What is God like? Is he a man like us but on a much greater scale? The Quran describes him thus:

Advertisements


Categories: God, Quran

197 replies

  1. Except his oneness is exactly like the oneness of goats and monkeys and all creatures.

    Like

    • currently within your body dwells one person from the triplets. is this one person a composite like pig, goat and monkey or is it a SINGULAR self ?

      is the “holy” spirit “one” with you in a sexual way or in a numerical way? since you are 1 person, then can the holy spirit have experiential feelings of your oneness while it is filling you ?

      Like

    • huh?

      You make no sense.

      Like

    • Joel
      October 13, 2017 • 5:42 pm
      Except his oneness is exactly like the oneness of goats and monkeys and all creatures

      I say;
      Trinitarian oneness.

      1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 3 persons(people)=idolatry.

      1 goat + 1 goat + 1 goat = 3 goats counted as 3 like the Trinitarian God who is many as goats are many.

      God the Father + God the Son + God the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods = polytheism punishable in hell fire.

      Poly means more or many and that is the Trinitarian God.
      3 persons/beings God = polytheism.

      Mono means 1 and only true God and that is Monotheism.

      Muslim God = 1 God + who else. The Bible says no one else.

      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

      Muslim God. Is one, absolute and unique and no one else says the Bible. Idol worshipers who worship man, cow, monkey, elephant etc. like Joel will insist God is like goat because that is how exactly his God is i.e. a creature(man Jesus Christ). Joel will challenge the Bible and try to inject his pagan cult into the pure monotheism.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • intellect

      “Muslim God. Is one, absolute and unique and no one else says the Bible. “

      LOL!! Nonsense.

      The Bible clearly shows that the true god is absolutely unique in his plural oneness – he cannot possibly be unitarian the way that monkeys are unitarian.

      Like

    • Coco has been unable to explain how each person of the trinity’s oneness is unique. He has been running from this question got almost a month now. Not only that, but he cant explain why his god is an old man with hair! Dance, monkey, dance!

      Like

    • qb

      Idiot.

      There’s nothing to answer you moron, your comment makes no sense. The trinity IS one – what about that is so hard for your two brain cells to comprehend menstruation boy?

      Your god is one, just like a goat. Yahweh is triune in his oneness unlike anything in his creation and his prophet drank urine whilst fondling menstrual blood.

      Did you know…

      Narrated `Aisha:
      The Prophet (ﷺ) used to lean on my lap and recite Qur’an while I was in menses.

      WUT? The eternal word of allah being recited in the lap of someone expelling menstrual blood?

      Like

    • Lol, each person of the trinity is one person idiot. How are they unique in their oneness?

      How is the father unique from other old men with white hair? Why are you running?

      Like

    • “Your god is one, just like a goat. Yahweh is triune in his oneness unlike anything in his creation and his prophet drank urine whilst fondling menstrual blood.”

      your god is triplet in his oneness? how many from the triplets are in you? 1 or the ENTIRE triune is in you ?

      Like

    • are you “one” with the “holy” spirit NUMERICALLY or some other x -rated oneness?

      Like

    • Joel
      October 13, 2017 • 7:13 pm
      intellect

      “Muslim God. Is one, absolute and unique and no one else says the Bible. “

      LOL!! Nonsense.

      The Bible clearly shows that the true god is absolutely unique in his plural oneness – he cannot possibly be unitarian the way that monkeys are unitarian.

      I say;
      Plural = Many like goats that can be added, multiplied, subtracted. = poly=many polytheism.

      Singular = one and only true God of Jesus who can’t be added with any person/being and is mono=one=monotheism,

      Idol worshipers like Joel, Hindus, voodoos etc. thinks their idol man(Jesus), cow, monkey etc. is the same as God, hence their worship of creatures equating them with God. Joel thinks one goat is the same as one God and one man is the same as one God, hence his worship of Jesus which is punishable in hell fire.

      He insists on triune(3) Gods which is not in the Bible. He is challenging the below Biblical verses with his idol mind.
      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

      Triune God has MANY persons/beings counted like how one goat can be added to 3, so the triune God consists MANY persons/beings and can be counted like goats, so it cannot be God.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joel

      You said;

      Yahweh is triune in his oneness unlike anything in his creation and his prophet drank urine whilst fondling menstrual blood.

      I say;
      Yahweh never said He is triune. You liar.

      This is what Yahweh said;
      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

      Yahweh said I,I,I and me,me,me, only,only,alone,alone as God. He did not mention “triune”, except idol worshipers and polytheists. like Joel will inject their idol thinking of triune into what Yahweh said.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joel

      “Yahweh is triune in his oneness…”

      I say;
      Mormons Gods are multiune in his oneness.

      You said;
      LOL!! Nonsense.

      The Bible clearly shows that the true god is absolutely unique in his plural oneness – he cannot possibly be unitarian the way that monkeys are unitarian.

      I say;
      Monkeys are many and created, so cannot be unitarian. We have several monkeys like we have several persons in Trinitarian God, so Trinitarian God is several ones like monkeys who are several ones.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person


    • The Bible clearly shows that the true god is absolutely unique in his plural oneness – he cannot possibly be unitarian the way that monkeys are unitarian.”

      the pagan concept of trinity is taking a “unitarian consciousness” and GLUING it with others . something like the following :

      since you have each goat/person in trinity have EXPERIENTIAL feelings of

      attributes /center god, then you LITERALLY have something like this

      https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/survivor-org/images/f/f9/E_3_Goats.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140711202404

      Like

    • qb

      You are a moron.

      The oneness of the true god is unique in its triunity. Each person of the trinity shares a will and a purpose – it is a perfect oneness.

      Your god’s oneness can be attained by beasts if allah chooses to allow them to enter his paradise. This means that you don’t worship the true god because one of his attributes can be attained by creatures.

      You are too stupid to reach this logical conclusion.

      Like

    • Coco STILL can’t explain how each PERSON is unique. Each person is ONE, so how is that different from a monkey like you Coco?

      Why do you keep running from your Canaanite deity’s expose? None of your fellow clowns have been able to refute the plagiarism from Canaanite myth. You can keep running but you cannot hide!

      Like

    • “The oneness of the true god is unique in its triunity. Each person of the trinity shares a will and a purpose – it is a perfect oneness.”

      none of your disabled gods can FULLY share in that same “oneness” for the very fact that each is DIFFERENT and CANNOT DO THE ROLE OF THE OTHER.
      you have TRIPLETS here. you have 3 conscious TRIPLETS.

      they have DIFFERING DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE.

      THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT each OTHER.

      THey get BITCH slapped by the LEADER . the father NEEDS blood so he SENDS his son.

      Like

    • Joel
      October 15, 2017 • 4:28 pm
      qb

      You are a moron.

      The oneness of the true god is unique in its triunity. Each person of the trinity shares a will and a purpose – it is a perfect oneness.

      Your god’s oneness can be attained by beasts if allah chooses to allow them to enter his paradise.

      I say;
      Your God Jesus Christ(man) is exactly a creature. His oneness is in addition to other ones like goat who have other goats.

      Each God of your Trinity shares a will? Jesus said;

      Luke 22:42
      New International Version
      “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.

      You have to read your Bible well and know your religion well and do let a Muslim corrects you. Jesus said he does not share will with the Father, but you lied against Jesus to promote your religion. Shame.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Comparing the use of imagery in an known ancient context to the korans incorporation of known fables presented as facts. Of course, what Porky doesn’t tell you is that he bases this argument on the liberal presupposition he has stolen that Daniel is a later work. Hmmm, me thinks Porky is feeling a little desperate to defend his fake book. Look at the extraordinary lengths he needs to go to save the Koran from shame.

      Too late Porky, you and the Koran have already been shamed.

      Like

    • “Comparing the use of imagery in an known ancient context to the korans incorporation of known fables presented as facts. Of course, what Porky doesn’t tell you is that he bases this argument on the liberal presupposition he has stolen that Daniel is a later work. Hmmm, me thinks Porky is feeling a little desperate to defend his fake book. Look at the extraordinary lengths he needs to go to save the Koran from shame.

      Too late Porky, you and the Koran have already been shamed.”

      LOL, Cerbie is back for some neutering. And when he gets neutered, he’ll scamper away with his tail between his legs only to return later on and pretend as if the issue is closed!

      LOL, of course Cerbie always rests his argument on whether the claim is made by liberal or conservative scholars. This is the best he can do. When there is no way to refute the argument, always fall back on whether it’s a liberal argument or a conservative one. This is the Christian apologist’s mantra.

      Hey Cerbie, why did your old man of a god allow the forced marriage and sex slavery of non-Jewish female captives? You can run but you can’t hide. This question has shamed you and your Bible. It’s no wonder you ran off to lick your wounds. Poor, poor doggie.

      Like

  2. “Yahweh is triune in his oneness…”

    My turn!

    “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”

    Who wins this round? Or is it a draw?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Abu Talhah
      October 13, 2017 • 10:58 pm
      “Yahweh is triune in his oneness…”

      My turn!

      “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”

      Who wins this round? Or is it a draw?

      I say;
      Thanks for reminding Joel of his senseless phrase. “Colorless green” = “triune oneness”. I keep reminding him that 3 ≠ 1, but he refuses to take my advice and insists 3=1 and his 3 in 1 God is not 3 but 1. 3 persons/beings are 1 person/being. 1 goat is one God like his creature(man) God.
      Triune oneness is a senseless phrase.

      Thanks..

      Liked by 1 person

    • Water, gas and ice. All different but all H20. See its not that hard.

