Refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity: - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

Refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

Debate Information

I have made a formal argument inspired by a refutation online:

John 17 1-3, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Argument #1

  1. The Father is the only True God

  2. Jesus is the not the Father

  3. Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Cor 8:4, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

1 Cor 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

Argument #2

  1. There is no God except one.

  2. This one God is the Father

  3. Jesus is not the Father

  4. Therefore Jesus is not God


Extra Note: In the same verse, 1 Corinthians 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,”.

From this, we can form the following conclusions: There is a clear distinction between the Father who is the only one God (1 Cor 8:4, 8:6) and Jesus Christ who even mentions the Father as the only true God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malachi 2:10, “Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?”


Premise #3 (taking into account #1 and #2)

  1. From Arguments #1 and #2 we can formulate the following: There is no God except the Father, for he is the only true God. 

  2. The Father who is the true one God is one meaning He has no persons.

  3. The one God, the Father is the only one that created us.

Explanation of #3: Christians believe that the Father creates through the Son which would refute the concept of one God creating mankind. But as this verse states, only one God created us, which is the Father. If the Son played a role in the creation, then Prophet Malachi who is the one narrating this verse would not have failed to mention this, as it is truly significant.


You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

Thank you c:

 


«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    I have made a formal argument inspired by a refutation online:

    John 17 1-3, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    Argument #1

    1. The Father is the only True God

    2. Jesus is the not the Father

    3. Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1 Cor 8:4, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

    1 Cor 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

    Argument #2

    1. There is no God except one.

    2. This one God is the Father

    3. Jesus is not the Father

    4. Therefore Jesus is not God


    Extra Note: In the same verse, 1 Corinthians 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,”.

    From this, we can form the following conclusions: There is a clear distinction between the Father who is the only one God (1 Cor 8:4, 8:6) and Jesus Christ who even mentions the Father as the only true God.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Malachi 2:10, “Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?”


    Premise #3 (taking into account #1 and #2)

    1. From Arguments #1 and #2 we can formulate the following: There is no God except the Father, for he is the only true God. 

    2. The Father who is the true one God is one meaning He has no persons.

    3. The one God, the Father is the only one that created us.

    Explanation of #3: Christians believe that the Father creates through the Son which would refute the concept of one God creating mankind. But as this verse states, only one God created us, which is the Father. If the Son played a role in the creation, then Prophet Malachi who is the one narrating this verse would not have failed to mention this, as it is truly significant.


    You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

    Thank you c:


    I decided to post this, in order to make it easier for those to refute my points.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1040 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

    This is a public, online, open forum and to dictate to others how to reply is nothing less than arrogance and self-centered ignorance The addition of the word "please" does not mitigate the situation one iota.

    The same applies to the subject; to stand up and declare that the one God that you happen to believe in is the one and only out of some 10,000 is totally ridiculous to say the least.

    Is that disrespectful enough to you?

    TreeManMrDebatePerson2ExtempTalk
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    Regarding John 17:1-3

    >>>1) The Father is the only True God

    >>>2) Jesus is the not the Father

    >>>3) Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

    To conclude the preceding solely based on a few verses is to deny the entirety of Scripture on the subject. Simply, is not wise to draw conclusions based on a few verses read out of context. Especially when earlier in the same book we read, the Word was with God and the Word was God and became flesh to dwell among us. It would be more apt to draw the following conclusion:

    1) The Word is with God (separate person)
    2) The Word is God (One God in unity)
    3) Jesus is God, since He is the Word that became flesh

    To suggest that Jesus is distinguishing Himself from the only true God would be an erroneous conclusion. Instead the contrast is between the true God and the false gods of the heathens.

    Just as 1 Cor. 8:6 does not exclude the Father from being Lord.

    yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

    The verse tells us of the unity of the one God, the Father and the Lord, unified as God, yet distinct as persons, both equal in creating and sustaining all things.

     “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one(echad). (Deu. 6:4) Echad means one in unity, If on the other hand the word yachid(one) was used, it would mean one in singularity. The unity of persons in the Godhead is made manifest by the declaration that God is love. Love requires relationship, a singular yachid "God" would have no one to express love with and therefore could not know love, unless other entities were created to share  this relationship with, this however would be more that just God being love. Since God is love, God himself out of necessity must consist of a plurality of persons who are separate and distinct, yet one, as in Gen. 2:24,  "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one (echad) flesh", separate persons, yet one in unity. 

    This is also why when Scripture speaks of God it uses the word Elohim(plural) not Eloah(singular), or when is says 'Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (Gen 1:26). 

    As for Malachi 2:10, this is simply a generalization regarding God as creator. 

    Except as creator and preserver of all, God is not revealed as Father in the O.T. Jesus though is prophesied of as 'the everlasting Father' or 'Father of the everlasting age.' Isa. 9:6, and rightly so since we know that “through Jesus and the Father are all things and through whom we exist", a position shared in unity with the father as one God, re: 1 Cor. 8:6.

    KhasimAmeduMrDebatePerson2ExtempTalk
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -   edited May 5
    To suggest that Jesus is distinguishing Himself from the only true God would be an erroneous conclusion. Instead the contrast is between the true God and the false gods of the heathens.

    The context of the verse is indeed quite clear, and it is subject to many interpretations, but doesn't necessarily refute the notion that Jesus calls the Father the only true God. Why didn't Jesus mention himself as the true God as well? He does mention himself right after as "Jesus Christ, the one whom you have sent." but yet fails to mention himself as the true God. In fact, I believe Jesus affirming himself as a prophet and makes a clear distinction between the Father who is the only true God and Jesus Christ who was sent to profess the kingdom of God. Where is a mention of the "false god of the heathens", as I have found none in John 16 or the whole of John 17.

    1) The Word is with God (separate person)
    2) The Word is God (One God in unity)
    3) Jesus is God, since He is the Word that became flesh

    So God was with God? Or rather the Word is the same as the Father in substance but different in hypostasis.
    Then let me ask, how is the substance of the hypostasis or persons of the Trinity the same when each substance has a different cause? The cause of the Son or the Logos was the Father yet the Father has no cause in His substance. The cause of the substance of the Holy Spirit was indeed the Father, yet the Father has no cause in His substance. This implies a differentiation among the substances of the Trinity and thus a crisis among the doctrine.

    How can the persons be differentiated but the substance cannot. The substance is the hypostasis and the hypostasis is the substance, but despite being the same they are different. This is a logical contradiction.

    Just as 1 Cor. 8:6 does not exclude the Father from being Lord.

    It seems that you did not consider 1 Cor. 8:4, for this verse excludes Jesus as God. The reason I mentioned this verse is because it is vital towards Argument #2. The verse states, "There is no God but one." This suggests that indeed there is only one God, and sets up the argument from there. Meaning that once this one God is mentioned, there cannot be a God other than him. The question then arises, who is this one God? 1 Cor. 8:6, "yet for us there is but one God, the Father,". This one God has been singled out as the only God (1 Cor. 8:4) and now the only one God is the Father. 

    This is also why when Scripture speaks of God it uses the word Elohim(plural) not Eloah(singular), or when is says 'Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (Gen 1:26). 

    The Qur'an does this as well and uses the plural pronoun  "we" when it speaks of God. But does this imply a Trinity? Absolutely not.
    The pronoun "We" is used referred to a royal subject and used to display respect and glorification. Kings and queens when announcing a decree or announcement normally say, "We have decided" or We have chosen". and so on. 

    An example is, "When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we
    ." And indeed God is royalty.

    As for Malachi 2:10, this is simply a generalization regarding God as creator. 

    I would disagree, there is a clear connection in Malachi 2:10 between, the Father (Do we not all have one Father?) and the Creator who is one (Did not one God create us), If the Father creates through the Son, then the Prophet Malachi surely would not have failed to mention this. I understand this may seem like a generalization but if this was truly a generalization he wouldn't have mentioned the Father. He simply could have said, "One God created us" and that would be in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe he was being very explicit, and the only reason this is viewed as a generalization is because it is not exactly in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. 

    @Neopesdom















  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    I was just asking to be respectful. No arrogance intended. @Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1040 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    I was just asking to be respectful. No arrogance intended.

    Why should anyone with a modicum of intelligence pay the least amount of respect to completely unfounded, arrogant, unproven assertions such as: "The Father is the only True God, Jesus is the not the Father, Therefore, Jesus is not the True God, There is no God except one, This one God is the Father Jesus is not the Father, Therefore Jesus is not God."

    Not only is this nonsense completely contrived and untrue but is convoluted and meaningless. And you then declare "no arrogance intended?" Pull the other one.

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?


    MrDebatePerson2
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    "The Father is the only True God, Jesus is the not the Father, Therefore, Jesus is not the True God, There is no God except one, This one God is the Father Jesus is not the Father, Therefore Jesus is not God."

    What? It was an argument and this is how theological arguments are supposed to be formatted. I simply stated premises based on biblical verses, there's nothing wrong with that. 

    Not only is this nonsense completely contrived and untrue but is convoluted and meaningless. And you then declare "no arrogance intended?" Pull the other one.

    Well, that's your own subjective opinion, but don't insult just because you don't agree. If you think that religious discussions are meaningless that's fine but you didn't have to come here and announce this. 

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?

    I never claimed this during the debate, nor is this the topic of the discussion. I humbly ask you to ignore this debate as you have nothing valuable to say other than deeming this debate useless. You can have your own opinions but don't insult others with it. Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems.

     @Swolliw



  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    >>>The context of the verse is indeed quite clear,....I believe Jesus affirming himself as a prophet

       You don’t seem to get the context at all. Do you really think that a mere prophet would say things only God could claim? Again you have to take into account all Scripture when coming to conclusions.

    But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

    This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:8)

    The Father is the only true God, Jesus is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. You could also say that the trinity is the only true God. Each one is the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

    >>>So God was with God? Or rather the Word is the same as the Father in substance but different in hypostasis.

    Yes God was with God, the Word is the same as the Father in position or title. As for substances or hypostasis, God is infinite and we are finite, these are things we simply cannot comprehend. God is a coregency or co-principality, where three persons occupy one office. So when Scripture speaks of the Father as the only true God it in no way excludes the Son, or the Holy Spirit from being the only true God as well. The Word did not come to earth in order to declare Himself as God, He came down from His condition to take on the form of a man and present Himself as a man. One would not therefore expect Jesus to come out and explicitly claim to be God, that is a truth that we left to realize on our own through a thorough reading of the entire Scriptures, not a superficial or partial reading. 

    “Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6–8).

    You cannot say this about any prophet. Prophets are merely human.

    She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat. 1:21)

    And we know from Isaiah 43:11 when God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior."

    It is not hard to put two and two together here.

    >>An example is, "When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we." And indeed God is royalty.

    Your example only proves my point, “We are not amused.” Queen Victoria was not speaking of herself alone, but for the ladies of the court, a plurality of persons. Outside Scripture, the “royal we” is used often because the ruler is speaking on behalf of the people or the nation, again a plurality of persons.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    You don’t seem to get the context at all. Do you really think that a mere prophet would say things only God could claim? Again you have to take into account all Scripture when coming to conclusions.

    Firsty, this verse is being narrated by Jesus Christ himself. If Jesus calls the Father the only true God then I have no reason to believe that He somehow isn't. And secondly, this is my point, the Bible is a mix of truth and falsehood, and as a result we will find verses that mention one God and then verses that seemingly support the Trinity even though the basis of the doctrine is based on interpretation as Trinity is never mentioned in the New Testament. Therefore, we have one side saying one God and another side saying the Trinity and thus a contradiction.The only reason why the Trinity was created as one God was to adhere to the true teaching of Jesus Christ. But at the same time, they interpreted God to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in a effort to listen to their own interpretation as well as Jesus Christ they combined the two. Makes sense that the Trinity was finalized in the fourth century.

    If I were to take into account the whole Bible, I would have a contradictory conclusion. The Father is the only true God according to Jesus but at the same time he isn't, even though the Son and Spirit are not the Father.

    This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God(John 5:8)

    The notion of Jesus being equal with Father is already refuted by Jesus himself, 
    "You heard me say, "I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

    In another verse it reads, "Who is my equal?” asks the Holy One. Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars?"

    Note: Jesus was titled the Holy One of God, the Holy one is referring to the Father.

    The Word did not come to earth in order to declare Himself as God, He came down from His condition to take on the form of a man and present Himself as a man. One would not therefore expect Jesus to come out and explicitly claim to be God, that is a truth that we left to realize on our own through a thorough reading of the entire Scriptures, not a superficial or partial reading. 

    This is what I'm troubled with. The Word is God, and therefore before the incarnation he was fully divine meaning perfect, omniscient, and ultimately worthy of worship as a result of this perfect divine nature. Then the Word decides to become a human, or in others words, a imperfect and limited being that ultimately is not worthy of worship, as a result of this newly added imperfect nature known as the human nature.
    So now Jesus is fully human and fully divine. We know that Jesus was human because he was able to do human things and feel human emotion. But how do we know he was divine? The belief of Jesus' divinity is based on mere testimony and nothing more than that. There was never actually any manifestation of Jesus' divine nature. You could say his miracles but then I would say all the prophets were able to do so. You could say his prophecies and visions but all of the prophets had prophecies and visions and Jesus had some failed ones such as "this generation shall not pass until all these things take place" (his second coming)

    But this is my question: Why would the Word or Logos a fully divine, perfect and omniscient being prefer to incarnate into a imperfect and limited being which is the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Word's union with the humanity of Jesus Christ would make the Logos less worthy of worship as the divine nature is now associated (not mixed or changed) with a imperfect and limited nature. Would the Word prefer to be less worthy of worship? I think not, especially if he was God. So then why?

    Also address a point from my previous message. 
    How can the persons be differentiated but the substance cannot. The substance is the hypostasis and the hypostasis is the substance, but despite being the same they are different. This is a logical contradiction.

    She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat. 1:21)

    Prophets did this. Basic religion. Prophets did this by calling people away from sin and towards one God.

    Your example only proves my point, “We are not amused.” Queen Victoria was not speaking of herself alone, but for the ladies of the court, a plurality of persons. Outside Scripture, the “royal we” is used often because the ruler is speaking on behalf of the people or the nation, again a plurality of persons.

    The royal we, or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) to refer to a single person who is a monarch. The more general word for the use of a we, us, or our to refer to oneself is nosism.
    According to Wikipedia.

    @Neopesdom

















  • SwolliwSwolliw 1040 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
     I simply stated premises based on biblical verses, there's nothing wrong with that. 

    Yes, there is. You are now shifting the blame of your claim onto another authority. And that authority (the Bible) is universally discredited as being inaccurate and full of myths and outright lies. Nevertheless, you quoted statements that are untrue, inflammatory and displays utter arrogance.

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?
    I never claimed this during the debate, nor is this the topic of the discussion. 

    I never said you claimed such. I am pointing out to you that your God is NOT the one and only exclusive God in existence as you claim. And even though you don't wish it to be a topic of discussion (for obvious reasons) I did point out the obvious to you whether or not you choose to accept it. Further more, you will be no doubt aware that I am not the only person on this page to point this out to you.

    You can have your own opinions but don't insult others with it. Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems.

    My "opinions" are based on fact and reason.....you have made opinions which are totally ludicrous and insulting to others without any qualification except to fob off your responsibility by saying "I simply stated premises based on biblical verses". Not only are your assertions insulting and disgusting but your excuses and lack of explanation are pathetic. 

    And you have the gall to hurl baseless accusations against someone who is properly catching you out. It may not be pleasant but who is it that is publicly demonstrating such ignorance and arrogance, then expecting to get away with it? Answer: you in case those close to you haven't already politely told you.

    And you also have the gall to make such an erroneous baseless remark such as "Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems."

    MrDebatePerson2
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Thats. Your. Opinion.
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    >>for the Father is greater than I....Why would the Word... 

    Abdul, how dense are you?

    When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:8-10)

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

    >>Then the Word decides to become a human, or in others words, a imperfect and limited being that ultimately is not worthy of worship, as a result of this newly added imperfect nature known as the human nature.

    I'm not really interested in your false interpretation of Scripture and your opinion on what you think it means. Are there any Christian commentaries that even come close to your corrupt understanding other than derelict cults like the JWs?

    >>
    The substance is the hypostasis 

    What did I say about hypostasis? Attacking a straw man now?

    >>>Prophets did this. Basic religion. Prophets did this by calling people away from sin and towards one God.

    Using that logic everyone who preaches the Word of God saves them....That is not the context of salvation and you know it. "I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11) Now all of a sudden according to you anyone can be a savior, please. 

    "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

    >>>some failed ones such as "this generation shall not pass until all these things take place" 

    It's a failure because you decide it is? LOL The only failure here is your standing in this debate.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    Abdul, how dense are you?

    Not sure if calling me Abdul was an insult, but I'll excuse it. This is a evasive response, address the passage and state what's wrong with my understanding, since it's clear you think I'm deluded. I'm requiring that you tackle the passage head on not state some bible verse. If you cannot do so, then it's clear that you are evading.

    When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:8-10)

    What's your point? Because from what I see this proves my point. The Word or Logos prefers to incarnate into a being that is "little lower than the angels". Why would God (the Word) want to be lower than the angels and thus making him less worthy of worship? Would a God prefer that situation?

    And if Jesus is God how can he be lower than the angels, the human incarnate of God should clearly be above the angels not below them, especially is Jesus is going to sit at the right hand of God or the Father.

    Here's a interpretation of the meaning "right hand of God"
    So being seated at the right hand of God means that He shares God's strength, authority, and blessing. It is the highest place and the highest honor possible. When Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, it means all other things and other beings are under Him.'

    If Jesus had the possibility of being equal with God in authority, power and blessing this automatically makes him above the angels. Why? Because the angels don't have this possibility nor does any other creation. When Satan (who was an angel) tried to gain this possibility of being equal to God, he was thrown out of heaven for being arrogant. And yet despite this, Jesus is lower than the angels. Another contradiction. 

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

    Son I believe is a figurative term that is used to describe the relationship between God and Jesus. And Muslims do follow Jesus, the worship of one God. Are you going to deny that Jesus was using figurative language? Well here's a verse:

    "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. (John 16:25) Narrated by Jesus Christ pbuh.

    "I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior."

    Would have been better if Jesus was narrating this. And Muslims don't disagree that Jesus was the Messiah. 

    It's a failure because you decide it is? LOL The only failure here is your standing in this debate.

    Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ Matthew 24:32-34

    Just a few verses before this one: “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Matthew 24:30-31)

    This is clearly referring to the second coming of Jesus. Thus "until all these things take place" is referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ.
    Secondly Jesus is talking with his disciples, or the first generation Christians meaning that when Jesus said this generation will not pass until these things take place he was referring to the first generation Christians. But has Jesus come back yet? And where are the first generation Christians now? Hm.

    What did I say about hypostasis? Attacking a straw man now?

    I mentioned this since my first response and you decided to ignore it. And now you're pretending as if I never asked this before. Stop evading and answer my questions.

    I'm pretty disappointed in your response, and it's clear you're getting emotional. So I kindly ask that you answer the questions I've asked.

    @Neopesdom





















  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -   edited May 8
    @KhasimAmedu

    >>>Not sure if calling me Abdul was an insult, but I'll excuse it.

    Furthermore, everyone, regardless of race, should proudly claim the word “slave”(abdul) for him or herself – I am a slave, you are a slave, we are all slaves.

    Why?

    Because Allah refers to us all as His slaves beautifully in the Quran on numerous occasions, and it is a term of honor. -https://muslimmatters.org/2012/11/22/we-are-all-slaves-of-allah/

    >>The Word or Logos prefers to incarnate into a being that is "little lower than the angels". Why would God (the Word) want to be lower than the angels and thus making him less worthy of worship? 

    Why would the condition that God places Himself in make Himself less worthy of worship, Is He not the same person in whatever form He chooses to take?

    >>And if Jesus is God how can he be lower than the angels, the human incarnate of God should clearly be above the angels not below them, especially is Jesus is going to sit at the right hand of God or the Father.

    It is referring to His condition not His person. Spirit will always be above the material world, but the moral character of someone is not bound by this. A human can have better morals than an angel, but still be a lower life form as a result of their condition.

    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Heb. 13:8) This passage is in reference to who he is as a person, his moral character. Whether God takes on the form a man or spirit, does not change His morality only his condition.

    >>Son I believe is a figurative term that is used to describe the relationship between God and Jesus. 

    He was literally born into this world and was figuratively given the title of Son of God and Son of Man, it also describes the relationship between God and Jesus and Jesus and mankind. Matthew 12:49 says Mothers and brothers are those that do the will of the Father, this is in a figurative sense, while the man Jesus's literal mother and half brothers were outside. 

    Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus.He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High....His kingdom will never end!” (Luke 1:31-33)

    And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

    For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Heb.1:5)

    The term Son here is the title that is given to the Word upon being born into a human form. It presents a relationship with the father that we are to emulate. In the sense that humans procreate and have children is it not in the literal context of God doing the same. Although John 16:25 is in reference to His parables, you can say that the terms "Father and Son" is a figurative term used to describe relationship, not literal human procreation in the context of generations. 

    >>>"I, I am "I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior."...Would have been better if Jesus was narrating this.

    Are you sure He didn't? The phrase "I am who I am" in the Hebrew is YHWH, often translated as “LORD,” “Yahweh,” did not Jesus say He was "I am" in John 8:24?

    >>.I mentioned this since my first response and you decided to ignore it. And now you're pretending as if I never asked this before..you're getting emotional

    Again I never used terms like hypostasis, you did as if I had anything to do with it. It was mainly under the influence of the "Cappadocian Fathers" that the terminology was clarified and standardized. It is not something I recognize, it is not a term used in Scripture and as I stated before, I'll state again, God is infinite and we are finite, these are things we simply cannot comprehend. If that is getting emotional then I am so so emotional.....

    No scripture can be fully comprehended except by a gift of the Holy Spirit allowing the spiritual eyes of the true seeker to be opened. “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14

    The ultimate truth regarding the nature of God is a mystery. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16 co Romans 11:33-36.

    Disagreements on the identity of Jesus which effect the life and health of the assembly or lead to schismatic disruptions must be answered with scriptural evidence. Whether He is ‘God the Son’ or ‘Son of God’ all authority, power, and divine privilege He has nevertheless. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matthew 28:18 “....every knee should bow....” Phil. 2:8-11 "....If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23.

    Salvation does not hinge on the mechanical knowledge of what Jesus’s essence is, but on why He came and if you choose to believe and become his faithful follower, becoming in essence a younger brother of Jesus as He guides you into a relationship with the Father.  Hypostatic unions, hypostasis, triad, relational subordination, etc, are all words on the lips of the vain. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27 The whole message of Jesus is sidelined with theological disputes over his essence and nature. One is arguing over how many angles can fit on the head of a pin. Sadly, “What think ye of the Christ?” is and remains the main question of the ages in which doctrinal disputes revolve. Do we look at these hypotheses as heretical attacks on God by unbelievers, or earnest but misguided attempts by the faithful to fathom the fathomless? Is the identity of Jesus revealed to us through scripture guided by the Holy Spirit? It is a good idea to look deeply into a matter before reaching a conclusion, even accepting that we are not given to know certain things.

    Debate over the nature of God did not begin or end at the councils, it is still going on to this day. The important question, however, is whether there is support in Scripture for the Christological decisions and definitions on the nature of Jesus, not what the “councils” decided. Christianity is not ruled by established institutions, traditions, or the popular views of men, but on God-breathed Scripture. “...not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words...” 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:.2 Tim. 3:16,

    To claim authority above and beyond the Word of God is a grievous sin called pride and a clear and unobstructed sign of falsehood. “ It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons, etc.etc..

    “I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God (John 10:30-33)
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited May 8
    KhasimAmedu 

    The trinity doctrine is false.  
    It says there are three different and separate persons making one God.

    There is only One God, and that One God comes to us in three.
    The Father is an invisible Spirit, He made Himself a body, and His Spirit can go out before Him and be put in people's hearts.

    Jesus is the Spirit.  Jesus is God.
    Jesus says and does exactly as the Father does.
    In fact, when you see Jesus, you can say, "I see the Father".


    John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove

    But the very next verse....

    Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10)

    The use of the term myself or I while referencing the Father distinguishes Jesus as a separate person, He does not say if you've seen me, you've seen the Father because they are the same, but because the Father dwells within Jesus, they are both in harmony as one God. 

    I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)

    This verse distinguishes that Jesus is His own self and has his own will and the Father has His own will, if they are the same person they would only have one will. 

    If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. (John 5:31-32)

    These verses show it the distinction ............who?  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. [<---that's one person], John, and then,,...And the Father [<----yet another person] who sent Me has Himself testified about Me. You have never heard His voice nor seen His form, And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. (John 5:38), that's another person, the Father who sent Jesus...you have never heard His voice... If Jesus was the Father, then we would of heard His voice, they would of been one and the same.

    I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved meFather, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:23-24)

    It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Son and Father are separate persons from the verses above, you would be hard pressed to suggest that despite that this distinction is being made that the exact opposite is true. I think I will go with Scripture, thanks for sharing your unfounded speculations, but no thanks. 

    "This belief that God is a single entity (Unitarianism) and not three Persons existing eternally in one God (Trinitarianism) was first formulated in the early church around A.D. 220. by a Libyan theologian named Sabellius. He attempted to retain biblical language concerning Father, Son and Holy Spirit without acknowledging the triune nature of God. Sabellius claimed that God existed as a single Being who manifested Himself in three activities, modes or aspects: as Father in the creation, as Son in redemption, and as Holy Spirit in prophecy and sanctification. This heresy, though condemned by the vast majority of Christians, survives to this day." -DH
    KhasimAmeduMrDebatePerson2
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited May 8

    But the very next verse....

    Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10)

    The use of the term myself or I while referencing the Father distinguishes Jesus as a separate person, He does not say if you've seen me, you've seen the Father because they are the same, but because the Father dwells within Jesus, they are both in harmony as one God. 

    I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)

    This verse distinguishes that Jesus is His own self and has his own will and the Father has His own will, if they are the same person they would only have one will. 

    If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. (John 5:31-32)

    These verses show it the distinction ............who?  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. [<---that's one person], John, and then,,...And the Father [<----yet another person] who sent Me has Himself testified about Me. You have never heard His voice nor seen His form, And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. (John 5:38), that's another person, the Father who sent Jesus...you have never heard His voice... If Jesus was the Father, then we would of heard His voice, they would of been one and the same.

    Just because Jesus says 'myself', it doesn't mean they are separate and different persons, it proves they are the same.  The word 'one' even means 'the same'.  Jesus is speaking as a human.  Jesus is God the Father come as a son.  Jesus doesn't say he is God, he says he is the son of God.  That still does not mean he isn't the Father come as a son.


    I in them, and thou in me
    , that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:23-24)

    It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Son and Father are separate persons from the verses above, you would be hard pressed to suggest that despite that this distinction is being made that the exact opposite is true. I think I will go with Scripture, thanks for sharing your unfounded speculations, but no thanks. 

    The scriptures show that Jesus is God the Father come as a son.
    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, and Jesus is the Lord and the Spirit.  That is what the SCRIPTURES say.

    Jesus is a life giving Spirit, see 1 Corinthians 15:45.

    The Spirit gives life; see 2 Corinthians 3:6.

    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.



    "This belief that God is a single entity (Unitarianism) and not three Persons existing eternally in one God (Trinitarianism) was first formulated in the early church around A.D. 220. by a Libyan theologian named Sabellius. He attempted to retain biblical language concerning Father, Son and Holy Spirit without acknowledging the triune nature of God. Sabellius claimed that God existed as a single Being who manifested Himself in three activities, modes or aspects: as Father in the creation, as Son in redemption, and as Holy Spirit in prophecy and sanctification. This heresy, though condemned by the vast majority of Christians, survives to this day." -DH


    Even the word 'God' is singular, but the false trinitarian doctrine makes three different and separate persons one God.  

    KhasimAmedu
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -   edited May 8
    Why would the condition that God places Himself in make Himself less worthy of worship, Is He not the same person in whatever form He chooses to take?

    Because the Word or Logos is present within the being of Jesus Christ meaning Jesus is fully man and fully God (The Word) We know that the humanity of Jesus is not perfect thus an imperfect nature. The reason why this makes the Word less worthy of worship is because the divine nature (Logos) is now associated with the imperfect nature (the humanity of Jesus Christ) How are they associated? Because they are united within the one being of Jesus Christ which thus implies a association of being (a synonym of association is union) I want to make it clear that this doesn't imply that these two natures are mixed or changed in any way.

    But if a divine, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God (The Word) is in association with with a imperfect and limited nature (the humanity of Jesus) then this makes this once perfect, and omniscient God that was not in any association with imperfection less worthy of worship since the Word is now in association with a imperfect nature.

    Basically we can sum it up like this: Which God is worthy of worship?

    This God here, is totally perfect and totally powerful and totally authoritative. Totally perfect would imply no association or relation with imperfection or any thing else that isn't in concordance with God's perfect and divine attributes.

    This second God, is perfect, powerful and has authority. Why didn't I use "totally"? Because this God is associated with an imperfect nature thus an association with imperfection. This God has chosen to "humble" himself by retaining his Divine nature thus allowing the imperfect nature to control of the being of Jesus Christ. 

    Which God is more worthy of worship? Christians would choose the second God. Even if the God they worshipped was associated with imperfection and ignorance and so on, they wouldn't care because Jesus is God. This my friend, is clear ignorance.

    Furthermore, everyone, regardless of race, should proudly claim the word “slave”(abdul) for him or herself – I am a slave, you are a slave, we are all slaves.

    Yes, I am a slave of Allah but just call me that. No need to flex the Arabic B)

    Are you sure He didn't? The phrase "I am who I am" in the Hebrew is YHWH, often translated as “LORD,” “Yahweh,” did not Jesus say He was "I am" in John 8:24?

    Oh yeah, I'm sure. This verse is not being narrated by Jesus Christ himself according to the NIV version. I'm not talking about John 8:24, by the way.

    "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” John 8:24

    Why isn't he capitalized is he is referring to God by your interpretation? 

    1) I'll state again, God is infinite and we are finite, these are things we simply cannot comprehend.
    2)  The ultimate truth regarding the nature of God is a mystery.
    3) Is the identity of Jesus revealed to us through scripture guided by the Holy Spirit? It is a good idea to look deeply into a matter before reaching a conclusion, even accepting that we are not given to know certain things.
    4) 
    Debate over the nature of God did not begin or end at the councils, it is still going on to this day.

    Notice the pattern of your responses? It admits to ambiguity and obscurity of the Christian faith. Many of the disputes of the early Christians are still being disputed to this day. I'm not sure if it's good if a religion has so much ambiguity. I'm not saying religion isn't supposed to have ambiguity but Christianity has to start giving some answers. Almost all of the questions I have asked have been interpreted differently and thus results in a spectrum of different answers. This applies to almost every aspect of Christianity.  Even your own God! Unitarian, Bitarian, Trinitarian. Why would God allow so much ambiguity on his own existence? In Islam, there is zero ambiguity when it comes to our God. The different sects agree that God is one and the only one worthy of worship. Even in other religions, their God is not as ambiguous as the Christian God. 

    This is even evident right now! TrueLove has interpreted the Trinity as a false doctrine despite believing that Jesus is divine. While you believe it isn't false.

    “I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:30-33)

    Yes, the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ pbuh are one in essence. But are they? I mentioned this in my first post and you haven't answered it.

    The cause of the essence or substance of the Son is the Father. This is because the Son is begotten from the Father thus meaning that the Father generated the Son, in essence and being. Yet the Father has no cause in his essence as he is eternal with no beginning. Tell me, how can a caused essence and a uncaused essence be the exact same? The difference of causes in essence would already imply the essence of the person of the Trinity are differentiated and thus a crisis upon the doctrine of the Trinity. So how do you interpret this?

    @Neopesdom




















  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove

    The trinity doctrine is false.  

    This isn't the mainstream belief of Christianity so don't expect me to take your interpretation as Gospel. You should debate Neopesdom on the Trinity has he clearly has other interpretations of the Trinity.

    There is only One God, and that One God comes to us in three.

    This my friend, is polytheism. If one God reveals himself as three then this eliminates the monotheistic element of that God, and thus a severe contradiction of monotheism. The fact of the matter is, no documented monotheistic religion adopts any form of a Trinity or persons, or God revealing himself in three, or two. Monotheism is simply the worship of one, indivisible and single God. The Christian God from whatever interpretation does not meet that qualification. And my other point, is that pagan and polytheistic religions have had their own forms of the Trinity such as the Ancient Egyptians and Hinduism. Whether it's exactly like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is besides the point, a common element is the supreme God being viewed as Trinity. The Christian God, the Supreme God (the Father) is part of the Trinity of One God(Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I can see elements of monotheism and polytheism in that definition, and that's exactly how the Quran describes Christianity. A mix of truth and falsehood.

    This statement is even a contradictory one. If there's only one God why would he reveal himself as not the only God meaning the Son is also God and the Spirit is also God?

    The Father is an invisible Spirit, He made Himself a body, and His Spirit can go out before Him and be put in people's hearts.

    I asked Neopesdom this same question, but he hasn't answered it so I'll ask you to. "He made himself a body" is the problem.

    God or specifically the Word or Logos incarnated into the being of Jesus Christ. Meaning that Jesus is fully human and fully God (The Word) by definition of the hypostatic union. 

    Because the Word or Logos is present within the being of Jesus Christ, this would imply a union between the Word, a divine and perfect nature with the humanity of Jesus Christ, a imperfect and limited nature. This is in concordance with the Chalcedon definition of the hypostatic union, which is the most accepted definition of the union of Jesus Christ in Christianity. My claim is that since is God (The Word) is associated with imperfection and limited power this ultimately makes him less worthy of worship.

    How is the Word associated with imperfection and limited power? Simple, the hypostatic union. Since the Word is united with the imperfect nature of the human Jesus, this would imply an association of imperfection. 

    Now tell me: Which God is more worthy of worship?

    God 1: This God here, is totally perfect in all aspects of His essence and being, totally powerful in all aspects of essence and being and totally authoritative in all aspects of his essence of being. Totally perfect would imply no association or relation with imperfection or anything else that isn't in concordance with God's perfection and divine attributes.

    God 2: This second God, is perfect, powerful and authority by nature. Why didn't I use "totally"? Because this God is associated with an imperfect nature in being thus an association with imperfection. This would then mean that this God is not "totally perfect" but rather he is merely perfect by nature but not being. This God has chosen to "humble" himself by retaining his Divine nature thus allowing the imperfect nature to control of the being of Jesus Christ. This would imply that this God preferred imperfection to control the union.

    Which God is more worthy of worship? Christians would likely choose the second one, believe it or not.
     Even if the God they worshipped was associated with imperfection and ignorance and so on, they wouldn't care because Jesus is God. This my friend, is the height of ignorance.

    John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

    "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. (John 16:25) Narrated by Jesus Christ pbuh.

    You're taking that verse literally, which is a mistake. 


    @TrueLove
















  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    Called it. I knew you guys would start debating each other LOL!
    TrueLove
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    Called it. I knew you guys would start debating each other LOL!
    If you are talking about the trinitarian and me, well of course I debate trinitarians.  
    KhasimAmedu
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited May 8


    This isn't the mainstream belief of Christianity so don't expect me to take your interpretation as Gospel. You should debate Neopesdom on the Trinity has he clearly has other interpretations of the Trinity.

    I can prove with scripture what I say is the gospel.


    This my friend, is polytheism.

    No it is not.  There is only one God, and He shows Himself to us in three ways.


    If one God reveals himself as three then this eliminates the monotheistic element of that God, and thus a severe contradiction of monotheism. The fact of the matter is, no documented monotheistic religion adopts any form of a Trinity or persons, or God revealing himself in three, or two. Monotheism is simply the worship of one, indivisible and single God. The Christian God from whatever interpretation does not meet that qualification. And my other point, is that pagan and polytheistic religions have had their own forms of the Trinity such as the Ancient Egyptians and Hinduism. Whether it's exactly like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is besides the point, a common element is the supreme God being viewed as Trinity. The Christian God, the Supreme God (the Father) is part of the Trinity of One God(Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I can see elements of monotheism and polytheism in that definition, and that's exactly how the Quran describes Christianity. A mix of truth and falsehood.

    That is because there is a lack of understanding.


    This statement is even a contradictory one. If there's only one God why would he reveal himself as not the only God meaning the Son is also God and the Spirit is also God?

    God came as a man for us.


    I asked Neopesdom this same question, but he hasn't answered it so I'll ask you to. "He made himself a body" is the problem.

    Why is God making Himself a body a problem for you?


    God or specifically the Word or Logos incarnated into the being of Jesus Christ. Meaning that Jesus is fully human and fully God (The Word) by definition of the hypostatic union. 

    Because the Word or Logos is present within the being of Jesus Christ, this would imply a union between the Word, a divine and perfect nature with the humanity of Jesus Christ, a imperfect and limited nature. This is in concordance with the Chalcedon definition of the hypostatic union, which is the most accepted definition of the union of Jesus Christ in Christianity. My claim is that since is God (The Word) is associated with imperfection and limited power this ultimately makes him less worthy of worship.

    What you are missing is that all humans have a physical body and their own spirit within them.  Jesus' spirit within him is the Spirit of God.  Jesus doesn't have his own spirit and also the Spirit of God, as humans receive when they are saved, for Jesus' spirit is the Spirit of God.
    That is one of many things the trinitarians lack in knowledge.  


    Now tell me: Which God is more worthy of worship?

    God 1: This God here, is totally perfect in all aspects of His essence and being, totally powerful in all aspects of essence and being and totally authoritative in all aspects of his essence of being. Totally perfect would imply no association or relation with imperfection or anything else that isn't in concordance with God's perfection and divine attributes.

    Jesus is all perfect.  Jesus was made perfect and makes all perfect who comes through him.

    Hebrews 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.

    Hebrews 5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

    Hebrews 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

    Hebrews 10:14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.


    God 2: This second God, is perfect, powerful and authority by nature. Why didn't I use "totally"? Because this God is associated with an imperfect nature in being thus an association with imperfection. This would then mean that this God is not "totally perfect" but rather he is merely perfect by nature but not being. This God has chosen to "humble" himself by retaining his Divine nature thus allowing the imperfect nature to control of the being of Jesus Christ. This would imply that this God preferred imperfection to control the union.

    Jesus suffered, died, was buried, raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven in a resurrected immortal body.

    Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.


    Which God is more worthy of worship? Christians would likely choose the second one, believe it or not. Even if the God they worshipped was associated with imperfection and ignorance and so on, they wouldn't care because Jesus is God. This my friend, is the height of ignorance.

    Jesus was worshiped in the flesh on earth, and rightly so, since he is the son of God, and is God come in the flesh.
    He is worshiped now that he is in heaven sitting on the thrown.  He is immortal.  


    John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

    "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. (John 16:25) Narrated by Jesus Christ pbuh.

    You're taking that verse literally, which is a mistake. 


     The disciples had things explained to them---as when Jesus said don't you recognize me?  When you see me you have seen the father.

    Read further from the scripture you quoted.  Jesus did explain things to them plainly.

    29His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. 30Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. 31Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? 32Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 33These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.



    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    I can prove with scripture what I say is the gospel.

    Trinitarians are able to do this as well, so this doesn't make your interpretation better or more correct than others. The fact that there is so much ambiguity regarding the Christian God is something that I cannot comprehend.

    No it is not.  There is only one God, and He shows Himself to us in three ways.

    Firstly, you need to define "ways" as that is a vague term. In what ways did this one God reveal himself? I suggest that when you answer this it is in concordance with monotheism. But the very concept that God didn't reveal himself as one indivisible God is already in contradiction with monotheism.

    That is because there is a lack of understanding.

    What do you mean? Are you implying that the Early Christians had a poor understanding of God?

    Jesus is all perfect.  Jesus was made perfect and makes all perfect who comes through him.

    Oh, are you saying the humanity of Jesus was perfect? The Bible says otherwise, 

    Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable. (Isaiah 40:28)

    Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour. (John 4:6)

    1) God is perfect because He cannot faint nor is weary
    2) Jesus was wearied
    3) Therefore the human Jesus is not perfect

    He will not let you fall; your protector is always awakeThe protector of Israel never dozes or sleeps. (Psalms 121:3-4)

    And suddenly a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep (Matthew 8:24)

    1) The Protector of Israel or God is perfect because he is fully awake and never dozes or sleeps
    2) Jesus was asleep according to Matthew.
    3) The human Jesus was not perfect.

    For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. (1 John 3:20)

    Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 13:26-32)

    1) God is perfect because He knows all things
    2) The human Jesus or the Son does not know all things 
    3) The human Jesus is not perfect in knowledge.

    But the main refutation of the humanity of Jesus Christ being perfect is that human nature is imperfect and limited by definition. And according to the Chalcedon definition of Jesus Christ, Jesus was completely alike in humanity besides him being sinless. Does being sinless imply perfection? Absolutely not. The prophets were infallible just like Jesus. And Jesus being sinless doesn't exclude him from limited knowledge, limited power, limited authority, feeling tired or weak, and doziness which are all imperfect attributes since God cannot by definition cannot do these things. 

    "like us in all things, sin apart"  Council of Chalcedon.

    If Jesus is like us in all things except sin then by definition of his human nature Jesus is still not perfect.

    God came as a man for us.

    God/Word/Logos, totally perfect, totally powerful, and a totally authoritative being prefers to associate with a imperfect nature? Why doesn't God want to stay totally perfect? If he stayed totally perfect then this would make him worthy of worship as he has no association with imperfection or ignorance. And yet God somehow preferred to associate his existence with imperfection just so he could die again thus making less worthy of worship?

    The Christian God before incarnation: Totally perfect with no association with imperfection or anything that is not concordant with God's divine nature.

    The Christian God that is worshipped today: A God only perfect by nature as he has associated his being with a imperfect nature (man), and thus his being cannot be totally perfect. 

    So in short, God came down as a imperfect and limited being and chose to retain his Divine attributes, because he wanted to die for the world? In what reality would God prefer to associate himself with imperfection? Did God desire death?

    Jesus was worshiped in the flesh on earth, and rightly so, since he is the son of God, and is God come in the flesh.
     
    They merely worshipped the nature of Jesus Christ as that was the only part of Jesus that was actually divine. But is this complete worship? If they worship Jesus merely because of his nature but not because of his being then this is 'incomplete worship'.
    God deserves to be worshipped in all aspects of his existence, not just by his nature or substance. People who accepted Jesus as God did so because Jesus by nature was God. But it was only by his nature that Jesus was God, meaning that his being was human. This means then that if one chooses to worship Jesus you must worship his nature, essence or substance alone, but not his being as that would be worshipping a man. Yet Christians today, worship Jesus in his totality. They worship his being and his essence, as if Jesus is in totality God. But Jesus isn't in totality only his nature or essence is that of God. This is in concordance with Christian belief that Jesus is only God by his essence, not his being.

    29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. 30Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. 31J esus answered them, Do ye now believe? 32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 33These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

    I took your advice and read John 16. A few verses before John 16:29 Jesus states:

    Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

    Firstly, "time" is not specified by Jesus and thus "time" is an ambiguous term. I read this verse with an unbiased perspective and I formulated that Jesus was referring to his second coming in which his disciples believed would be close. And despite this in John 16:29, the disciples are making an assumption that "time" is referring to the present or right now. Meaning the disciples interpreted "time" to be present tense.

    Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” John 16:29

    But does "time is coming" imply present tense? No, it implies future tense meaning that it will occur in the near future. And yet the disciples made the error of interpreting "time" to be the present. 

    The next few verses even prove my point.

    “Do you now believe?”Jesus replied. 32“ A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. 

    If "time" was implying present tense then according to this verse the disciples were scattered, each in their home. But is this historically accurate? Not according to the Bible.

    "
    The Christian Gospels of Mark and Matthew say that, after the Ascension of Jesus, his Apostles "went out and preached everywhere". This is described in Mark 16 verses 19 and 20, and Matthew 28 verses 19 and 20."

    This means that Jesus was referring to the near future, when he said "A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone." not the present. 

    This means then that when Jesus stated " a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father." he wasn't referring to the present as the disciples assumed he was referring to the future.

    The reason why I find this valid is because these are well within the same portion of the chapter. Jesus doesn't even affirm or reject the disciples' assumption he simply goes on with what he says, this is a common element of Jesus i the Bible. He doesn't affirm or reject people's claims or assumptions about him he merely continues with what he has to say. 

    @TrueLove





     















     











  • SwolliwSwolliw 1040 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    Thats. Your. Opinion.

    Yes, opinion based on facts.

    You have stated your opinion with no facts to back it.

    For example, "There is no God except the Father, for he is the only true God."

    Yet research has shown that there are currently 10,000 Gods being worshiped.

    Your opinion is wrong as contradicted by the facts.

    Therefore, the premise of your thread is completely redundant and defeated.

    KhasimAmeduMrDebatePerson2
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited May 9


    Trinitarians are able to do this as well, so this doesn't make your interpretation better or more correct than others. The fact that there is so much ambiguity regarding the Christian God is something that I cannot comprehend.

    No they cannot.  Trinitarians cannot prove their beliefs with scripture.  In fact, they say it is too complex to understand and explain.  The word trinity isn't even in the Bible; and, trinitarians have to change words to make their doctrine.  They have to make a singular word 'God' into a plural word.


    Firstly, you need to define "ways" as that is a vague term. In what ways did this one God reveal himself? I suggest that when you answer this it is in concordance with monotheism. But the very concept that God didn't reveal himself as one indivisible God is already in contradiction with monotheism.

    You don't get to make up the rules.  There is only one God, and He can send His Spirit to do anything He wants, and He can also come as a man.  The three ways God reveals Himself is by the invisible Father in heaven, the Son who came to show us the way and die for us, and their Spirit who lives in the saved.


    What do you mean? Are you implying that the Early Christians had a poor understanding of God?

    Of course there are Christians from even the New Testament times who had misunderstandings.  There are some who misunderstood what Paul means when he says faith and not of works.  Some people thought it meant faith and no obedience.  There are people who still believe that false doctrine.  Peter calls the people unlearned and unstable. See Peter 3:16.  James deals with this false doctrine too and calls the people who believe that 'fools'.  See James 2:20.  There are other instances of false doctrines rebuked in the Bible.  

    Oh, are you saying the humanity of Jesus was perfect? The Bible says otherwise, 

    I gave you scriptures that say Jesus was made perfect by what he suffered.  


    1) God is perfect because He cannot faint nor is weary
    2) Jesus was wearied
    3) Therefore the human Jesus is not perfect

    Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.


    He will not let you fall; your protector is always awake. The protector of Israel never dozes or sleeps. (Psalms 121:3-4)

    God lowered Himself to come as a man.

    Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 

    And suddenly a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep (Matthew 8:24)

    That is what real men do, they sleep.


    For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. (1 John 3:20)

    1) God is perfect because He knows all things
    2) The human Jesus or the Son does not know all things 
    3) The human Jesus is not perfect in knowledge.

    That is for Jesus too.

    John 2:24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.

    Matthew 9:4 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, "Why do you harbor evil in your hearts? 


    But the main refutation of the humanity of Jesus Christ being perfect is that human nature is imperfect and limited by definition. And according to the Chalcedon definition of Jesus Christ, Jesus was completely alike in humanity besides him being sinless. Does being sinless imply perfection? Absolutely not. The prophets were infallible just like Jesus.

    The prophets were not sinless.  Only Jesus was sinless.


     And Jesus being sinless doesn't exclude him from limited knowledge, limited power, limited authority, feeling tired or weak, and doziness which are all imperfect attributes since God cannot by definition cannot do these things. 

    Jesus could have stopped living as a man at any time.  

    I explained to you God lowered Himself and came as a man; God really was a man and had to sleep, etc.
    I gave you scriptures that say he was made perfect in suffering.

    Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God.

    Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,


    In what reality would God prefer to associate himself with imperfection? Did God desire death?

    There is no greater love.

     
    They merely worshipped the nature of Jesus Christ as that was the only part of Jesus that was actually divine. But is this complete worship? If they worship Jesus merely because of his nature but not because of his being then this is 'incomplete worship'.

    Incomplete worship?  No.  


    God deserves to be worshipped in all aspects of his existence, not just by his nature or substance. People who accepted Jesus as God did so because Jesus by nature was God. But it was only by his nature that Jesus was God, meaning that his being was human. This means then that if one chooses to worship Jesus you must worship his nature, essence or substance alone, but not his being as that would be worshipping a man. Yet Christians today, worship Jesus in his totality. They worship his being and his essence, as if Jesus is in totality God. But Jesus isn't in totality only his nature or essence is that of God. This is in concordance with Christian belief that Jesus is only God by his essence, not his being.

    Jesus is God the Father come as a son.  Jesus is what God did for us.  One day Jesus will hand back the kingdom to the Father, for we will all be like Jesus and no need for one to  intercede.


    Firstly, "time" is not specified by Jesus and thus "time" is an ambiguous term. I read this verse with an unbiased perspective and I formulated that Jesus was referring to his second coming in which his disciples believed would be close. And despite this in John 16:29, the disciples are making an assumption that "time" is referring to the present or right now. Meaning the disciples interpreted "time" to be present tense.  But does "time is coming" imply present tense? No, it implies future tense meaning that it will occur in the near future. And yet the disciples made the error of interpreting "time" to be the present. 

    Jesus explained his parables to his disciples; and, the disciples said he spoke plainly to them.  Why are you arguing against that?

    He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.


    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    >>>Because the Word or Logos is present within the being of Jesus Christ meaning

    No, the Word is same person as Jesus, not a presence within..

    >>>that the humanity of Jesus is not perfect

    You object to God being worthy of worship because He took on, according to you, a "imperfect nature". Yet I don't read anywhere in Scripture where Jesus in His unresurrected state says "I am God worship me".. does He not direct people to worship the Father? He was born, and grew, and ate and drank and slept, etc., and all this may be spoken of as natural in the sense that it refers to what belongs to man's condition here as in flesh and blood, yet His humanity was unique on account of who He was.

    Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, (Heb. 2:14)

    We do read that the Word became flesh, and Christ could be known according to flesh; "the days of His flesh" are spoken of, referring to a condition in which He is now no longer. 

    Jesus in His humanity was still fully God and without sin. It is marvelous grace that the Word became a Man – a Man to free every one believing in Him of the man after the flesh, so that every one in Him is a new creation. 

    "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Cor. 5:16-17)
    TrueLoveMrDebatePerson2
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    No, the Word is same person as Jesus, not a presence within..

    I never said the Word was a presence within Jesus, the Word is the divine nature of Jesus.  Since the humanity of Jesus and the Word, the divine nature are united (hypostatic union) they are the same person. So I agree, but seemingly this makes the "association with imperfection" more severe. Not only is the Word united with an imperfect nature, his identity is now mixed with an imperfect being (the humanity of Jesus) This makes him even less worthy of worship then before.

    You object to God being worthy of worship because He took on, according to you, a "imperfect nature".

    Yes that's exactly my point, except God merely united himself with an imperfect nature thus an association of imperfection. In my eyes, associating God who is totally perfect in all aspects of his nature and existence with imperfection is clear blasphemy.

    Yet I don't read anywhere in Scripture where Jesus in His unresurrected state says "I am God worship me".. does He not direct people to worship the Father

    Perfect. You just used a refutation that has been used by Muslims for decades. Jesus has never said "I am God" or "Worship me" but rather he directs all praise and worship to the Father, just as you claim. From a Islamic perspective, we believe that the Father is supposed to be the only God being worshipped in Christianity, but due to misinterpretation and human tampering of the Bible (makes sense since the Bible was written over the span of 1600 years with about 39 authors which many of the authorships are unknown or highly debated) that Jesus who was clearly a human is being assigned divinity merely because he used figurative phrases to describe the Father,The Holy Spirit, and the Word.

    Muslims believe that the Word always existed but it isn't a person of God.
    We believe that the Holy Spirit exists but we don't say he's a person of God. This idea is totally feasible and if God did have persons this might not eliminate the oneness or monotheism of God in its entirety but it will certainly diminish the oneness of God. How? Look at the pictures of the Trinity, You see the Father sitting one end of His Throne, and Jesus sitting on his own throne on another end. The Holy Spirit is usually dove or invisible. When I look at the Trinity I don't think of one God. I think of the three persons. When I hear Christians worship I don't think of One God. I think of the persons. I'm sure some can relate. The mere fact that I refer to the persons more than the One God is clear proof that the oneness of God has subsided greatly.


     He was born, and grew, and ate and drank and slept, etc.,

    All of which the Father does not do and thus these are attributes of imperfection.

     and all this may be spoken of as natural in the sense that it refers to what belongs to man's condition here as in flesh and blood, yet His humanity was unique on account of who He was.

    The only way Jesus' humanity was unique was that he was sinless. This isn't really surprising as prophets are believed to have been infallible or in other words incapable of committing major transgressions against God. I don't count small errors as 'sin'. Anyways, being sinless only implies perfection in his faith but not his entire humanity, and like you stated he slept, felt weary, and did not know when the Hour was. All of which are evidences of his imperfection.

    Jesus in His humanity was still fully God and without sin. It is marvelous grace that the Word became a Man – a Man to free every one believing in Him of the man after the flesh, so that every one in Him is a new creation. 

    Jesus was fully human and fully God with the exception of sin. Like I stated before, being sinless does not imply perfection of nature. It merely implies perfection of faith which the prophets, including Abraham had. Abraham never transgressed against God, and his faith was perfected.

    Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 2You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made perfect by what he did. (James 2:21-22)

    "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Cor. 5:16-17)

    This doesn't refute the imperfect nature of Jesus Christ but rather this is an evasive attempt to rid Jesus of all imperfection. This merely tells us that we should not look at Jesus from a human standpoint, but why shouldn't we? He is fully human by definition of the hypostatic union. How can someone who is fully human apart from sin not be looked at as a human? This verse would imply then that Jesus is not fully human which is in contradiction with the hypostatic union. 

    @Neopesdom









  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    no where does jesus say the ghost is god
    case closed
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    LOL, how are you mickyg long time no see.
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -   edited May 11
    KICKED OFF TWITTER AND FACEBOOK @KhasimAmedu
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    WHERE DOES JESUS SAY THE GHOST IS GOD?   @Neopesdom
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    mickyg said:
    WHERE DOES JESUS SAY THE GHOST IS GOD?   @Neopesdom
    God is Spirit.  The Spirit is His Spirit.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    YES ITS TRUE
    JESUS NEVER SAID THE GHOST WAS GOD...@TrueLove
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;
    mickyg said:
    YES ITS TRUE
    JESUS NEVER SAID THE GHOST WAS GOD...@TrueLove
    1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

    John 4:24 For God is Spirit,


    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    JESUS CALLED GOD A SPIRIT......
    HE DID NOT SAY THE HOLY GHOST WAS GOD...
    ONCE AGAIN FOR THE SLOWWWWWWW CLASS
    CORINTHIANS IS PAUL NOT JESUS....@TrueLove
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever”
    A COMFORTER WILL BE SENT.....A GOD IS EVERYWHERE ALREADY?.....OR NOT?
    @TrueLove
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    >>>How can someone who is fully human apart from sin not be looked at as a human? 

    Because "The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." 

     So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor. 15:42-53)

    The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. (Rev. 1:14-16)

    The resurrected Jesus....does this sound like someone that can be looked at as human?

    >>>Perfect. You just used a refutation that has been used by Muslims for decades. 

    That refutation, as we have just seen, has been based on the false assumption that Jesus is to be worshiped in manhood. We do not worship what is sown in dishonor, but afterwards what has been raised in glory. "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain...." (1 Cor.15:17)

    >>>It merely implies perfection of faith which the prophets, including Abraham had. 

    I guess we can rule out Muhammad then as a prophet, since he was a grievous sinner.

    That Allah may forgive for you (Muhammad) what preceded of your sin and what will follow.. (Quran 48:2)

    So know, [O Muḥammad], that there is no deity except Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin (Quran 47:19)

    "Throughout the Muslim world today it is generally believed that all of the prophets enjoyed an "isma", a protection against sin, and that they were accordingly sinless. It is one of the anomalies of Islam that this doctrine has been established and maintained against the plain teaching of the Quran and Hadith to the contrary. In the early centuries of Islam, however, a doctrine founded on popular sentiment and theological presuppositions arose and developed away from the teaching of the Quran and Hadith.

    It was first formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II and it is there stated:

                "All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part. Wensinck, "The Muslim Creed, p. 192."

    It was not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely, however, and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Quran and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes". Similar euphemisms, such as "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanors which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.

    There are basically two reasons for the rise of this doctrine in Islam. Firstly, the early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught plainly that Jesus was the only sinless man that ever lived and, confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary to invent the fiction that all the prophets — especially Muhammad — were sinless as well. A superiority of Jesus over Muhammad could not be tolerated and, just as miracles were attributed to the figurehead of Islam to give him a status at least equal to that of Jesus, so he was also held to be sinless for the same purpose. Secondly, the doctrine of revelation in Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets by the intermediary angel (Gabriel) and it was therefore believed that the prophets must have possessed an impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error in their personal lives, how could they be trusted to communicate God’s revelation without error? This latter presupposition led perforce to the conclusion that the prophets must have been sinless."- John Gilchrist

    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 115 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    WHERE DOES JESUS SAY THE GHOST IS GOD? 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BslU44vWU


      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    God is a r a -p-I s t
    He impregnates a virgin without her approval. @Neopesdom
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    mickyg said:
    JESUS CALLED GOD A SPIRIT......
    HE DID NOT SAY THE HOLY GHOST WAS GOD...
    ONCE AGAIN FOR THE SLOWWWWWWW CLASS
    CORINTHIANS IS PAUL NOT JESUS....@TrueLove
    Paul spoke as the Holy Spirit enabled him.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    mickyg said:
    And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever”
    A COMFORTER WILL BE SENT.....A GOD IS EVERYWHERE ALREADY?.....OR NOT?
    @TrueLove
    That scripture is about God coming to live in the saved's heart.

    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    Because "The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." 

    Here's my interpretation of this verse. "
    Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

    The creation or being of Christ is a new creation, since there has never been a God incarnate before  from that perspective. But this is solely mentioning his entire being, and does not take into account his specific natures. His natures are not new, as his human nature was alike to us in all aspects apart from sin, and sinlessness merely implies perfection of faith which other prophets such as Abraham had so from that perspective there is nothing new about the humanity of Jesus.  Rather it's because these two natures (human and divine) are united that creates a being that hasn't existed before, a God-incarnate and thus a new creation. 

    So in short, the being of Christ is new but his natures aren't.

     What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. (1 Cor. 15:42-53)

    This is evidence that human nature is imperfect by definition. "What is sown" is clearly referencing creation of human beings, and attributes such as perishable, weakness, and dishonor are all part of the human nature. And it's clear from the definition of the hypostatic union that that Jesus was alike us in all parts except sin, meaning that Jesus was capable of feeling weak (which he does in the Bible), he was capable of perishing (which he does in the bible) and from a Christian perspective Jesus is dishonoured by the Jews who claim he's a blasphemous man, a clear man not God etc. (which happens in the Bible). So from that perspective the humanity of Jesus "was sown" and thus by definition of his humanity he is imperfect.

    The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

    Wait Jesus' hair was white? Why are you all drawing him with brown hair? Anyways sharp and clear features was something that all the Prophets had not just Jesus. Even so, this isn't proof of anything really except for the fact that he was a good-looking and powerful guy. And it's clear that this passage is figurative, such as "sharp two-edged sword" and "face was like the sun". Here's some hadith that describe the Prophet's beauty.

    Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) says, “I did not see anyone more handsome as the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It was as if the brightness of the sun had shone from his auspicious face.

    Hassaan bin Thaabit (may Allah be pleased with him) describes him with the following couplets: My eyes have never seen anyone more perfect than you. No woman has given birth to anyone more handsome than you. You have been created free from all defects As if you were created the way you wished.

    The resurrected Jesus....does this sound like someone that can be looked at as human?

    I was never referring to the resurrected Jesus as he is now clearly a spirit of flesh, (Luke 24:39) rather I am referring to the unresurrected and imperfect Jesus. 

    Here's a question though, 

    "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Cor. 5:16-17)

    And yet, Jesus chooses to resurrect as a spirit of flesh, when it's clear that flesh was evidence of his imperfection. 

    “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)

    How can we not look Jesus according to the flesh when he resurrected into a spirit of flesh? Everything About Jesus is FLESH. Hm, I sound like a zombie. 

    That refutation, as we have just seen, has been based on the false assumption that Jesus is to be worshiped in manhood. We do not worship what is sown in dishonor, but afterwards what has been raised in glory. 

    No it's based on the assumption that Jesus has never explicitly claimed worship or divinity. I say explicit because the Father is normally explicit in the Bible while Jesus speaks in parables and ambiguity, and it's not as if Jesus isn't capable of speaking clearly, he even acknowledges that he could have been more plain and clear about the Father. 

    I guess we can rule out Muhammad then as a prophet, since he was a grievous sinner.

    "Grievous sinner" is a clear exaggeration. When I say the prophets were infallible I say they were incapable of enacting major transgressions. And as I stated before I don't count "small mistakes as "sin" but even so it wouldn't necessarily matter.

    Being sinless is not the only way to perfect one's faith, rather sacrifice and repentance can also perfect one's faith. For example, Abraham's faith was not perfected through abstaining from sin but rather it was perfected through his willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. The other way, repentance is something that the Prophet Muhammad always did, for I can surely say that no prophet repented more than Prophet Muhammad. Is this because he did more evil? No as the Prophet Muhammad was among the most purest and correct of people. He only made small errors and mistakes, but this never conflicted with his faith as he was constantly repenting.

    In hadith, Muhammad asked people to seek Allah's forgiveness: "O people, seek repentance from Allah. Verily, I seek repentance from Him a hundred times a day."  

    I just did the math, the Prophet Muhammad repented over 2.2 million times in his lifetime. The Prophet did not need to repent that many times, and yet he chose to. This is because the Prophet saw repentance as means of perfecting his faith and a means of purification. Jesus' faith was perfected through being sinless, Abraham's faith was perfected through sacrifice and the Prophet Muhammad's faith was perfected through repentance. So in that regard, the Prophet Muhammad passed away sinless as a result of his abundant repentance. 

    It was first formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II and it is there stated:

    Unfortunate that this is a secondary source written by Imam Abu Hanifa, a renowned Islamic scholar. Doesn't make it invalid or anything but just wanted to point that out.

    All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part. 

    Did you read this? Abu Hanifa states that stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part, and the Prophets were only exempt from disbelief and vile, and filthy deeds. And he makes the clear distinction between light sins and mistakes meaning they are not the same thing.

    There are basically two reasons for the rise of this doctrine in Islam. Firstly, the early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught plainly that Jesus was the only sinless man that ever lived and, confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary to invent the fiction that all the prophets — especially Muhammad — were sinless as well. A superiority of Jesus over Muhammad could not be tolerated and, just as miracles were attributed to the figurehead of Islam to give him a status at least equal to that of Jesus, so he was also held to be sinless for the same purpose. Secondly, the doctrine of revelation in Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets by the intermediary angel (Gabriel) and it was therefore believed that the prophets must have possessed an impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error in their personal lives, how could they be trusted to communicate God’s revelation without error? This latter presupposition led perforce to the conclusion that the prophets must have been sinless."John Gilchrist

    State the source this passage is from. Cause I can't find anything related to this. Unfortunate that this isn't even an islamic source.  

    @Neopesdom
























  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -  
    verses please
    i am not watching a home made youtube video.....
    jesus calls the ghost a helper not a god...@Neopesdom
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    Give the verse or any source that Jesus calls the Ghost a helper, please.
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    I just remembered one point that makes the Trinity entirely unworthy of worship, because as previously stated The Trinity is in association with imperfection (the humanity of Jesus) and thus lowers God's worthiness of worship. But not only is the Word/Logos in union with an imperfect nature but now, he's in association with a cursed nature. Yes, Christians actually believe that Jesus cursed his human nature by God's law in order to save humanity. So now, the Word associated with imperfect and cursed nature, which makes the Word even less worthy of worship. 

    @Neopesdom


  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    I just remembered one point that makes the Trinity entirely unworthy of worship, because as previously stated The Trinity is in association with imperfection (the humanity of Jesus) and thus lowers God's worthiness of worship. But not only is the Word/Logos in union with an imperfect nature but now, he's in association with a cursed nature. Yes, Christians actually believe that Jesus cursed his human nature by God's law in order to save humanity. So now, the Word associated with imperfect and cursed nature, which makes the Word even less worthy of worship. 

    @Neopesdom


    God loved His creation so much so that he lowered Himself to save us and you call that unworthy?

    The Bible says it is the greatest love ever known.  
    PhilosophicalBias
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    God loved His creation so much so that he lowered Himself to save us and you call that unworthy?

    What I call unworthy of worship, is the mere fact the Word or God is associated with an imperfect and cursed nature. Why would I worship a God that's associated with such things, when there are clearly better options.
  • mickygmickyg 348 Pts   -   edited May 12
    John 14:16 (ESV) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

    John 14:16 (NAS) "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;


  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    God loved His creation so much so that he lowered Himself to save us and you call that unworthy?

    What I call unworthy of worship, is the mere fact the Word or God is associated with an imperfect and cursed nature. Why would I worship a God that's associated with such things, when there are clearly better options.
    Jesus is immortal and sitting on the throne.
    He made it possible for you to have salvation.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 123 Pts   -  
    Jesus is immortal and sitting on the throne.

    The humanity of Jesus is imperfect and cursed, I could never worship a God with such a humiliating and shameful association. The mere fact that Christians ignore this, is a clear abomination in my opinion.

    He made it possible for you to have salvation.

    My God offers eternal life at an easy cost, believe in Allah alone, and adhere to his commands and abstain from sin. Doing so will result in eternal life.

    As for those who believe and do good they will have the Gardens of Eternal Residence as an accommodation (32:19)

    Enter it in peace This is the Day of eternal life (50:34)

    the Gardens of Eternity, under which rivers flow, where they will stay forever. That is the reward of those who purify themselves. (20:76)

    We don't need salvation as our God is entirely Merciful and Forgiving, and forgives all sins if one repents.

    Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful. (2:37)

    @TrueLove





Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch