Larry Bates,
I truly appreciate the dignified tone of your response. Kindly allow me to respond. IN SPITE OF THE BIBLE, NOT BECAUSE OF IT? ========================================= First I do apologize for the earlier long discourse; I am afraid this might be just as long. There is much to discuss and I try to be through. Having said that, and to respond to your point, please be informed that I did not take any scripture out of context so as to reach a conclusion of my own. If you'd be kind enough to point out one incident I will promptly apologize and will take it back. With that said, I hope you are fair enough to agree that if someone makes a claim that then the same person should back that claim up with proof. That out of context claim you make, brother, is made without proof. Please tell us how Christ the "man" (Acts 2: 22), and "the son of man" (Luke 9: 58) are not part of the Christian textual sources or how they were taken out of context. How is that when it is proclaimed in the Law attributed to Almighty God that "God is not a man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23: 19) that this part of the Law (given Acts 2:22, and Luke 9: 58) is not applicable to Christ PBBUH or any other man and son of man from the beginning of time until the end of time. You see, Larry, if someone were to write an essay and post satellite images in support of the fact that earth is spherical, anyone defending the false notion that the earth is flat can simply counter: "you are taking things out of context." But these words will not do, as any fair person can confirm. Without proof, a claim is what it is: just a claim. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the point to prove it, not on the other party to refute what was not proven. In my case, proof was offered in defence of my assertions from what Christian authorities themselves regard as Christian textual sources of divine origin. Does that not carry enough weight for you so as to be convinced? If people will read in their textual sources that "God is not a man ... neither the son of man" and *yet* go on to believe in- and even argue the exact opposite of that- just because they have an opinion, then what is the Bible for then? If people are going to believe that Christ the "man" (Acts 2:22), and the "son of man" (Luke 9: 58) is Almighty God Himself in spite of Numbers (among others), then what is the point of these people having textual sources for their beliefs? Wouldn't it be better if these people got together, sat down, and wrote a novel and made a religion out of it? This is what the Church of Scientology did. Perhaps then that novel would agree with their man-made beliefs, namely that "God is a man and is the son of man" in spite of (Numbers 23: 19)? That "God will dwell on the earth" in spite of (1 Kings 8: 27)? That "there are other 'Gods' with God" and that "there is now someone like unto God" in spite of (Isaiah 46:9)? And so on and so forth? After all, let's face it, Larry, the novel is there inside your (plural) head, and it is from which you are all reading to us that Christ PBBUH the "man" and "the son of man" is actually God; but whether you realize it or not, you are doing so in spite of the word of God as found in the Bible, not because of it. I truly don't know how to make a mention of this and not appear like I wish to offend you, which is truly not my intention, but I must inform you anyway: does the word "anti" ring any bells? PLURAL GOD? =========== Do you believe that God is one or not? Was it not Christ PBBUH himself who said that the "Lord our God is one Lord" (as opposed to a "tri-une" Lord) or was he not? Is there a single explicit mention of the word "Trinity" in the entire encyclopaedia of books called the Bible? Just one? There is none, can you believe it? THE DONKEY RIDE --------------- Please read from the New Testament: "... and they sat him thereon." (The Donkey) (Matthew 21:7) "... and he sat upon him." (The Donkey) (Mark 11:7) "... and they set Jesus thereon." (The Donkey) (Luke 19:35) "... Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey) (John 12:14) In "Is The Bible God's Word"[1], Ahmed Deedat writes: "Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation - going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City - and yet "inspiring" them to blackout the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?" I note the exact same amazing situation here. Why is it so important to have all the Gospels mention the donkey incident but not have one single explicit remark anywhere about what effectively will decide the eternal fate (repeat: eternal fate) of many: the alleged "trinity"? Astonishing, no? WHY NOT A PENTINITY? -------------------- Yes "as humans we will never fully understand the Trinity in this lifetime," but so would be the case, I put it to you, concerning "dualnity," (as in two) "quadrupinity", "pentinity", etc., if there is actually such words. You see the issue is not merely that our minds are unable to deal with these impossible concepts, but also (and equally importantly) that we must