Is the Trinity Consistent with the Old Testament – Yusuf Ismail and Jonathan Debate

A friendly debate between Muslim Yusuf Ismail and Trinitarian Jon McLatchie hosted by Rudolph Boshoff. This debate features discussions on the concept of agency, the identity of the angel of the Lord and the Son of Man title amongst other topics.

 

 

 

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 replies

  1. Do we know if McLatchies material in this debate is plagiarized?

    Like

  2. “if the Trinity argument were so well articulated…..there would be no need for this debate.” ~ Yusuf Ismail

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s a silly statement. Would you accept an atheist saying that about God?

      Like

    • Paulus,
      Apples and Oranges fallacy.

      Yusuf Ismail was referring to the fact that the Trinity argument was not even formed until appox..400 years after the ascension of Jesus. It has been debated ever since, even amongst Christians themselves, with numerous church fathers having to explain and re-articulate the doctrine, and later rethink positions when yesterdays heresy became todays orthodoxy and vice versa.

      If it was well articulated in the Bible there would be no need for such confusion and debate about the subject.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not sure that is correct. Sure, there is plenty of discussion around the nuances of the topic, but a simple statement like One God in three persons is pretty simple and straightforward, and universally accepted by the orthodox churches. The councils were formed to combat heresy and affirm othodoxy, which they did.

      It similar to Muslims defining Allah by saying he is One, while the internal details of tawheed are debated and discussed by experts. You can’t deny that this is the case.

      So by appealing to the intricacies of the trinity is probably more unfair and akin to the apples/oranges you mention.

      Like

    • jonny mclatchy is playing games in this debate. he says a singular pronoun “his” is used for israel .
      so he is saying the “his ” = a COMPOSITE
      my question is, is the SINGLE “holy spirit” a COMPOSITE ?

      one hebrew is PART of israel. so then, according to jonny , the holy spirit is PART of 1 .

      Like

    • quote :
      Moreover, the compound argument boomerangs on the trinitarians who espouse it. Since the components are not the whole, one cannot call a part the whole. Hence, if the sum of the parts is “God,” then the parts, by definition, cannot be God. And since the whole cannot exist without the union of the parts, the parts are, again by definition, logically prior to and more fundamental than the whole. Hence, the compound Trinity renders God as less fundamental and logically subordinate to “its” (so it must be, since their God is merely an abstract term) parts.

      Like

  3. Yes it is consistent.

    The Muslim speaker seemed to make the assumption that all elements of the doctrine need to be contained in the OT. But that wasn’t the question of the debate.

    It would be like a Christian demanding that all aspects of Islam be contained in the Meccan surahs alone. No (orthodox) muslim would accept excluding the Medinan surahs or Hadith.

    Why do Muslims therefore expect Christians to demonstrate all aspects of our faith from only a portion of our scripture?

    Like

    • LOL, what a ludicrous analogy! The Meccan and Medinan surahs may have been different in some respects, but not on the matter of theology. Both were consistent on the matter of God’s Oneness and the rejection of idols and other false gods.

      In contrast, you want us to believe that your Canaanite god consistently hid his trinitarian nature for thousands of years and then all of a sudden…boom…he’s a trinity! Muslims and other non-Christians rightfully find this to be nonsensical.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Christians believe the two testaments are consistent on theology. So what’s your objection really about?

      Like

    • Paulus,
      “whats your objection really about?”

      Watch Yusuf Ismail’s comments in the video.

      For starters, if the NT was so evidently consistent with the OT on the doctrine of the Trinity, then Jews would have believed in a Triune Godhead from time immemorial, but clearly this is not the case, The fact that the applicable verses are so ambiguous illustrates that Trinitarianism is NOT a clearly defined concept within the pages of the Bible itself, but rather, it is a concept which developed hundreds of years later, and then was superimposed onto the OT by reading Trinitarianism into the text.

      Like

    • Your argument is based on the false assumption that first century Jews were strict unitarians. Scholarship has shown that first century Judaism was much more diverse.