      Like

    • Three species, one genus. You worship a creature possessed of accidents.

      Like

    • you then worship 3 different forms yet each form is the other form. Are you a Hindu by any chance ? Even Hindus believe god exists as many forms .

      if you glue the different ones in Hinduism it produces Christianity.

      father is water
      Spirit is gas
      Son is ice

      Do you see? you are having making the father exist as something else. Do you see? It simply the father changing lol.

      Like

    • achillies53
      October 14, 2017 • 6:43 am
      Water, gas and ice. All different but all H20. See its not that hard

      I say;
      It is Liquid water, water vapor, ice block. All are water(H20).

      There are many flaws in this analogy in the oneness of God. We refuted it here several times over the years.

      1. God is one, only and alone says the Bible.

      2. When you take a cup of liquid water, that water is liquid and not gas or ice at the same time. When the liquid water exists, the other forms does not exist as all the Persons/persons/beings of the Trinity God exists at the same time.

      You can only have one form of water at a particular time and not all forms at the same time like the Trinity God. Hot water cannot be ice water at the same time but the Trinity God has God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit exist at the same time. So the Trinity God cannot be one God as the same time because the name Trinity means tri=3 and 3 persons/beings cannot be one being.

      3. We have so MANY waters created but the Biblical God is not MANY but ONE, ONLY AND ALONE says the Bible and so cannot be compared to water which are MANY ones.

      My cup of water, your cup of water, Joel cup of water etc. consists of MANY ones and can be added, multiplied, counted etc. God’s oneness is not counted more than one, added, multiplied etc. That makes God’s oneness unique than any thing.

      achillies53
      October 14, 2017 • 6:55 am
      Genesis 1:26 Then God said “let US create man in OUR image and OUR likeness…

      Right from the get go we have one God but more than one person

      I say;
      But God is one and persons He created are created human beings. The difference is that God is One as He said in the Bible and so the persons He created are not God.

      If I have 3 mirrors in my room with my images on them, does that mean I count myself as 3 or 4 persons?

      My image is my reflection but not me myself. I am one person and my images are not included or counted as my person. If we say we are all gods like Mormons, then it will be polytheism according to the Bible.

      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

      — Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Abu

      “Who wins this round?”

      Satan?

      Like

  3. Joel,
    We do not need to say that your god is excactly like creature, rather your god is exactly a creature.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Genesis 1:26 Then God said “let US create man in OUR image and OUR likeness…

    Right from the get go we have one God but more than one person.

    Like

    • you just used an analogy which says father exists as different things.
      your analogy supports the idea that the trinity is one person.

      Like

    • Achillies, Wow! You’ve proven the trinity…you’re such a genius…👍

      Like

    • What a tired old argument. Never heard of majestic pluaral/royal we? Keep up or get out.

      Like

    • Yeah. Heard of that tired “royal we” 😂. Reading something into the text that isn’t there.

      How about Psalm 110 the Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

      I think you need to keep up.

      Like

    • LOL, Achilles doesn’t realize the irony of his statement “reading something into the text that isn’t there”!

      That’s exactly what you Christians do with the Biblical text! So desperate are you to find the trinity in the Bible that you see it even when there is no hint of it. I’ve even seen Christians appeal to Isaiah’s statement “holy, holy, holy is the lord” as somehow being proof of the trinity just because the word “holy” is used three times! How silly is that!

      The fact is that NO WHERE in the Bible can the trinity be reasonably found. You guys are simply too desperate to justify this pagan concept that you’ll find it in even in your toast. LOL!

      Like

    • Too funny. Matthew 28:19 is a clear statement of trinity. So you are then reduced to saying its fake.

      Like

    • Lol, too funny. Matthew 28 only says to baptize in the name of the three. It doesn’t say those three make up a trinity! Again, we find the pathetic Christian trying add things to the text that are not there.

      And then you ignored the fact that Mark’s gospel neglects to mention this baptismal formula! Contradictions abound in your Bible!

      Like

    • The problem with muslim apologetics is dishonesty. All the twisting and contortions. I know Jews who while rejecting Jesus as the messiah say there is no doubt that he claimed to be God.

      Therefore if Jesus is a true prophet Islam is false. If Jesus is not a true prophet islam is false. Either way islam is false.

      Like

    • Achilles’ Heel said:

      “The problem with muslim apologetics is dishonesty. All the twisting and contortions. I know Jews who while rejecting Jesus as the messiah say there is no doubt that he claimed to be God.

      Therefore if Jesus is a true prophet Islam is false. If Jesus is not a true prophet islam is false. Either way islam is false.”

      Oh that’s rich! A Christian accusing others of “dishonesty” and “twisting and contortions”. The irony of your statements never seems to dawn on you.

      Who cares what some lay person thinks, Jewish or otherwise? Serious historians have come to the conclusion that Jesus did not claim to be God, but rather he was made into a god by later Christians.

      Like

    • Every serious historian believes Jesus was crucified by Pilate. Ergo gospels correct. Islam false.

      Another epic muslim own goal.

      Like

    • LOL, another desperate attempt to distract from Christianity’s failures! When unable to refute an opponent, try to change direction and use distractions.

      You’re comparing apples to oranges, idiot. The question of whether Jesus claimed to be God or not can be verified historically using the historical method. But the question of whether a MIRACLE happened at the crucifixion is a matter of the supernatural and no secular historian would pay any heed to it. Moreover, the Quran does not deny that the crucifixion happened! So in this regard, it agrees with the secular historians. It only denies that it was Jesus who was crucified because God intervened and saved him!

      Like

    • You just got hoisted on your own petard. You appeal to historians when its suits then appeal to miracles when it suits.

      Thank you for confirming the Koran is a crock.

      Like

    • Still no reasonable response from Achilles’ Heel? WOW, so many Christian idiots getting roasted in these discussions and being unable to respond!

      Like

    • Respond to what? I just obliterated your Matthew 28:19 argument.

      Like

    • Bwahahaha, “obliterated”…yeah sure!

      http://www.biblebookprofiler.com/The_Forgery_of_Matthew_28_19.html

      Look, I just obliterated your pathetic brainwashed cult!

      Like

    • Yawn. Opinionated nonsense. Are you like 15 years old. Copying my vocabulary?

      Like

    • Hahaha, more irony! Yawn, Achilles’ Heel spews opinionated nonsense and then whines like a 15 year old. Oh sorry, am I bothering you with my “copying of your vocabulary”? 😉

      Like

  5. Joel
    October 13, 2017 • 7:13 pm
    intellect

    “Muslim God. Is one, absolute and unique and no one else says the Bible. “

    LOL!! Nonsense.

    The Bible clearly shows that the true god is absolutely unique in his plural oneness – he cannot possibly be unitarian the way that monkeys are unitarian

    I say;
    Thanks Abu Talhah for detecting this oxymoron-“plural oneness”. It is only idiots like Joel who uses this phrase. Knowledgeable and respected Christians will not use “plural oneness”. This shows Joel is a follower of David Wood, who does not know classical Arabic but reads English translations of Islamic literature, twists them to his likens and says he knows Islam.

    Plural by its definition is not more than one thing or singular. To combine them is oxymoron.

    plu·ral
    ˈplo͝orəl/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    GRAMMAR
    (of a word or form) denoting more than one, or (in languages with dual number) more than two.
    “the first person plural”
    2.
    containing several diverse elements.
    “a plural society”

    Source: https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+is+plural&oq=what+is+plural&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.10754j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    There is nothing like “plural oneness” because plural is more than one like goats are more than one and Trinitarian God has more than one persons i.e. more ones.

    Mono means one and only. Poly means more than one things as God i.e. Tri as in Trinity 3 persons God is polytheism punishable in hell fire.

    Thanks.

    Like

  6. To all muslims, did God appear as a burning bush to Moses? If yes, then God can physically manifest himself in a fixed point in space and time. So God can be finite and infinite at the same time.

    See the trinity is mot that hard.

    Like

    • achillies53
      Do you mean the fire that Moses saw is God? Then God will not blame the fire worshipers for worshiping him. Do you know there people who worship fire as God? Most Jews who got that scripture at that time did not accept the burning fire as God.

      Most idol worshipers believe God manifest Himself into their idols and because of that God sent this message to the same Moses.

      Second commandment

      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am o jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.’ Exod 20: 4-6.

      If God knows He will be manifesting Himself on earth, he will not reveal the above commandment to Moses.

      If Bill Gate or Steve Wozniak write a command to the Simpsons game to command Bart or Simpson to come closer to the screen or to zoom in or zoom out, does that mean Bill Gate or Steve Wozniak is physically present in the Windows or Apple Machine?

      You are a decent Christian who like to learn and pursue truth, unlike Joel and Samaritan who have idol thinking written in their brain and will always talk idolatry.

      Thanks.

      Like

  7. Achilles said: “Water, gas and ice. All different but all H20. See its not that hard.”

    Oh Lord, not another false analogy! Achilles, this is not what the trinity is. It is in fact a form of Modalism. You just showed that you don’t understand the trinity, even though you pretend you do. This happens a lot. So it is indeed VERY hard for Christians to explain what the trinity is.

    Like

    • Mighty Achilles, son of Peleus, has been silenced!

      We have a clear contradiction between the Gospel of John and 1 Peter. Whereas the former claims that God “the father” does not judge anyone (but rather the son), the latter clearly states that the “father” judges everyone. Christians won’t to have their cake and eat it too, but the cake is past its expiration date.

      “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,”

      VS.

      “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.”

      Like

  8. O dear. Every time you use an analogy of how you can have one substance in 3 forms muslims start shouting heresy or modalism.