remember that these concepts were never explicitly mentioned in the word of God. And so the question that faces us is this: why a "trinity," and not a "pentinity"? Any person can make up things in any aggregate along the lines of your crude (yet unproven theory) of what makes God like a man, even when it is the Bible that states not only that "God is not a man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23: 19), but also that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24). Nevertheless, one can add charisma, and the subconscious mind to your physical, spiritual, and emotional "aspects" and get that imaginary "penta-une" false god to be also like man, so as to make a man into Almighty God, may He be glorified above all of this. No, Larry. God is one, period. This is all human invention and has nothing to do with divine revelations. Moreover, do you not see that by saying "Tri" that you are automatically arguing for plurality in God? One does not equal three, Larry, not logically, and not linguistically. All the universally agreed norms of language and reason and even algebra are lined up in defence of God against such illogical notions. Not that Almighty God needs any defence. READ ==== I have read for C. S. Lewis and if I am not mistaken, seen Josh McDowell lecture on TBN. But the matter is different here, Larry. I don't know about McDowell, but I know that C. S. Lewis was questioning the existence of God, not whether or not if he believed in a "trinity" and in Christ PBBUH the "man" and "son of man" as God that he would then be doing so in spite of the word of God as reported in the Bible, not because of it. And since you made that offer, then allow me to suggest you read the Qur'an. There is truly no excuse for anyone not to read it, especially that it is even available online for free download.[2] By the way, did you know that the first verse revealed on prophet Muhammad PBBUH was "Read!" upon which the prophet replied to angel Gabriel PBBUH: "I am not learned." And this, we hold, is a direct fulfillment of Isaiah 29:12: "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." (Isaiah 29: 12) Here is the first revealed verses of the Qur'an: "Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth, Createth man from a clot. Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, Who teacheth by the pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not." (Translation, Qur'an, 96: 1) OPINION VS. DIVINE REVELATIONS ============================== You and I are entitled to our opinions, as is the case for all the people of this earth. These might even matter to someone. When it comes to the issues of the unseen, however, then our opinions (including mine I assure you!) are just worthless. It is not within us to have our minds dwell in the unseen. This is the job of divine revelations. This is their sole purpose: to reveal to us from the world of the unseen that which we cannot grasp or know on our own. If you and I and everyone else are going to make our opinions matter more than divine revelations then not only would we be deceiving ourselves that our inconsequential opinion is now divine truth (which it is not), but we would also be very likely at odds with Almighty God's truth. HOW DO WE INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE? =============================== Your point that there is only one way to God is a valid one. The issue is not that, but whether you and I are following that only way; or to keep to the topic of this thread, whether Grossi's post accurately describes that way. You say that Christ PBBUH is the only way, but did you know that Christ PBBUH is not even your designated prophet? Believe it or not Muhammad PBBUH is. And I know this might come as a shock, but they both peace and blessings of Almighty God be upon them PBBUT, preached the same religion: the worship of one God, we inherit heaven by keeping the law and the commandments, i.e. surrendering one's will to Almighty God, which is Islam in a nutshell. They even prayed the same! In Matthew 26:39 we are told that Christ PBBUH "fell on his face, and prayed!" Must I remind you who else falls on their faces to pray? Moreover, and on at least two occasions in the Bible, Christ PBBUH is explicitly proclaiming that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to anyone else of the Gentiles. "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15: 24) (see also Matthew 10:6). And so even when he was the way, Christ PBBUH was so to his people of the house of Israel only (and this not according to my convenient opinion, but according to the reported first person words attributed to Christ PBBUH), and only in the span of time that he lived on earth, and hence this excludes people of times past and future, especially of the Gentiles. With that said, it is indeed true that people will struggle to come to terms that Islam (of all religions) is God's divine Truth, which it is. That is, I have come to believe, is mankind's present test. Will they contemplate that they might be utterly misguided, that Islam of all religions is the God's Truth, that its Arab prophet PBBUH of the third world is actually the seal of the Almighty God's prophets, the comforter that Christ PBBUH foretold? Will they follow their pride or will they let their minds decide? To have Christianity as the Truth temptation of mankind makes no sense. The Christian West boasts to have the power, the money, the science-- they boast they have everything. Earthly that is. So they must be right in worshiping a "trinity"? Right? But that is an easy test, Larry. If Islam was the Truth and a Muslim failed the test and worshiped a "trinity" in stead of his one true God, he might think that he will gain something in this world. But a Christian who gives up the "trinity" and his earthly wealth, power, and pride that comes with the magic of the West actually seems to many that he will lose according to the earthly ways. No? which is the tougher test, Larry, you tell me. A tougher test would be to have you choose between that alleged earthly power and wealth and Almighty God's truth, even if hidden in the weakest and most poor of places. Or was Christ PBBUH wealthy and powerful compared to the scribes and Pharisees or the Romans? David PBBUH to Saul? Moses PBBUH to Pharaoh? Don't you see the pattern here? If Christ PBBUH was really "son of God" in the literal sense or "God" as per the scripture and word of God, we would be the first to worship, Larry. "Say: "If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship." Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free) from the things they attribute (to him)!" (Translation, Qur'an 43: 81-82) But he is not so. And this according to your own scriptures. People are making Christ "God," and believing him to have been crucified and later resurrected in spite of "the word of God" as found in the Bible, not because of it. The only way you can make your beliefs agree with your sources is if either you replace them with something that matches your claims, or that you expunge those parts from the present scripture that testify that Christ is "a man" and "son of man" and that "God is not a man ... neither the son of man" and that the resurrected are spirits equal unto the angels having spiritual bodies. For while these things are still in your Bible then you have a serious problem. Here is an ex-practicing American Christian sharing his thoughts on a topic related to our discussion: "I remember thinking a few years ago, when I was studying about Christianity and Islam, that it sure would be nice to have Jesus around today so that I could go up and ask him two questions: 1) Is it more important to believe that God is "One" or "Tri-une"? and 2) What do I need to do in order to get into Heaven? However, once I thought about it a bit more, I realized that I already had answers to these questions! The New Testament shows how Jesus EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY answered both of these questions - not to mention the Qur'an! How could a prophet doing the work of Almighty God do otherwise? If something such as the "Doctrine of the Trinity" or having Jesus as one's "Lord and Personal Savior" is so important, it would be unjust - if not criminal - for it not to be an explicit teaching. It should be kept in mind that Jesus' audience was made up mostly of Jews, so when he mentioned "One God", they certainly understood it in an absolute and non-Trinitarian way. "Those of you who don't already know Jesus', peace be upon him, clear answers to these direct questions, please see Mark 12:28-34; Matthew 22:35-40; Matthew 19:16-17; Mark 10:17-19 and Luke 18:18-20. "On top of all this, the New Testament says that Jesus, peace be upon him, went around preaching "the gospel". (See Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 11:5; Mark 1:15, 8:35; Luke 4:18, 7:22, 9:6 and 20:1). Based on this fact, Christians should be able to COMPLETELY derive their doctrines and "Gospel message" from the words of Jesus as reported in the New Testament. However, everyone who has taken a look at the evidence should be able to conclude that Christians certainly cannot do this - they have to appeal to the epistles of Paul and to an innovated Trinitarian vocabulary. So what was this "gospel" that Jesus was preaching? Was it CLEARLY the Divine Incarnation, the Atonement and the Trinity? I certainly feel that the longest and most eloquent sermon in the New Testament (Matthew 5-7), commonly know as "The Sermon on the Mount", lends support to the Pure Monotheism of Islam, not to Trinitarian Christian belief."[3] Peace, Obaid RESOURCES ========= [1] Deedat, Ahmed, Is The Bible God's Word, March 1980. April 2005: http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/bible/index.html. [2] Download a free Qur'an viewer: http://www.divineislam.co.uk/ [3] Squires, Robert, "A Muslim Response to a Christian Response." April 30, 2005: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=261&page=0 PS: I posted a response to BrianQ here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web/msg/048f37bac5b14460?hl=en -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