      And the earliest church were Jews. Paul was a Pharisee. Don’t confuse rabbainical Judaism with first century judaism

      Like

    • Yusuf Ismail addresses the issue Henotheism in the OT and still concludes that Christian Trinitarianism is not to be found in the OT.

      Like

    • Of course. He is a Muslim!

      Like

    • ibn

      “For starters, if the NT was so evidently consistent with the OT on the doctrine of the Trinity, then Jews would have believed in a Triune Godhead from time immemorial, but clearly this is not the case”

      This is mere assertion that if applied to islam would prove it to be false. The OT is not consistent with the quran – in the OT god interacts personally with his creation and is thought of as a Father.

      Secondly, the trinity is considered part of a pattern of progressive revelation in scripture – the patriarchs (abraham, Isaac, jacob, Noah) did not receive the law, nor was the shema part of their vocabulary. This came later. The NT is consistent with this pattern of progressive revelation. Because of this, the there are no logical reasons why the NT should be consistent with the OT on the plural nature of god.

      Having said that, There are strong hints throughout the text of the OT that god exists simultaneously as transcendent, as a spirit, and as some kind of third figure who interacts personally with man. There are even numerous examples of these manifestations of god referring to god in the third person.

      Thirdly. mohammed and allah completely miss the boat when it comes to comprehending the point of the NT – probably because they were ignorant of it. The good news – and most significant revelation of all the scriptures – is that god is a loving father who has taken the punishment for sin onto himself, freeing man to choose repentance or not. Our sins are forgiven.

      In this sense, the trinity is somewhat secondary as a revelation – it is significant because god came down in the form of jesus, so as an entity, god is plural by necessity of our belief in monotheism, but it is the intention and purpose of this incarnation that is the point missed by the quran.

      BY contrast, the oneness of allah is a meaningless statement – no muslim has been able to explain what that means, how it impacts humanity, and it what way his oneness is different to that of created beings/animals. Once a human being attains eternal life in islamic theology, his oneness becomes just like your god’s.

      That’s blasphemy and probably unlikely. The quran seems, thus, to be making assertions about things it does not comprehend.

      Furthermore, scholarship is moving away from this claim that “true” judaism was strictly monotheistic – this is because the text of the OT is clearly NOT strictly monotheistic and makes awkward (for islam) references to god as some kind of multi-personal being.

      Like

  4. He revealed it naturally through the incarnation. Which happened when he chose it to happen. Not when Muslims think it should have happened.

    Like

    • Forget about what Muslims think for a second. What about Jews? Why didn’t God reveal his Trinitarian nature to the Jews, leaving them in “ignorance” about the nature of God for so many thousands of years? Why wasn’t God crystal clear about his Trinitarian nature in the Torah? If God is Triune, then why all the Unitarian statements in the OT….why all the subterfuge?

      It oesn’t make sense any way you slice it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • god came down as a man and revealed to the people that he exists as parent and as one who is parented ?

      Like

    • How did he “reveal” it? What did he do that would clearly prove to a casual observer that he was “God” incarnated as a “man”? And how would that prove the trinity? You guys and your pathetic excuses…it’s always comedy hour.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I liked where Yusuf Ismail explains that revelation is sent down to “clarify” things. So how can the Trinity, which is agreed to be a “Mystery,” be a revelation when it does not clarify anything but only acts to confuse people about the very nature of God. Therefore the Trinity cannot be a true part of divine revelation and must therefore be a man made innovation.

    Yusuf Ismail, had many good arguments and I think he clearly refuted each of Johnathan’s points with relative ease.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If a Christian said the incarnation and New Testament were sent down to clarify the triune nature of God in the OT, would you find it equally persuasive?

      Having mystery surrounding who God is isn’t really surprising. Many Muslims believe that elements of tawheed are mysterious as well.

      Like

    • Paulus,
      The answer to your question is “NO.” To understand my reasons, listen to Yusuf Ismail’s portion of the debate. If the NT was meant to clarify the triune nature of God in the OT it certainly did a poor job of it. Why all the ambiguity? Why couldn’t the NT settle the debate even amongst Christians themselves? The fact is that innovated concept of the Trinity was unknown to the writers of the NT including Paul himself.

      The “Mystery” Trinity is not even comparable to clarity of Tawheed.

      Like

    • Religious debate and division isn’t a very persuasive argument, especially for a muslim. Islam has had its fair share of theological division.

      I don’t think it’s logical or fair to say the Koran is allowed to clarify things but not the NT.

      Muslims appear to blow the council debates out of perspective. They affirmed what was already believed ands denied the heretical teachings of some. Muslims have done that in their history too.

      Like

    • You are trying to deliberately downplay the significance of these councils. It’s not enough to say that they “affirmed” what was already believed, because there were a variety of things that were “already believed”. Moreover, these councils were usually followed by brutal acts of persecution of anyone who refused to accept the decisions made by these councils.

      The fact is that if your Bible was so clear on such important theological issues such as the trinity, Jesus’ divinity, his “two natures” etc., then having council after council after council should have been unnecessary. For goodness sake, they didn’t even fully clarify the trinity until the Council of Constantinople in 381! It took 56 years to finally include the holy spirit in the original Nicene creed!

      Islam didn’t have these types of “councils” to “clarify” or “affirm” the central tenets of the religion. Neither did most other religions, for that matter. It seems only Christians couldn’t agree on their central tenets and had to hold so many councils to finally settle the matter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • They are very different religions. Islam is a top down religion where adherants have limited freedom to question doctrines or beliefs. And education levels in the early centuries of Islam were not comparable with the Greco Roman world of early Christianity where philosophy and higher think thrived.

      Early Christianity was much more diverse. It wasn’t born from a tribal cultural context. The result was debates and discussions over exegesis and theology. The councils confirmed orthodoxy and rejected heresy.

      So the two faiths are very different.

      Like

    • Oh good Lord, you must be joking! The “diversity” you speak of was due to one simple factor: your Bible is simply too vague, so diverse views were inevitable. And as everyone knows, there was no “freedom to question doctrines or beliefs” because these councils were almost always followed brutal acts of persecution.

      And thank you admitting that Greco-Roman philosophy played a crucial role in the development of early Christianity.

      Like

    • There are diverse views on everything. You only find homogeneous of thought in dictatorships. Early Christianity allowed the freedom of scriptural interpretation and discussion. Islam did not. It was born from an uneducated tribal culture. Hence people were told what to believe and they believed it. That isn’t a good thing.

      Yes, the Gnostics were a clear case of philosophical mixed with theology, and their theology was rejected as heretical. Ironically, muhammad incorporates these gnostic fables into his religion.

      Like

    • “Ibn al-Qayyim is today best remembered as the foremost disciple and student of the influential fourteenth-century Sunni reformer Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, with whom he was imprisoned in 1326 for dissenting against established tradition during Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous incarceration in the Citadel of Damascus.“

      An interesting rebuttal to demonstrate that division was not exclusive to christian history. Written by a fellow Muslim no less.

      This obsession with the Christian councils merely demonstrates a gross double standard

      Like

    • LOL, you’re just getting silly now! Why would your god want “freedom of scriptural interpretation”? Why would he want people to follow heretical interpretations?

      And again, these “councils” had nothing to do with freedom of interpretation. They were not some fancy gathering with tea and biscuits. They weren’t open forums. If they were, then why were the “heretics” so brutally persecuted in the aftermath? The fact is that these councils were meant to silence any opposition. And that opposition only existed because your scripture was so vague and contradictory.

      You’re a long a way from reality!

      Like

    • Your comments indicate the very thing I am proposing, namely, multiple interpretations of events or scripture always exist. You seem intent on portraying the councils in as negative light as possible, ignoring the fact that leaders were convened from all over the known world to rigourously debate and discuss doctrine caused by false teaching.

      I’m not denying persecution. But are you? My citation above demonstrates that Muslims did exactly the same thing to dissenters. Hopefully you agree with me that such is wrong.

      Freedom of interpretation comes naturally from people being allowed to read scripture in their own language. Yes, that is a good thing. The reason the West is so advanced linguistically is because Christians pushed to allow the masses access to the bible. The Catholics and Muslims have a dictatorship type religion.

      Like

    • @ Paulus,
      – “The councils confirmed orthodoxy and rejected heresy.”

      Actually the councils confirmed Heresy and called it orthodoxy. This is the very reason that Dr. Bart Ehrman coined the term “Proto-Orthodoxy” to refer to the Heretical beliefs which eventually became Christian Orthodoxy.

      Ehrman argues that this group, (Proto-Ortohodox Christians) which became prominent by the end of the 3rd century, “stifled its opposition, it claimed that its views had always been the majority position and that its rivals were, and always had been, ‘heretics,’ who willfully ‘chose’ to reject the ‘true belief’.”

      So the original orthodox teachings of Jesus himself were snuffed out, and replaced with Heretical teachings and man made doctrines which were then called Orthodoxy.

      Like

  6. The natural way to reveal the trinity is the incarnation itself.

    Before that it would have just been an abstract concept.

    What better than the Logos itself in the flesh to reveal the true nature of God?

    Like

  7. It’s good to remember that dr. WLC agrees with muslims and jews that the Trinity is not found in the OT.

    It don’t think any honest christian would disagree about this fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. We believe that God progressively revealed his nature down through history as and when he chose to do so.

    Through events and interaction with individuals and nations in everyday life.

    Islam is very different cos it had to cram all revelation in to the life of one individual. Or so it seems to me as an outsider.

    Like

    • if you are honest you would see that christians are suggesting that yhwh is a company which is made up of parts which do action verbs to each other.

      yhwh is simply an organisation.

      Like

    • why didn’t god tell the jews to call out to a collection of beings? i don’t get it . you literally worship a collection of beings which

      are parent parented
      loved lover
      sent sender .
      etc etc

      Like

    • Good point. Muslim theology is based on what one man said. Christian theology is based on all the prophets.

      Like

    • And yet Ironically Islam is more in line with the Historical Jesus and early traditions, as well as with the OT, while Christianity is off on a tangent.

      Like

    • ” Muslim theology is based on what one man said. Christian theology is based on all the prophets.”

      samuel green, which prophet of god saw god as parent and parented?

      Like

    • “Good point. Muslim theology is based on what one man said. Christian theology is based on all the prophets.”

      You must be joking. How could Christian theology be based on all the prophets when you admitted yourself that “not all elements” of the trinity are found in the Tanakh? What on earth are you talking about?

      Like

    • Christians read and study all the prophetic books. We incorporate all of this into our theology. They are our canonical books

      Islam is based on one man. One book. One place. Hence, the need for the ahadith develop to “fill out” the religion.

      Like

    • You mean you forcefully incorporate all of the “prophetic books”. None of these books speak of your trinity. You force the trinity into them.

      In fact, if you were objective, you would admit that the prophetic books actually have different theologies at times. For example, the belief in the afterlife is not found in many books of the Bible.

      Like

    • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is a glaring illogical comment you made.

      Fact is we read and believe in all the prophets. You follow the religion of one man. One place. One time.

      Like

    • Samuel green, do you really think the writers of Genesis were strict monotheists? No expert believes this. The writers knew of other gods which had yhwhs divinity in them.

      Like

    • I’m not Samuel Green. But he is correct in stating that Christians follow all the prophets whereas Muslims follow one man.

      Like

    • fristianity is fully aware that Genesis clearly has hints of henotheism
      what did you pagans do ? You superglued the higher and lesser gods and you made up the bs that each has different roles all derived from the same nature. Amos , Isaiah , Jeremiah were aware that Genesis was not monotheist text. No expert believes Genesis is monotheist since it does not REJECT other gods.

      Like

    • “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is a glaring illogical comment you made.

      Fact is we read and believe in all the prophets. You follow the religion of one man. One place. One time.”

      Yeah, that’s the typical Christian cop-out. If something is not present in the prophetic books, then how in the world can you “incorporate all of them” into your theology? Talk about “a glaring illogical comment”! But that’s Christianity for you. Inconsistency and illogicality.

      The fact is that you force the different books of the Bible to fit into your theology. That is not very impressive. The result is a religion with a theology that has no scriptural support. And your best excuse is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Pathetic.

      Like

    • I’m sure you’re not that daft. If I was to ask you to define tawheed, would you cite every surah? No, you wouldn’t. Nor would I expect you to.

      But here you are expecting every biblical book to discuss the same thing every time. That’s very ignorant and unreasonable. Plus it ignores the plethora of literary genres that fill what bible. Some is history, some prophecy, some songs, some biography.

      It’s is very poor critique you propose

      Like

    • WOW, just WOW! You are comparing individuals SURAHS in the Quran, which is ONE book, to the DOZENS of books in the Bible? I guess you are that daft! Christian logic strikes again!

      I didn’t even ask for proof of the trinity in EVERY book. I said the trinity is not found in ANY book. Get it?

      Your books show indisputable evidence that the trinity was NEVER taught before Christianity. This is not merely “absence of evidence”. Don’t you think it’s quite a coincidence that your books just happen to NOT mention the trinity, even in passing or as a hint?

      Like

  9. “this is blasphemous

    god not only EXISTS as a human BEING , but he exists as a parent and is one who is PARENTED .

    you literally have a plurality of EXISTENCES which are beings here.”

    The bible doesn’t define God in these categories. These are just philosophical terms. What we belief is not a philosophical construct but facts about God.

    The Jehovah of the OT is the same Father Son and Holy Spirit of the NT.

    That doesn’t make sense to you guys but are you and your religion the measure of all things?

    Like

  10. “are parent parented
    loved lover
    sent sender .
    etc etc”

    but only through creation and incarnation.

    Not God as he as always existed.

    Like

    • god existed as 3 individual gods doing action verbs to each other . your worship gods . why do you deceive yourself into thinking you worhsip 1 god ,when your brains says 3 different persons doinG ACTION verbs to each other?

      Like

  11. “And yet Ironically Islam is more in line with the Historical Jesus and early traditions, as well as with the OT, while Christianity is off on a tangent.”

    But it brought nothing fundamentally new, and nevertheless still in continuity with what went before, in contrast to Christianity. Which is perhaps one reason why the Jews were at a loss to know why they should believe in Mohammed.

    Like

  12. “but facts about God.

    The Jehovah of the OT is the same Father Son and Holy Spirit of the NT.”

    the jews believe that the pagan company/organisation of christian has nothing to do with their god .
    the jews believe that the tanakh does not view jihowa as leader and 2 followers . the jews don’t see that johowa has hierarchy within himself.

    how can you worship god and not at least FEEL like a polytheist?

    Like


  13. Islam is very different cos it had to cram all revelation in to the life of one individual”

    jesus is one individual according to the jews. they always use the sinai experience to reject the man-god of christianity. have you not heard what the jews say about the one individual called jesus ?

    the jews DO NOT believe that the love, mercy and saving is CRAMMED into the body of a jew in the first century. they believe that the god at sinai was not LIMITED and powerless like your blood god, yeshua .

    Like

  14. quote :

    “BY contrast, the oneness of allah is a meaningless statement ”

    “all hearing ONE”
    “ALL knowing one”
    “all seeing one”

    God said, “let there be light”

    now who would say that the SPEAKER consists of 3 PAGAN triplets who are “co-equal” to each other like testicles are co-equal to each other in a sack?

    your gods co-equality is like 2 testicles in a sack .

    you worship a god who has oneness like 2 co-equal testicles in a sack

    “– no muslim has been able to explain what that means, how it impacts humanity, and it what way his oneness is different to that of created beings/animals.”

    do you worship 1 speaker who said “let there be light” ?

    or do you worship 3 INTERNAL echads which were IN the one speaker?

    do each INTERNAL echad SHARE fully the external ECHAD?

    this means you worship three TRIPLETS, right?

    why is your gods oneness like the oneness of 2 testicles /2 echads in a sack?

    Like

  15. “god existed as 3 individual gods doing action verbs to each other ”

    which action verbs and when?

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    “each other” what does that mean in the context of John 1 v 1?

    What action verbs are here? I don’t see any.

    Like

    • “which action verbs and when?

      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

      your pagan echad gods loves the other pagan echad gods. they are in relationship where one RECEIVES the love of the other and are in object subject relationship.

      what does it mean in the beginning “was the word” ?
      the word was with the TRIUNE god?
      word was WITH three triplets?

      one of the persons creates THROUGH another person and EACH would be CONSCIOUS of its OWN role in creation because the roles of EACH singular echad cannot be mixed.

      each knows that it is NOT the other and each singular person knows that what makes it the father, the son cannot be this. what makes the son, the son, the father cannot be this.

      you worship 3 pagan triplet gods.

      Like

  16. “now who would say that the SPEAKER consists of 3 PAGAN triplets who are “co-equal” to each other like testicles are co-equal to each other in a sack? ”

    and each sack is unique. is that the oneness of Allah?

    Like

    • i am only using analogy to help you understand the oneness of the triune god.

      jesus is one (1 testicle) father is two (second testicle)

      EACH co-equal and having full experiencial feeling of the EXTERNAL ECHAD /sack , which IMPLIES your gods oneness is like the ONENESS of 2 testicles in a sack. isn’t it?

      Like

    • “and each sack is unique. is that the oneness of Allah?”

      jesus is a person WITHIN a BEING .
      a SINGULAR echad WITHIN an EXTERNAL echad

      on the other hand , who says that the BEING OF ALLAH IS EXTERNAL TO HIS PERSON?

      so the 2 persons/echads WITHIN sack/being is befitting analogy to the trinity.

      Like

  17. mad man , can you tell me why the oneness of your god is not like the oneness of two CO-EQUAL testicles in a sack ?

    EACH is CO-EQUAL to the other

    just IMAGINE , like you IMAGINE, that each testicle/person has FULL EXPERIENTIAL “feeling” of the EXTERNAL sack/being , wouldn’t that be a BEFITTING ANALOGY of trinity?

    i.e the trinity = sack of balls?

    Like

  18. All what you are saying is just your fantasy, not the bible speaking.

    I don’t take any notice of it.

    It’s you speaking to yourself in the mirror.

    Like

    • but i am helping you make ANALOGY for the “oneness” of triune god

      2 TESTICLES = CO-EQUAL

      IN ONE SACK

      EACH PERSON/singular echad/singular testicle FULLY experience the ONE SACK /EXTERNAL echad

      is it not making helpful analogy to represent the triune god?

      Like

  19. hey mad man, does the father play a ROLE as a father /parent and the son play a role as one who is parented ?

    explain how the “one god” exists as PARENT and one who is PARENTED ?

    the son uses the SAME “one god” to be PARENTED

    and the father uses the same “one god” to be PARENT?

    tell me if any of this makes any sense.

    how can you believe this and not feel like a POLYTHEIST ?

    Like

  20. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    The Word knows that it is God and that it is with God.

    Like

    • how do words know any think ? does gods voice know anything ? does gods voice co-exist with triune god or is gods voice one person with company of other persons?
      does the spirit have words of its own?
      does the son speak to the father ? does the son have words of its own?

      “with god”

      is word WITH triune god?

      Like

  21. Why didn’t Mohammed tell you why John 1 v 1 is not true if he is the QC sent from Allah?

    Like

    • What John 1:1 says is absolutely correct in my opinion, the problems are different interpretations…I personally think that the “Word” is the “Divine Intention”, “Plan” or “Divine Purpose” of God…i’ll be more than Happy if a christian proves me wrong, just in case i’m mistaken…

      Like

    • But i don’t think i’m wrong by the way…

      Like

    • If that is why the “word” means, how would you understand the word becoming flesh (v14)?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paulus, well it simply means Jesus was the initial plan or Divine Intention of God, the “reason” for whom the Heavens and the Earth was created…God already had in mind to bring forth Jesus as a Human and to preach God’s message…so God simply put his Divine Plan into execution by His “creative utterance” and it became Flesh….

      When I think about it, if John was trying to prove the “Pre-existence” of Jesus then he would have simply said,

      “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God”

      Like

  22. Voice, what voice are you talking about?

    There is no voice in John 1 v 1.

    Logos does not mean voice.

    Get a dictionary.

    Like

  23. a Piled Higher and Deeper study about the Figure of Jesus Christ Peace Be Upon Him in Christianity and Islam .
    the study titled : The True Message of Jesus Christ by Dr Bilal Philips.PhD Theology University of Wales.
    https://mylovetojesus.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/the-true-message-of-jesus-christ-dr-bilal-philips-phd-theology-university-of-wales/

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “Paulus, well it simply means Jesus was the initial plan or Divine Intention of God, the “reason” for whom the Heavens and the Earth was created…God already had in mind to bring forth Jesus as a Human and to preach God’s message…so God simply put his Divine Plan into execution by His “creative utterance” and it became Flesh….”

    But the Word is an active participant in creation according to John 1 and plays a special part in making humans able to think, i.e. equipping them with the power of logical thought:

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

    Also the words “in him was life” can’t be true of a plan or intention.

    Your explanation is not very convincing to say the least.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Erasmus, thanks for your valuable opinion…

      “Also the words “in him was life” can’t be true of a plan or intention.”

      depends on your interpretation, i mean “life” in the sense of what? in a literal or a spiritual sense?

      i personally believe it’s talking in a spiritual sense if we take John in context for example…

      John 20:31
      “But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might HAVE LIFE through his name.”

      so it simple words it means in God’s divine Plan(Jesus) was “life” for mankind…

      Like

    • Erasmus, “3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made”

      yep, simply means God made everything according to his Plan/intention, if God doesn’t intend or plan to create something it simply doesn’t come into existence…

      God knows best

      Like

  25. No, you are trying to change the meaning of the word “by” and make it mean “according to”. It doesn’t.

    “i personally believe it’s talking in a spiritual sense if we take John in context for example…”

    John 1 has it’s own context.

    You are simply seriously distorting what the bible is saying.

    Like

    • Erasmus, sigh….resorting to accusations eh? So much for trying to be polite i guess…i’ll be more thank happy if you prove me wrong and i’m okay with it there’s no need to consider me as a close minded guy who resorts to deception and stuff…i guess your behavior is pretty understandable due to the fact you guys fight a lot with the muslims over here…

      “No, you are trying to change the meaning of the word “by” and make it mean “according to”. It doesn’t”

      I’m not trying to change anything, i simply thought i didn’t have to explain anything in detail but it seems you don’t understand, my bad….okay then…what i wanted to say is that first of all God has a Divine purpose/intention/plan and it is through(NIV)/by(KJV) this plan/intention/purpose that He created everything by expressing it for example Psalm 33:6, Genesis 1:6-24…. The Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan….

      One question for you by the way, why do trinitarians use “Him” as a translation for the “Word”?

      Like

    • “John 1 has it’s own context”

      It’s own context? How exactly please? Who wrote John 20:31 then? Chuck Norris?

      Like

    • Erasmus, by the way have you heard of the view that God the father was indwelling in Christ? I’m reading a book on this subject right now, it offers a pretty impressive anti trinitarian view about John 1:1 and 1:14….i will try to summarise the points when i get a grasp about the overall arguments of the author, it will take some time due to the fact it’s approx 600 pages….it seems to make more sense than the arguments that i used if you’d ask me but i’m gonna stick to my points for the time being just to see what arguments you have to offer….

      Like

  26. “The Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan…”

    But wisdom in proverbs is also the woman on the street corner shouting to passers by. Both are retorical devices.

    Like the word “word” in the OT is a rhetorical device which represents an act of the will of God bringing something in to existence.

    Neither of these have any continuous or real existence in contrast to the Logos.

    6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

    This is just anthropomorphic language as we know. God has no lungs and he doesn’t breath.

    “God has a Divine purpose/intention/plan and it is through(NIV)/by(KJV) this plan/intention/purpose that He created everything by expressing it for example Psalm 33:6, ”

    This plan encompasses everything that exists so the Logos is just one member of a countless number of realized objects in the plan or purpose of God in creation. The Logos that John describes doesn’t correspond to your description and so this is evidently not the meaning of John chapter 1.

    Like

    • Erasmus, “This plan encompasses everything that exists so the Logos is just one member of a countless number of realized objects in the plan or purpose of God in creation”

      I think this is where the confusion is coming from perhaps it’s due to the reason i said “Personification” of the “Word” in one of my previous comments and i already explained myself in my reply so sorry for not elaborating in the first place, so just to clarify myself the Logos forms part of God…

      Like

    • Erasmus, my replies are not in proper order due the fact i’m using the app, so please check the timing first…

      Like

  27. Erasmus, I know that wisdom is described as a woman and i know that wisdom is not literally an entity separated from God, i was simply talking about the literary technique that is used…

    “Neither of these have any continuous or real existence in contrast to the Logos”

    Can you please tell me how the “Logos” has a real existence? I mean how did you reach that conclusion exactly?

    “This is just anthropomorphic language as we know. God has no lungs and he doesn’t breath.”

    Of course….but can you explain about Genesis? I mean about the creative utterance of God? In which He was expressing His Divine Plan and everything came into existence…

    “This plan encompasses everything that exists so the Logos is just one member of a countless number of realized objects in the plan or purpose of God in creation.”

    I’m really Sorry but i’m a bit confused to be honest, can you please elaborate how the Logos is a creation from God? You said that the “Word” in the OT is a “rhetorical device which represents an act of will of God bringing something into existence.” then why can’t the same thing be said about the “Logos”? By the way if the Logos is a member of the realized objects of God then it would contradict the Trinitarian view that Jesus(Logos according to Trinitarians) is eternal unless you’re implying that Jesus is a created entity…

    Like

  28. Sorry Shaad,

    What I should have said was perhaps something like:

    This plan encompasses everything that exists, so if I follow your line of reasoning, the Logos is just one member of a countless number of realized objects in the plan or purpose of God in creation.”

    But a plan is just a plan, nothing more. This is not what John 1 is telling us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • you know Erasmus even if this discussion goes on for weeks we will never reach an agreement or a conclusion, Trinitarians are damn sure that the Logos is infact Jesus due to 1:14 and Unitarians are damn sure that the Logos is the creative power of God which includes his plan/intention and creative speech…both makes perfect sense if you’d ask me, on top of that a new perspective is rising among the chaos…

      Like

  29. I agree that we will never agree, at least in this life anyway 🙂

    An interesting discussion nonetheless I find.

    “Unitarians are damn sure that the Logos is the creative power of God which includes his plan/intention and creative speech”

    Are God and the Logos one according to you as a Muslim? If so why would we draw a distinction between the Logos as an attribute/action and God’s other attributes/actions? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Or are God and the Logos two different entities existing side by side? The Logos being responsible for some functions and the Father for others? Isn’t that getting dangerously close to shirk?

    A new perspective? That should be interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “An interesting discussion nonetheless I find”

      Thanks mate…I really appreciate it…

      “Are God and the Logos one according to you as a Muslim?”

      Yeah they are, the Logos forms part of God the same way our hands, our thinking, our vision, our speech forms part of us…in my opinion of course…

      ” If so why would we draw a distinction between the Logos as an attribute/action and God’s other attributes/actions? Doesn’t make sense to me.”

      Maybe to point out that the arrival of Christ was already predetermined by God, He is the reason the world was created as the main role had to be played by Him and at 1:14 God put his Main plan into execution…

      “A new perspective? That should interesting”

      yeah, it’s not that new but I noticed that it’s gradually gaining ground nowadays…it talks about the indwelling of God the Father in the Son…I’m pretty sure Trinitarians, Unitarians and SOME Muslims(maybe Sufi Muslims wouldn’t have any problem) would find this theory heretical but it does make sense as well… I’m reading a book on this subject nowadays…here’s a quote from it’s summary by the way,

      “This study leads us to the conclusion that Yahweh Himself came into the world in the man Jesus Christ in whom He ‘Tabernacled’ or dwelt as He formerly did in the Temple at Jerusalem, but now in a Temple not made with human hands-the living body of the Messiah Jesus”

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. Is the Trinity Consistent with the Old Testament – Yusuf Ismail and Jonathan Debate | kokicat

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: