Secularised Christians (for the lack of a better term) like those who are into evangelism to Muslim (folks like Nabeel Qureshi and Jay Smith) are thought to believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity but seemingly teach Jesus does not use violence and force. Upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it’s quite obvious these secularised Christians are not presenting views which are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let’s have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one’s own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods:
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning–there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]
I think that’s enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn’t preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]
Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:
19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.
The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse’s bridle. The pastor’s fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.
I’d be very interested in knowing if the people at the Jay Smith’s Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians (and thus the future of their ministry) and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!), believe in the Bible and believe in the Trinity doctrine.
Look, if you’re a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it’s important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
great post. I’ve been saying this for years! In the last book of the Bible Jesus is no longer the Mr Nice Guy of the gospels, but is back to slaughtering his enemies.
The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:
Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.
See other examples of the violence of Jesus here
LikeLiked by 6 people
Paul Williams, how would you respond to the argument of Nabeel Qureshi that “the Qur’an teaches people to Kill; the violence is prescriptive but the Torah & OT are merely recording historical facts, the violence is descriptive”? Additionally, how would you respond to Dr Craigs response to the Islamic concept of God, in this short page:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity
I would absolutely love your response. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus Loves His Enemies…and Then Kills Them All
source
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t stand how people like Smith just throw the OT under the bus. If you listen to his debates he just throws it out like its trash. James White has even criticized him on this. I honestly think Muhammad had more faith in the OT than Smith did. I have no problem with the Triune God giving orders like he did in the OT. He even flooded the whole world killing everyone save Noah and a few others.
BTW, you bring up Pastor Steven Anderson. He actually put out a new documentary a few days ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“He even flooded the whole world killing everyone save Noah and a few others.”
Nope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings from Marcion
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Marcion has his devoted disciples today.
LikeLike
Jesus as God has the right to kill people in judgment for their sin. At the Second Coming of Christ and the day of judgement ( Revelation chapters 19-20), Jesus pours out His just wrath.
But you Muslims also believe in the Judgement Day and Second Coming of Al Masih (along with the Mehdi) who will wage righteous war and bring in the last day, right?
Judgement Day, the Second coming of Christ, and punishment in Hell is God’s righteous and just wrath agains sin for eternity. Islam teaches that also, so what in the world is the point of your dumb article?
Allan Ruhl and Dr. White are right about the OT. It was God’s righteous judgement and God used Israel in order to judge those pagan and corrupt nations. And He also explained why He waiting 400 years before the command came to Joshua to drive the Canaanites and Amorites and Hittites out of the Promised Land. (Genesis 15:13-18; Deuteronomy 7, Deut. 9)
But that method of judging nations by other humans by war (the Theocratic nation of Israel) was abrogated with the New Covenant.
So, the church or churches do not have the authority or right to do that.
Matthew 21:33-46 – “I am taking the kingdom of God away from you” (away from Israel)
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world.
Ephesians 6:10-18 – our wrestling/fighting is not against flesh and blood.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly (not physical), but spiritual . . .
Acts 1:6-8 – It is not for us to know when the Lord is going to return, etc. but be busy with evangelism to all the nations.
LikeLike
“. . . so what in the world is the point of your dumb article?”
Still getting carried away? The point is your secularised co-religionists are wrong about their Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everyone you have quoted, even Dr. White and Allan Ruhl would agree that the commands of God in the OT were only for Theocratic Israel for that time, and with the coming of the New Covenant, the church does not have the authority to do what Israel did. Other wars during the New Covenant/church era are done on the basis of self-defense by the secular government of a political country, etc. not by Theocratic Israel or a Theocratic Church (which is wrong) – Maybe Allan agrees that the Roman Catholic Church has that authority today. But it is really self-defeating since his church changed its long standing traditions with Vatican 2 and now the modern Popes don’t even agree with the death penalty for first degree murder. Vatican 2 as an ecumenical council changed things, and that seems to be a contradiction to the 1870 Infallibility principle; and seems to contradict the Council of Trent anathemas on Protestants, no matter how the modern RCs try to play with language. But that real change of several things (the Latin mass, “so salvation outside the church”, “separated brethren”, etc.) is a big reason why some RCs believe modern Popes after Pius XII, beginning with John XXIII, in 1958 onward are false Popes.
LikeLike
We don’t claim jesus is/was a pacifist,whereas christians generally do. We also don’t believe in the killing of innocent women,children,infants and livestock. We can see how jesus allegedly commands these killings[if you think he was god]. Christians also generally claim that their god[jesus] loves everyone unconditionally regardless of whether they’re unbelievers/sinners, yet he’s going to punish them for eternity even though he died for them. He definitely won’t be a pacifist in his second coming either. So where is this pacifism?
LikeLike
“Jesus as God has the right to kill people in judgment for their sin.”
You are obviously projecting your trinitarian belief here. On the contrary, the Bible says that God would appoint A MAN (Jesus) to judge: “…and he will use A MAN he has appointed to do this….”(Acts
17:31, GOD’S WORD® Translation).
So, it is allegedly a human being that shall come as a “warrior” with army to mercilessly kill all non-Christians to leave only Christians on Earth! That is how he loves his enemies!
And calling this merciless slaughter of people throughout the world for their faith “judgement”, or any other antiseptic term, never makes it other than what it is. It is by definition real terrorism – worst terrorism expected by Christians to befall the Earth – “soon”.
This very New Testament ‘claim’ about Jesus was nowhere even mentioned in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, that it only came in the writings of men, who never personally met Jesus himself, written decades after Jesus.
The same Bible, in its plain reading, reports that Jesus himself expect this to have occurred in the first century, that some of the then people would never taste death till they witnessed it:
“… I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” – Matthew. 16:27,28.
“Behold, I am coming soon! (tachu – quickly, without delay) Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.” – Revelation 22:7,12,20
“You (Chief Priests and Sanhedrin) shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” – Mt. 26:64
But neither the Chief priests nor the Sanhedrin saw him coming back “in his power”!
Likewise, these after-Jesus writings show that the personal disciples of Jesus had the same wrong belief that the end would occur in their life times!
Had this constant prophecy of the Bible not signally failed, there would have been none living on Earth but Christians – all others would have experienced the merciless global slaughter!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus is both man and God, so there is no contradiction to Acts 17:30-31
LikeLike
“Jesus is both man and God, so there is no contradiction to Acts 17:30-31”
Ken you are wrong. Acts 17:31 does not say he is God and man. It says God appointed a man {Jesus} to Judge.
Acts 17:31:
‘because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.’
LikeLiked by 3 people
Other verses say Jesus is God (like John 1:1; Philippians 2:5-8; Romans 9:5; John 8:56-58; 20:28; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, etc.) so it you who are wrong. Jesus is both man as in Acts 17:31, and God as in the other verses.
LikeLike
Ken, yet you have explained these contradictory verses which probably Jesus has never said by a bigger contradictory philosophy which doesn’t make sense, and more important that philosophy itself is not mentioned in your bible.
There are many plausible explanations for these verses that some of which are mentioned in books that you don’t who wrote them, especially if you take into account the history of your bible, the historical Jesus, and the environment in which your bible got written.
LikeLike
And He also explained why He waited 400 years before the command came to Joshua to drive the Canaanites and Amorites and Hittites out of the Promised Land. (Genesis 15:13-18; Deuteronomy 7, Deut. 9)
And the “holy wars” were only for Israel and only for within the borders of Israel to either drive them out or kill them and cleanse the land of idolatry and corruption.
Israel was never given a command to go outside of the border and wipe out a nation – for example, the Canaanites survived in Lebanon and God did not command Israel to go outside and fight them in wars.
LikeLike
“so salvation outside the church”,
Typo
I meant:
“no salvation outside the church”,
which was a principle and church tradition going all the way back to Cyprian around 250 AD, which Vatican 2 changed.
If the Roman Catholic Church changed something as a doctrine, it means that they are not infallible, and have admitted a mistake in doctrine. Even though they won’t admit it.
Vatican 2 defenders play with language big time.
LikeLike
The biblical Jesus is more violent than the Qur’anic one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
His violence is a just and righteous violence against sin.
When Jesus comes again,
“He wages war in justice and righteousness” Revelation 19:11
Until there, you are called to repentance and faith in Christ before it is too late. Acts 17:30-31
Time is running out; but when the Lord stops time, it will be too late for repentance.
LikeLike
Was Jairus’s daughter dead *before* he came to ask for Jesus’ help (Matthew) or did she die while they were talking (Mark)? Was Jesus crucified the afternoon before the Passover meal was eaten (John) or the morning after it was eaten (Mark). These recognized inconsistencies and internal contradictions prove that the Bible is not inspired by God and therefore a false map for Salvation. Since the Trinity, you claim is deducted from the Bible, which is a false book, therefore Trinity is a false doctrine about God.
Repent from your Sin of Associating Partners with God and claiming the Banner of Monotheism, when you know too well that Jesus did not claim to be God.
LikeLike
There is a big difference between religious practicing muslims and radical white western christians and that is that a normal white westerner in today’s age is not that much into religion. Whereas in the islamic world it’s still the norm to be religious. This also applies to catholics. That’s why you seldom see catholics here arguing. All these nutters like Wood, Ken and the rest are just not a cross section of normal westerners. They are simply a bunch of crazy puppies. This last post by Ken of a guitar wielding maniac just proves my point. You guys are just wasting your time arguing with these nutters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
That was entertaining!
LikeLike
I take it that you don’t like any rock n roll music. (right ?)
LikeLike
This also applies to catholics. That’s why you seldom see catholics here arguing.
Because most of them don’t believe in evangelism, and as a whole, the Roman Catholic Church left the faith at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) when they condemned the sound Biblical doctrines of the Reformation.
Modern RC of post Vatican 2 (1963-68) is very liberal, watered down, and does not see the need for evangelism. Their catechism even guts evangelism of its urgency because it gives an out for those that never hear or are “sincere” atheists or pagans. And they imply Muslims don’t need the gospel also.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 841 and 847.
But I think Allan Ruhl holds to pre-Vatican 2 RC classic theology, so that is why he does sometimes come here and contribute to the debate. I am pretty sure he rejects those aspects of Vatican 2 theology.
LikeLike
Peace Be Unto You Yahya Snow. I really appreciate your tremendous efforts in exposing Christian Missionary inconsistencies, deception and outright outrageously false propaganda, to deceive Muslims into Christianity and keep Christians in Christianity! Christian Preachers constantly make the claim that ”Jesus is Peaceful and Loving whilst Muhammad is Violent and Hateful! Our God Loves Everyone, Your God Hates Everyone except you! Therefore Our God is the **Greatest Conceivable Being** Yours is Not”! This line of reasoning is very common from Dr William Craig Lane’s camp, to which Nabeel Qureshi belongs. They need to be consistently refuted and confronted for their open lies! You need to be persistent, believe me! After all, I converted to Islam after being exposed to your immensely powerful project on youtube and blogging theology! Keep it up! Here is an Article that powerfully and objectively demonstrates that Christianity is a religion of pure hate and terror! Please Read It!
http://www.defenseofreason.com/hatred-in-the-new-testament/
The best representative sample of Christian argumentation, of this specific flavour, is here. A refutation of this article is a refutation of all Christian Apologetics. Please read it and refute it. It is by Dr William Craig Lane, down below! You guys have to spend more time refuting Dr Craig, instead of chasing the nobody Shamoun all day!
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t yet fully read dr craig’s article,but i just opened it up to quickly see if he lied about muhammad’s life or not [which i suspected he would,as it is common nowadays]. He, unsurprisingly, brought up the banu qurayza incident, and didn’t even bother explaining the context and reasons of their execution,which i find really disingenuous.
Anyways,his article is probably all related about love etc . Someone here might write an article responding to his,until then you can search ‘Muslimbychoice’ on youtube,dr craig has a debate with shabir ally,where shabir responds to most of his points. Btw consistency usually isn’t something these christians have.
This is what he said regarding the banu qurayza incident:
”In the year 627, after an unsuccessful attack on Medina by the Arab army from Mecca, Mohammad rounded up hundreds of Jewish families in Medina. 700 Jewish men were put to the sword, and Mohammad had their wives and children sold into slavery.”
LikeLike
In Islam, the second coming of Jesus is NOT the day of Judgement! It’s a sign that the day of Judgement is so close. Before his second coming, it will have been a great battle between muslims and christians in Syria.
LikeLike
That is true in Christianity and the Bible also; they are so close to each other that we put them together, but immediately after the Second coming, comes the final judgement. events of Revelation 19 and 20 are right after one another. The final battle is in Rev. 20:7-10 and judgment day is right after that in Revelation 20:11-15. Revelation 20:7-15
Some Christians believe in a literal 1,000 years of the millennial kingdom on earth with Jesus on the thrown – Pre-Millennialism, but many Christians ( more, including most Christians outside of USA.) hold to the Augustinian position of A-millennialism, that the 1000 years of Rev. 20:1-6 is symbolic of a long period of time – of all of history between the first coming of Messiah to the second coming.
LikeLike
“The final battle”
Between whom?
Could you give a list of the events from the second coming of Jesus and on according to christianity ?
LikeLike
hashimkhanzada wrote:
We don’t claim jesus is/was a pacifist,whereas christians generally do.
No, most Christians don’t believe Christ was a total pacifist either. Most believe in some kind of just war for the present time. And most who actually believe all the Bible agree that God did what He did in the OT as a form of justice (even Jay Smith will have to agree that was for Israel at that time); and every Christian believes that Christ will wage righteous war at the end of time – Revelation 19:11, and that hell is God’s justice against sin.
We also don’t believe in the killing of innocent women,children,infants and livestock. We can see how jesus allegedly commands these killings[if you think he was god].
No one has the right to that today. But God kills people in tsunamis and tornadoes and earthquakes, and He did that in the OT texts that you are bringing up. But there is no more Theocratic Israel today in the new Covenant era of the church spreading out to all the nations.
But most Christians are not total pacifists – there is such a thing as a just war against evil, like the Allied powers against Nazi Germany, etc. – but that is for the secular governments/state to decide and do; not the church. Christians can join that fight, but it is not something that is a “church thing” but a self-defense country thing.
Christians also generally claim that their god[jesus] loves everyone unconditionally regardless of whether they’re unbelievers/sinners, yet he’s going to punish them for eternity even though he died for them. He definitely won’t be a pacifist in his second coming either. So where is this pacifism?
Christ died effectually only for the elect of all nations – Rev. 5:9; 7:9 (people from every nation, tribe, and language are purchased by the blood of the lamb); Ephesians 5:25 – Christ loved the church and died for her (for all the people of all history who repent and believe in Christ).
The people who go to hell go there because of their own sins and rebellion and they don’t experience the love of God. Rather they experience the wrath of God for all eternity. Rev. 14:10
But we don’t know who the elect are (no one does), so we have to preach to everyone. God will open some hearts and draw some people from all nations.
You have the same kind of belief in Islam – Allah opens the chest of some to accept things, and He guides some, and He does not guide others. The concept of Divine Sovereignty is close in Islam and Reformed (Calvinism) Christianity.
2 Timothy 2:10 – the elect are out there, but no one knows who the elect are; we have to preach and love and reach out, and then God works on the inside of people to draw His people to Himself.
LikeLike
You Affirm the Following:
1) God is Trinity
2) Jesus is God
3) Jesus is not Trinity
This makes no sense. If Jesus is God; God is a Trinity, therefore Jesus must be a Trinity! If he is not, then he is not God!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“… and every Christian believes that Christ will wage righteous war at the end of time – Revelation 19:11, and that hell is God’s justice against sin.”
As Madugu showed above, war is just war and violent by nature, righteous war or not.
Being involved in war, Jesus could in no way be believed to be pacifist, as the missionaries want to depict him. Christians believe that Jesus would be involved in killing of people just for their faiths “at the end of times”, before the Day of Judgement. Whether done at the beginning of times or middle of times or end of times, merciless slaughter of all non-Christians throughout the world by a “warrior” and his army is by definition terrorism, the worst of all terrorisms.
All others that mercilessly killed people in the name of their faiths believed that it was always God’s justice against sin. But this belief never makes it other than merciless killings, morally wrong !
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is absolutely true, by definition. But you believe in the following:
A=B A=B
C=A C=A
B=C B≠C
This means the Trinity is absolutely false by definition since it is not consistent and rationally false. Also, it is not what the Historical Jesus taught, further discrediting this inconsistent doctrine from the fire-worshipping cult of Constantine.
LikeLike
“I take it that you don’t like any rock n roll music. (right ?)”
Actually I like all kinds of music. However, not so much Christian rock n roll. Btw Ken, you’re quite alright. I shouldn’t have lumped you together with Woodster.
LikeLike
Avi wrote:
You Affirm the Following:
1) God is Trinity
2) Jesus is God
3) Jesus is not Trinity
This makes no sense. If Jesus is God; God is a Trinity, therefore Jesus must be a Trinity! If he is not, then he is not God!
You misunderstand and confuse the categories of 1. nature/essence/substance/being and 2. person
1. God is a Trinity – a Tri-Unity being of ONE in substance/being, yet at the same time 3 in person.
2. Jesus is God by nature/substance, but Jesus is not the Father and Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not all of the Trinity, because He is not the Father and His is not the Holy Spirit; but the three persons have the same nature/substance/essence/being.
It makes sense if you understand the distinction and difference between the 2 categories:
a. Substance/nature/essence/being
b. person; personal relationships
LikeLike
“It makes sense if you understand the distinction and difference between the 2 categories:”
Nope. Jesus stil is another “God” than the triune “God”. No?
LikeLike
No; the persons of the Trinity are distinct in personal relationships and role, but the three persons share the same nature/substance/being.
Since there is only one God (Mark 12:29; 1 Timothy 2:5; Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:6), we can always consistently answer that there is no such thing as “another god”, etc.
That is why John 1:1c – “and the Word was God” means that Jesus is God by nature/substance, but the definite article is left off because Jesus is not the Father.
Even Paul Williams agreed with the traditional understanding of the Greek in John 1:1. (he has since said he changed his mind; but his change is wrong. The previous belief was the correct one.)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
LikeLike
Do not you think that Jesus’ statement does contradict christians’ nonsense explanation?
I mean when Jesus refered to the father as the (only true God)?
If I were an honest christian, I would say Jesus got it wrong when he said (the only). He should’ve not said that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The triune God is 3 persons in one nature.
Jesus is 2 natures in one person.
Avi is absolutely right.
You Affirm the Following:
1) God is Trinity
2) Jesus is God
3) Jesus is not Trinity
This makes no sense.
LikeLike
The Greek grammar of John 1:1 points to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the principle of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of doctrine and faith for the church, that the Bible is the final and ultimate authority for the church.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/greek-grammar-points-to-sola-scriptura.html
LikeLike
If it points to a doctrine, it is not the one you present
LikeLike
Abdullah,
You are referring to John 17:3.
You have to keep reading and see John 17:5 also;
John 17:5 shows the Son existed from all eternity past with the Father, and shared in His glory; so all the “one God” passages have to be interpreted in a way that does not contradict “one God”, but also understands the verses that show “three persons”.
and John 17:1 – that the Son prays to the Father. (No modalism – the Father did not become flesh, etc.)
By studying and meditating on all the verses, the result was the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity – One God by substance/being, in three persons.
LikeLike
“One God by substance/being, in three persons.”
This statement makes no sense. One being by being, in three persons?
Your “God” is one divine substance in three persons. Nothing special.
And your “God” is also two substances in one person.
These two “Gods” are not identical.
LikeLike
You still give me the same answer each time I ask about John17:3.
Are you saying that John17:5 deletes the mistake that Jesus did in John17:3?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“passages have to be interpreted in a way that does not contradict “one God”
That’s what muslims keep asking you, yet you keep returning to the matter of 3!
LikeLiked by 2 people
so all the “one God” passages have to be interpreted in a way that does not contradict “one God”,
That’s what many trinitarians do. The “One God” in the Bible is not “one divine substance/nature”, but one Self/Person, One Lord.
LikeLike
Ken Temple you wrote the following:
”It makes sense if you understand the distinction and difference between the 2 categories:
a. Substance/nature/essence/being
b. person; personal relationships”
Are these distinctions and categories explained in the Bible? No? Are they at least explained by Jesus, in a systematic way? No? So how are you then different from the Catholics, utilizing non-Biblical categories and terminologies? Also, these concepts, where do they originate from? Why is there no record of Jesus utilizing such doctrinal language? Any why do your distinctions and terminologies bear such stark resemblance to ancient Greek pagan philosophical notions? Does that not indicate the effect of Greek Philosophy?
How do you define ”Persons”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christians are not “red-letter” ( only taking the words of Jesus in the 4 gospels – but even then, you guys are using liberal theology to dismiss the gospel according to John, a disciple, an apostle, and an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection and ascension to heaven.)
Those categories come from a deep study of the Scriptures, which I explained in the 2 articles that I posted above – at Beggar’s All Reformation and Apologetics.
The early church as “universal” – original meaning of “kata-holic” κατα + ‘ολικος, which the ending of the first word, when followed by the vowel and breathing mark, forms καθ ‘ολικος = according to the whole’ or “throughout (the region) – see Acts 9:31 – “the church through out all Judea and Galilee and Samaria. . . ”
When the Father and the Son are said to “love one another” and speak to one another and the Holy Spirit is sent and testifies to the Son, etc. these are relational categories – therefore, the verses themselves communicate “person”, even though the specific word “person” is not used.
And because there is only one God, the understand of one in substance / nature/ being, between the persons, arose out of the text, because of the many verses that say the Word was God (John 1:1) and “the Holy Spirit of God” or “you have lied to God” and “you have lied to the Holy Spirit” (see Acts 5:3-5) – all of these principles together, from the deep study of all the verses, produced the deep theological thinking that we see developed in the early centuries beginning with Ignatius, and then in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, and the Cappodician fathers (Gregory of Naziansus, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa), Hillary, Ambrose, etc.
Historical Protestants have always agreed with the early church Catholics (and in fact claim that same early church identity as “catholic”, little c, but not Roman Catholic, because the Roman Church developed later with the authority claims of the Pope and indulgences, purgatory, Transubstantiation and over-exalting of Mary, separate from the doctrine of the Trinity) and Eastern Orthodox on the Trinity.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
If a non-monotheist wanted to bring Monotheism down, would he not dress Idolatry as Monotheism? What better way to convince a Monotheist to become a Polytheist than to convince him it is Monotheism? What better to convince someone that the Triune God is the God of Israel, than to redefine the meanings of the ”same God”?
LikeLike
John Piper has an excellent article on Athanasius that may help you understand these issues better, if you are willing to listen and read the entire lecture.
Here are 2 points at the end of his lecture that get to what I am trying to communicate about using non-Biblical language to communicate Biblical truth.
3. Loving Christ includes loving true propositions about Christ
What was clear to Athanasius was that propositions about Christ carried convictions that could send you to heaven or to hell. There were propositions like: “There was a time when the Son of God was not,” and, “He was not before he was made,” and, “the Son of God is created.” These propositions were strictly damnable. If they were spread and believed they would damn the souls which embraced them. And therefore Athanasius labored with all his might to formulate propositions that would conform to reality and lead the soul to faith and worship and heaven.
I believe Athanasius would have abominated, with tears, the contemporary call for “depropositionalizing” that you hear among many of the so-called “reformists” and “the emerging church,”younger evangelicals,”postfundamentalists,” “postfoundationalists,”postpropositionalists,” and “postevangelicals.”36 I think he would have said, “Our young people in Alexandria die for the truth of propositions about Christ. What do your young people die for?” And if the answer came back, “We die for Christ, not propositions about Christ,” I think he would have said, “That’s what Arius says. So which Christ will you die for?”
Athanasius would have grieved over sentences like “It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divides.” And sentences like: “We should ask, Whom do you trust? rather than what do you believe?”37 He would have grieved because he knew this is the very tactic used by the Arian bishops to cover the councils with fog so that the word “Christ” could mean anything. Those who talk like this—“Christ unites, doctrine divides”—have simply replaced propositions with a word. They think they have done something profound and fresh, when in fact they have done something very old and stale and very deadly.
This leads to a related lesson . . .
4. The truth of biblical language must be vigorously protected with non-biblical language.
Athanasius’ experience was critically illuminating to something I have come to see over the years, especially in liberally minded baptistic and pietistic traditions, namely, that the slogan, “the Bible is our only creed” is often used as a cloak to conceal the fact that Bible language is used to affirm falsehood. This is what Athanasius encountered so insidiously at the Council of Nicaea. The Arians affirmed biblical sentences. Listen to this description of the proceedings:
The Alexandrians . . . confronted the Arians with the traditional Scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal Godhead of the Son. But to their surprise they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted, since it admitted of evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula “like to the Father in all things,” it was given with the reservation that man as such is “the image and glory of God.” The “power of God” elicited the whispered explanation that the host of Israel was spoken of as dunamis kuriou, and that even the locust and caterpillar are called the “power of God.” The “eternity” of the Son was countered by the text, “We that live are alway (2 Corinthians 4:11)!” The fathers were baffled, and the test of homoosion, with which the minority had been ready from the first, was being forced (p. 172) upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians.38
R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”39 The Arians railed against the unbiblical language being forced on them. They tried to seize the biblical high ground and claim to be the truly biblical people—the pietists, the simple Bible-believers—because they wanted to stay with biblical language only—and by it smuggle in their non-biblical meanings.
But Athanasius saw through this “post-modern,”post-conservative,” “post-propositional” strategy and saved for us not just Bible words, but Bible truth. May God grant us the discernment of Athanasius for our day. Very precious things are at stake.40
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/contending-for-our-all
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Trinitarian who termed the Term Trinitas and is the Godfather of the Trinity is regarded as a Heretic since he was a Unitarian. But his theology was sort of the Orthodoxy of the Day. This is proof that the Trinity is the product of human evolution and Christ did not reveal it. And the Disciples are in Hell according to you since they rejected the Trinity by default through affirming that which negates it. Even Athanasius accepted the fact that the Trinity is illogical and false!!! This is really shocking! Enjoy your beliefs, I assure you with Certainity you will regret believing this.
LikeLike
Avi,
see my question to you re: the Death of Paul on this thread
https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/02/26/paul-faithful-follower-of-jesus-or-inventor-of-a-new-religion/#comment-42259
LikeLike
Ken Temple how are sure that Arias was wrong? When the Term God, Lord, YHWH etc are used for Jesus, how is the Arius understanding of it incorrect and the Trinitarian one right? If the Bible uses the same terms for other people, places etc and yet they are not YHWH why is Jesus any different?
LikeLike
Because Arius contradicted John 1:1 and 17:5, and Philippians 2:5-8, Heb. 1:3, 6, 8, etc. and said that the Son was not always there with the Father.
LikeLike
Sir but he accepted them as scripture and presented an alternative exegesis. There is something called interpretation. People do legitimately derive different interpretation from the same scripture, without having to be exorcised or murdered by Constantine, a fire worshipper. Why was the Pagan fire worshipper the one who authroized the Trinity? Is that not suspicious?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need to get up to speed on the history of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Be sure to watch the video and also the link to another article on “What Really happened at the Council of Nicea?”
Constantine called the Council and invited bishops from all over the empire, and he opened the proceedings, but he was not a theologian and did not interfere with the bishops discussions and decision. Arius was exiled, not killed. But later, Arius and his followers manipulated Constantine for political power and they were able to cause problems and take over many churches for 60 + Years and they got Athanasius exiled 5 times; and Constantine was baptized by a “semi-Arian” (Eusebius of Nicomendia) right before he died, 9n 337 AD. (don’t confuse Eusebius of Nicomedia with Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian – both were at the Council of Nicea.)
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-truth-of-the-nicean-council/
LikeLike
Constantine had become a Christian, at least in name, around 312 AD, but did not know much. In 325 AD, he has either just started catechism classes or started them later. (historians dispute this). He was not a fire-worshiper before, but probably a “Sun worshiper”.
LikeLike
A good video summary of the Council of Nicea of 325 AD.
LikeLike
The sincerity and strength of Constantine’s faith has been debated for centuries, even millennia, but he was a Christian in name by 313 AD, and after the Council of Nicea, he was baptized before he died in 337 AD, by a “semi-Arian” Eusebius of Nicomedia.
He was not a theologian and did not interfere with the bishops discussions or decisions.
LikeLike
John 14:9 contradicts trinitarianism
LikeLike
An excellent article on the Council of Nicea of 325 AD.
http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/
LikeLike
I fully answered the issue of the Nicean Council of 325 AD and Constantine.
LikeLike