On the Trinity:

[Phithx]

I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights.

Thumbs up.

 

[bible_student]

I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.

You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)

Understood.

 

[A Freeman]

Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I ask.

Feel like you're interpolating something into the Logos which doesn't belong. But let's save that for some other time.

I'd like to know what you make of the following scripture:

John 5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

King of king's version: John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Considering that according to Mosaic Law, deliberately breaking the sabbath is a capital offense (Ex 3:15), which is what Jesus did in spite of the warnings of the Pharisees, how would you reconcile the incarnation of the Law with not being able to break the Law?

Exodus 3
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Matthew 12:8-12
12:8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.
12:9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their church:
12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath days.

Mark 2:23-28
2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
2:24 And the politicians said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?
2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
2:26 How he went into the House of God in the days of Abiathar the High Priest, and did eat the Showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
2:27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath:
2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

Luke 6:1-9
6:1 And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing [them] in [their] hands.
6:2 And certain of the politicians said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days?
6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
6:4 How he went into the "House of God", and did take and eat the Showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
6:5 And he said unto them, The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
6:6 And it came to pass also on another Sabbath, that he entered into the church and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
6:7 And the lawyers and politicians watched him, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
6:8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]?

Luke 13:14-17
13:14 And the ruler of the church answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.
13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?
13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom SATAN hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?
13:17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

John 7:15-24
7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man "Letters", having never been taught?
7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
7:17 If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
7:19 Did not Moses give you The Law, and [yet] NONE of you keepeth The Law? Why go ye about to kill me?
7:20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
7:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man.
7:23 If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that The Law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?
7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[Artful Revealer]

@A Freeman

I'm going to assume you agree that Jesus broke the sabbath, but that He has the authority to do so?

In that case, if it is lawful for the incarnation of the Law to break the Law, more problems arise:

Firstly, Jesus' disciples had also broken sabbath by plucking the ears of corn on sabbath day. The explanation that Jesus Christ is Lord over the Sabbath doesn't explain why His disciples were allowed to break the Law. Where does their authority come from? From Jesus? If they were allowed by Jesus to break the sabbath, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Secondly, if Jesus wanted the Jews to follow the Law, shouldn't He have agreed with the Pharisees and rebuked His disciples? If Jesus is the Law incarnate and we have to follow the Law in order to be saved, Jesus should set the example and not the opposite by breaking it or having His disciples break it, let alone rebuke the Pharisees for taking sides with the Law.

Thirdly, the explanation Jesus gives, well-interpreted, basically implies that those who are in Christ have no use for the sabbath and that one can't be in Christ if one keeps to the sabbath (GoT 27). All the legalistic interpretations and arguments we find in Judeo-Christian apologetics are completely asinine. "The Torah says it's allowed to pluck the grain heads of a neighbour if they are for instant eating ...", "The oral tradition says that you are not allowed to put those grain heads in your pockets for harvesting ...". This is all childish nonsense of course, in light of what Jesus said, that it is lawful to do good on sabbath (or any day for that matter) regardless of the sabbath's prescriptions, for doing Good to another is the law of Christ. Anything that prevents this, even "the Law", is to be discarded.


If you don't believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then John's scripture is erroneous, for it unambiguously affirms it.

 

[A Freeman]

@A Freeman

I'm going to assume you agree that Jesus broke the sabbath, but that He has the authority to do so?

In that case, if it is lawful for the incarnation of the Law to break the Law, more problems arise:

Firstly, Jesus' disciples had also broken sabbath by plucking the ears of corn on sabbath day. The explanation that Jesus Christ is Lord over the Sabbath doesn't explain why His disciples were allowed to break the Law. Where does their authority come from? From Jesus? If they were allowed by Jesus to break the sabbath, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Secondly, if Jesus wanted the Jews to follow the Law, shouldn't He have agreed with the Pharisees and rebuked His disciples? If Jesus is the Law incarnate and we have to follow the Law in order to be saved, Jesus should set the example and not the opposite by breaking it or having His disciples break it, let alone rebuke the Pharisees for taking sides with the Law.

Thirdly, the explanation Jesus gives, well-interpreted, basically implies that those who are in Christ have no use for the sabbath and that one can't be in Christ if one keeps to the sabbath (GoT 27). All the legalistic interpretations and arguments we find in Judeo-Christian apologetics are completely asinine. "The Torah says it's allowed to pluck the grain heads of a neighbour if they are for instant eating ...", "The oral tradition says that you are not allowed to put those grain heads in your pockets for harvesting ...". This is all childish nonsense of course, in light of what Jesus said, that it is lawful to do good on sabbath (or any day for that matter) regardless of the sabbath's prescriptions, for doing Good to another is the law of Christ. Anything that prevents this, even "the Law", is to be discarded.


If you don't believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then John's scripture is erroneous, for it unambiguously affirms it.

There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .

First, The Master (Christ) IS The Master/Teacher. So thinking He should be doing as the scribes and pharisees instructed, who The Master rightly described as "the blind leading the blind", is exactly backwards. Christ is THE Master/Teacher NOT the blind guides of organized religion.

Secondly, there are no "oral traditions" that anyone needs to follow. Father's Law is everything we need, and it has been given to us IN WRITING to leave no doubt or excuses for not following it.

It was the scribes and pharisees, who added their "oral traditions" (Talmud) in direct violation of The Law (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), that were in the wrong, making the Commandments of God of no effect.

The Sabbath was made for man - to provide him with a day of rest from the ways of the world to learn and apply The Law (Justice, Mercy and Righteousness) - not the other way around.

 

[bible_student]

I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.

You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)

Some of this has been encountered before.

"The gnostic demiurge—An agnostic trickster. The demiurge represents a negative paradigm which is an important component in the soteriological process generating a new concept of man and a new concept of being man. In 'Sethian' gnosticism the demiurge is viewed as a negative being and cannot, as many of the traditional tricksters,..."

But, have these gnostics/people really and truly understood the trick of the demuirge? Or have they just been tricked once again, by the demiurge (Satan) into believing that they have understood it, while they are just being led astray yet once again (being led up the garden path, so to speak)? After all, "the demuirge" is known as being the biggest confidence trickster ever (deceiving by giving misleading clues or signals):

CON - Satan is known as the biggest con-artist ever. He invented it. http://jahtruth.net/xmas.htm

Satan/the demiurge also pretends to be "you" (inside of your own head - Satan is the Ego voice, that tells people to do evil things and also to think evil of others) and also is known for having slandered Father, in the past and misleading 1/3 of the angels, with his tail/tale of lies and thereby causing the war in heaven (Rev. 12:4), which then led to all of the pain and misery that we see happening in the world today. That was Satan's modus operandi, from the start. It worked for Satan before.. so, why would the trick be any different now?

"The bigger the trick and older the trick, the easier it is to pull, based on two principles. Because they think it can't be that old, or that it can't be that big, for so many people to have fallen for it." - Revolver

Lessons about the demiurge, from "Revolver"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL586E2CC2784483A9

"NEVER under-estimate Satan!!!" - The Way home or face The Fire

 

[bible_student]

According to:

http://www.trinitytruth.org/was1john5_7addedtext.html

Introduction
The only verse in the entire Bible that can be genuinely interpreted as saying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are a 3 in1 being is 1 John 5:7.

The Comma Johanneum made it's way into the Bible "...because of pressure from the Catholic Church.":

(No surprise there, to anyone who has been paying attention.)

Does 1 John 5:7-8 have Added Text?
Some person or persons in centuries past were so zealous to find support for their belief in the trinity that they literally added it. There are numerous Scholars in fact that inform us that this passage has a spurious comment which has been added. The textual Scholar Bart Ehrman described this forgery as follows: “…this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

Thus the scholarly consensus is that this passage is a Latin corruption that found its way into a Greek manuscript at an early date while being absent from the THOUSANDS of other manuscripts. This addition is so famous and hence so well known that it has even been given its own name and is called the “Comma Johanneum.” Comma means a short clause."

How did the Comma Johanneum first get added?
It began with Desiderius Erasmus and his “Novum Instrumentum omne” which was the first New Testament in Greek to be published. This Greek text is also referred to as the Textus Receptus. Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 in either his 1516 or 1519 editions of his Greek New Testament with very good reason. But it made its way into his third edition in 1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church...."


PLEASE NOTE: The "trinity" doctrine is a Vatican Mind-Control (MK) Program.

MK-BABYLON/Vatican fear/mental-trauma based Mind-Control (MK) "trinity" Programming:
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/on-the-trinity.6477/page-22#post-249845

That has been widely and very successfully employed, against Christians, for centuries.

 

[Artful Revealer]

There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .

First, The Master (Christ) IS The Master/Teacher. So thinking He should be doing as the scribes and pharisees instructed, who The Master rightly described as "the blind leading the blind", is exactly backwards. Christ is THE Master/Teacher NOT the blind guides of organized religion.

Secondly, there are no "oral traditions" that anyone needs to follow. Father's Law is everything we need, and it has been given to us IN WRITING to leave no doubt or excuses for not following it.

It was the scribes and pharisees, who added their "oral traditions" (Talmud) in direct violation of The Law (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), that were in the wrong, making the Commandments of God of no effect.

The Sabbath was made for man - to provide him with a day of rest from the ways of the world to learn and apply The Law (Justice, Mercy and Righteousness) - not the other way around.

When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??

The Law, whether old or new, was given to us by scribes who had heard it. The old law was written down 800 years after the tablets of stone, of which there is no archeological evidence, or the Ark of the Covenant in which they were stored. What then was the Law before it was written down in the Torah other than, at best, an oral tradition, or more probable, an unborn invention?

The new law was written down by those who had heard it from those who had heard it. Jesus did not write down the law, nor did He command His disciples to write it down, nor was it ever intended to be written down for Paul said the law is not written in tablets of stone, but on our hearts. It was the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who helped spread His new law throughout the world. But God bless for those writings, since they render clear the Word of God regarding His mission, which is, not to destroy, but to render all things Good. That's the proper way to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, and the relation of the new law with the old.

We will never agree on this as long as our identification of the Christ is different. If you believe that the Christ of the New Testament who gave us the new law is the same as the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament who gave the law on mount Sinai, then you have to believe Christ is master of both.

Naturally, He is not master of both in the sense that He gave both. Christ had not been revealed before the events documented in the Gospels, only prophecied, therefore the law given in the Torah was given by another. Only then can one begin to understand the dynamic between Jesus and the Pharisees on Sabbath day, which I have already given twice, so there's no need to repeat it a third time.

 

[A Freeman]

When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??

The "oral traditions", i.e. the Talmud, first took on written form in BABYLON, where the "House of Judah" was taken into captivity c. 588 BC, as attested to by both the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 11:9-10, Ezek. 22:25-26). They were added to later in Jerusalem, but it is unquestionably these traditions (the Babylonian Talmud - the traditions of the fathers/elders) that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 15:3-6 and 23:4.

Throughout the Gospels Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, admonished the scribes (lawyers) and pharisees (politicians) for NOT KEEPING GOD'S LAW. How is it possible for you to have overlooked that?

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud).
15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is FAR from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men (man-made laws/legislation).
15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the politicians were offended, after they heard this saying?
15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.
15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).

John 5:42-47
5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [cometh] from God only?
5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe NOT his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The Law, whether old or new, was given to us by scribes who had heard it.

There is no "old law" or "new law"; there is only ONE Law: The Law that was given directly to Moses on Mt. Horeb in Sinai, exactly as God Himself has said in The Law.

The old law was written down 800 years after the tablets of stone, of which there is no archeological evidence, or the Ark of the Covenant in which they were stored. What then was the Law before it was written down in the Torah other than, at best, an oral tradition, or more probable, an unborn invention?

The two stone tablets, upon which the 10 Commandments were inscribed, are the basic principles of The Law, but the first five books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, referred to as "the books of Moses", the Pentateuch" and "the Torah" in Hebrew, which means "The Law" in English, were also given to Moses in scroll form on Mt. Horeb in Sinai.

The originals of both the stone tablets and the scrolls are still inside of, or in the side of, the Ark of The Covenant, which is buried underneath the Mound of the Hostages (2 Chron. 25:24) at the Hill of Tara (Torah) in Royal Co. Meath, IRELAND, where it's been for the past 2600 years, since it was brought from Jerusalem to Ireland by Jeremiah the Prophet and King Zedekiah's daughter Teia Tephi c. 583 BC.

The rock-solid archaeological evidence of this is the Coronation Stone that was brought with the Ark of The Covenant, which is known by many names, e.g. the Lia Fail (in Gaelic), the Stone of Destiny (in English), the Bethel Stone and Jacob's Pillar/Pillow Stone. The same stone that Jacob/Israel laid his head on near Bethel and saw the angels ascending and descending back and forth to heaven, which is also the same stone that will be CHRIST'S THRONE HERE ON EARTH.

For almost 1000 years, all of the Irish kings and queens, from Eochaidh mac Duach and Teia Tephi were coronated on that Stone until 500 AD, when it was "lent" by the Irish king Muircheartach (Murdoch) son of Earc to his brother, Fergus Mor Mac Earc, who had invaded and settled Western Scotland which was previously occupied by the Picts. Fergus wanted to be crowned king of the (Scots) Irish who had migrated to Scotland on The Lia Fail Stone and Muircheartach loaned the Stone to him for that occasion.

The Stone stayed there, in Scotland, for almost 800 years, with every Scottish king and queen - all descended from Eochaidh and Teia Tephi, who was from the line of David - being coronated on THAT Stone, until Edward the 1st (Longshanks) invaded Scotland, defeated the Scots, and brought the Stone back to Westminster Abbey, where he built "Edwards chair" to place over it. From that point forward, all of the English kings and queens, who were likewise descended from Eochaidh and Teia Tephi, were coronated on that Stone, right up to George VI.

In the wee morning hours of Christmas Day in 1950, four Scottish nationalists repatriated the Stone to Scotland from Westminster Abbey, where it remains in hiding ever since. A fake stone, made out of yellowish, Scottish-Perthshire sandstone, was left a few months later (in April 1951) in Arbroath Abbey, where it was collected by the English authorities and taken to England.

The fake is an obvious fake for several reasons. It is a different material and color (yellowish Scottish Perthshire sandstone instead of a purplish porphyry from the Bethel area in Israel), a different weight (336 lbs for the fake v. 458 lbs for the real Jacob's Pillar Stone) and the fake has a flat top, whereas the real Stone has a very obvious wear mark where the pole, that was inserted through the metal rings at either end if it, was used to carry it through the wilderness for 40 years had worn a very obvious groove in the top of it.

If you're genuinely interested in this mountain of evidence, then please read the hyperlinked articles above.

The new law was written down by those who had heard it from those who had heard it.

There is no such thing as a "new law" in Scripture. There is only ONE Law: The Law that God gave us, exactly as it says in The Law.

Jesus did not write down the law, nor did He command His disciples to write it down, nor was it ever intended to be written down for Paul said the law is not written in tablets of stone, but on our hearts.

Why would He/they? They already had The Law in writing. That's why Christ said He didn't come to destroy The Law (Matt. 5:17-20) and why Paul said that he too was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25) and establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31)

It was the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who helped spread His new law throughout the world. But God bless for those writings, since they render clear the Word of God regarding His mission, which is, not to destroy, but to render all things Good. That's the proper way to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, and the relation of the new law with the old.

Except there is no such thing as a "new law". The Truth/Word/Message and the Commandments have been the same since the beginning (1 John 2:1-7), and will NEVER change.

We will never agree on this as long as our identification of the Christ is different. If you believe that the Christ of the New Testament who gave us the new law is the same as the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament who gave the law on mount Sinai, then you have to believe Christ is master of both.

There is no such thing as a "new law"; there is, and ever shall be, only ONE Law: God's Law. And Father's Christ (Anointed One), His Firstborn Son, Who is known in heaven as Prince Michael and is The Law made flesh, is referenced throughout both the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran.

Naturally, He is not master of both in the sense that He gave both. Christ had not been revealed before the events documented in the Gospels, only prophecied, therefore the law given in the Torah was given by another.

How then did David know of Christ and refer to Christ as his Lord?

Only then can one begin to understand the dynamic between Jesus and the Pharisees on Sabbath day, which I have already given twice, so there's no need to repeat it a third time.

What makes you think you understand anything given you've been taught all of the nonsense you post from the very same people that Christ warned us are "the blind leading the blind"?

 

[Artful Revealer]

The "oral traditions", i.e. the Talmud, first took on written form in BABYLON, where the "House of Judah" was taken into captivity c. 588 BC, as attested to by both the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 11:9-10, Ezek. 22:25-26). They were added to later in Jerusalem, but it is unquestionably these traditions (the Babylonian Talmud - the traditions of the fathers/elders) that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 15:3-6 and 23:4.

Throughout the Gospels Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, admonished the scribes (lawyers) and pharisees (politicians) for NOT KEEPING GOD'S LAW. How is it possible for you to have overlooked that?

You interpolate things into those verses that aren't there, so there's no need to address them. But, yes, there were "oral traditions" written during the Babylon exile and after. It's called ... wait for it ... the TORAH.

The Jerusalem Talmud was written around 300 AD, the Babylonian Talmud around 500 AD. The Torah was most likely written and completed, as the Documentary Hypothesis and its polemical reactions have shown, during the Persian period (539 BC to 333 BC), with the Jawhist sources dated, at best, to the Babylonian exile itself (597 BC to 539 BC).

The Torah is the written form of an oral tradition. The Torah was in existence during Jesus' ministry, the Talmud was not. Jesus condemned the scribes of the Torah, not the Talmud, for the Talmud did not yet exist.

If you seek to shed doubt on this universally accepted fact, you'll have to show evidence of a written form dating from this period that runs parallel with the Torah, and I will gladly reassess my opinion. But as long as you are unable to produce that, you are spreading falsehood and lies and leading people astray.

How then did David know of Christ and refer to Christ as his Lord?

Again, you interpolate something into Matt 22:45, if that's what you're referring to, that isn't there. What it says is that Jesus is not the Son of David (not of Davidic descent). It does NOT say that the Lord David referred to was Christ.

Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

What makes you think you understand anything given you've been taught all of the nonsense you post from the very same people that Christ warned us are "the blind leading the blind"?

The Gospel of Thomas:

34. Jesus said, “If a blind person (of the old law) leads a blind person (a Christian void of gnosis), both of them will fall into a hole.”


It's obvious who fits the profile according to my interpretation of scripture, but let's let it slide.

I should've figured it out that you didn't believe there was a new and old law. I apologize for my shortcomings. We would be going in circles if we didn't tackle this essential issue, since all the rest is arguing its logical consequences. Of course there's an old law and a new law. Supersessionism is an elementary doctrine in Christ's teachings. The Old Covenant has no meaning for those who follow Christ. The Sermon on the Mount (called the ANTITHESIS), where Jesus is directly addressing the old covenant and its prophets, is the most well-known illustration of this: "You have heard it said ...", "But I say unto you ..."

 

[A Freeman]

You have everything upside down and backwards, as usual.

You interpolate things into those verses that aren't there, so there's no need to address them. But, yes, there were "oral traditions" written during the Babylon exile and after. It's called ... wait for it ... the TORAH.

The Jerusalem Talmud was written around 300 AD, the Babylonian Talmud around 500 AD. The Torah was most likely written and completed, as the Documentary Hypothesis and its polemical reactions have shown, during the Persian period (539 AD to 333 AD), with the Jawhist sources dated, at best, to the Babylonian exile itself (597 AD to 539 AD).

The Torah is the written form of an oral tradition. The Torah was in existence during Jesus' ministry, the Talmud was not. Jesus condemned the scribes of the Torah, not the Talmud, for the Talmud did not yet exist.

If you seek to shed doubt on this universally accepted fact, you'll have to show evidence of a written form dating from this period that runs parallel with the Torah, and I will gladly reassess my opinion. But as long as you are unable to produce that, you are spreading falsehood and lies and leading people astray.

Again, you interpolate something into Matt 22:45, if that's what you're referring to, that isn't there. What it says is that Jesus is not the Son of David (not of Davidic descent). It does NOT say that the Lord David referred to was Christ.

Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

The Gospel of Thomas:

34. Jesus said, “If a blind person (of the old law) leads a blind person (a Christian void of gnosis), both of them will fall into a hole.”


It's obvious who fits the profile according to my interpretation of scripture, but let's let it slide.

I should've figured it out that you didn't believe there was a new and old law. I apologize for my shortcomings. We would be going in circles if we didn't tackle this essential issue, since all the rest is arguing its logical consequences. Of course there's an old law and a new law. Supersessionism is an elementary doctrine in Christ's teachings. The Old Covenant has no meaning for those who follow Christ. The Sermon on the Mount (called the ANTITHESIS), where Jesus is directly addressing the old covenant and its prophets, is the most well-known illustration of this: "You have heard it said ...", "But I say unto you ..."

 

[Karlysymon]

This is a question for the Unitarians on here:

The OT is replete with prophetic descriptions of the end of this age or what we often call the Second coming such as:

The Lord will roar from on high, He will thunder from His holy dwelling and roar mightily against the land. He will shout like those who tread the grapes, shout against all who live on the earth. (Jer 25:30-33)

The Lord thunders at the head of His army; His forces are beyond number and mighty are those who obey His command (Joel 2:11)

(Other verses: Isaiah 66:15-16, Joel 2:2, Isaiah 13:3-5, Micah 1:3-4 , Isaiah 34 & 63 etc)

So, who are you expecting to come (I won’t use the word “return), that is, the “One who will thunder from His dwelling place” and “thunder at the head of His army”. Is it Christ or the Father because some of the texts do say “Lord Almighty”? Then again, if it’s the Father that’s coming, where does that leave Christ’s statement that its at His voice that the Righteous dead will rise to life (John 5:25-29)?

 

[A Freeman]

This is a question for the Unitarians on here:

The OT is replete with prophetic descriptions of the end of this age or what we often call the Second coming such as:

The Lord will roar from on high, He will thunder from His holy dwelling and roar mightily against the land. He will shout like those who tread the grapes, shout against all who live on the earth. (Jer 25:30-33)

The Lord thunders at the head of His army; His forces are beyond number and mighty are those who obey His command (Joel 2:11)

(Other verses: Isaiah 66:15-16, Joel 2:2, Isaiah 13:3-5, Micah 1:3-4 , Isaiah 34 & 63 etc)

All of the above verses are about Father (our Creator, the "I AM") and the Last Day (Judgment Day).

One interesting verse out of those you cited (all upper case pronouns refer to Father, e.g. "He" and "His"):

Isaiah 63:9-10
63:9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them*: in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed His (Father's - possessive, NOT a third person) Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, [and] He fought against them.

*the angel of His presence is His (Father's) Firstborn Son: Prince Michael/Christ, CHIEF of the Archangels, and Commander of the Heavenly Host/Sabaoth and of the Nations (Enoch 20:5, Dan. 12:1, Matt. 24:30, Rev. 12:7), whom Father SENT to redeem us.

Judgment Day comes immediately after the Second Coming of Christ., when Christ sheds the body He's been using to complete His Mission (Matt. 24:28), and is then seen coming in the "Clouds" with the Heavenly Host to REAP THE EARTH (Matt. 24:30).

So, who are you expecting to come (I won’t use the word “return), that is, the “One who will thunder from His dwelling place” and “thunder at the head of His army”. Is it Christ or the Father because some of the texts do say “Lord Almighty”?

Father exists everywhere, at all times (OMNIPRESENT). He doesn't need to come or go anywhere; He just is, hence His Name "I AM".

Father will send His Firstborn Son, Who COMMANDS the Heavenly Host/Sabaoth: Christ.

Then again, if it’s the Father that’s coming, where does that leave Christ’s statement that its at His voice that the Righteous dead will rise to life (John 5:25-29)?

As above please. During Christ's Second Coming, His Sheep will hear His Voice (the voice of many "waters"), recognize Him for Who He is (John 10), and be gathered to Him with Father's Guidance. Hopefully that also explains why Father has committed all Judgment to Christ (John 5:22).

 

[A Freeman]

This seems worth sharing, as one word out of the original Greek has been (intentionally?) left untranslated (ton), which means "THE" (yes, all caps - as in "the definite article", placed in front of God to emphasize uniqueness).





So the verse with all of the Greek translated into English reads as follows:

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, and God was the Word.

 

[Infinityloop]

@JoChris

For where the New Testament and Mohammads revelations differ, Mohammad, in the final stage of his ministries, said that the Christians worshiping Jesus was shirk

Worshiping Jesus is shirk, not according to Islam but according to the Old Testament.

“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
(Exodus 20:3-6)

All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together. The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house
(Isaiah 44:9-20)

Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.
(Leviticus 19:4)

Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.
(Exodus 23:13)

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
(Leviticus 23:19)

I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
(Hosea 11:9)

Don't forget Deuteronomy 13:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder,
and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”
you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,
gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),
do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them.
You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.
Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
(Deuteronomy 13:1-11)

What does the Old Testament say about God?

"To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him. (Deuteronomy 4:35)

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. (Deuteronomy 6:4-6)

'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deuteronomy 32:39)

For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, he is God!, who formed the earth and made it, he established it;
he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited! “I am the Lord, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:18)

“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’ (Isaiah 45:22)

To whom can you compare Me Or declare Me similar? To whom can you liken Me, So that we seem comparable? (Isaiah 46:5)

Bear in mind what happened of old; For I am God, and there is none else, I am divine, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah 46:9)

For the sake of My name I control My wrath; To My own glory, I am patient with you, And I will not destroy you. See, I refine you, but not as silver; I test you in the furnace of affliction. For My sake, My own sake, do I act— Lest [My name] be dishonored! I will not give My glory to another. Listen to Me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am He—I am the first, And I am the last as well. My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call unto them, let them stand up. (Isaiah 48:9-13)

"O LORD, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (1 Chronicles 17:20)


A healthy reminder that you're not arguing with Islam here, you're arguing with the Torah you claim to believe in

and that Jesus was merely a prophet of God

And now this is a case of you arguing once again, not against Islam, but against your "New Testament" texts:

Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God The Creator

1. Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.

2. Matthew 26:39
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will.
Jesus’ will is likewise autonomous from God’s Will. Jesus is seeking acquiescence to God’s will.

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent.

4. John 5:30
By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.
Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to “please myself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent me.”

5. John 5:19
The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.
Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.

7. John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

8. Matthew 6:9
Our Father, which art in Heaven.
He didn’t pray, Our Father, which art standing right here!”

9. Matthew 27:46
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Inconceivable if he is God the Creator.

10. John 17:21-23
. . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . ..that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.
In this prayer Jesus defines the term “to be one.” It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that “to be one” does not mean to be “one and the same.”

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: “through him all things were made.”)

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.
Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13)
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.
Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned. See

James 1:13: When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.
Jesus was tempted in every way, but God cannot be tempted. This is why Jesus said, “don’t call me good, none are good, only God.”

14. Hebrews 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Jesus had to walk a course of faith and obedience in order to achieve perfection. By achieving perfection, Jesus “became” the source of eternal salvation

In fact, Jesus says in Revelation "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last"

Revelation 1:8

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (NIV)

1. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who was, is and is to come” and Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

2. This verse is made slightly more ambiguous in the KJV because the word “God” is left out of the Greek text from which the KJV was translated. Nevertheless, modern textual research shows conclusively that it should be included, and modern versions do include the word “God.”

3. Because of the phrase, “the Alpha and the Omega,” many feel this verse refers to Christ. However, a study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to both God and Christ. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. It cannot be strictly literal, because neither God nor Christ is a Greek letter. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, ‘Aleph and Tau.'” [1]

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4)” [2] The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation” (pp. 479 and 480).

Since both God and Jesus Christ are “the Alpha and the Omega” in their own respective ways, there is good reason to believe that the title can apply to both of them, and no good reason why that makes the two into “one God.” The titles “Lord” (see Rom. 10:9), “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “king of kings (see 1 Tim. 6:14-16) apply to both God and Christ, as well as to other men. As with “Lord,” “Savior” and “King of kings,” this title fits them both. God is truly the beginning and the end of all things, while Christ is the beginning and the end because he is the firstborn from the dead, the Author and Finisher of faith, the Man by whom God will judge the world, and the creator of the new ages to come (see Heb. 1:10).

 

[AspiringSoul]

@Infinityloop try talking to most hindus on polythiesm. Even when the highest branch of hinduism, Vedanta says it is outright wrong, they cling to it no matter what. it's the way they've been brought up, their identity etc.
in my experience, the ones who leave christianity are the ones who do not feel they belong to it. they neither think like christians or wish to be part of them. When that happens, they're free from the 'thoughtform' of christianity and therefore can look at other things.

it's no different to if you debated with an ismaeli or an ahmadi or a bahai, they will cling onto what they believe no matter what..
unless they have cause to no longer belong to it.

 

[Infinityloop]

@Infinityloop try talking to most hindus on polythiesm. Even when the highest branch of hinduism, Vedanta says it is outright wrong, they cling to it no matter what. it's the way they've been brought up, their identity etc.
in my experience, the ones who leave christianity are the ones who do not feel they belong to it. they neither think like christians or wish to be part of them. When that happens, they're free from the 'thoughtform' of christianity and therefore can look at other things.

it's no different to if you debated with an ismaeli or an ahmadi or a bahai, they will cling onto what they believe no matter what..
unless they have cause to no longer belong to it.

1. Yeah, Advaita Vedanta, Shaivism as well, Shaivism is quite strongly opposed to idols.
2. Reminds me of various Ayat, it's true, some people are so brainwashed by an egregore that they will never leave it. For Christians, if Jesus came to them there and then and told them they were wrong, Christians would still reject Jesus. It's just the way things are. Clouded by a bias against truth.
3. The irony for Christians is that they believe that God changes, they justify this by creating a new narrative that has nothing to do with God, but to do with a very antihuman inferiority complex (original sin, Jesus dying for salvation etc). They limit God in practically every way, and then justify it by the 'appeal to mystery' fallacy - all while claiming to believe in the God of the Torah, it's hilarious but also makes me strongly concerned about their mental health.

 

[AspiringSoul]

1. Yeah, Advaita Vedanta, Shaivism as well, Shaivism is quite strongly opposed to idols.
2. Reminds me of various Ayat, it's true, some people are so brainwashed by an egregore that they will never leave it. For Christians, if Jesus came to them there and then and told them they were wrong, Christians would still reject Jesus. It's just the way things are. Clouded by a bias against truth.
3. The irony for Christians is that they believe that God changes, they justify this by creating a new narrative that has nothing to do with God, but to do with a very antihuman inferiority complex (original sin, Jesus dying for salvation etc). They limit God in practically every way, and then justify it by the 'appeal to mystery' fallacy - all while claiming to believe in the God of the Torah, it's hilarious but also makes me strongly concerned about their mental health.

"see no evil for i am blind, hear no evil for i am deaf"
although this goes both ways.

 

[DavidSon]

1. Yeah, Advaita Vedanta, Shaivism as well, Shaivism is quite strongly opposed to idols.
2. Reminds me of various Ayat, it's true, some people are so brainwashed by an egregore that they will never leave it. For Christians, if Jesus came to them there and then and told them they were wrong, Christians would still reject Jesus. It's just the way things are. Clouded by a bias against truth.
3. The irony for Christians is that they believe that God changes, they justify this by creating a new narrative that has nothing to do with God, but to do with a very antihuman inferiority complex (original sin, Jesus dying for salvation etc). They limit God in practically every way, and then justify it by the 'appeal to mystery' fallacy - all while claiming to believe in the God of the Torah, it's hilarious but also makes me strongly concerned about their mental health.

It's a shame that many think by collectively pondering the facts and history- of not just Christianity but all our traditional cultures, that you're somehow attacking faith itself. That's ridiculous. Only truth can set set us free. Possibly the greatest human gift is honesty; without honesty there is no authentic truth or love.

Including the dogma of Trinity, I see very few Christians willing to accept historical reality. The fact is Hellenic groups in the 1st century took a form of Judaism and made it into what we know as "Christ-ianity." The 4 Gospels themselves were probably written by Greeks/Romans after the 2nd temple destruction. What harm is there in admitting we don't know who penned almost all of the New Testament? On just a logical level there's no denying that popular Christianity is unrecognizable from what Jesus would have taught. I mean In the stories he didn't just say call no man Father, he said call no man good lol!

When you start researching it's obvious there's a Satanic minority who'd rather see 2 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians divided. Look at all the things we're NOT taught in the West. Islam and Christianity are from the same tree. They both revere Jesus as being from the Almighty and both believe in his return! Prophet Muhammad's familiarity with Syriac and Jewish Christians is documented. In a historical sense Islam was the real Christian reform, not the strangers Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Christians need to be honest: if you deny traditional, Abrahamic monotheism and the OT then just say so. If your favorite scripture is the letters of Saul of Tarsus and anonymous authors, just say so. "Christianity" is built up around a single man (which is strange because it's followers weren't alive to witness him like other guru/student relationships) that is illogical and foreign to normal reality. You might say, "Jesus is Lord," but stop pretending your deification of "the Christ" is reasonable or has anything to do with the Old Testament.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It's a shame that many think by collectively pondering the facts and history- of not just Christianity but all our traditional cultures, that you're somehow attacking faith itself. That's ridiculous. Only truth can set set us free. Possibly the greatest human gift is honesty; without honesty there is no authentic truth or love.

Including the dogma of Trinity, I see very few Christians willing to accept historical reality. The fact is Hellenic groups in the 1st century took a form of Judaism and made it into what we know as "Christ-ianity." The 4 Gospels themselves were probably written by Greeks/Romans after the 2nd temple destruction. What harm is there in admitting we don't know who penned almost all of the New Testament? On just a logical level there's no denying that popular Christianity is unrecognizable from what Jesus would have taught. I mean In the stories he didn't just say call no man Father, he said call no man good lol!

When you start researching it's obvious there's a Satanic minority who'd rather see 2 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians divided. Look at all the things we're NOT taught in the West. Islam and Christianity are from the same tree. They both revere Jesus as being from the Almighty and both believe in his return! Prophet Muhammad's familiarity with Syriac and Jewish Christians is documented. In a historical sense Islam was the real Christian reform, not the strangers Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Christians need to be honest: if you deny traditional, Abrahamic monotheism and the OT then just say so. If your favorite scripture is the letters of Saul of Tarsus and anonymous authors, just say so. "Christianity" is built up around a single man (which is strange because it's followers weren't alive to witness him like other guru/student relationships) that is illogical and foreign to normal reality. You might say, "Jesus is Lord," but stop pretending your deification of "the Christ" is reasonable or has anything to do with the Old Testament.

Want to diminish Jesus and redefine the Gospel? There is a broad, inclusive organisation waiting for you!!! Muslims, Jews and Christians all getting along around the idea of one God, and nobody there making uncomfortable and un-called for references to divisive doctrines like the Trinity!

Who is Tri-Faith?

We imagine and work for a world that celebrates religious difference as an asset in overcoming fear and stereotypes and embracing one another.

Who is Tri-Faith?

We imagine and work for a world that celebrates religious difference as an asset in overcoming fear and stereotypes and embracing one another.

www.trifaith.org