    Of course no one can completely understand the trinity. As Augustine said: if you can understand it its not God.

    You and I don’t understand eternity but we accept it.

    Like

    • one can cut a bird, fish and ball shape out of plastic.
      Your one substance will work in this too.
      Atleast you acknowledge you are a pagan and that is a good thing.

      Anyway

      Father = water
      Son = gas
      Ghost = liquid

      this means father is EXISTING as ghost

      And son. why are you worshipping three persons when in reality you worship one person ??

      Like

    • achillies53
      October 14, 2017 • 10:29 pm
      O dear. Every time you use an analogy of how you can have one substance in 3 forms muslims start shouting heresy or modalism.

      Of course no one can completely understand the trinity. As Augustine said: if you can understand it its not God.

      You and I don’t understand eternity but we accept it

      I say;
      If God knows we will not understand one, only and alone, He would not have told us that He is one, only and alone then no one else from the Bible.

      Proof:
      “there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
      “Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
      “Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
      “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      “For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
      “Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
      “You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
      “O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
      “You alone [bad] are Yahweh.” Nehemiah 9:6
      “For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God” Psalm 18:31
      “You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

      Achillies, why will God waste His time to keep telling us who He is, if He thinks we do not understand that? Don’t you understand one? alone? only? No one else? Every truthful persons understand this unless the person wants to understand Trinity, 3 persons 1 God, hypostatic union, eternally generated, 2 natures etc. which are man made and are not in the Bible.

      Do you believe what is in the Bible above or your believe that is not in the Bible?

      Is Augustine Jesus? Is Augustine or the Church Fathers God? Above is what God said He is but you do not believe in that then believed in what someone else said but not God. It can lead one to hell fire if proper repentance is not made.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • @ Intellect.

      Genesis 1:26 Then God said “let us create mankind, in our likeness…”

      Psalm 110 The Lord said to my Lord “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”

      Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying “whom shall I send? And who will go for us”

      Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, everlasting father, Prince of peace.

      Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his prescence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power, all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away and his kingdom will never be destroyed.

      Like

    • Oh dear. I didn’t realize it was possible for a person to contradict himself so easily and quickly. Previously you claimed the trinity was “not that hard” to understand. Now you claim that it’s all a “mystery”.

      And by the way, it’s not Muslims who say these silly analogies you guys use are heretical. It’s your fellow Christians! You see, the more educated Christians realize the dangers of misinterpreting the trinity. Unfortunately for them, the trinity is by its nature so confusing and contradictory that misinterpretations are inevitable. It’s no wonder there have been so many heresies. And after almost 2,000 years, Christians still have no way to explain the trinity. Your water analogy is Modalistic. Get over it.

      Like

    • Not really a contradiction.

      Matthew 28:19 is a clear statement of the trinity. Its there in the old testament and new testament.

      Like eternity, at one level we can understand it but ultimately it’s a mystery.

      Im not sure how throwing around allegations of heresy or modalism really advances your position?

      Like

    • “Not really a contradiction.

      Matthew 28:19 is a clear statement of the trinity. Its there in the old testament and new testament.

      Like eternity, at one level we can understand it but ultimately it’s a mystery.

      Im not sure how throwing around allegations of heresy or modalism really advances your position?”

      Oh please. Matthew 28:19 is a later interpolation. The earliest gospel, that of Mark, does not have Matthew’s baptismal formula, even in the extended ending.

      So not only is the trinity not present in the Tanakh, but not even in the New Testament. It had to be developed and refined over hundreds of years until it was finally accepted in the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. Not even at the council of Nicea in 325 CE was it fully described and accepted. The holy spirit was added to the mix in 381 CE and that was the finalized version of the Nicene creed.

      Modalism was a heresy. Your water analogy appeals to Modalism. Thus, it proves that you don’t have any idea how to describe the trinity. You’re just as confused as anyone else.

      Like

    • O please. Not the Matthew 28:19 is fake argument again.

      John 1:1 in the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God.

      Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and My God”

      The disciples worshipped Jesus.

      Like

    • Achillies53

      You said;
      achillies53
      October 15, 2017 • 3:03 am
      @ Intellect.

      Genesis 1:26 Then God said “let us create mankind, in our likeness…”

      Psalm 110 The Lord said to my Lord “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”

      Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying “whom shall I send? And who will go for us”

      Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, everlasting father, Prince of peace

      I say;
      The above verses did not say Yahweh is “triune”, Trinity, 3 in 1, Jesus, Hypostasis etc. The Jews were reading the scriptures before Jesus was born and never believed it is 3 persons. If you insist “us” is plurality of persons, then we will not forget Mormons and other polytheists who will claim it means plurality of their Gods.

      In the Quran we have God referring Himself as “we”, “us” etc. and most semetic language people know is a majestic “we”, “us” and not God is more than one person. God could speak to His angels who He sometimes talk to when He is making other creations. In the Quran, Allah spoke to the angels about His intentions to create man. They angels even asks God some questions about His intentions of creating man who will cause havoc in the world. God reminded them of His knowledge. So, Jews did not take the “us” to mean more than one persons of God. It was revealed to them. Compare that with the I,I,I, me,me, me, only,only, alone,alone,alone, no one else, no one else that I provided from the Bible. I have more that I can provide from the Bible.

      You provided only one or two us against hundreds of I,I, me, me, alone, only, one, one that God referred to Himself. If God is 3 in 1, He will simply say He is 3 in 1 but He did not say that but said He is one, only and alone. He used I and me but not we.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • LOL, Achilles just keeps jumping from one garbled passage to another every time he is refuted. The disciples didn’t “worship” Jesus. The word “prokuneo” did not denote “worship”.

      The gospel of John introduced completely new concepts which were unknown to the authors of the Synoptic gospels. In the Synoptics, Jesus was a man. In John, he became a god who had existed from the beginning.

      Like

    • It is just as easy to interpret the passages in Genesis and Psalm in a polytheistic manner than it is to interpret them in a trinitarian manner. Christians cannot find any clear evidence for their trinity. They just assume it is there. It is a pathetic non-sequitur.

      Like

    • ROFL!!!

      You haven’t refuted anything. You just got caught out. You said there is no explicit statement of the trinity in the bible. Matthew 28:19. Then you said its fake.

      Muslim apologetics 101. The trinity isn’t in the bible. You prove them wrong. Then comes the bible has been corrupted

      Like

    • ROTFL!

      The modalist is still struggling to explain why his trinity is nowhere to be found in his Bible. He jumps from verse to verse looking for this concept. And all he can find are later additions which were not present in the earliest documents! Pathetic!

      Like

    • Paul calls Jesus the creator of everything.

      Jesus said the father judges nobody. All judgment has been left to the son.

      Poor silly pagan moon God worshipper makes a fool of himself by saying the trinity isn’t in the bible.

      Like

    • “Paul calls Jesus the creator of everything.

      Jesus said the father judges nobody. All judgment has been left to the son.

      Poor silly pagan moon God worshipper makes a fool of himself by saying the trinity isn’t in the bible.”

      LOL, Achilles’ Heel, the pagan Canaanite, is still jumping around every time he gets refuted.

      Notice how the pagan always generally appeals to Paul or the last gospel. The reason is that the Synoptic gospels are much harder to use to somehow prove Jesus’ divinity. In the Synoptics, Jesus is shown as a man who worships God and prays to Him.

      The pagan also doesn’t realize that the last gospel’s claim of the Father not judging anyone is directly CONTRADICTED by 1 Peter 1:17, which states:

      “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.”

      Oh dear, oh dear, the poor Canaanite pagan gets refuted again!!

      Like

    • qb

      “The gospel of John introduced completely new concepts which were unknown to the authors of the Synoptic gospels.”

      Untrue, moron. The gospel of john elucidates concepts found in the synoptics. Jesus’ divinity is clearly taught in the synoptics.

      The quran introduces concepts that are completely new to the judeo/christian tradition and are derived from the pagan arab practices. For example, praying towards a tent and circling said tent 7 times are all pagan practices.

      Plus, the plagiarized, apocryhpal, and untrue heretical christian story of jesus making animals out of clay and breathing life into them introduces us to type of god that betrays islam’s confused tawheed. Since only god can create life, jesus is clearly portrayed as god. Stupid muslims like yourself, try to get around this by claiming that “Allah permits” this by imparting his power through a human being.

      This makes you a moron who throws tawheed under the bus to avoid the rational conclusion that the quran is a bunch of nonsense. Tawheed forbids allah sharing his power, but this story clearly shows that allah shares an attribute and power of his with a human being no less.

      Once again, tawheed fails, islam is false, you are an idiot.

      Like

    • Coco the dancing monkey is really mad! Look out folks, he might start flinging his own feces soon!

      Moron, anyone who reads the Synoptics and compares them to the last gospel will find innumerable differences between the two. You have been brainswashed, you idiot. You are a moron.

      Still dancing around the evidence of paganism in your Bible? Why is your god an old man from Canaanite myth?

      Like

    • qb

      “Moron, anyone who reads the Synoptics and compares them to the last gospel will find innumerable differences between the two. You have been brainswashed, you idiot. “

      LOL!! You idiot.

      If you compare the quran to christian apocrypha, pagan fables, and rabbinic talmudic commentary, you will find innumerable similarities between them and your holey book. MORON.

      These original sources of allah’s plagiarism are known to have existed before a bunch of ignorant desert nomads began sniffing Aisha’s camel’s poo, and drinking toxic camel’s urine on the authority of an even more ignorant merchant who claimed to be receiving “revelations” from an abusive angel.

      ” Still dancing around the evidence of paganism in your Bible? Why is your god an old man from Canaanite myth?”

      So, so dumb.

      Why is your god’s oneness the same as a poo-sniffing monkey, and stinky goat’s? And I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you poo-brain, but practically none of your religious practices are even outlined in your holey book – your sunnah is a record of ignorant pagan rituals.LOL!!!

      Hope you don’t run away this time – please try to explain how your god’s oneness is different to rat’s? The imam you quoted is as clueless as you judging by how pathetic his attempts to explain tawheed were. LOL!!

      You are stupid.

      Like

  9. I find surah 112 rather boring. It somewhat states the obvious- clearly nothing is like God. That is self evident in the concept of God.

    It is such a vague surah as evidenced by Muslims inability to define tawheed

    Like

    • LOL, oh really? It’s “self evident”? Well, not to you to Christians apparently. Surah Al-Ikhlas states that God is not “begotten”. But your god was “begotten”. He was born from a woman, and a “sinful” woman at that!

      Cerbie…why did your god allow sexual coercion and forced marriage? I noticed you ran away from our last exchange. 😉

      Like

    • Yep, Mo was wrong on that one.

      We already discovered you know nothing about Hebrew, and that flying pie was using the etymological fallacy. That’s old news Porky.

      So, perhaps you can tell me what mo meant when he said that Allah is the one and only?

      Like

    • Hahaha, so Cerbie ran away after he got neutered and now wants to move on to something else. Um, NO! Answer the question Cerbie. Why did your god allow the forced marriage of captured non-Jewish women?

      Like

    • The OP is about tawheed, and yet here we have a Muslim unwilling to define tawheed.

      Oh, and please ask Ijaz to stop blocking me if you wish to continue discussions

      Like

    • LOL, stop blaming others for your cowardice. You ran away from the last discussion. If it is such a problem for you on this blog, then come over to my blog. I promise that all of your posts will be approved, so long as you don’t use any foul language.

      Now, back to the question that you have been avoiding: why did your Canaanite deity allow the forced marriage and sexual slavery of non-Jewish female captives?

      You guys have been answered on the matter of Tawheed many times. You are clutching at straws because you want to desperately put Tawheed and the trinity on the same level so as to give the impression that your failure to defend the latter is due to its inherent “mystery”. That’s really what this is about. Tawheed is very easy to understand and it has been defined. You idiots simply pretend to not see the logic because you have an alternative agenda.

      Like

    • If it’s so simple and basic and has been done numerous times before, then it shouldn’t be so hard for you to define Allah’s oneness.

      Your avoidance and deflection is duly noted. I have no control over whether Ijaz bans me. That is his decision as the host of this blog.

      Like

    • LOL, as I said, come to my blog and you won’t have to worry about being blocked. Come on, Cerbie. Come on boy.

      Allah’s Oneness has been best explained by Imam Tahawi:

      “We say about the unity of Allah believing with the help of Allah – that Allah is one, without any partners.

      There is nothing like Him.

      There is nothing that can overwhelm Him.

      There is no god other than Him.

      He is the eternal without a beginning and enduring without end.

      He will never perish or come to an end.

      Nothing happens except what He wills.

      No imagination can conceive of Him and no understanding can comprehend Him.

      He is different from any created being.

      He is living and He never dies, and He is forever sustaining and He never sleeps.”

      https://abuaminaelias.com/aqeedah-of-imam-tahawi/

      And once again: Why did your old man of a god allow for the forced marriage and sexual coercion of non-Jewish female captives?

      Your avoidance and refusal to answer is duly noted. And your religion is duly mocked.

      Like

    • Paulus

      “If it’s so simple and basic and has been done numerous times before, then it shouldn’t be so hard for you to define Allah’s oneness.”

      Good luck with that one, Paulus.

      I’ve been trying to get this moron to explain how allah’s oneness is different to the oneness of his creatures and all he can do is jump up and down screeching across cyberspace that I’m a pagan.

      Like

    • qb

      “Allah’s Oneness has been best explained by Imam Tahawi:”

      You are so stupid.

      If that is the best that a muslim imam can come up with, then no wonder you are clueless about your stupid concept of god. That dumb description explains nothing. Who is this Tahawi guy anyways? You need to find some other “expert” to tell you what to think. LOL!!

      The only real allusion to allah’s oneness is that nonsense is that he has no partners – that still explains nothing. The triune god has no partners so this imam could be easily describing the trinity. LOL.

      So again, there are no reasons to believe that a goat that gets to paradise cannot achieve eternal oneness like allah since the oneness of a goat or monkey is the same as the oneness of allah.

      Like

    • Yeah, Muslims define the unity of Allah by saying he is one. And it took a scholar to reach that conclusion!!

      That’s like saying we define a cheeseburger by saying it’s a burger with cheese.

      Honestly, I don’t any Muslim can really define tawheed. Anytime I see them try they commit shirk. Old ibn Sow (aka Porky) probably is clever enough not to even try.!

      I wouldn’t really mind them admitting it is difficult if they weren’t so hell bent on criticising Christians about the trinity. After all, any doctrine of God will be complex. As it stands they just bring shame onto themselves and their religion for their hypocrisy.

      Like

    • “The only real allusion to allah’s oneness is that nonsense is that he has no partners – that still explains nothing. The triune god has no partners so this imam could be easily describing the trinity. LOL.”

      you dumb bastard. each PERSON in the trinity EXISTS with OTHER persons.

      EACH ENJOYS the other persons :

      the fact or condition of being with another or others, especially in a way that provides friendship and enjoyment.

      how can you say that you DON’T have PARTNERS within THE trinoty INTERNALLY?

      you LITERALLY have INTERNAL echads ENJOYING each other. INTERNAL conscious ECHADS.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Joel

      The only real allusion to allah’s oneness is that nonsense is that he has no partners – that still explains nothing. The triune god has no partners so this imam could be easily describing the trinity. LOL.

      So again, there are no reasons to believe that a goat that gets to paradise cannot achieve eternal oneness like allah since the oneness of a goat or monkey is the same as the oneness of allah.

      I say;
      Trinity God who is “triune oneness” = “colorless green”. Thanks Abu Talhah. The triune cannot be one God because just like goat he is counted as 3 ones. In the mind of idol worshiper like Joel one person of the Trinity is God, just like one goat in 3 goats is God. No wonder Joel worships a man(creature) as God because in his mind one goat is like God just like one person is God.

      Triune God the Father has a partner who is God the Son and they have different roles just like in partnership, the persons have different roles.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 2 people

    • it has taken them more than a thousand years to explain how god is :

      sender and sent
      lover and loved
      punisher and punished
      commanded and COMMANDER

      how is the “one being ” producing this BS within itself?

      for example, how much “divine nature” does the father use when he commands his kid? how is the “divine nature” being used to COMMAND AND @ the same time to get COMMANDED?

      wtf is this?

      how does the “make up” produce this CLOWN god? this LEGO pagan CLOWN god?

      then you have a daddy who is the boss in the ring /being

      what is this ?

      you have “dinvine being” which is FATHERED/PARENTED and is father and PARENT @ the same time?

      what is this?

      god is one, but you have to SPLIT him to relate to that “oneness” ?

      the persons LOVE each otheR? well how much “divine nature” do they use? considering that each is not the other and each is identified as god, then you have FULLY LOVERS AND FULLY LOVED LOL

      Like


    • Since only god can create life, jesus is clearly portrayed as god. Stupid muslims like yourself, try to get around this by claiming that “Allah permits” this by imparting his power through a human being.”

      Lol . dumb shitstian, did jc say “be” NO
      did jc NEED material . YES
      did jc NEED to seek PERMISSION? Yes
      so ALL the invisible stuff was under ALLAHS control and authority, no power from ALLAH WAS TAKEN OUT FROM ALLAH AND INJECTED into a finite creature. In Islam flesh beings don’t become gods like they do in Christianity and Judaism

      elijahs dead bones gave LIFE. DEAD BONES
      elijahs bones were LIFE GIVING BONES

      that beat Jesus then, right?

      In the garden of Eden a CREATED TREE COULD GIVE ETERNAL LIFE LOL
      THAT TREE MUST BE GOD LOL

      no where in the Quran does it say POWER FROM THE SELF OF ALLAH IS INJECTED INTO FINITE THINGS. and btw shitSTIAN, SINCE GOD CREATED PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, THEN that means all MIRACLES were the WILL OF GOD.

      ..

      Like

    • LOL, Coco and Cerbie pretend not to understand Tawheed and then try to make it appear as if the trinity makes perfect sense! How can you make a person who doesn’t want to understand, because it is in his interest not, to actually understand something so simple? Methinks their lying spirit has corrupted their minds!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Cerbie, will you answer my question: Why did your old man of a god allow for the forced marriage of female captives? How long will you run away with your tail between your legs?

      Like

    • qb

      “LOL, Coco and Cerbie pretend not to understand Tawheed and then try to make it appear as if the trinity makes perfect sense! How can you make a person who doesn’t want to understand, because it is in his interest not, to actually understand something so simple?”

      You sneaky little tampax, trying to weasel in and get the last word hoping I wouldn’t notice!!

      Your tawheed MAKES NO SENSE, you idiot. Even this “expert” imam who tells you what to think does a piss poor job of explaining it. IS he supposed to be an expert?

      In your own words, explain how allah’s oneness is different to a goat’s? Come on now, it’s been days and days and not one of you morons has been able to give a coherent answer to this simple question.

      LOL!!

      Like

    • Lol, Coco suffers from delusions of grandeur! Dnt make me laugh dancing monkey! Your trinity has been exposed over and over sain so you monkeys try desperately to disparage Islam and Tawheed to level the playing field. People can see through your pathetic facade! Don’t kid yourself!

      Liked by 1 person

    • qb

      Idiot! How on earth can anyone be so dumb?

      What are you even talking about? Can’t you even try to explain your stupid concept of tawheed? Why is it so difficult? Oh, I forgot, you’re a moron!

      Like

  10. Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree of the Lord. You are my son. Today I have begotten you.

    This sura is another thing Muhummad got wrong.

    Like

    • Yep, sure is!

      I personally wonder whether an illiterate nomad from Arabia even knew what the concept meant in the judeo- Christian context. Based on everything else, clearly not

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, the “Judeo-Christian” concept! That’s rich!

      The Jews didn’t believe that being declared God’s “son” meant you were divine or part of some pagan trinity, You guys are a riot!

      Like

    • I love it how pagan arab moon god worshipers who circle the kaarba and kiss a meteorite throw the word pagan around.

      PRICELESS!!!

      Like

    • Lol, another idiot harping about the moongod myth! Go get educated first. You’re making a fool of yourself.

      You worship an old man! You worship a god who was born like any other human! What is more pagan than that? The Greeks would have been proud!

      Like

    • I challenged you to show where in the bible it portrays God as an old man?

      Still waiting.

      Like

    • achillies53, seems he made you angry…as far as i know, Jesus is described as having white hairs in Revelations…

      Liked by 1 person

    • The tanakh and the NT both speak of God begetting. Mo contradicts them both. Ergo, he contradicts the former prophets

      Like

    • Paulus, yeah i agree but begetting in the sense of what? I mean doesn’t God say the same thing to David?

      Like

    • That’s a good discussion point, but for the topic at hand it simply shows that Muhammad did not teach things consistent with the former prophets. Surah 112 is irrelevant really. It’s very plain, basic and theologically incoherent

      Like

    • Paulus, for example? I mean about the teachings…

      Like

    • Some examples include being made in the image of God, the sacrificial system, the concept of son God/ fatherhood of God,

      In all these things Mo is not consistent with the former prophets.

      Like

    • Achilles’ Heel seems to have amnesia:

      “I challenged you to show where in the bible it portrays God as an old man?

      Still waiting.”

      LOL, you were shown the evidence you dunce. You dismissed it as “speculation”. Remember?

      Referring to God as “Ancient of Days” and having white hair shows that He is being depicted as advanced in years (i.e. very old), just like pagan gods were. This is typical of paganism. Zeus was depicted as having white hair. It signifies his ancient origin. The same was done with “El” in Canaanite folklore and Odin in Norse mythology.

      Like

    • Here is more evidence Achilles’ Heel:

      The word translated as “Ancient” is “attiq”, which means “aged”.

      http://biblehub.com/nasec/hebrew/6268.htm

      Like

    • “Some examples include being made in the image of God, the sacrificial system, the concept of son God/ fatherhood of God,

      In all these things Mo is not consistent with the former prophets.”

      Cerbie’s neutering begins anew.

      Actually, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did say that Adam was made in God’s “image”, but unlike you idiots, we don’t take that literally. That does not mean that God has two eyes, a nose, two ears etc. We take it as a symbolic description.

      The irony behind your appeal to the “sacrificial system” is that it’s YOUR false prophet Paul who contradicted the Tanakh on this matter. You see, whereas the Tanakh claims that the sacrificial system (including the temple sacrifice) will remain for all times. See Ezekiel on this matter.

      The concept of “fatherhood of God” is again simply symbolic. Even if it was used by the previous prophets, which of course we cannot say for sure given the Tanakh’s clear evidence of editing, it was again a symbolic concept. God did not literally beget children. That is a pagan concept. If you find that to be so important, maybe you should worship Zeus! LOL!!

      Like

    • Welcome to muslim apologetics. Aged = old man. Still waiting for God to be called an old man in the bible.

      Like

    • Hahahaha! Welcome to Christian apologetics: describing God as “aged” and having white hair doesn’t mean He is an “old man”. Hmmm…

      Still waiting for a reasonable response from any clown out there in the Christian fantasy world.

      Like

    • “Actually, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did say that Adam was made in God’s “image”, but unlike you idiots, we don’t take that literally. ”

      Perhaps you can show us

      1. Where muhammad said that Adam was made in Gods image

      2. Where any of us “idiots” have employed the term literally? Clearly, again, you haven’t studied or read genesis

      Like

    • 1. Lol, what happened Cerbie? I thought you have studied Islam? Oh wait, now I know. Your Google searches of Answering-Islam and the like don’t provide the necessary information, do they?

      Well, here you are:

      https://sunnah.com/muslim/45/152

      2. Hahaha, your Bible describes God as a man! Exodus even states that he has feet! And your fellow clowns typically interpret the latter as a vision of the “pre-incarnate” Jesus: https://carm.org/who-did-moses-see-in-exodus

      Like

    • Oh you sneaky little pork chop. You almost thought you had a slam dunk, until you realise that I know that a majority of Islamic scholarship understands that hadith as a reference to Adam not Allah (i.e. his image is a reference to Adam). Why, because the parallel hadith in Bukhari makes it clear that the hadith is about Adam. But here you are practicing your typical taqqiya to try and save face. You almost thought you could sneak that in to redeem the shame of Islam. Tsk tsk tsk…

      Now, to demonstrate that Christians take the phrase “made in the image of God” as literal, you appeal to a text that has nothing to do with the phrase mentioned. Why am I not surprised. You’ve lost- just admit it. Christians simply don’t take that phrase as a literal manifestation.

      Allow me to cite Samuel Green, one of these so called “idiots” you reference to help educate you on the phrase

      “The doctrine of the image of God teaches that God has made a connection between humanity and himself: Humans represent God’s rule in creation (Gen. 1:26), are to display his character (Lev. 19:2, Ps. 82), and are to share in his glory (Gen. 2:9, 3:22, Ps. 8).”

      hmm, not an iota or a hint of a literal interpretation. Rather, a completely consistent orthodox understanding. The more you talk the more you look as if you really are made in the image of a sow.

      Like

    • LOL, Cerbie makes a pathetic attempt at showing that he has done some serious research! Don’t kid yourself Cerbie. We all know the extent of your “research” is limited to Answering-Islam.

      “Oh you sneaky little pork chop. You almost thought you had a slam dunk, until you realise that I know that a majority of Islamic scholarship understands that hadith as a reference to Adam not Allah (i.e. his image is a reference to Adam). Why, because the parallel hadith in Bukhari makes it clear that the hadith is about Adam. But here you are practicing your typical taqqiya to try and save face. You almost thought you could sneak that in to redeem the shame of Islam. Tsk tsk tsk…”

      LOL!! I always love it when an ignorant buffoon says things like “majority of Islamic scholarship”, as if the neutered dog has studied the vast corpus of Islamic scholarship! Don’t make me laugh, Cerbie!

      There are different interpretations, but the interpretation that “His image” refers to Allah (swt) is perfectly acceptable, because it is not meant to be taken literally.

      “Now, to demonstrate that Christians take the phrase “made in the image of God” as literal, you appeal to a text that has nothing to do with the phrase mentioned. Why am I not surprised. You’ve lost- just admit it. Christians simply don’t take that phrase as a literal manifestation.

      Allow me to cite Samuel Green, one of these so called “idiots” you reference to help educate you on the phrase

      “The doctrine of the image of God teaches that God has made a connection between humanity and himself: Humans represent God’s rule in creation (Gen. 1:26), are to display his character (Lev. 19:2, Ps. 82), and are to share in his glory (Gen. 2:9, 3:22, Ps. 8).”

      hmm, not an iota or a hint of a literal interpretation. Rather, a completely consistent orthodox understanding. The more you talk the more you look as if you really are made in the image of a sow.”

      ROTFL, Christian taqiyya in action yet again!

      Modern Christians tend to deliberately twist certain verses and interpret them so as to be less embarrassing, but I find that whenever this situation arises, we should go to the church fathers. Christians always appeal to the church fathers when it suits their purpose, but when they don’t, they throw them under the bus. Here is what one Christian says about Irenaeus’ interpretation:

      “It is necessary to examine more closely what it precisely means for us to be created in God’s image and likeness.5 For Irenaeus, we are in God’s image not merely because we possess reason and free
      will. Rather, as the previous quotation intimated in specifying that the whole of man was made in God’s image, our very bodily formation bears the image of God” (https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholicstudies/center/logosjournal/archives/2003vol06/64/6-4Article.pdf)

      Ouch!

      Hmm, a definite hint of a literal interpretation and a completely orthodox and early understanding. The more you talk the more you look as if you really are made in the image of a neutered, three-headed dog of hell. Woof, woof! Now scamper away little doggie with your tail between your legs.

      Like

    • “The tanakh and the NT both speak of God begetting”
      Very interesting!
      How many children have you known so far?
      The creature Jesus is fully god according to your pagan belief, so Could Jesus beget?

      Like

  11. quote :


    Matthew also has Jesus claim a single name for the father, son, and spirit.”

    This is a misunderstanding. This is the verse you mean, I’m sure:

    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[fn] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    In the grammatical construction of the Greek, it is not implied hat they all have one name, each one of the genitive nouns refers back to “in the name of.” It is a short hand way of saying, “in the name of the father AND in the name of the son, AND in the name of the Holy Spirit. It was common in the ancient world and in the Greek language to have magical formulas with lists of names like that. As a purely grammatical construction, that’s what it means.
    There is no Trinity in Matthew or in the entire New Testament. The Trinity is a post-Biblical, Catholic development.

    Like

    • Heathcliff, well to understand Matthew 28:19 we must go to 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 which kinda explains the meaning of it and apparently there’s no “Trinity” in my humble opinion…it may sound self contradicting but isn’t Matthew 28:18 supposed to be corrupted? I mean the writings of Eusebius and the Shem Tov MSS proves this right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Shaad, that’s exactly right. Matthew 28:19 is a corrupted verse. Eusebius and other church fathers like Justin Martyr did not know of the baptismal formula. Ironically, in Eusebius’ writings, it only appears in the writings that postdated the Nicene council. Before that, the formula was never quoted by Eusebius.

      Like

    • LOL, this doesn’t prove anything. All it shows is that there are other idiotic and brainwashed Christian apologists like you.

      Like

    • You just got taken down real good.

      Like

    • LOL, still no response. Your lack of a reasoned response keeps…yep, you guessed it…taking you down real good. Hahahaha!

      Like

    • i’m pretty skeptical about this…i mean being baptized into something doesn’t mean the latter is God for example it is demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 10:2…and also if we take the bible into context, we can see that “name” implies “authority”…and once again 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 kinda gives a good explanation about this…

      Like

    • I would like to show you guys an article written in favour of the Shem Tob but it’s ridiculously long…i’m pretty sure no one would even bother to read it lol

      Like

    • Every single early Greek MSS includes the verse.

      Muslims appeal to one text in Eusebius and a hebrew text from 1300 years later. Except that Eusebius elsewhere cites the long version and is known to abbreviate at other times.

      Porky fails once again bringing shame onto his religion.

      Like

    • Who is porky?

      Like

    • I’m not denying the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 by the way, i’m just tryna comprehend it’s meaning…

      Like

    • and the Shem Tob article which i was talking about doesn’t deny the Greek Authenticity of 28:19 but instead it offers an alternative explanation to it in light of the Shem Tob…it’s ridiculously long and on top of that it’s pretty much anti Trinitarian, so that’s why i didn’t show it otherwise you guys would start being hostile…

      Liked by 1 person

    • there is more here. the christian bs house is badly sinking

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cerbie barked:

      “Every single early Greek MSS includes the verse.

      Muslims appeal to one text in Eusebius and a hebrew text from 1300 years later. Except that Eusebius elsewhere cites the long version and is known to abbreviate at other times.

      Porky fails once again bringing shame onto his religion.”

      LOL, Christian taqiyya in action!

      1. “Every single EARLY Greek MSS…” – Notice how the liar used the word “EARLY”. This is deliberately deceitful. What Cerbie neglects to mention is that the so-called “earliest” MSS of Matthew all date from the 4th century onward. There is not a SINGLE Greek manuscript from the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries!

      2. As a matter of fact, Muslims and nearly everyone else who goes by the historical evidence and NOT Christian fantasy, do not only appeal to Eusebius. Rather, there are other church fathers whose writings prove that they were unaware of the baptismal formula of 28:19. Justin Martyr is another such early church father.

      Cerbie merely repeats the same tired arguments that Christians typically use. The guy simply parrots the nonsense of his coreligionists and brings shame onto his religion. It seems Cerbie is a dog and parrot hybrid!

      Like

    • Shaad, please post the article. I am sure anyone who is seriously interested in the truth would love to read it. Of course, I don’t think that would include our canine friend Cerbie.

      Like

    • quran&bible, dude seriously you guys use so many nicknames that i tend to get confused most of the time 😂

      Here’s the article about the Shem Tov by the way…it basically tries to understand from which source it came from compared to the greek manuscripts…it’s quite boring but you’ll find some interesting points from time to time…

      https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/component/content/article/16-hebrew-matthew/726-history-of-the-hebrew-version-of-matthew.html

      It’s a Unitarian website by the way…it seems that the author belongs to a unique sect different from other Unitarians…

      Like

    • Hey Ibn Sow

      Perhaps you could do a quick google, like you always do, and tell us all what the earliest MS of Eusebius is? or JM?

      Go on!

      Oops, here come your hot flushes again knowing how shameful your dawah is for Islam.

      You see, everybody, while Ibn Sow protests the greek Matthean manuscript texts as being too late for evidence, what dumb dumb didn’t realise is that *his* source comes much much later. You are so dumb little pig man. You make this too easy.

      So in other words, your argument is dismissed by almost every historical scholar on external and internal grounds. And by arguing against the dating of manuscripts you only condemn yourself further into the pit of swine muck. lol

      Perhaps one day you might leave your sows basement and grow a pair.

      Like

    • And ibn Sow you still didn’t have a response as to why Eusebius would elsewhere cite the long version. No answer? Of course not loser. Because how can a muhammadan base an argument on a short version if he admits the same author cites the long version. The muhammadan dilemma that now faces ibn sow

      Like

    • Who’s ibn sow?

      Like

    • I think instead of talking about the authenticity we should try to comprehend it’s meaning…Infact i would be more than happy if 28:19 wasn’t inserted later…

      Like

    • Paulus, I’ve got a little question, talking about Eusebius, I remember reading somewhere that his first 17 quotes of 28:19 pre-Nicea period were

      Like

    • Shit i accidentally clicked on reply, im gonna put my question again

      Like

    • Paulus, i’ve got a little question, talking about Eusebius, i remember reading somewhere that his first 17 quotes of 28:19 during pre-Nicea period i.e before 325 AD didn’t contain the so called Trinitarian Formula but he did include it Post-Nicea…is that true? If yes, then what is the explanation for this?

      Like

    • The same question went to the bottom of the comments section please ignore it, it was by mistake…

      Like

    • paulus, in matthew 28, there is no way that your tiplETS have one name.

      now, your need to PROVE they have one name.

      that article has SILENCED you paulus. you will never use matthew 28 to defend your pagan triitarian beliefs ever again

      paulus :

      /u/brojangles gave a very good answer. I would only add that the repeated use of the conjunction καὶ is an example of polysyndeton. It is not necessary to have any conjunction here. πατρὸς, υἱοῦ, and ἁγίου πνεύματος (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are all in the genitive case. Nouns in the genitive case all modify another noun and limit its scope. For instance William of Orange limits the William to a particular location (and a very particular person). Similarly, the genitive here limits the “name” to the three nouns in the genitive. It is not necessary to have a conjunction “and” here.

      However, we do have repeated conjunctions. Plenty of sources describe the purpose and effect of polysyndeton. One is that it creates rhythm, similar to what you might find in a song or ritual. Another is that it places emphasis on the individual terms. It would be worth exploring if there are other examples of polysyndeton used in the description or actual ceremony of other rituals of the first century.
      So what we have here is each of the three persons modifying the word “name” and emphasis being put on all three, not just one.

      In response to your edit: baptizing in the name of Jesus only does not have the other two parts upon which emphasis is made by the author of Matthew. One is not sufficient. If the three persons are just titles, then the emphasis is on all three titles, not a single name. If there were no conjunctions and it were simply the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this would point to a single name. The conjunctions slow the reader down and separates the three. Matthew would have caused great confusion if he intended the three to be a single name.
      A good example of this would be the difference between these two sentences.

      “Your mother picked up your books, laundry and toys.” “Your mother picked up your books, and you laundry, and your toys.”

      You can see from the second sentence that there is emphasis on each individual item in the list. It’s not just all three being one, its each individual thing. This shows that your mother had to do all this work. The first sentence doesn’t have this emphasis or this meaning necessarily. Polysyndeton in Matthew puts the same amount of emphasis on each individual person in the formula.

      In contrast, the opposite of Polysyndeton is asyndeton. It lumps everything together. Quintilian uses the phrase acervatio dissoluta “loose heap” to refer to it. The most famous example is veni, vedi, vici, I came; I saw; I conquered. Caesar did all three in quick succession. Everything he did was as a whole. We get the impression from the phrase that it was easy and quick, without much of a struggle. If the Author of Matthew wanted to emphasize that the name of all three persons were Jesus, asyndeton would have done this. He would have had to eliminated the conjunction kai.

      Like

    • phalus:

      Polysyndeton is a literary technique in which conjunctions (e.g. and, but, or) are used repeatedly in quick succession, often with no commas, even when the conjunctions could be removed.

      argue against this . l

      Like

    • “And ibn Sow you still didn’t have a response as to why Eusebius would elsewhere cite the long version. No answer? Of course not loser. Because how can a muhammadan base an argument on a short version if he admits the same author cites the long version. The muhammadan dilemma that now faces ibn sow”

      LOL!!! We know that before the Nicene council, Eusebius never quoted the long form of Matthew 28:19. All of the long-form quotes are from after the Niece council! Save your lies, Cerbie!

      And the fact that earlier church father like Justin Martyr never quoted the long form is further proof of your church’s lies.

      Like

    • “Paulus, i’ve got a little question, talking about Eusebius, i remember reading somewhere that his first 17 quotes of 28:19 during pre-Nicea period i.e before 325 AD didn’t contain the so called Trinitarian Formula but he did include it Post-Nicea…is that true? If yes, then what is the explanation for this?”

      That is true, but Cerbie will never admit it. He will try to find some excuse for this.

      Like

  12. “Genesis 1:26 Then God said “let us create mankind, in our likeness…”

    what makes you think god is TALKING to himself? or “one BEING ” is talking to himself?

    “Psalm 110 The Lord said to my Lord “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”

    sit AT my right hand? who SEATS him? who? the SEATED is not co-equat to the one who seats.

    your god says he will be SEATED , not that the cheeks of his are SEATED .

    jesus told the jews he would be seen RIDING on clouds EVEN baal was a CLOUD RIDER.

    the sanhedrin died and jesus is being RECONSTRUCTED by DIFFERENT scholars LOL

    QUOTE :
    but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

    why not? this was suppose to be the WISDOM of yhwh speaking here.

    yhwhs WISDOM makes WISE decision/granting , right?


    Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, everlasting father, Prince of peace.”

    http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/365-prophecies/174-isaiah-96the-mighty-god-el-gibormatthew-1120

    http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/365-prophecies/175-isaiah-96the-everlasting-father-avi-adthjohn-858

    http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/365-prophecies/176-isaiah-96the-prince-of-peace-sar-shalomjohn-1633


    Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his prescence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power, all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away and his kingdom will never be destroyed.”

    this was a dream . this is as much as FAILED as jesus is .

    Like

  13. “I love it how pagan arab moon god worshipers who circle the kaarba and kiss a meteorite throw the word pagan around.”

    would you have a problem if it was 100 % fire and 100 % god in the form of fire, stone, square ?

    you think isaiah thought a CHILD was “mighty god”

    Like

  14. “Paul calls Jesus the creator of everything.”

    paul imagined a deformed and disabled god. paul seems to divinize his pagan meat/flesh god, but he doesn’t make him FULLY /completely yhwh

    for example, having the ability to create does not imply UNLIMITED power. pauls pagan meat god was CONTROLLED by natural forces. he did not have POWER over everything.

    in your religion the secondary “creator” gets CONTROLLED by the CREATED, does the primary AUTHORIZER ever get CONTROLLED BY THE created?


    Jesus said the father judges nobody. All judgment has been left to the son.”

    Similarly, in the Qumran writings: at a time of eschatological crisis unrighteous Israel will be punished by Rome; the righteous elect will suffer, but they will be given the “power to pass judgment on the Gentiles”:

    This passage (Hab. 1:12-13a) means that God will not exterminate his people through the Gentiles; on the contrary, He will give the power to pass judgment on the Gentiles to his chosen, and it is at their rebuke that all the wicked of His people shall be condemned. The chosen are those who have observed His commandments in the time of their distress, for that is what it means when it says, “eyes too pure to see evil”…. (1QpHab 5.3-7)

    if the father is not JUDGING what is he doing ? watching? does he authorize his child to read out a list ?
    where does ANY of this INDICATE UNLIMITED POWER ?

    so daddy tells child WHAT TO SAY

    child is given permission to READ out daddy’s LIST .

    how does that indicate that child is co-equal to daddy?

    Like

  15. out of curiosity why do christians have a problem with their god penetrating an earthly woman and having full experiential feeling of it?

    since yhwh is a holey god , so whatever he does , must be holey too, right?

    so a holey entering of an earthly woman cannot be sin.

    Like

    • Genesis 2:24
      Chapter Parallel Compare
      24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

      here yhwh declares marriage as holey.
      if holey yhwh became a spirit with part to penetrate earthly woman, why would it be sin? yhwh has full EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of being HUMAN being.

      why can’t their be holey act of “one flesh” to pop out fully man and fully god?

      Like

    • since yhwh does holey vaginal entry in the holey marriage and since yhwhs day is equivalent to a million days of human being, then can that holey love be classed as adultery/fornication?

      what is the christian problem with their god doing holey sexual act when yhwh himself does not see holey sexual act as sin ?

      Like

  16. Quranblog, Mr Heathcliff, Intellect, Abdullah,

    Who would you say this OT verse is describing?

    “Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name,”

    Like

    • Nice try at distracting from the clear plagiarism from paganism in your Bible. The statements you appeal to above can be interpreted as metaphorical, since we know that God is not like anyone else. Thus, references to things like “hands” should not be understood as being literal human-like hands. This is especially true since the above quotes are from Proverbs, which is known to use symbolism.

      Like

    • Hands in the koran are not literal but white hair in the bible is. Don’t you just love muslim apologetics.

      Like

    • Hahaha, don’t you just love Christian apologetics? Daniel had a “vision” of God, you idiot! In this vision, God is an old man with white hair!

      Like

    • It’s apocalyptic imagery. Clearly you haven’t studied Daniel or are deliberately being obtuse

      Like

    • LOL, I have studied Daniel. Obviously, you haven’t. All you do is Google the standard Christian response.

      Who cares if it’s “apocalyptic imagery”? In the vision, God is seen as an old man. It seems you are admitting to that, unlike your fellow clown Achilles’ Heel.

      Like

    • Don’t believe you. Why? Because everybody knows that any basic introduction to any literary work is first and foremost premised on an understanding of the literary genre. One cannot interpret a text properly without this foundation. And clearly, based on your pigletic approach to this discussion, you haven’t the slightest idea.

      And look, it’s obvious you are the master of google. You pretend to know Islam, tafsir, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, NT historical and literary criticism, OT interpretation, hermeneutics…

      …all from your sows basement without having formally studied a single one of those subjects at any recognised university or school.

      Or can you tell us all what degree you may have in any of the above topics? C’mon Porky, let’s hear you squeal

      Like

    • Metaphorically or literally, who is being described?

      Like

    • “Don’t believe you. Why? Because everybody knows that any basic introduction to any literary work is first and foremost premised on an understanding of the literary genre. One cannot interpret a text properly without this foundation. And clearly, based on your pigletic approach to this discussion, you haven’t the slightest idea.

      And look, it’s obvious you are the master of google. You pretend to know Islam, tafsir, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, NT historical and literary criticism, OT interpretation, hermeneutics…

      …all from your sows basement without having formally studied a single one of those subjects at any recognised university or school.

      Or can you tell us all what degree you may have in any of the above topics? C’mon Porky, let’s hear you squeal”

      Hahahaha, oh whatever shall I do? Cerbie the neutered dog of hell doesn’t believe me! Oh woe is me!

      Well, given how in the past you have refused to believed that I don’t live in Australia, who cares what you think?

      LOL, still no reasonable response. Just a whole lot of harping. Where did you study these things Cerbie? Oh let me guess…some unaccredited university for young Christian losers who come to be brainwashed?

      What difference does it make if I have degree or not, you idiot? My articles are based on research of Biblical scholarship. It isn’t my view that Daniel 7 is borrowed from Canaanite mythology, but rather the view of virtually all serious historians. None of you idiots has provided a reasoned response to the clear parallel between Daniel 7 and Canaanite myth. All I hear is a whole lot of barking (or complete silence). C’mon Cerbie, let’s hear you squeal from your neutering.

      Like

    • Bad Samaritan said:

      “Metaphorically or literally, who is being described?”

      I thought I already made this clear? It’s God, of course.

      Now, will you actually deal with the clear parallel between the depiction of God in Daniel 7 and the depiction of “El” in Canaanite mythology? Why do you guys keep trying to dance around this issue?

      Like

    • So no education then.

      Pray tell how you pretended earlier to know Hebrew grammar? Or Hebrew exegesis? Did google help you again? Perhaps flying pie? Another uneducated muhammadan?

      So dear little pork chop, we all know your *articles* are just copy paste from google in the hope that you get enough hits to provide an income for your underage child bride

      Like

    • So no response then. Cerbie’s neutering is complete.

      Why do you worship an old man? Why did your old man of a god allow for the forced marriage of non-Jewish female captives? 😉

      Like

    • Quranblog,

      “” I thought I already made this clear? It’s God, of course.””

      Good.

      Now you probably didn’t notice but I intentionally omitted the last part of that passage out.

      Here’s is the full verse:

      “Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!”
      ‭‭Proverbs 30:4

      Now tell me, QB, what is the name of God’s son?! Surely you know!!!!!!!

      Like

    • Smurferitan, if I can show you Moses as controlling things, then will be you make Moses your lord and saviour?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh Lord, more Christian deflections! Not ONE of your clowns has actually dealt with the issue of borrowing from Canaanite mythology! I wonder why? You guys are pathetic!

      Bad samaritan demonstrates how utterly desperate trinitarian pagans are in trying to prove Jesus’ divinity and/or his status as the “son of God”. Naturally, the pagans want to believe that the “son” mentioned in Proverbs 30 is Jesus. How laughable is that? Hahahaha!

      Unfortunately for bad samaritan, there is absolutely NO reason to think that this “son” is Jesus! Even if there was, given the precedence of what it means to be a “son” of God, it does not denote divinity. The nation of Israel is also called “God’s son”. So what does appealing to Proverbs 30 prove? Only that trinitarians are desperate to find any reference, however vague, to “prove” their laughable theology.

      Now, bad samaritan, ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY DOES YOUR BIBLE BORROW FROM CANAANITE MYTHOLOGY?

      Like

    • Because it dosent my little taqiyya artist friend.

      Like

    • QB,

      Lulz

      If it’s not Jesus, who else could it be talking about?

      Like

    • bad samaritan,

      LULZ,evidently you don’t know how to read too well! Couldn’t Israel be God’s son?

      Still not dealing with the Canaanite myth I see. I wonder why? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • dumb smerferitian idiot, moses is your lord and savior .

      quote :

      quote :
      Philo’s description of Moses, who is called ‘god and king of the whole nation’, included some mastery over creation:

      For, since God judged him worthy to appear as a partner of His own possessions, He gave into his hands the whole world as a portion well fitted for His heir. Therefore, each element obeyed him as its master, changed its natural properties and submitted to his command… (Vit Mos 1.155-156)

      Compare the similar language in Mk 4.41: ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?’ I’d use Greek, Alan, but it’s a bit of a hassle right now. Nevertheless, the linguistic similarities are there if you check. Another text (sometimes noted) is the description of the anointed figure in 4Q521: ‘[for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his anointed one…’ Hopefully now you can see that the Markan miracles do not necessarily have to be taken as indicating divinity in the strongest possible sense.

      IT’S OVER. proverbs was TALKING about your god MOSES . moses ACTUALLY saved people

      AFTER THIS

      you will NEVER USE PROVERBS EVER AGAIN

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ouch, that’s a “proverbial” obliteration! Get it? Hahahaha!

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Historians have recognized that many parts of the Bible seem to point not to a monotheistic belief but a henotheistic belief. Bart Ehrman discusses this:

    “…later in the Israelite tradition this henotheism did develop (in some times and places) into what we would almost certainly want to call monotheism. You find this first, and most strongly, in the 6th-century writing of “2 Isaiah” (an anonymous author who produced what is now Isaiah 40-55, a writing that was then later added to the writings of “1 Isaiah,” an author from 150 years earlier), who stresses God’s claim that “There is no other god besides me … I alone am God, and there is no other” (see, e.g., Isa. 45:21-23).

    The mistake that a lot of readers/historians make is to think that once this development took place every Jew everywhere for all time to come held to the idea that God alone was God. That simply isn’t true. For one thing, lots of Israelites worshiped other gods. That’s why the prophets had to keep telling them to stop doing so. The prophets were not always successful (if they *ever* were!)” (https://ehrmanblog.org/are-jews-and-christians-monotheists-mailbag-october-15-2017/).

    Notice the last sentence. This is EXACTLY what the Quran says! Allah (swt) sent so many prophets to the Israelites to bring them back to true monotheism whenever they strayed. And there is evidence for true monotheism in the Bible, as in the example of Isaiah 45. This contradictory nature of the Bible shows the presence of competing theologies among the Jews. But none of them could be interpreted as “trinitarian”. At most, some Jews could be described as “binitarians”, but never “trinitarians”.

    Ehrman also commented on 1 Corinthians 8:5. It’s an interesting observation, because if true, then it means that Paul was in fact a henotheist! Ehrman states:

    “Even the apostle Paul admits that “there are in fact many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5), but these are not to be worshiped.”

    But what I find even more interesting is what Paul said afterwards, and this shows that he did NOT know of any “trinity” idea:

    “…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, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

    What’s missing here? The holy spirit! This would have been the PERFECT time to out all three together yet Paul fails to do that! Why? If he was believed in the trinity, then why didn’t he mention the holy spirit here as well?

    Not only that, but he describes God differently from Jesus! He mentions “God the Father” first but doesn’t say “God the son, Jesus Christ”! Instead, he just calls him “Lord”. So maybe Paul was really a henotheist or perhaps a binitarian? There is no indicated of a trinity. That is for sure.

    Like

    • Achilles’ Heel’s google searches are exposing him as an uneducated Christian zombie!

      https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-power-of-the-holy-spirit/paul-didnt-acknowledge-the-trinity

      You really are a joke.

      Why didn’t Paul refer to the holy spirit in 1 Cor. 8:6, idiot? Why don’t you actually respond for once?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Your continued copying of my phrases and expressions leads me to think you aren’t even a real person but merely an algorithm.

      Like

    • the two powers in heave BS was really destroyed when one realizes that the Israelite god FULLY appears as himself and not some other person

      for example :

      I just posted this over at the other thread but I’ll repeat it here. It’s not as simple as two Yahwehs.
      On the question of who Yahweh was you may wish to supplement your reading with Hebrew scholar James L Kugel’s book THE GOD OF OLD , especially the first third of the book which focuses on the image of the “Angel of the Lord” in the Hebrew Bible. Kugel believes the image of the Angel of the Lord allowed later editors and redactors of the texts who were uncomfortable with the older views of an anthropomorphic deity to place a necessary distance between themselves and a deity who had been exalted in later traditions. Of course the redacting was not seamless and we can detect interesting survivals in the texts of the old views. A great book

      :::::::

      so what does this mean then? yhwh appears FULLY as himself, not a person OF yhwh

      Like

    • “Your continued copying of my phrases and expressions leads me to think you aren’t even a real person but merely an algorithm.”

      Awww, Achilles’ Heel is unable to respond and has gotten his feelings hurt!

      Your inability to respond using reasoned arguments leads me to think that you aren’t even a real person but merely another brainwashed Christian zombie. Oops, I copied your phrase again! Don’t cry Achilles.

      Like

  18. “it has taken them more than a thousand years to explain how god is :

    sender and sent
    lover and loved
    punisher and punished
    commanded and COMMANDER

    how is the “one being ” producing this BS within itself?”

    that’s what the bible says and what we believe. mock it all you like. you are not the first and you won’t be the last. who cares what you think.

    Like

    • so explain how your pagan lego god gets PUNISHED and is punisher , yet one 2 persons ARE NOT punished.
      explain this crap to me.

      how much “divine nature” was used to RAPE jesus WITH all sins and how much “divine nature” was used to RECEIVE the raping ?

      Like

  19. “so what does this mean then? yhwh appears FULLY as himself, not a person OF yhwh”

    can Yahweh act partially in some things and fully in others? Only a wutherer can come up with this bs.

    Like

    • so lets just say that yhwh BECAME a piglet .
      since the jews did not CONSIDER yhwh AS DIFFERENT things in one thing, then ALL of yhwh would become PIGLET

      they had no idea of PARTS of god or other parts which stayed behind. according to the writer ALL of the being of yhwh was INVOLVED in the act.

      Like

  20. ” just like one goat in 3 goats is God.”

    which goat do you worship then? why are the other two not also God?

    Like

  21. “can Yahweh act partially in some things and fully in others? ”

    to do is to ACT

    so you telling me that when yhwh became a human/pig/monkey/swine/piglet ONLY some of yhwh was involved? how much of yhwh was not INVOLVED in the act?

    Like

  22. “Such a group under the leadership of Aaron may have broken away from allegiance to Moses and insisted on a bull figure as their symbol of the divine presence…

    It should be noted that the Golden Calf does not violate the prescription of the Ten Commandments regarding false images (20:4-5). That prohibition concerns the person of Yahweh, whereas the Golden Calf (actually a young bull) looks to an attribute of Yahweh -strength… Israel’s history, however, shows that the people did not always distinguish between the deity and the deity’s attribute and so identified the young bull with Yahweh (see Hos 13:2).”

    hey PIGGEY joel, do you have any problem with REPRESENTING one of yhwhs SINGLE attributes in the form of an animal/single bull?

    just curious

    http://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/02/02/yahweh-golden-calf-aaron-gods-spokesperson-declared-exodus-32/

    Like

  23. Paulus, i’ve got a little question, talking about Eusebius, I remember reading somewhere that his first 17 quotes of 28:19 during pre-Nicea period i.e before 325 AD didn’t contain the so called Trinitarian Formula but he did include it Post-Nicea…is that true? If yes, then what is the explanation for this?

    Like

  24. “so you telling me that when yhwh became a human/pig/monkey/swine/piglet ONLY some of yhwh was involved?

    How silly and immature. But the wutherer is always good for a laugh.

    Only something made in the image of God could be the object of the incarnation, so that rules out all earthly life forms except man.

    “how much of yhwh was not INVOLVED in the act?”

    Does Jehovah: Father, Son and Spirit, have a part of their being that does not subsist in the divine essence with it’s corresponding attributes?

    Like

    • So what about the Holy Spirit that came to Jesus (as) as a bird according to Luke 3:22?

      Like

    • “How silly and immature. But the wutherer is always good for a laugh.

      Only something made in the image of God could be the object of the incarnation, so that rules out all earthly life forms except man.”

      why does it rule out all earthly life? who are you to LIMIT your god to MALE and female human? where did your god say he is LIMITED to female and male humans? why can’t your god come down with a human mind and a PIGS body?

      it is the INTERNAL which is the “image of god” the EXTERNAL can be pig, sheep, whatever


      Does Jehovah: Father, Son and Spirit, have a part of their being that does not subsist in the divine essence with it’s corresponding attributes?”

      what are the CORRESPONDING attributes?
      what does “part of their being” mean?

      do you know what you mean?

      Like

    • “But the wutherer is always good for a laugh.”

      how much of yhwh was involved in an act?

      Like

    • did the TRIUNE pagan god BECOME a man or did a person which is “center god” become a man ?

      how much of yhwh BECAME and DID not become MAN?

      HOW much
      ?

      try to answer the HOW much part.

      Like

  25. erAssmus, can you explain

    how much person and how much BEING was sent.
    and how much person and how much being remained behind.

    i hope this will help you explain .

    Like

  26. Why do I need to know the answer to your question? Why does anyone need to know the answer to your question? Will anyone ever need to know the answer to your question?

    Your question is incoherent and irrelevant. It’s just a bubble of your vanity’s making.

    On the other hand the bible is lucid and coherent when it speaks about mysteries:

    ” 10Believest 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. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”

    So the Son is a different person but the same being as the Father.

    Keep on wuthering.

    Like

  27. “did the TRIUNE pagan god BECOME a man or did a person which is “center god” become a man ?
    how much of yhwh BECAME and DID not become MAN?
    HOW much
    ?
    try to answer the HOW much part.”

    If I can’t answer your question where is my biblical knowledge of God deficient?

    Can you answer that question?

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: