Are Jesus and Muhammad (i.e. Mohammed) Alike?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No. God the Father did not kill Himself. It was God the Son Jesus Who died on the cross.

So you didn't understand my point after the third attempt. No problem. Moving on.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is a term that is used of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because each Person within the Godhead is God. To illustrate, there is a God class, kind, group, or essence as it were just as there is a human class, kind, group, or essence; and an animal class, kind, group, or essence.

in that case, that word you should be using is Godhood, not "God".

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Lord Jesus happens to be in the God class as distinct from the animal class. We happen to be in the human class as distinct from the God class. But animals happen to be in the animal class as distinct from the human class.

You mean Godhood, not God Class. You can't make up words for which words already exist.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are only Three Individuals in the God class: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Now you posted "individuals" which is not a Trinity concept.

So is this your way of conceding the point?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I meant God the Son or Son in the God class; hence, Son of God.

Again, Godhood, not God Class.

And you missed the joke. 🙁

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The oneness that we born again believers share with the Trinity is a mystery. I do not believe that it is the same oneness in essence or class as the Trinity, for or because how can the creature (us) be Creator?

Then you are wrong because the oneness was quite specific, as told by Jesus "even as I and the Father are one."

And on top of that, not just the apostles, but all of mankind are supposed to have this same oneness:

John 17:21
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

So, it looks like the Trinity concept is all but dead.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This is a contradiction of terms.

There has always existed a Trinity.

Go back and read Genesis 1:1 and 1:26.

Proverbs 30:4 reads,

No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s Name, If you know?

The book of Proverbs was penned by King Solomon 1,200 years before the Council of Nicaea convened.

And that clearly separates out the Father and the Son. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, Jesus Christ did not ascend to Godhood as you stated.

Yes he did. Now you seek to destroy Christ's Divinity. Cool.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Lord Jesus has always been divine.

John 1:1 states,
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ], and the Word [Jesus Christ] was with God, and the Word [Jesus Christ] was God. 2 He [Jesus Christ] was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him [Jesus Christ], and without Him [Jesus Christ] nothing was made that was made.

That does not say that Jesus was always Divine. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you didn't understand my point after the third attempt. No problem. Moving on.

in that case, that word you should be using is Godhood, not "God".

You mean Godhood, not God Class. You can't make up words for which words already exist.

Now you posted "individuals" which is not a Trinity concept.

So is this your way of conceding the point?

Again, Godhood, not God Class.

And you missed the joke. 🙁

Then you are wrong because the oneness was quite specific, as told by Jesus "even as I and the Father are one."

And on top of that, not just the apostles, but all of mankind are supposed to have this same oneness:

John 17:21
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

So, it looks like the Trinity concept is all but dead.

No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry.

And that clearly separates out the Father and the Son. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?

Yes he did. Now you seek to destroy Christ's Divinity. Cool.

That does not say that Jesus was always Divine. 😐

Actually it’s Godhead not Godhood.

I only used the term God class for illustrative purposes in an effort to elucidate my point for sake of easier grasp and understanding of the Trinity.

As if my finite mind can explain the Trinity

I am not capable of truly explaining the Trinity (no one is).

Each Person in the Godhead is not the same Person, but each Person is divine.

A person is an individual and an individual is a person; hence, the use of the world individual to describe the distinct Personages within the Godhead.

Nope. Not conceding anything.

The Trinity concept is beyond human grasp. Thank God it is not necessary to understand in order for one to be saved.

We must simply believe, with child-like faith.

The Trinity has always existed. Genesis 1:1 reveals that Elohim (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) created the heavens and earth.

God (i.e. Elohim or those Three divine Person within the Godhead) decides to make man in Their image.

There is plural which denotes the Trinity in this context.

No. Proverbs 30:4 buttresses my statement that the Trinity has always existed because it mentions both the Father and the Son.

There are other passages in the Bible that cite the Holy Spirit as well which is proof positive of the Trinity

(See Genesis 1:2) it reveals that the Spirit of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) hovered over the face of the waters.

In other words, the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Third Person of the Godhead/Triune God) was also involved in restoring creation.

I do not seek to destroy Christ’s divinity as you mistakenly assert.

I have maintained at the outset of this discussion that Jesus Christ has always been divine.

You incorrectly state that Jesus Christ “ascended to Godhood.”

Again, Jesus has always been the Second Person within the Godhead. I gave you John 1:1 as my proof text.

I shall defer to those verses again.

John 1:1-3
In the beginning [i.e. eternity past before time existed] was the Word [Jesus Christ], and the Word [Jesus Christ] was with God, and the Word [Jesus Christ] was God. 2 He [Jesus Christ] was in the beginning [i.e. eternity past before time existed] with God. 3 All things were made through Him [Jesus Christ], and without Him [Jesus Christ] nothing was made that was made.

The phrase in the beginning is a reference to eternity, that age or period outside of, or devoid of time, or before time existed. It was in that realm of existence outside of time that Jesus was called the Word.

It was during this timeless age that Jesus Christ (as divine Creator along with the Father and Holy Spirit) created the universe.

So as you can readily see Jesus Christ has always existed with the Father as divine Creator for or because without Him (i.e. Jesus Christ) nothing was made that was made.

Jesus Christ was both with God His Father (i.e. a separate Person or individual within the Godhead), and yet at the same time Jesus was God (i.e. Jesus Christ was divine, not to say that Jesus Christ was His Father).

The “was” God part is a reference to Jesus’ divinity.

The “with” God part is a reference to Jesus Personage or individuality within the Godhead as separate and distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit—yet divine just as they are.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually it’s Godhead not Godhood.

Actually, in this context, it's Godhood, not Godhead, God, Jesus-God, Son-God, and so forth.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I only used the term God class for illustrative purposes in an effort to elucidate my point for sake of easier grasp and understanding of the Trinity.

It's Godhood, not God-class.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
As if my finite mind can explain the Trinity

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not capable of truly explaining the Trinity (no one is).

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Each Person in the Godhead is not the same Person, but each Person is divine.

Indeed, I am right and always have been.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A person is an individual and an individual is a person; hence, the use of the world individual to describe the distinct Personages within the Godhead.

Which is why the Trinity concept is wrong.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Nope. Not conceding anything.

You did by talking yourself into and then out of a hole whose other side is actually my point the entire time.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Trinity concept is beyond human grasp. Thank God it is not necessary to understand in order for one to be saved.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We must simply believe, with child-like faith.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Look, I am capable of imagining multiple timelines interacting with multiple universes, each having a different set of physics, with some having sets of physics impossible in this universe, with a dash of multiplicity of each (10-dimensional multiverse) and you tell me that the Trinity concept is beyond my ability to grasp? I don't think so. More like you invoke the idea that I can't "understand it" to try and dissuade me. It is not that I am basking in my intellectual capacity: most humans are more than capable of understand exactly as I do. It's just that you are talking down to most humans by pretending you have a magical concept to justify the contradictory nature of the construct.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Trinity has always existed. Genesis 1:1 reveals that Elohim (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) created the heavens and earth.

God (i.e. Elohim or those Three divine Person within the Godhead) decides to make man in Their image.

There is plural which denotes the Trinity in this context.

"No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry."

"Elohim better translates to "Gods", not "Trinity".

The Trinity is a concept injected into Christianity well after Christ's dispensation.

In Genesis it says, "Let Us x..." multiple times. There's a reason: because there is more than one person in the Godhead."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No. Proverbs 30:4 buttresses my statement that the Trinity has always existed because it mentions both the Father and the Son.

"No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry.

No, that clearly separates out the Father and the Son. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are other passages in the Bible that cite the Holy Spirit as well which is proof positive of the Trinity

"No, that clearly separates out the Father, the Son, [and the Holy Spirit]. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(See Genesis 1:2) it reveals that the Spirit of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) hovered over the face of the waters.

In other words, the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Third Person of the Godhead/Triune God) was also involved in restoring creation.

"That clearly separates out the Father, the Son, [and the Holy Spirit]. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I do not seek to destroy Christ’s divinity as you mistakenly assert.

I have maintained at the outset of this discussion that Jesus Christ has always been divine.

By claiming that he did not ascend into Godhood, you dimish Christ's Divinity.

Christ said:

Matthew 5;48
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

He did not say:
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as [I and] your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

He did not obtain his full Godliness until after his death or else he would have claimed as much in His Sermon on the Mount.

🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You incorrectly state that Jesus Christ “ascended to Godhood.”

You mean I correctly stated that.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again, Jesus has always been the Second Person within the Godhead. I gave you John 1:1 as my proof text.

Possibly. But we know that Jesus Christ Himself did not pretend to have the perfection God the Father had. He lacked a fullness of perfection until after his resurrection.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The phrase in the beginning is a reference to eternity, that age or period outside of, or devoid of time, or before time existed. It was in that realm of existence outside of time that Jesus was called the Word.

Jesus was not called God, though. Just the Word. 🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It was during this timeless age that Jesus Christ (as divine Creator along with the Father and Holy Spirit) created the universe.

Universe? I don't know if I would go that far. Unless you're a Mormon, you don't know if God created the universe or not. 🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So as you can readily see Jesus Christ has always existed with the Father as divine Creator for or because without Him (i.e. Jesus Christ) nothing was made that was made.

And so have we. 🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus Christ was both with God His Father (i.e. a separate Person or individual within the Godhead), and yet at the same time Jesus was God (i.e. Jesus Christ was divine, not to say that Jesus Christ was His Father).

I think what you're lacking is simply an article adjective, there.

Here's what you mean to say (and it elimintes all the confusion you are trying to create with the invocation of the Trinity):

"Jesus Christ was both with God His Father (i.e. a separate Person or individual within the Godhead), and yet at the same time Jesus was a God (i.e. Jesus Christ was divine, not to say that Jesus Christ was His Father) who had not yet ascended to the level of godliness that the Father was privy to."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The “with” God part is a reference to Jesus Personage or individuality within the Godhead as separate and distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit—yet divine just as they are.

I agree with this portion. Mostly because man can be divine, as well. The oneness invocation, with the hopes of justifying the Trinity, is just an obfuscation of the original teaching that had the specific goal of differentiation from paganism/polytheism in early Church history. If you know your history, then you'll know how polluted the gospel truly is from Christ's original message.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a theological question.

I know nobody created God and he always existed, but for what purpose?

What is the purpose of God?

God's purpose is to fill nothingness. 😉 The reason? Because nothingness cannot exist. 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, in this context, it's Godhood, not Godhead, God, Jesus-God, Son-God, and so forth.

It's Godhood, not God-class.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Indeed, I am right and always have been.

Which is why the Trinity concept is wrong.

You did by talking yourself into and then out of a hole whose other side is actually my point the entire time.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

Look, I am capable of imagining multiple timelines interacting with multiple universes, each having a different set of physics, with some having sets of physics impossible in this universe, with a dash of multiplicity of each (10-dimensional multiverse) and you tell me that the Trinity concept is beyond my ability to grasp? I don't think so. More like you invoke the idea that I can't "understand it" to try and dissuade me. It is not that I am basking in my intellectual capacity: most humans are more than capable of understand exactly as I do. It's just that you are talking down to most humans by pretending you have a magical concept to justify the contradictory nature of the construct.

"No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry."

"Elohim better translates to "Gods", not "Trinity".

The Trinity is a concept injected into Christianity well after Christ's dispensation.

In Genesis it says, "Let Us x..." multiple times. There's a reason: because there is more than one person in the Godhead."

"No, there has not always existed a Trinity. It was a new concept introduced after Christ's ministry.

No, that clearly separates out the Father and the Son. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

"No, that clearly separates out the Father, the Son, [and the Holy Spirit]. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

"That clearly separates out the Father, the Son, [and the Holy Spirit]. So you're trying to disprove the concept of the Trinity?"

By claiming that he did not ascend into Godhood, you dimish Christ's Divinity.

Christ said:

Matthew 5;48
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

He did not say:
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as [I and] your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

He did not obtain his full Godliness until after his death or else he would have claimed as much in His Sermon on the Mount.

🙂

You mean I correctly stated that.

Possibly. But we know that Jesus Christ Himself did not pretend to have the perfection God the Father had. He lacked a fullness of perfection until after his resurrection.

Jesus was not called God, though. Just the Word. 🙂

Universe? I don't know if I would go that far. Unless you're a Mormon, you don't know if God created the universe or not. 🙂

And so have we. 🙂

I think what you're lacking is simply an article adjective, there.

Here's what you mean to say (and it elimintes all the confusion you are trying to create with the invocation of the Trinity):

"Jesus Christ was both with God His Father (i.e. a separate Person or individual within the Godhead), and yet at the same time Jesus was a God (i.e. Jesus Christ was divine, not to say that Jesus Christ was His Father) who had not yet ascended to the level of godliness that the Father was privy to."

I agree with this portion. Mostly because man can be divine, as well. The oneness invocation, with the hopes of justifying the Trinity, is just an obfuscation of the original teaching that had the specific goal of differentiation from paganism/polytheism in early Church history. If you know your history, then you'll know how polluted the gospel truly is from Christ's original message.

I think I know why there is a disconnect.

dadudemon, are you a Mormon or are you an adherent of Mormonism?

I see a lot of Mormonistic ideas in your posts.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a theological question.

I know nobody created God and he always existed, but for what purpose?

What is the purpose of God?

Mormonism (LDS) has an answer for this.

Moses 1:39
For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Philosophically (theosophically), obtaining a transcendent existence (omniscience) results in the same objective state: Omnibenevolence. Apparently, we are all "doomed" to wanting to have an infinite amount of consciousness and creation and sharing or love with it. Basically, God wants an infinitely large family.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I think I know why there is a disconnect.

dadudemon, are you a Mormon or are you an adherent of Mormonism?

I see a lot of Mormonistic ideas in your posts.

Actually, I was not aware of how faulty the concept of the Trinity was until I studied it. This is where I am coming from.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I was not aware of how faulty the concept of the Trinity was until I studied it. This is where I am coming from.

It's not faulty, it just goes back to what I said earlier: no one can truly explain the Trinity yet it is Truth.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It's not faulty, it just goes back to what I said earlier: no one can truly explain the Trinity yet it is Truth.

As if invoking "it's mithterius!" suffices to justify the Trinity Concept.

It is faulty.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God's purpose is to fill nothingness. 😉 The reason? Because nothingness cannot exist. 😛

Originally posted by Mindship
1. God is His own purpose.
2. God is beyond purpose.
3. God only knows.

Great. So we have no reason to believe that Universe doesn't exist just for that purpose without God.

In the Bible alah means "curse." Could allah and alah be the same?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H423&t=KJV

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In the Bible alah means "curse." Could allah and alah be the same?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H423&t=KJV

No. Considering all the translations that have taken place with both books, a single "l" could make a big difference.

Does allah mean god in Arabic?

What god?

Which god?

A pagain diety in Arabia during pre-Islamic times?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Bible, has a different Name, a Son, is part of a Trinity, and is never associated with an idol.

The god of Muhammad, the god of the Quran, has no name, has no son, is not part of a trinity, and is the pagan idol moon god of Arabia who was married to the sun goddess. The stars were his daughters.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]Does allah mean god in Arabic?

What god?

Which god?

A pagain diety in Arabia during pre-Islamic times?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Bible, has a different Name, a Son, is part of a Trinity, and is never associated with an idol.

The god of Muhammad, the god of the Quran, called allah has no son, is not part of a trinity, and is the pagan idol moon god of Arabia who was married to the sun goddess. The stars were his daughters.

[/COLOR

Both gods are pagan, depending on your point of view. To me, they might as well be the same, but there are differences that have to do with the mythology attached to each.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Does allah mean god in Arabic?

What god?

Which god?

A pagain diety in Arabia during pre-Islamic times?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Bible, has a different Name, a Son, is part of a Trinity, and is never associated with an idol.

The god of Muhammad, the god of the Quran, has no name, has no son, is not part of a trinity, and is the pagan idol moon god of Arabia who was married to the sun goddess. The stars were his daughters.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

I've explained this -

Arabic for God is actually Ilah (ee-lah), in Arabic spelt alif laam ha. Allah (al-lah) has an extra laam in the middle, spelt alif laam laam ha, and it translates as THE God.
So Ilah is God
Allah is The God.

When you're saying the Shahada, you say ''la ilaha illa Allah''
La - no, or not
ilaha - God (it has an a at the end as nouns change based on if they're nominative, or genitive or accusative)
ila - but, except
Allah - the God.

There isn't a God but The God...and Trollhamad is his messenger.

In a fist fight to the death, I'm leaning towards Mohammad.

While Jesus was thin and wiry; those guys usually fight until they're pulp and he likely had some measure of physical strength in his arms from being a carpenter, Mohammad was a desert warrior. I have to go with the safest bet here.

Originally posted by Robtard
In a fist fight to the death, I'm leaning towards Mohammad.

While Jesus was thing and wiry; those guys usually fight until they're pulp and he likely had some measure of physical strength in his arms from being a carpenter, Mohammad was a desert warrior. I have to go with the safest bet here.

Did you forget about Jesus laser eyes?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you forget about Jesus laser eyes?

I'm only including screen-feats, bro.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm only including screen-feats, bro.

OK, then what about his resurrection powers? If Mo, were to Kill Jes, then Jes could just resurrect and he's back in the fight.

Jesus could, but it'd take about 48 hours; Mohammad would have won already.