Originally posted by AllianceI think it was kinda stupid to create a Christian festival on December 25th just to be contrary to the pagans. It almost makes it look like the celebration was stolen. But then again, not for those that understand how these things work.
Well, the'res nothign like a belated birthday party just in time for the Satunalia and the winter solstice😂
Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly some few do. Those similarities are very tame when compared the to the falsehoods conjured up nowadays. Generally, I'd merely say that religions tend to have similar themes. Though, perhaps he questioned similarities in rituals. I'm not entirely sure, I haven't read anything about his doubts as of yet.
Yeah, Martyr's objections were fairly tame compared to the wealth of knoweldge we currently have. If you need somewhere to go to read about this stuff from an informed but not religiously slanted persepctive, mythologist Joseph Campbell is an amazing author.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I think it was kinda stupid to create a Christian festival on December 25th just to be contrary to the pagans. It almost makes it look like the celebration was stolen. But then again, not for those that understand how these things work.
Actually, in the early days of Christianity, Mithraism was in direct competition with it for followers. The date was chosen to compete with Mithraism (both inherited the date from the much-earlier Egyptian savior Horus), and was never meant to be Jesus' literal birthday. The Magi that visit Jesus' manger are priests of Mithra (Magi was the name for them in those days, which later faded into obscurity along with Mithraism in general) and it was to directly undermine Mithraism by saying "Look, even your own priests say he is the Lord"
Originally posted by Nellinator
The wealth of knowledge we know have is 99% crap and fallacies.Oh, I know about the Mithraism thing.
Horus wasn't a savior.
And the Magi were like Zoroastrian magi.
Alright. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, just add to the discussion.
Horus was the earthly incarnation of the chief Egyptian god (and sun god) Osiris (also referred to as Osiris' son). He slew the god of the underworld, Set, who had to that point bested Osiris (his "victory" every night came at sunset...which is also where the name derives from). Whether or not he has "savior" prefacing his story is irrelevant, because he was a savior of the people in that respect.
And yes, Zoroastrian Magi were priests as well...the name isn't exclusive to Mithraism, but I was just discussing how it relates to the Jesus story.
And if you're inclined to think that we were more prepared to discuss theological/scientific matters in the year 30 A.D. than today, that's your call. I agree that a lot of it is crap, but it's our inability to sift through it to find truth that leads to fallacious religions. But simply calling everything crap and not expressing what is and isn't crap gets us nowhere, and is just pointless negativity.
Originally posted by Nellinator
The wealth of knowledge we know have is 99% crap and fallacies.Oh, I know about the Mithraism thing.
Horus wasn't a savior.
And the Magi were like Zoroastrian magi.
... needs English 101
Originally posted by DigiMark007If that is what you meant by saviour, then yes, I can agree with you. It merely seemed that your were pulling a "Horus is exactly like Jesus with the beheaded baptizer and all lol" thing, which gets irritating. My apologies.
Alright. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, just add to the discussion.Horus was the earthly incarnation of the chief Egyptian god (and sun god) Osiris (also referred to as Osiris' son). He slew the god of the underworld, Set, who had to that point bested Osiris (his "victory" every night came at sunset...which is also where the name derives from). Whether or not he has "savior" prefacing his story is irrelevant, because he was a savior of the people in that respect.
And yes, Zoroastrian Magi were priests as well...the name isn't exclusive to Mithraism, but I was just discussing how it relates to the Jesus story.
And if you're inclined to think that we were more prepared to discuss theological/scientific matters in the year 30 A.D. than today, that's your call. I agree that a lot of it is crap, but it's our inability to sift through it to find truth that leads to fallacious religions. But simply calling everything crap and not expressing what is and isn't crap gets us nowhere, and is just pointless negativity.
Actually, I have heard some interesting theories on the magi. Usually Zoroastrian magi, but there is an interesting story about a Chinese astrologer near that time. I'm not sure if there is any weight to that argument though.
I can honestly say I've gone over a lot of the so-called Jesus parallels. There is little substance to any of them, especially in the areas of crucification, resurrection, baptism, and virgin birth. The similarities that I've seen to exist only seem to be on trivial matters that don't have any effect on the foundations of the religions. I know that other religions get the same "criticisms", but I also think a lot of those are fallacious as well. In the case of Justin Martyr I would surmise that he would know a lot more about Mithraic and other religions' rites and practices than us as he lived at that time. Considering there are no texts of Mithraism it is hard to say. Once again, I'm not sure what religions he actually saw parallels in, so that is hard to say.
Originally posted by Nellinator
If that is what you meant by saviour, then yes, I can agree with you. It merely seemed that your were pulling a "Horus is exactly like Jesus with the beheaded baptizer and all lol" thing, which gets irritating. My apologies.Actually, I have heard some interesting theories on the magi. Usually Zoroastrian magi, but there is an interesting story about a Chinese astrologer near that time. I'm not sure if there is any weight to that argument though.
I can honestly say I've gone over a lot of the so-called Jesus parallels. There is little substance to any of them, especially in the areas of crucification, resurrection, baptism, and virgin birth. The similarities that I've seen to exist only seem to be on trivial matters that don't have any effect on the foundations of the religions. I know that other religions get the same "criticisms", but I also think a lot of those are fallacious as well. In the case of Justin Martyr I would surmise that he would know a lot more about Mithraic and other religions' rites and practices than us as he lived at that time. Considering there are no texts of Mithraism it is hard to say. Once again, I'm not sure what religions he actually saw parallels in, so that is hard to say.
Mithraism came into being around the same time as Christianity. The two competed and borrowed, but it's actually one of the more easily debunked "predecessors" to Christianity, so I normally don't bring it up. Martyr's writings, when they talk of Christianity, are basically saying "Why this religion and not one of these others?" Mithraism was popular in the first century AD, as were a few other "mystery religions". None provide good templates for questioning Christianity however.
I usually use Horus as my primary example, because there's more similarities than normal and it preceded Christianity by centuries in the same region of the world. It's where we get December 25th, Horus was born in a manger (cave/manger births are a common motif) to a virgin, was tempted by Set in the desert (Satan predecessors), repeated some of the miracles such as walking on water (common of sun-related deities, because one only has to look at sunlight reflected off a water surface near sunset/sunrise to see the god "walking" on the water).
Others are obvious like Krishna having to avoid infant slaughter to live (the King killing innocent youths in an attempt to destroy a potentially threatening savior is another recurring theme). Jesus avoided this same mythological fate. And the body/blood motif was inherited from Dionysius, who was also depicted as crucified every year when the harvest crops died out. Drinking the wine, then, was drinking the blood of their god. Consuming a deity occurs in other traditions as well, notably American Indian tribes. The resurrection and crucifixtion itself is also repeated by deities such as Odin (yes, this was a surprise to me), Dionysius, and dying to atone for wrongdoing was common as well even if the death wasn't by crucifixtion (Krishna, Horus, Mithra, etc).
I'm careful not to get my knowledge from random websites and such, but from credible sources that can be documented and verified, so this isn't just rambling. I'll admit to using mythologist Joseph Campbell heavily (but not exclusively), but as he was the world's foremost expert on comparative religion and mythology up to his death, I feel like this is fully credible.
And I realize that not every claim of mythological ancestry is credible, but there's so much of it that can be verified that it becomes next-to-impossible to ignore it all or rationalize it away somehow. These examples are only that...examples. There's much more that I can't remember off the top of my head, and it gives you an idea of the large mythological argument stacked against Christianity and all Abrahamic religions.
Lately it seems that Mithraic scholars are against the idea of Christianity borrowing from it. I find it kinda funny though, it almost seems to be like they want to be rid of the stigma surrounding Mithraism after all the conspiracy theories surrounding it. However, in art there is an undeniable influence. But that's cultural I suppose, not religious. People always seem to be forgetting that research is still going on and we shall see where that one heads.
The virgin birth of Horus is one I cannot find any evidence for at all. I looked very hard. I know for a fact that there is an ancient Egyptian relief depicting his conception with Isis in falcon form hovering over the at attention and dead Osiris. There is another story that I have heard of Isis trying to put Osiris back together and was missing one piece, so she created a substitute penis and then they conceived Harpocrates (Horus). The only virgin birth account is from a 6th century AD document and it's pretty sketchy. The argument is basically "Isis is the constellation of Virgo the Virgin, as well as the Moon, which becomes a 'virgin' during when it is new. The sun god - in this case, Horus - is born of this Virgin goddess." It's quite the stretch. I'd be interested to know Campbell's source for that though. Also, I've never heard anything about a manger or a cave outside of conspiracy sites and if it was a cave I'd say that's a desperate stretch. As for walking on water, I haven't heard of him physically doing it (he was thrown into water though) from anything credible and if the explanation you gave is it then that would be quite the stretch to say that is copied. I'm unsure as to the temptation part because that is one I haven't even heard on the parallelomania sites. You did miss the one that is definitely true though. That Horus was of royal descent. Which I find amusing when it is used to prove a copy and I felt like mentioning for giggles.
I haven't seen a rebuttal of the Krishna one, but I haven't seen solid evidence of it either. But assuming it's true I think that if that is all there is nothing to really be worried about. Coincidences definitely do happen and many people have had to escape murder plots as children. I know Cyrus the Great, king of Persia did so. I'd also say that the slaying of children by Herod is a prophecy from Wisdom of Solomon 11:7-8. As for crucifixion I hadn't heard the Odin one and I find it interesting, but I think that is one of things that we can establish as a fact. That Jesus was crucified is widely accepted in the scholarly world and we all know that the Romans were crucifixion happy for a while. I say that suffering and atoning is rather vague and would need to explored to see if it is a stretch or not. I know that in Dionysus's case it was his own wrongdoing. Also, symbolism and motivations need to be examined. I mean, people are martyred all the time, so it's the details that need to be looked at.
Consuming a deity is a theme in several religions yes. If an apologetic were necessary I would point to the vast difference in symbolism though.
I whole-heartedly agree with the last statement. There is a rare smattering and it's never core issues. When things have to stretched as far as they are I think that it is more grasping at straws. As per usual, I don't find that Christianity can be invalidated by anything I've seen. People may find insufficient evidence for it's truth which I can accept even though I believe they are wrong.
Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces and, more succintly (though less thoroughly) Thou Art That are good references. Also of note is the Lightworks Audio & Video documentary "The Naked Truth", which features several prominent mythologians. I also borrow from James Frazer's "The Golden Bough" though reading the entire work is exhausting and not needed.
Horus didn't literally walk on water. It's the sun's rays (the god was the sun) that "walk" on it. It is simply a metaphoric story that took on literal meaning in Jesus' case. And I think the conception of Horus was via the sun's rays, not a bodily Osiris conceiving him....thus a virgin birth. In ancient times, virgin birth would sometimes simply refer to a fatherless child, usually the father was lost to war or sickness. And there's even scholarly debate over the interpretation of Mary as a virgin (the word used in the Hebrew text of some of the Gospels simply means "young woman"😉.
Mithraism is always trotted out by Christian apologists, while ignoring the others. It's easy to debunk compared to the others.
But to ignore all of this (again, my examples are only a small sampling) seems ridiculous to me. It's still espousing faith in a book that is suspect, at best, and the entire Old Testament God and books like Revelation are just bat sh*t crazy and morally reprehensible in many cases. Most denominations tell only certain stories, interpret goodly meanings, and they think all is well. But the Bible taken as a whole, written over a period of centuries, is quite literally incomprehensible as an objective source of truth....both mythologically and morally.
I'm at a point where I refuse to use secondary literature when comparing "Saviour myths" because I've seen books like The Pagan Christ getting published with the main source being a 19th century poet, that was a practicing druid and told people he taught himself to read hieroglyphs.
And that is why the premises need to be examined first. I heard lots of comparisons called virgin births that really weren't. The significance of Jesus was that He was to born of a virgin, which is something I haven't seen elsewhere. But yes, there have been plenty of miraculous births. Yes, there is scholarly debate because the OT uses a word literally meaning "young woman". The flip side being that the word in no instance is used to refer to a woman that isn't a virgin. I think it's obvious that I'm in the latter camp, but there you have it. I've been meaning to delve into the rabbinical literature as late as I can date it to see what the Jews believed considering those prophecies prior to birth of Jesus, but there time restrictions and whatnot.
Personally, I prefer some of the Horus parallels. Like the ones about him being baptized and then the baptizer being beheaded etc. Because those are much more idiotic imo.
Some denominations are dumb and some Christians don't like telling people about some things that are less flattering to the Bible. I'm not adverse to discussing them as I think sometimes there is misinterpretations. Personally I don't pretend that Christianity is all lovey-dovey, but I do know it's a fact that the good things mainly put forth by the evangelists (not the fire and brimstone type) are central themes. In the case of Revelations I think people forget that it was intended as a metaphor is stated to be metaphorical in nature and that to try and interpret it is folly. Usually, I simply suggest that reading Revelations for spiritual growth is pointless. But I whole-heartedly disagree with the last statement again. But then again you would need to define what you mean by "objective source of truth".
By objective source of truth, I mean that most Christians derive their morality from the Bible and consider it a sacred source, but it is every bit as arbitrary and eclectic as any other system of beliefs and morality, and worse than most.
Even categorizing things as metaphoric doesn't escape some of the moral atrocities of the OT (and occasionally NT). The asinine rules littered throughout Job, Judges, and Deuteronomy. The testing of Abraham by making him sacrifice his children (he later relented), the testing of Jephtheh via sacrifice in the book of Judges (no pulling back that time...Jephtheh burned his daughter alive in sacrifice to a pleased God). Moses slaughtering Amianites for no better reason than they didn't believe in his God. God Himself slaughtering the entire world besides Noah's family, including a fair number of innocent animals. Then destroying entire cities in Lot's tale of Soddom and Gammorah (which also advocates prostitution of one's daughters and incest).
Metaphors, right? But what are we supposed to get out of these stories at all, metaphors or not?! Personally, I'm intimidated and scared by them.
Ah, but that's not Jesus! Then why the hell is is still in the Bible? And heck, Jesus treated Mary like trash ("What have you to do with me woman? Send her away!"😉 and told his followers to leave their children and families because the end times were coming.
Speaking of the OT, it's not immune to predecessors. Job has a Babylonian counterpart that preceded him by centuries, and is the exact same story (boils are substituted for leprosy however). And influences of the Zodiac and Zoroastrianism are abound, though I've not as versed in them as the Jesus myths (again, refer to the references I mentioned for further information).
So here's an idea: Jesus as metaphor, not literally a god. It cuts through so much negativity and still allows us to see the good in his story without creating dogmatic divisions between religions. Believing it as factual is...sketchy...to me (to put it mildly).
I depends on how well versed you are. There are differences between contradictions and exceptions. Abraham sacrificing his child wouldn't even have been that bad based on the fact that Abraham knew full well that Isaac would be raised from the dead if he had.
Jephteth screwed up royally. That was his fault not God's. I seem to remember his daughter begging him to kill her. The flood wiped out the Nephilim, not humanity. I personally don't find the animals to be a big deal considering we are not aware of the circumstances or suffering God put them through. It could have easily been that the animals were simply removed or instantly killed by God. We don't know. The Sodom and Gomorrah story does not advocate incest or prostitution of one's daughters. It never condones it, nor says that it was the moral choice. It doesn't say that Lot was right to do so, only that he did. That city was full of rape and incest and bestiality and inhospitality. I find it just that it was destroyed. Everyone of any worth (though Lot was no prize himself)was saved. The story actually condemns incest later on if you read...
Some might call hell an inconvenient truth. I'm not going to pretend that it's not fitting with the Bible either. As for the other part I'd need to see specific references to actually address them...
I haven't heard of Job's Babylonian counterpart, so I'll I can really say in this case is that it's probably based on the same story. A true story. Which is the same I'd put forth for the flood myths. At one point those events happened (to arguable extents) and obviously histories are going to be recorded. Some will be corrupted, some won't. I believe that many religions are in fact a corruption of the original faith in God.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm looked for a good source. I know it was in Annals and so was probably written in the early second century.
"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Book 15.44 of Annals.
So apparently it is in there. I'm actually shocked to see it in the histories so early.
Which is very rare from what I understand of historical documentation. Apparently most people don't written about until well after. It may have been the advantage of the Roman system over older systems though. Apparently Alexander the Great wasn't actually written about until 300 years after he died.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Which is very rare from what I understand of historical documentation. Apparently most people don't written about until well after. It may have been the advantage of the Roman system over older systems though. Apparently Alexander the Great wasn't actually written about until 300 years after he died.
Rare enough to shock me. With Christianity...edited texts are usually a problem. Few enough are credible as it is.
Whats even weirder is that its thrown in with Nero (37-68 CE) and every ancient historian's favorite conspiracy opportunity.
The delay in writing is merely a factor of how history was written in the ancient world. Analyzing the issues of the day was never something to do. Sources that did fell into the gaping hole of history. Less than 100 years is fast but not unheard of. Tacitus was fairly prolific.
However, lets not stand this passage up as a model. The Christians were mainly brought up as a side note and Christus only as a way to show the derivation of their name. This would almost imply to me that his general readership (the educated elite) would not have know this derivation. Perhaps they had heard of Christians, but not Christ. The mentioning of the historical account of Chirst would be the least reliable part of the passage as he undoubtedly heard it secondhand himself.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I would think they would have in domestic cases, but definitely not in war. they really didn't. Even if they did, the records would have been lost.[QUOTE=9595883]Originally posted by Nellinator
The only issue was the divinity.
...and the acts. Jesus never preached Christianity per say. But there is no way that there would have ever been such a record of one insignificant man's life. The the question of Jesus' existence is not so much a question of did a man exist, but whether the man actually was the man. I don't know much about these strange fringe cults, but I can't imagine Jesus was his given name. We also know that the gospels weren't written until after his death.
The ultimate historical question is how Jesus was changed into the man some now worship.
I should mention that the breakout in Rome is almost definitely a reference to Peter and Paul who would probably have been better known, especially Paul as he was a Roman citizen.
I'm not sure if we would have gotten it second hand. Several of the church fathers quoted a Roman document called the Acts of Pilate, which is now lost. It could be that Tacitus had access to it.
I think that the answer to that historical question is in the Bible. Really, it wasn't long after at all. And if the Biblical account is to considered at least somewhat accurate, we can surmise it may have started in his lifetime.
I also curious as to why you don't think Jesus could have been his given name. Yeshua was a very common Jewish name.
"breakout?" The fire?
Yeshua what? was my point. 😂 Its like me walking into a bar and saing "I am Bob"
Unfortunately, I don't trust the gospels to be accurate. Hell, I have a hard enought time beating the truth out of Roman historians, much less four random guys who can apparently write. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, the Bible is an edited and biased source. Its a great starting point, but the real argument has to be somewhere else. Because as much as the Bible likes to argue with itself, we can see from the simple progression of the gospels that events spun wildly out of control by the early 2ndC. CE. An argument focused entirely on one source is inherently flawed, especially when that source has been the golden haired child of a powerful religious movement for 2000 years. Christianity's history is to littered with self-aggradizement and false editing to simply accept the Gospels at face value.
The point which strikes me as odd is that Tacitus was never cited by later authors, even that psychotic apologist Tertullian. IN normal practice, the biases of one historican are only compounded by those of a later one; citing previous authors was common. Perhaps they knew something we didn't.
Breakout of Christianity again in Judea and in Rome mentioned by Tacitus.
Ah, I see. Yah, I'm not well versed in Hebrew surname practices so...
By using the Gospels I was referring to how they validated worshiping Christ to themselves. The connections with prophecy and whatnot happened very early and Jesus apparently cited himself as fulfilling them. Also, the errors and edits made are easily detectable because of the multiplicity of documents. There are too many copies and they were separated for long periods. There is a strong consensus as to the original composition.
One thing you got to consider in that case though is the timing. Tertuallian was 200AD so Christianity was on the outs with the Roman Empire. It is unlikely that Tertullian would have access to that document as a result. I think you'd have to look for citations of Tacitus after Constantine legalized Christianity. Sadly, that just opens up the "they could have tampered" argument again though.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
huh? does the old testament mention jesus? NO. not any more than the NT mentions mohammad.a SPIRIT OF TRUTH{claimed by muslims to be mohammad} is mentioned one way or another in both so this discussion is useless.
Daniel 7:13
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
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?
As you can clearly see there are a number of references to Jesus in the Old Testament (during His pre-incarnation before He took upon Himself "flesh" and dwelled among us).
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Your point?Yeah, it does actually. "allah" means god, and could be any god. Arabic speaking Christians called the god of the Bible "allah", why? Because they're speaking Arabic. Just like you call him "god" because you're speaking English.
It's really that simple.
Yes they are. You just don't like the idea of it, so you're ignoring a fact.
That's what I meant, revealed his will. The Koran also talks about Noah, Moses and how God (not "allah"😉 created Adam from clay.
Just 2 different views of the same god.
Exactly.
Your point?
That the Bible (which predates the Qu'ran by thousands of years) is the only revelation from God the Father to humanity. Therefore, the Bible and the Qu'ran are not from the same Source. If the Bible and the Qu'ran were from the same Source then there would be harmony and agreement between them. But there is not. However, this harmony and agreement does exist among the 66 different books that compose the Bible. The Bible was written by 40 authors from various socioeconomic backgrounds and geographic areas, and yet the books remarkably retain one central theme from beginining to end: the triune God working salvation in the midst of the earth through His Son Jesus Christ. Yet the Qu'ran denies the deity of Jesus and the triune nature of God.
Yeah, it does actually. "allah" means god, and could be any god. Arabic speaking Christians called the god of the Bible "allah", why? Because they're speaking Arabic. Just like you call him "god" because you're speaking English.
It's really that simple.
No, it does not. YHWH does not mean Allah. Your premise is that Allah means god in Arabic so then it must refer to the God of the Bible. However, "God" is not the Father's Name, it is in a sense Who He is relative to humanity. But the Father's Name is YHWH--not Allah. Futhermore, God's Name (YHWH) does not mean "God," so your premise that YHWH and Allah are one and the same because Allah means god in Arabic is unsupportable, untenable, and false--not to mention untrue.
Yes they are. You just don't like the idea of it, so you're ignoring a fact.
It is not a matter of me not liking an idea (it is more complicated than that). I have demonstrated and explained my reasons for refuting your claims that the God of the Bible (YHWH) and the god of the Qu'ran are one and the same. They could not be the same because the Qu'ran contradicts the Bible on key matters (the deity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the triune nature of God). These are my reasons for showing your claims to be false. Tell me more about your claim that,
"I just don't like the idea of it, so I ignore the fact."
I truly desire to understand your point of view.
That's what I meant, revealed his will. The Koran also talks about Noah, Moses and how God (not "allah"😉 created Adam from clay.
Just 2 different views of the same god.
You must deal with the contradictions before you can logically conclude that the God of the Bible, YHWH (Who has never been associated with an idol) and the moon, idol god of the Qu'ran (Allah) are one and the same. This and other glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies cannot be whimsically swept under the rug (if you know what I mean) they must be addressed once and for all or your argument is invalid.
Exactly.
Christianity is not an Abrahamic religion, it is the name given to represent the teachings and Word of Jesus Christ and those believers who have called upon the Name of Jesus for salvation from their sins.
Quiero Mota--sir--show me one reference in the Bible to Mecca, Mohammed, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, Islam, seven heavens, the teaching that Christians and Jews must be exterminated for refusing to convert to Islam, that Jesus was not crucified, that God is not Father, Son, Holy Spirit (and many other references from the Qu'ran that contradict the Bible)--and I will admit that I was wrong.
Just one.