Oneness of God

Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone; consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man.

Jews ignore the fact that the Oneness of God implies the Oneness of the humankind and distort the idea of the chosen status of the Children of Israel to misappropriate exclusiveness for Divine Grace and to claim racial superiority.

The followers of Jesus split up into two sects immediately after the disappearance of Jesus, and one of them eventually eliminated the other. The sect that prevailed followed St Paul, who ingeniously over-ruled many of the fundamental teachings of Jesus. As a result, we have Christianity which preaches Trinity, Original Sin, and Atonement through the suffering and crucifixion of God’s Only Begotten Son etc.

All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly shows that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped (see John 17: 3).

Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.

Originally posted by ccdnn
The followers of Jesus split up into two sects immediately after the disappearance of Jesus, and one of them eventually eliminated the other. The sect that prevailed followed St Paul, who ingeniously over-ruled many of the fundamental teachings of Jesus. As a result, we have Christianity which preaches Trinity, Original Sin, and Atonement through the suffering and crucifixion of God’s Only Begotten Son etc.

All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly shows that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped (see John 17: 3).

Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.

Nicely stated. 👆

No, not really. He may or may not be right but I think that post didn't come close to meeting the standards required to settle this issue.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not really. He may or may not be right but I think that post didn't come close to meeting the standards required to settle this issue.

"Canonically", it did.

Academically? That has been done for quite some time, now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Canonically", it did.

Academically? That has been done for quite some time, now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. This thread would not have been made if it had been settled for "quite some time".

You mean you are not aware of the difficulty in changing the mind of billions of conservative Christians? (You definitely are as arguing with those types (whic you have done) is like arguing with a brick wall). Very simple proof of translational errors were presented even at the Council of Nicaea by the anti-trinity peeps, not the mention the works of many pre-KJV detractors, the gnostics that stuck around after the council of Nicaea, and the large number of people pissed off at the absurd declaration of the people that did not believe (correctly so) in the trinity being declared as heretics (probably pissed off a lot of people) and the sheer nature of the meeting being political (with the absence of real religious leaders from the catholic church) all points towards a problem from day 1. Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven.

I think you can get 67 angels on the head of a pin

😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean you are not aware of the difficulty in changing the mind of billions of conservative Christians? (You definitely are as arguing with those types (whic you have done) is like arguing with a brick wall). Very simple proof of translational errors were presented even at the Council of Nicaea by the anti-trinity peeps, not the mention the works of many pre-KJV detractors, the gnostics that stuck around after the council of Nicaea, and the large number of people pissed off at the absurd declaration of the people that did not believe (correctly so) in the trinity being declared as heretics (probably pissed off a lot of people) and the sheer nature of the meeting being political (with the absence of real religious leaders from the catholic church) all points towards a problem from day 1. Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was "solely politically driven"? You don't think that the Nicaea advocates actually believed in the trinity? Proof please?

No, the proof is on you:

Please provide proof of a church leader, outside of Constantine, that attended that meeting, with a contradictory advocacy.

You implicitly claim it was genuinely religiously motivated (on some level), and I claim it was politically motivated. I cannot prove that it wasn't politically motivated, like you want me to: I can only say that all those in attendance had political motivations.

If you want to contradict that, then, please, provide an example of a catholic church leader, in attendance, that attended solely based on religious beliefs and wanting to push the anti-trinity concept (because, that's where this conversation is going.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the proof is on you:

Please provide proof of a church leader, outside of Constantine, that attended that meeting, with a contradictory advocacy.

You implicitly claim it was genuinely religiously motivated (on some level), and I claim it was politically motivated. I cannot prove that it wasn't politically motivated, like you want me to: I can only say that all those in attendance had political motivations.

If you want to contradict that, then, please, provide an example of a catholic church leader, in attendance, that attended solely based on religious beliefs and wanting to push the anti-trinity concept (because, that's where this conversation is going.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not trying to prove that there weren't political motivations, but claiming that it was completely fabricated with nobody in attendance actually believing it seems to be jumping to conclusions. I'm just trying to get you to show evidence for what you've stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form. I think you would have a hard time proving that, but i'm giving you a chance.

Who said no one was in attendance?

I didn't.

You didn't.

So what is your point about that?

And, that wasn't my point so I can't make it. I quite clearly said that there were others that presented anti-trinity points, so how can I:

"show evidence for what [ I ]'ve stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form."

Is it possible that 'solely politically driven" means something other than what you've concluded? (The answer is "yes", and I think you know what it actually means, there. What is your game?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said no one was in attendance?

I didn't.

You didn't.

So what is your point about that?

And, that wasn't my point so I can't make it. I quite clearly said that there were others that presented anti-trinity points, so how can I:

"show evidence for what [ I ]'ve stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form."

Is it possible that 'solely politically driven" means something other than what you've concluded? (The answer is "yes", and I think you know what it actually means, there. What is your game?)

You were claiming that there was no religious motivation on the PRO-Trinity advocates. That they had solely political motives (meaning that that was their one and only motive).

"Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven. "

This is what I am referring to. You said that the creation of the trinity concept was solely politically motivated. I find it rather inconceivable that not a single person advocated the trinity out of honest belief in it. Elaborate, please.

You're trying to take the divinity out of Jesus. That's a very dangerous thing to do.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Based on these passages, we know two things:
1) The Word was with God and the Word WAS God.
2) The Word was made flesh, and dwelt on the earth

Who dwelt on the earth? Jesus. If Jesus = The Word, then Jesus = God. Simple property of substitution.

Let's look at these two passages:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation 19:10)

That is an angel, who denied John's worship. Now, let's see this one:

"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed." (Matthew 8:2-3)

Jesus, unlike the angel in the previously cited passage, accepted the leper's worship. No servant of God would accept worship from anyone, for the glory belongs to God alone.

I think both Judaism and Christianity are not now the Original Religion taught by their prophets. But at the same time, there are many beliefs and traits of the Original Religion of God still existing in those two religions; however, even if the title "son of God" was used by Jesus himself one should remember the following points:

1. As a biblical scholar said, "Semitic usage would never have allowed literal sense even though such an expression would be interpreted literally in the Hellenistic world of Jesus followers".

2.The New Testament Greek words used for "son" are pias and paida, which means 'servant' or 'son in the sense of servant, are translated son in reference to Jesus and servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible (Mufassir, P. 15).

3. The title "son of man" which is a self-designation of Jesus and occurs 81 times in the gospels is the clearest description and emphasis by Jesus on his humanity. The classical interpretation given to this title is that it is used to emphasize the human side of Jesus. Now the question which suggests itself is: Do contemporary Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus?

Now, as a total contrast we turn to Christianity a religion built not around God, or His book for there was no 'book’ until 150 years after Jesus' death. Christianity became built around the personality of Jesus himself. By laying more and more stress upon the magnetic and wonderful personality of Jesus and unable and un-willing to describe the Prophet's effect upon all who came to him in everyday terms more and more attributes are added to his reputation a man who could perform miracles, bring back the dead to life, heal the leper, cure the blind all by God’s will, is indeed a wonderful man blessed by God born by God’s will to do His service. But after his death, the 'magical' personality must be kept alive and 'Son of God' appears to suitably qualify all his actions.
Living in a society, strongly flavored by the Greco-Roman gods, all 'super human,' the educated early Christians must surely also have been influenced in thought by their surroundings. Paul himself, one of the great teachers of Christianity, was a Hellenized Jew, who never saw or met Jesus during his lifetime. Yet many of his reported sayings show the influence of the times in which he lived. 'The Living Lord' was very real to him.
The miraculous nature of Jesus' birth also could help to give credence to the idea of Jesus identity as son of God. But it is child-like in its 1 + 1 = 2 type philosophy, i.e., God blew into the womb of Mary had Jesus, therefore God is Jesus' father and Jesus is His son.
What Christians fail to see, and to understand is that in Jesus' birth and conception we see a touching and wonderful revelation of the Kindness of God.
I will repeat what I mentioned before, both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.

Originally posted by ccdnn
Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone; consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man.

I can't say I argee at all with what you had put.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I can't say I argee at all with what you had put.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Who dwelt on the earth? Jesus. If Jesus = The Word, then Jesus = God. Simple property of substitution.

I dwell on the Earth ergo I am the Word ergo I am God.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're just saying that because he's Muslim.

No I am not. 🙂

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Timothy during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with him last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Timothy kept shouting 'Oh my God.' lol