The Holy Trinity

GreenTea

Rookie
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
68
So I was reading up stuff on Wikipedia about the origins of the Trinity and I came across a picture which represented it as a triangle with an eye in the middle - calling it the eye of providence. Naturally I looked into that and found out that (and I quote wiki here)

"The association of an eye with the concept of Divine Providence did not emerge until well into the Christian Era, in Renaissance European iconography, where it was an explicit image of the Christian Trinity. Seventeenth-century depictions of the Eye of Providence sometimes show it surrounded by clouds or sunbursts."

Since the Trinity is not a concept mentioned anywhere explicitly in the Bible, it's possible that this concept was added later.

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there and hoping someone will clarify.
 

DisenfranchisedDespot

Established
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
252
So I was reading up stuff on Wikipedia about the origins of the Trinity and I came across a picture which represented it as a triangle with an eye in the middle - calling it the eye of providence. Naturally I looked into that and found out that (and I quote wiki here)

"The association of an eye with the concept of Divine Providence did not emerge until well into the Christian Era, in Renaissance European iconography, where it was an explicit image of the Christian Trinity. Seventeenth-century depictions of the Eye of Providence sometimes show it surrounded by clouds or sunbursts."

Since the Trinity is not a concept mentioned anywhere explicitly in the Bible, it's possible that this concept was added later.

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there and hoping someone will clarify.
That has nothing to do with core Christian teachings even for Anabaptist groups that did acknowledge the Trinity pre RCC that did not originate with them.

Also that wouldn't be the symbol use to illustrate the Trinity anyway.



Those are a few.
 

Scimitar

Established
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
122
Scimitar, how would you feel about reposting your reply to me about the corruption of the Bible on it's own thread? This one has gotten long enough, and I think the debate could do with it's own showcase.

For anyone who doesn't know, Scimitar and I go back a long way, and I respect the sincerity he has for his faith, even if I disagree with almost everything he says. I am glad to see him here, because I feel that he and I have come to a position of respect for each other, if not for each other's view of the Almighty, and that we can set an example for Christians and Muslims by having peaceful and thought-provoking discussions about our respective faiths.

Enjoy your pizza, bro. I look forward to our conversations here. :)
Sure bro, (originally reposted from here: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-vc-case-for-christ-thread.217/page-18#post-9663

It's about time you showed up! :)

I'm sure you have a well-thought out and thoroughly substantiated argument for Biblical corruption, so why don't you post that for us so we can discuss it?
Gosh, I love it when you open a door for me ahahaaa, (no ladies first jokes lol)

Ok, so the claim is "Bible New Testament is corrupted form of scripture" - this is the claim that bible scholars (who are Christian) claim.

But I'm not even gonna go down that road - simply because you are asking - moi.

Instead, I will aim to prove through logic, reason and deduction how the bible remains from it's canonisation in the year 325CE - til today, a corrupted work.

1) What is Holy Scripture according to Monotheism?

It is revealed word, to a prophet or messenger of God, such as Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad - peace be upon them all.

When it comes to the revealed word of God to Moses, we have the ten commandments and the Torah, we also have the supplementary books which are not holy per se, but more historical - and these we refer to as "NEWS" in the Semitic languages - in Arabic, the word is Hadeeth.

The book of David and Solomon was - the Psalms - also divinely revealed to David and passed onto his son Solomon, peace be upon them both.

The work of Moses is preserved, and so is the work of David and Solomon, intact, contained within the OT - with no "this book is the book of David according to John, Luke, Mark, Matthew" - ok? With me so far?

Yet where is the book which Jesus was given? In Islam we are told, he was given the Injeel - but what you read today are most certainly not the Injeel of Jesus. Instead you are reading the Ahadeeth of Jesus attributed to four men who never left a last name.

In a word, your New Testament, is a book of hadeeth which have issues in grading and authenticity - it's a man made work and contains flaws, errors, and interpolations plaguing its historical development from 325CE - til modern day.

The Qur'an, the book given to Muhammad pbuh. Still in its original form, the language still intact. And extant. In circulation.

Contrast to Christianity, and no Christian here could understand Jesus if he spoke in Hebrew right now.

With due respect, I feel that your bible is a Chinese Whisper. No Hebrew Aramaic version of it existed - instead, you have Latin and Konig Greek translated to the languages of Europe, until eventually being translated into English, by which time many competing versions of this New Testament were vying for Clergy Time... Corruptions were always there, just waiting to hide through the ignorance of the dogmatic types. It doesn't make it go away - it just leaves it to fester.

Based on this, the NT Bible does not qualify as Holy Scripture, but rather - a commentary by anonymous persons who only left their first names - by hadeeth standards, these would be considered weak at best, and most likely thrown out of the canonisation of hadeeth. Not ven worthy of consideration for us Muslims, but to a fold who lived 6 centuries prior to Muhammad pbuh, and had not idea what their Roman masters were pushing on them? It was all acceptable, the might of Rome was not taking no for an answer ;)

2) God is not the author of confusion.

Why do you claim the bible is not corrupt when there are competing versions of it in circulation? Does this itself not tell you that there is no single championed version of your New Testament which can lay an historical claim past the 16th century? That's 16 centuries after Jesus btw.

How about if we go back further, to the time of the Council of Nicea? Do you not see how a Roman Emperor named Constantine wanted to reconcile his dwindling empire into a great one again and saw how a new religion named Christianity, if adopted for the followers of Jesus who were Gentiles in Rome would keep the empires inhabitants happy and the empire would prosper - would be a win win - and so Constantine did the unthinkable.

Constantine - the Devils Disc Jockey, remixed the Monotheistic teachings of Jesus with the Pagan Trinity of Mithra, which was Constantine's own religion - and Christianity was born.

3) Pizza has arrived, I'll leave it here for now.

God bless,

Scimi
 
Last edited:

DisenfranchisedDespot

Established
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
252
Sure bro, (originally reposted from here: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-vc-case-for-christ-thread.217/page-18#post-9663


Gosh, I love it when you open a door for me ahahaaa, (no ladies first jokes lol)

Ok, so the claim is "Bible New Testament is corrupted form of scripture" - this is the claim that bible scholars (who are Christian) claim.

But I'm not even gonna go down that road - simply because you are asking - moi.

Instead, I will aim to prove through logic, reason and deduction how the bible remains from it's canonisation in the year 325CE - til today, a corrupted work.

1) What is Holy Scripture according to Monotheism?

It is revealed word, to a prophet or messenger of God, such as Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad - peace be upon them all.

When it comes to the revealed word of God to Moses, we have the ten commandments and the Torah, we also have the supplementary books which are not holy per se, but more historical - and these we refer to as "NEWS" in the Semitic languages - in Arabic, the word is Hadeeth.

The book of David and Solomon was - the Psalms - also divinely revealed to David and passed onto his son Solomon, peace be upon them both.

The work of Moses is preserved, and so is the work of David and Solomon, intact, contained within the OT - with no "this book is the book of David according to John, Luke, Mark, Matthew" - ok? With me so far?

Yet where is the book which Jesus was given? In Islam we are told, he was given the Injeel - but what you read today are most certainly not the Injeel of Jesus. Instead you are reading the Ahadeeth of Jesus attributed to four men who never left a last name.

In a word, your New Testament, is a book of hadeeth which have issues in grading and authenticity - it's a man made work and contains flaws, errors, and interpolations plaguing its historical development from 325CE - til modern day.

The Qur'an, the book given to Muhammad pbuh. Still in its original form, the language still intact. And extant. In circulation.

Contrast to Christianity, and no Christian here could understand Jesus if he spoke in Hebrew right now.

With due respect, I feel that your bible is a Chinese Whisper. No Hebrew Aramaic version of it existed - instead, you have Latin and Konig Greek translated to the languages of Europe, until eventually being translated into English, by which time many competing versions of this New Testament were vying for Clergy Time... Corruptions were always there, just waiting to hide through the ignorance of the dogmatic types. It doesn't make it go away - it just leaves it to fester.

Based on this, the NT Bible does not qualify as Holy Scripture, but rather - a commentary by anonymous persons who only left their first names - by hadeeth standards, these would be considered weak at best, and most likely thrown out of the canonisation of hadeeth. Not ven worthy of consideration for us Muslims, but to a fold who lived 6 centuries prior to Muhammad pbuh, and had not idea what their Roman masters were pushing on them? It was all acceptable, the might of Rome was not taking no for an answer ;)

2) God is not the author of confusion.

Why do you claim the bible is not corrupt when there are competing versions of it in circulation? Does this itself not tell you that there is no single championed version of your New Testament which can lay an historical claim past the 16th century? That's 16 centuries after Jesus btw.

How about if we go back further, to the time of the Council of Nicea? Do you not see how a Roman Emperor named Constantine wanted to reconcile his dwindling empire into a great one again and saw how a new religion named Christianity, if adopted for the followers of Jesus who were Gentiles in Rome would keep the empires inhabitants happy and the empire would prosper - would be a win win - and so Constantine did the unthinkable.

Constantine - the Devils Disc Jockey, remixed the Monotheistic teachings of Jesus with the Pagan Trinity of Mithra, which was Constantine's own religion - and Christianity was born.

3) Pizza has arrived, I'll leave it here for now.

God bless,

Scimi
The effort is admirable yet misinformed to a great degree.

Firstly, Hebrew Israelites did not traditional carry family surnames. You would instead find Mark son of John.

Secondly, the New Testament as canonized in the KJV was already accepted pre 325AC by various Christian groups who were recipients of missionaries. Bereans, Novatians, Hughguenots etc.

Thirdly, there are scholars and accounts of parts of the New Testament being written in non Greek and subsequently translated and spread. As an aside, the KJV and the textus receptus can be traced back to near 100AD despite its various translations(which are only natural).

Apparently few seem to know any Christian, biblical or otherwise possess much knowledge and Christians aren't Muslims so there is no equating one to the other in this regard.

Do try to not get banned this time around, savvy? :)
 

Scimitar

Established
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
122
The effort is admirable yet misinformed to a great degree.
really? this should be fun ;)

Firstly, Hebrew Israelites did not traditional carry family surnames. You would instead find Mark son of John.
That still doesn't explain why they are mysterious persons in the canon. Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew Aramaic have the same naming of Ibn-Ebn, ie: son of.

Jesus was the son of Mary, Isa Ibn Maryam in Arabic. But who was John the son of? How about Mark? Matthew? Luke?

And that - is where you stumble, And fall.

Sorry, but this is not something you can hold in defence of your NT. It's actually something which goes against it - and this is not me saying it - but Christian Scholars. So if you have a problem, peer review their papers, savvy ??? :D

Secondly, the New Testament as canonized in the KJV was already accepted pre 325AC by various Christian groups who were recipients of missionaries. Bereans, Novatians, Hughguenots etc.
Bollox.

The KJV is 16th century, and unfaithful to the Canon which is 3rd century - which in turn is unfaithful to the Monotheist teachings of Jesus who was first century. Period.

Thirdly, there are scholars and accounts of parts of the New Testament being written in non Greek and subsequently translated and spread. As an aside, the KJV and the textus receptus can be traced back to near 100AD despite its various translations(which are only natural).
That's a weak claim to authority, the very same scholars also attest to biblical corruptions - why do you ignore that? Is it your bias which speaks? or your weakness? Which?

Apparently few seem to know any Christian, biblical or otherwise possess much knowledge and Christians aren't Muslims so there is no equating one to the other in this regard.
Try telling that to the plethora of ex-Christian reverts who became Muslims on this board ;) And you will look rather silly I believe.

Do try to not get banned this time around, savvy? :)
Oh you'd like that, wouldn't you? :D

Scimi
 

DisenfranchisedDespot

Established
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
252
really? this should be fun ;)



That still doesn't explain why they are mysterious persons in the canon. Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew Aramaic have the same naming of Ibn-Ebn, ie: son of.

Jesus was the son of Mary, Isa Ibn Maryam in Arabic. But who was John the son of? How about Mark? Matthew? Luke?

How many of the authors in the old Testament let alone those ago prophecied in God's do we get a full genealogy or a relation to? Not as many and not even all of them to make that a valid argument.

And that - is where you stumble, And fall.

Sorry, but this is not something you can hold in defence of your NT. It's actually something which goes against it - and this is not me saying it - but Christian Scholars. So if you have a problem, peer review their papers, savvy ??? :D

You do know that there is contention between scholars in subjects like this and interpolation etc? One could side with the West Boro church attempt to say their scholars said something but a scholar saying something doesn't equate to truth. They are able to be erroneous in their judgements.

Bollox.

The KJV is 16th century, and unfaithful to the Canon which is 3rd century - which in turn is unfaithful to the Monotheist teachings of Jesus who was first century. Period.

So you don't seem to actually know church history pre 325AD? Do you know how the Torah or gospels were spread and preserved?

That's a weak claim to authority, the very same scholars also attest to biblical corruptions - why do you ignore that? Is it your bias which speaks? or your weakness? Which?

Once again not every bible scholar agrees with the other. You've chosen your side.

Try telling that to the plethora of ex-Christian reverts who became Muslims on this board ;) And you will look rather silly I believe.

None of them from the old board even knew what apostolic succession was or really much pre Vatican. It's not a Christian requirement.

Oh you'd like that, wouldn't you? :D

I honestly don't care one way or the other. Some are like kindling and all it takes is a few ad hominem to spark a bonfire.
Scimi
Answers are in bold.
 

Scimitar

Established
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
122
Answers are in bold.
the messy quote job you did in post ensured my response is not forthcoming.

Should you decide to repost with my sentences quoted and yours following out of quotations, then I will entertain you with a response God willing.

God bless

Scimi
 

DisenfranchisedDespot

Established
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
252
the messy quote job you did in post ensured my response is not forthcoming.

Should you decide to repost with my sentences quoted and yours following out of quotations, then I will entertain you with a response God willing.

God bless

Scimi
I don't particularly care if you respond or not, I'm in a phone and quote break up is beyond tedious.
 
Top