the Angel Gabriel.
​

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Precisely an explanation of the meaning.

Very interesting question. As nouns the difference between association and associate, is that association is the act of associating while associate is a person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague.

The meaning of associating partners with Allah (Exalted be He) is to associate idols, righteous people, deceased people, leaders of some religious groups as partners with Him in worship. This practice is regarded as a form of major Shirk (associating others with Allah in His Divinity or worship).

I hope that answer your question brother

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. 4:48​

Does verse 48 say it is the worship of an associate that’s a tremendous sin? I do not see the word worship. Does it appear in the immediate context of the previous or proceeding verses?

I’m wondering if merely trusting that someone is an equal partner with the God is the serious wrong of which is spoken.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Thank you for that, I always prefer to ask before.please brother take your time reading Its going to be very long.

Now according to the first two Ecumenical Councils of Church, God is three gods merged into one God. This one God is called the Trinity.

You’re welcome, and the long reply is much appreciated but unnecessary. You had me at, “God is one God merged into three Gods”!

I mean, I always endeavor to be logical, and to say God is one God and God is not one God is a logical contradiction and not possibly true! If that is what Trinitarians believe, then I would never call myself one. For this is indeed a illogical:

1a. There are three Gods merged into one God.
​

But is (1a) what they believe? I’ve understood them to instead teach this:

1b. There is only one true God, and this one God is in three persons.
​

Would you say (1b) means the same as (1a) or does it mean something different?

 

[Duncan]

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. 4:48​

Does verse 48 say it is the worship of an associate that’s a tremendous sin? I do not see the word worship. Does it appear in the immediate context of the previous or proceeding verses?

I’m wondering if merely trusting that someone is an equal partner with the God is the serious wrong of which is spoken.

So basically the fact that you take anything and you make it equal to God, a Doll, a Cat, an elephant, a statu, a Prophet is absolutely forbidden, you worship it or you dont its called Shirk mean associating a partner or others with Allah, and when you do that you basically worship it, take the exemple oh the jew with the calf, the christian with Jesus is a perfect exemple of associating someone with God and worshiping him. plenty of verses to prevent people to warn people:

Say, [O Muhammad], "Invoke those you claim [as deities] besides Allah ." They do not possess an atom's weight [of ability] in the heavens or on the earth, and they do not have therein any partnership [with Him], nor is there for Him from among them any assistant.

Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah ? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful." 46:04

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Luqman said to his son while he was instructing him, "O my son, do not associate [anything] with Allah . Indeed, association [with him] is great injustice." 31:13.

God is ordering us to worship only him alone:

Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah ." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]." 3:64

I hope it is clear, please feel free to ask me