Why Muslims Don't Believe in Concept of Trinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP:

- Jesus clearly says we are to stop thinking in terms of "eye-for-eye" retaliation.

- Islam retains eye-for-eye.

Is this a difference, or a similarity?

Start a new thread, its a different subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Haha, I was wondering too. I think she means "true" Christianity is stripped of the trinity, divinity, and all Jesus' sayings about women, your enemies, communion, baptism, dietary requirements, getting rid of eye-for-eye. Basically, "true Christianity" is stripped of almost everything Christ is recorded to have said. I'm as baffled as you are about what she might mean about true Judaism.

Yep, that's actually a basic position of Islam - that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all came with the same message but the followers of Moses and Jesus have corrupted their holy books so Muhammad had to be sent to set them straight, and THAT book is, don't you know it, 100% authentic. Muslims believe Moses and Jesus were Muslim and came to deliver Islam.

As I mentioned before, Muslim scholarship has never really articulated its problem with Judaism other than Muhammad being really angry at them for rejecting him. That's why Muslim dawwah efforts never really target Jews as they know that particular demographic is beyond their reach.

I'm puzzled that more Jews don't call Muslims on the "Jews believe Ezrah is the son of God" whoopsie.

Jews do not believe God has any children except in spiritual sense. Spiritually we are all Gods children. Only Christians believe that Jesus is Gods only son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So now you want to engage me in a discussion of how experts can tell the authenticity and discuss their dating techniques?

Different PP here. I think that would be actually be an interesting discussion, and relevant. OP keeps making broad assertions about which documents are authentic and which aren't, so it seems time for her to substantiate her claims. You claim you know, OP, so why don't you start first.

But I'm also interested in engaging in a discussion I know OP wants to have, in similarities between Islam and Christianity. So, OP, how is the Quranic permission given for men to beat their wives similar to Christianity?

Start a new thread. Its a new subject. The purpose of jumping topics is to thwart focus on this discussion and bury it deep within distractions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Haha, I was wondering too. I think she means "true" Christianity is stripped of the trinity, divinity, and all Jesus' sayings about women, your enemies, communion, baptism, dietary requirements, getting rid of eye-for-eye. Basically, "true Christianity" is stripped of almost everything Christ is recorded to have said. I'm as baffled as you are about what she might mean about true Judaism.

Yep, that's actually a basic position of Islam - that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all came with the same message but the followers of Moses and Jesus have corrupted their holy books so Muhammad had to be sent to set them straight, and THAT book is, don't you know it, 100% authentic. Muslims believe Moses and Jesus were Muslim and came to deliver Islam.

As I mentioned before, Muslim scholarship has never really articulated its problem with Judaism other than Muhammad being really angry at them for rejecting him. That's why Muslim dawwah efforts never really target Jews as they know that particular demographic is beyond their reach.

I'm puzzled that more Jews don't call Muslims on the "Jews believe Ezrah is the son of God" whoopsie.

Jews do not believe God has any children except in spiritual sense. Spiritually we are all Gods children. Only Christians believe that Jesus is Gods only son.

Some Christians believe we are all God's children, too -- which is why the whole Jesus thing makes some kinda sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Read again. I did not say you called Islam
Barbaric in this thread. However, you or your posse did indeed paint Islam as entirely barbaric and at least one person did use precisely that word, even if it was in a different thread.

If nobody buys anything I am saying you would not deem it necessary to continually respond to me. You respond to my posts because you are concerned that somebody out there might believe my posts, or they may at least start investigating.

Quite honestly the only rebuttals I recall are
- yes there may have been old manuscripts but they were from Ebionites
But the Ebionites seem to have been practicing monotheism which is closer to original manuscript
-theres no proof those manuscripts were in fact the oldest in the world
Thats what the dating experts say
-older doesn't mean accurate
Well thats what the experts in Christianity say, who has refuted that these are the originals?
-islam changed their holy book too
The standardized Quran was created from the original. No add ons. No edits.

So unless someone has something else to offer, what hasn't been answered??

Sweetie, when you declare something, the burden is on you to prove it. The burden is not on us. It doesn't help that you respond with unclear references to "original sources," which, I hope you know, is a HUGE area of scholarly inquiry all on its own. .

Just because one document might or might not be the oldest document that anybody has found, that in no way means the particular sect associated with that document "wins" the contest for "truthiness." It simply means that document was preserved and other documents were lost from the hundreds of other religious groups that were running around during the period. When will we find the next Dead Sea Scrolls? Nor does having an early date speak to the question of whether the authors were divinely inspired or merely inventive.

I'm sure, however, you will post at midnight that you've won every argument here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP:

- Jesus clearly says we are to stop thinking in terms of "eye-for-eye" retaliation.

- Islam retains eye-for-eye.

Is this a difference, or a similarity?

Start a new thread, its a different subject.

It goes straight to your repeated claim, on this thread, that Christianity and Islam are similar. YOU keep bringing up the similarity claim, on this thread.

So it's only fair for you to answer the question now, on this thread.

[Anonymous]

OP, it's absurd for you to claim expertise on the Ebionites and their writings, based only on your 24-hour acquaintance with them and the one guy, out of tens of thousands of guys, who converted to Islam after reading them.

You have no idea how unpersuasive you are. Looking forward to your regular 3am declaration of victory, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP:

- Jesus clearly says we are to stop thinking in terms of "eye-for-eye" retaliation.

- Islam retains eye-for-eye.

Is this a difference, or a similarity?

Start a new thread, its a different subject.

It goes straight to your repeated claim, on this thread, that Christianity and Islam are similar. YOU keep bringing up the similarity claim, on this thread.

So it's only fair for you to answer the question now, on this thread.

Are you saying the Jesus was sent to fix Gods mistakes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read again. I did not say you called Islam
Barbaric in this thread. However, you or your posse did indeed paint Islam as entirely barbaric and at least one person did use precisely that word, even if it was in a different thread.

If nobody buys anything I am saying you would not deem it necessary to continually respond to me. You respond to my posts because you are concerned that somebody out there might believe my posts, or they may at least start investigating.

Quite honestly the only rebuttals I recall are
- yes there may have been old manuscripts but they were from Ebionites
But the Ebionites seem to have been practicing monotheism which is closer to original manuscript
-theres no proof those manuscripts were in fact the oldest in the world
Thats what the dating experts say
-older doesn't mean accurate
Well thats what the experts in Christianity say, who has refuted that these are the originals?
-islam changed their holy book too
The standardized Quran was created from the original. No add ons. No edits.

So unless someone has something else to offer, what hasn't been answered??

Sweetie, when you declare something, the burden is on you to prove it. The burden is not on us. It doesn't help that you respond with unclear references to "original sources," which, I hope you know, is a HUGE area of scholarly inquiry all on its own. .

Just because one document might or might not be the oldest document that anybody has found, that in no way means the particular sect associated with that document "wins" the contest for "truthiness." It simply means that document was preserved and other documents were lost from the hundreds of other religious groups that were running around during the period. When will we find the next Dead Sea Scrolls? Nor does having an early date speak to the question of whether the authors were divinely inspired or merely inventive.

I'm sure, however, you will post at midnight that you've won every argument here!

There were two resources provided: Dr. Dirks and the Auburn research article. If you now insist on seeing the manuscripts, call Dr. Dirks at the divinity school. I think he would be happy to show you. Its merely a phone call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read again. I did not say you called Islam
Barbaric in this thread. However, you or your posse did indeed paint Islam as entirely barbaric and at least one person did use precisely that word, even if it was in a different thread.

If nobody buys anything I am saying you would not deem it necessary to continually respond to me. You respond to my posts because you are concerned that somebody out there might believe my posts, or they may at least start investigating.

Quite honestly the only rebuttals I recall are
- yes there may have been old manuscripts but they were from Ebionites
But the Ebionites seem to have been practicing monotheism which is closer to original manuscript
-theres no proof those manuscripts were in fact the oldest in the world
Thats what the dating experts say
-older doesn't mean accurate
Well thats what the experts in Christianity say, who has refuted that these are the originals?
-islam changed their holy book too
The standardized Quran was created from the original. No add ons. No edits.

So unless someone has something else to offer, what hasn't been answered??

Sweetie, when you declare something, the burden is on you to prove it. The burden is not on us. It doesn't help that you respond with unclear references to "original sources," which, I hope you know, is a HUGE area of scholarly inquiry all on its own. .

Just because one document might or might not be the oldest document that anybody has found, that in no way means the particular sect associated with that document "wins" the contest for "truthiness." It simply means that document was preserved and other documents were lost from the hundreds of other religious groups that were running around during the period. When will we find the next Dead Sea Scrolls? Nor does having an early date speak to the question of whether the authors were divinely inspired or merely inventive.

I'm sure, however, you will post at midnight that you've won every argument here!

There were two resources provided: Dr. Dirks and the Auburn research article. If you now insist on seeing the manuscripts, call Dr. Dirks at the divinity school. I think he would be happy to show you. Its merely a phone call.

The oldest known manuscripts say trinity and divinity of Jesus did not exist. There is much research to show why trinity and divinity was added later. Read the auburn research article.

Its there if you want to know.

You just may not be ready to know the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP:

- Jesus clearly says we are to stop thinking in terms of "eye-for-eye" retaliation.

- Islam retains eye-for-eye.

Is this a difference, or a similarity?

Start a new thread, its a different subject.

It goes straight to your repeated claim, on this thread, that Christianity and Islam are similar. YOU keep bringing up the similarity claim, on this thread.

So it's only fair for you to answer the question now, on this thread.

Are you saying the Jesus was sent to fix Gods mistakes?

I am speaking about Trinity. There are many similarities. A few differences. Too much for this thread which is already 10 pages about mostly trinity. Why so averse to putting it on a new thread??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's absurd for you to claim expertise on the Ebionites and their writings, based only on your 24-hour acquaintance with them and the one guy, out of tens of thousands of guys, who converted to Islam after reading them.

You have no idea how unpersuasive you are. Looking forward to your regular 3am declaration of victory, though.

Im up because I generally can't sleep more than 5 hrs. But-- why are you up at 3 am reading my posts?

Go find where I claimed to have expertise. Its a simple question, if it was the Ebionites (jewish christians) who did not have concepts of divinity or trinity, then how did these get added later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's absurd for you to claim expertise on the Ebionites and their writings, based only on your 24-hour acquaintance with them and the one guy, out of tens of thousands of guys, who converted to Islam after reading them.

You have no idea how unpersuasive you are. Looking forward to your regular 3am declaration of victory, though.

Im up because I generally can't sleep more than 5 hrs. But-- why are you up at 3 am reading my posts?

Go find where I claimed to have expertise. Its a simple question, if it was the Ebionites (jewish christians) who did not have concepts of divinity or trinity, then how did these get added later?

What? I read your posts when I wake up. I would never stay up until 3am for your posts. When you say things like this, it sounds like you really are incapable of basic logic....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep telling yourself you got your point across. You didn't. Nobody thinks your pet scholar is the last word on the Trinity. Nobody thinks that Islam and Christianity are almost the same apart from the Trinity. You've been rebutted several times now.

Please point to where on this thread somebody said Islam is barbaric. You, however, just called the bible "sad" and you called Christian seminarians "lacking in fortitude" for not converting to Islam.

Either you're deluded, or you're lying.

Read again. I did not say you called Islam
Barbaric in this thread. However, you or your posse did indeed paint Islam as entirely barbaric and at least one person did use precisely that word, even if it was in a different thread.

If nobody buys anything I am saying you would not deem it necessary to continually respond to me. You respond to my posts because you are concerned that somebody out there might believe my posts, or they may at least start investigating.

Quite honestly the only rebuttals I recall are
- yes there may have been old manuscripts but they were from Ebionites
But the Ebionites seem to have been practicing monotheism which is closer to original manuscript
-theres no proof those manuscripts were in fact the oldest in the world
Thats what the dating experts say
-older doesn't mean accurate
Well thats what the experts in Christianity say, who has refuted that these are the originals?
-islam changed their holy book too
The standardized Quran was created from the original. No add ons. No edits.

So unless someone has something else to offer, what hasn't been answered??

Oh joy. Another one of your recaps where you try to rewrite history to make it look like you won every argument. Every time you seem to think this will work, the rest of us just roll our eyes and dive in with the corrections.

I'm amazed you claim expertise on the Trinity. Forget the Ebionites. Apparently, after spending 24 hours with your buddy Dirks, you think you understand the trinity better than any other Christian scholar out there.

*Snort*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP:

- Jesus clearly says we are to stop thinking in terms of "eye-for-eye" retaliation.

- Islam retains eye-for-eye.

Is this a difference, or a similarity?

Start a new thread, its a different subject.

It goes straight to your repeated claim, on this thread, that Christianity and Islam are similar. YOU keep bringing up the similarity claim, on this thread.

So it's only fair for you to answer the question now, on this thread.

Are you saying the Jesus was sent to fix Gods mistakes?

I am speaking about Trinity. There are many similarities. A few differences. Too much for this thread which is already 10 pages about mostly trinity. Why so averse to putting it on a new thread??

You still insist there are many similarities and few differences. Eye for eye is HUGE. You really need to address this, to defend yourself.