Doctrine of the Trinity in the OT - Continuned

Originally posted by islamispeace

This is from Numbers, not Deuteronomy.

Yes, that was a misquoted reference. Thanks for the correction.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

And as with the above verse, this is just a random verse which has been twisted to say something which it is not saying.

 

Neither reference is alone conclusive, only more bricks in the building of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Tesatment.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

What is more interesting is that the word used to refer to God in these verses is not "Elohim" but rather "Adonay", which is further proof that "Elohim" has not relation to a trinity, if the trinity concept is even present in those verses and in the OT (which it is not). 

 

No, you are incorrect, it is  יהוה  (Yahweh) in both the Numbers and the Isaiah passages.

Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

The Hebrew Bible also mentions the Spirit of God:

 

ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

 

and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters Gen 1:2

 

and a Son who will be called אל גבור  (El Gibor = Mighty God) עמנו אל (Immanu El = God with us) Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

More misquotes.  The verse from Isaiah 9 is again out of context, as the verse also says that the child will be called "Eternal Father" which in no way applies to Jesus as he was never referred to with that title.

  

This is a straw man. In Hebrew the word שמ (Shem) means more than just name or title it means: fame, renown, memorial, repute, an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character.

 

It's a multifaceted word and it means that the Son would be אביעד (Abi-Ad). Now אב (Ab) not only means Father in a literal sense but also in a figurative sense as the producer or generator. Thus  אביעד (Abi-Ad) is the one who fathered or generated or produced eternity. Of course this is the same God mentioned in Genesis 1:1--but is here a Son.

 

This is what Jesus was saying in John 8:28:

 

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 8:58

 

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." John 8:58

 

Jesus was born after Abraham died yet He existed before Abraham was born. This is because he fathered, produced, generated eternity prior to his incarnation as a Son and Child.

 

Jesus is the Son in Isaiah 9:6

 

(Sorry, the quote system is not working thus I put all my comments in bold)

Doctrine of the Trinity in the OT - Point 5

Let's move on to Point 5 in the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament:

 

5. Micah 5:2:

 

ואתה בית לחם אפרתה צעיר להיות באלפי יהודה--ממך לי יצא להיות מושל בישראל ומוצאתיו מקדם מימי עולם

 

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity Micah 5:2

 

The "Me" in this verse is God and the "One" is also God since he is said to be eternal. However they are clearly two different persons, right?

Edited by Egwpisteuw - Yesterday at 4:02pm

God's Word Cannot be Corrupted

Originally posted by islamispeace

Both you and your "800 pound gorilla" are suffering from denial.  Any person with an ounce of reason will see that you are chasing your own tail and making a fool out of yourself.  You know in school when you take an exam and leave a question blank, you get the question wrong!  You have failed to refute the arguments I have raised and instead simply repeat the same tired, old arguments. 

 

This is just more ad hominem abuse and idle words. It's nothing more than a tacit admission that you can't answer my argument which I have reduced to down to an ultra-succint formulation:

 

An inccoruptible God can only produce an incorruptible word.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

the contradictions in the Bible

 

If the Bible has contradictions then you and I both need to become Atheists becasuse:

 

Jesus says the Bible has no contradictions:

 

ου δυναται λυθηναι η γραφη ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 10:35

 

the Scripture cannot be broken John 10:35

 

and the Quran specifically confirms this statement:

 

He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

 

The Blood of Christ and the OT Blood Sacrifices

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Sign*Reader


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_BoltzThanks but no thanks

This is ad hominem abuse:

 

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

 

By resorting to such a logically fallacious tactic you are simply making a tacit admission that you cannot answer my argument:

 

All the blood of the innumerable pure innocent animals sacrificed over all those centuries under the OT Levitical system are the type and THE BLOOD of THE LAMB, Jesus Christ, the pure and sinless one, who was crucified and died is the antitype. These two historical facts go hand in glove and are a stunning refutation of Islam. 

The Incorruptibility of God's Word - 2

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

Why would I ever entrust a whimsical, capricious, ne'er-do-well god, whose word he allowed to be corrupted by man, with the salvation of my soul?

The debate is about about you spamming Ibn Hazm... 

What assurance do I have that he will not also allow my soul to be lost and corrupted the same way he allowed his word to be lost and corrupted?

Again you are not addressing the subject...

Sign*Reader, the subject is a theological debate. Ibn Hazm posited the Doctrine of the Corruption of God's Word. This doctrine is the cornerstone of Islamic Apologetics (1).  Without this doctrine, Islam cannot be defended since the Quran, on which it is based, says it agrees with the Bible (Surah 3:3), but clearly, upon examination, does not.

Ibn Hazm did not think through the logical implications of his doctrine. A god who cannot keep his word is a god who cannot be trusted--just as a man who cannot keep his word is a man who cannot be trusted.

I entrust my soul to my Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Mighty God of Isaiah 9:6 who became the God With Us of Isaiah 7:14 and the God Whose Word endures forever in Isaiah 40:8

(1) Let me take you to school on the following error that you made:

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

There are no Muslim apologetics; it is  Christian phenomena, the premise is false!

a·pol·o·get·ics   /əˌpɒləˈdʒɛtɪks/ Show Spelled

the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of christianity.

The English word Apologetics is from the Greek απολογία (apologia) meaning a verbal defense, a speech in defense, a reasoned statement or argument. Thus the more correct definition is as follows:

the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason.

The Incorruptibility of God's Word

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

I had been on the fence on this thread_______________ LOL

Welcome to the party Sign*reader. Hop on the bus with Islamispeace and let me take you to school.

 

First in your long epistle you neglected to adress the 800 pound Gorilla in the room (as did Isalmispeace):

 

Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

So now let's hone in. I keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room:

 

Originally posted by Egwpisteuw

God is incorruptible thus His Word  must also be incorruptible.

 

This is the only valid theological Doctrine of God's Word

 

Why would I ever entrust a whimsical, capricious, ne'er-do-well god, whose word he allowed to be corrupted by man, with the salvation of my soul? What assurance do I have that he will not also allow my soul to be lost and corrupted the same way he allowed his word to be lost and corrupted?

 

No sir. Such a god is not God.

 

The God of the Bible said that His name endures forever:

 

יהוה שמך לעולם

Your name, O LORD, endures forever (Psalm 135:13)

 

and that His Word is even more sure than His name:

 

הגדלת על-כל-שמך אמרתך

you have magnified your word above all your name (Psalm 138:2)

 

Thus the conclusion in Isaiah:

 

יבש חציר נבל ציץ ודבר אלהינו יקום לעולם 

The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8

 

repeated by Peter:

 

τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα κυρίου μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER 1 Peter 1:25

 

Now such a God I can entrust with the salvation of my soul.

 

הללו־יה 

αλληλουια

Hallelujah!

The Trinity in Genesis 1:1

[QUOTE=honeto]God as One is probably the oldest teachings dating back to the Old Testament times[/QUOTE]

The oldest teaching is that God is a singularity that is also a plurality. This is from the very first verse in the Bible:

 

בראשית ברא אלהים

 

In the beginning God created (Gensis 1:1)

 

אלהים Elohim (God) is a plural noun

 

ברא Bara (created) is a singular verb

 

ראשית (reshit) begininng is from ראש (rosh) meaning head, top, height, chief, best.

 

Thus the highest teaching about God is contained in the first three words of the Bible in which He presents Himself as a singularity that is also a plurality.

The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

Originally posted by islamispeace

I am saying that authoritative sources clearly disagree with you.  The source I used is a Jewish one (not Christian or Muslim) which makes sense since Hebrew is the language of the Jews.

I would advise extreme caution about accepting Jewish secondary sources on Biblical Hebrew interpretation. I qualify this with the statement with the fact that I am a Christian Zionist and love the Jewish people, but Jewish sources many times mix Theological interpretation in with their exegesis. For example, their translation of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 which totally distort the Hebrew of those passages.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

You obviously ignored the source I quoted which gives a specific example from the Bible of a monarch who uses the plural of majesty, and this monarch was an Israelite!  Are you saying the Bible is wrong?  2 Samuel 16:20 says:

 

"Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”"

 

Absalom was the king of Israel, was he not?  Since the answer is yes, this refutes your claim that "such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East".

 

"The plural form ’elohim is used not only of pagan "gods" (e.g., Ex. 12:12; 18:11; 20:3), but also of an individual pagan "god" (Judg. 11:24; II Kings 1:2ff.) and even of a "goddess" (I Kings 11:5)." [Names of God]

So clearly, the word can be used to refer to a single "individual" as in the case of the god Chemosh (Judges 11:24).  Commenting further on the use of ""Elohim", the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

"The odd fact that Hebrew uses a plural noun to designate the god of Israel has been explained in various ways. Some scholars take it as a plural that expresses an abstract idea (e.g., zekunim, "old age" ne ’urim, "time of youth"), so that ’Elohim would really mean "the Divinity." More likely, however, it came from general Canaanite usage. In the el-Amarna Letters Pharaoh is often addressed as "my gods [īlāni ’ya] the sun-god."" [Ibid.]

As you can see, there is no mention of any possibility of the word being interpreted as referring to a triunity.  This is simply a Christian interpolation, which is just not grounded in fact.

You are avoiding the facts rather than explaining them. I submit again that the God presented in the Hebrew Bible is a singularity that is also a plurality. For example, take Genesis 18:1-2:

Now the LORD appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him

The Lord יהוה (Yahweh) appeared as three men. Again you see the jump between singularity and plurality. This is because God is a singularity that is also a plurality.

The example of water is also not sufficient since no matter what form it is in (solid, liquid or gas), it is still chemically the same (H2O).  How is this similar to the trinity?  Jesus (the "son") was flesh and blood.  The Father and the Holy Spirit are clearly different.  Therefore, the water example as a defense of the trinity is not logical.

God is presented in the Hebrew Bible as a singularity that is also a plurality.

Originally posted by islamispeace


I would also rather discuss the other point I raised as it has everything to do with this topic.  It has major implications on your claim that the trinity even exists in the Hebrew Bible, as if your claim is true, it would show an inconsistency between the two books, and one that I think is impossible to reconcile.

If you want to switch topics go ahead. I summarize this topic, to wit, the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible as follows: 

Originally posted by islamispeace


Clearly, "logic" to you is something entirely different to the rest of us.  Making silly comparisons of the trinity to an egg or water is the epitome of desperation.  How is an egg similar to the trinity?  An egg is something that is created.  The triune God was not created.  Additionally, if you really want to get technical, then you would see that an egg is much more than simply a shell, yolk and albumen (egg white).  Underneath the shell, there are actually two membranes.  There is also the germinal disc which serves as the pathway for sperm during fertilization [Georgia Egg Commission].

What I am giving you is examples from mathematics and nature that show "three yet oneness."  You are taking the analogies of water and the egg too far.  The same water can take on three different forms: liquid, solid, gas (not sure if steam is actually a gas but you get my point) and I can take a hard-boild egg and easily separate it into shell, yoke, and white. The equations 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 are both mathematically true.

Originally posted by islamispeace


Well, the reason for that is that the OT was written by different people.  The Documentary Hypothesis presents strong evidence that the different usages of the names of God points to different authors.  In fact, two of the anonymous authors have been designated "Jahwist" and "Elohist".  The presupposition that the different usages mean that God must be a trinity is baseless and hence nothing more than a non-sequitur.

Now you are simply copping out. The documentary hypothesis and form criticism certainly do not present anything that can be termed "strong evidence." They are nothing more that academic myths based on nothing but pure speculation.

The antecedent of the "we" in 2 Sam 16:20 ( "us" is not there in the Hebrew) is verse 15:

Then Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, entered Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.

 

Absalom was with his cabinet, his advisors, when he asked Ahithophel the question in verse 20:

 

Give counsel among you what we shall do-This is the first cabinet council on record, although the deference paid to Ahithophel gave him the entire direction of the proceedings. Jamieson Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary 2 Sam 16:20

 

Thus the we in verse 20 refers to Absalom and his cabinet advisors.

Originally posted by islamispeace


Again, you are making completely unsupported statements.  The Encyclopedia Judaica has an interesting entry on the word "Elohim":

You are making my point exactly here.  Zero in on the phrase "The odd fact that Hebrew uses a plural noun to designate the god of Israel." It is indeed a very odd fact. One that cannot be ignored. It is the same with the word for water מימ (mayim) and heaven שמימ (shamayim)  which can be either plural or singular. אלהים (Elohim) is a singularity that is also a plurality.

Why the Quran cannot be God's Word

The Quranic proposition is logically impossible. It cannot be the Word of God.

Let's state it mathematically:

X = God's Word
A = the Old Testament
B = the New Testament
C= the Quran

The Christian position is valid: X= A + B

where: B builds upon the foundation of A via progressive revelation and B is in perfect agreement with A.

The theoretical position of the Quran is also valid as stated in verses like Surah 3:3:

He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

where: X = A + B + C

where: C builds upon the foundation of B and A via progressive revelation and C is in perfect agreement with B and A.

However, even a cursory examination of the Quran yields the following equation:

A + B ≠ C

The Quran does not agree with the Bible.

thus since X = A + B is valid then one can only conclude that C ≠ X

In summary, if the Quran is God's word then it must be able to be harmonized with the Bible, and since it cannot be, it cannot be God's Word.

The Trinity in the Old Testament

Originally posted by islamispeace

people who actually know Hebrew and who are in the position to comment on it.

I can't tell whether you are saying you actually know Hebrew or you are just relying on secondary sources. I can assure you that I certainly know Biblical Hebrew well enough to carry on an intelligent debate on the subject. As a matter of fact I know a total of ten languages (including Koine Greek) so I am perfectly at home vis-a-vis linguistic argumentation.

 

Let me first counter your secondary source with one which I feel sums up the argument very nicely. This comment is specifically on Genesis 1:26a which, for reference reads as follows:

 

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

 

The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, "I have dreamed a dream" Genesis 41:15. Nebuchadnezzar, "I have dreamed" Daniel 2:3. Darius the Mede, "I make a decree" Daniel 6:26. Cyrus, "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth" Ezra 1:2. Darius, "I make a decree" Ezra 5:8. We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression "let us make" is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, "our image, our likeness," when transferred into the third person of narrative, become "his image, the image of God," and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, "let us make." Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.

Barnes notes on the Bible - Gen 1:26

 

And here is my primary argument: If you read the OT in Hebrew, you cannot help but be struck by the fact that God is alternately presented in both the plural and in the singular. Genesis 11:7a is aother example:

 

הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם

 

Thus, the only honest conclusion you can come to when reading the OT in Hebrew is that God is a plurality that is also a singularity. As I have already pointed out, this is perfectly expressed mathematically as:

 

1 + 1 + 1 = 3 - The three members of the Trinity are distinct persons

 

However:

 

1 x 1 x 1 = 1  - The three members of the Trinity are one God

 

Also, as Thomas N points out, numerous examples of three yet oneness can be adduced from the natural realm (additionally, an egg = shell, yoke, white but one egg, water = steam, ice, liquid, etc.). Thus the common Muslim claim that the Trinity is not logical is silly--it can be demonstrated mathematically and in nature and thus is perfectly logical.

 

The Muslim god is only half a god--one but not three. The God of the Bible, OT and NT is both three and one.

 

(I suggest we zero in on the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible and address your additional points about John 1:1 and the Quran afterward).

The Bible cannot be corrupted

@Islamispeace Let's cut to the chase here. The Muslim god who is not able to preserve his own scriptures, is an effete, incompetent, impotent, hapless, buffoon who is not worthy of worship: 

 

The true God never allows His Word to become corrupted. It is His Word.

 

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Pslam 138:2

 

Man would like to corrupt God's Word but cannot because God overrules him:

 

5"But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matt 15:5-6

 

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2 Cor 2:17

but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor 4:2

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Rev 22:18-19

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4:2

Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. Deut 12:32

Every word of God has proven to be true. He is a shield to those who come to him for protection
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. Prov 30:5-6

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; Eph 4:14

 

So what you have is man who would like to corrupt God's Word but God who overrules him and preserves His Word. This is the omnipotent, powerful, almighty God who is alone worthy of worship.

The Trinity in the Old Testament

[QUOTE=islamispeace] The doctrine is absent from the OT.  It was invented by Christians centuries after Jesus (pbuh). [/QUOTE]
Nonsense!

The very name of God is plural in the OT. אלהים (Elohim) has the masculine plural ending "im" does it not? Ever wonder why?

Gen 1:26 says:

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"

God = אלהים (Elohim)

said = אמר (Amar) in the singular

But

make = עשה (asah) is in the plural and "in our image" and "after our likeness" בצלמנו כדמותנו (betsalmenu, kidmutenu) have the 1st person plural suffix נו(nu).

Note the mixture of singular and plural. God is a singularity that is also a plurality. This the God presented in the Hebrew Bible. אלהים (Elohim) plural is אחד (echad) singular.

More examples can be adduced. The doctrine of the Trinity is in both the OT and the NT but is clearly denied in the Quran. Thus the Quran is not a revelation from God.

[QUOTE=islamispeace] The doctrine is absent from the OT.  It was invented by Christians centuries after Jesus (pbuh). [/QUOTE]

Nonsense!

 

The very name of God is plural in the OT. אלהים (Elohim) has the masculine plural ending "im" does it not? Ever wonder why?

 

Gen 1:26 says:

 

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

 

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"

 

God = אלהים (Elohim)

 

said = אמר (Amar) in the singular

 

But

 

make = עשה (asah) is in the plural and "in our image" and "after our likeness" בצלמנו כדמותנו (betsalmenu, kidmutenu) have the 1st person plural suffix נו(nu).

 

Note the mixture of singular and plural. God is a singularity that is also a plurality. This the God presented in the Hebrew Bible. אלהים (Elohim) plural is אחד (echad) singular.

 

More examples can be adduced. The doctrine of the Trinity is in both the OT and the NT but is clearly denied in the Quran. Thus the Quran is not a revelation from God. 

God is One

1. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one Deut 6:4

2. I (Jesus Christ) and the Father are one John 10:30

3. Indeed, Allah is but one God Surah 4:171

The one in #1 and #2 is the same one but the one in #3 is a different one or mathematically:

1 = 2

but

1 ≠ 3
2 ≠ 3

The 3 stands alone.

The Trinity in the Bible and the Quran

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God.

In the Greek, the phrase  "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is:

τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

in which τὸ ὄνομα (to onoma, the name) is in the accusative case and τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father), τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son) and τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (tou hagiou pneumatos, the Holy Spirit) are all in the genitive case.

Koine Greek is a very grammatically precise language and the picture being painted here is one of a single fork with three prongs as follows:

                                                 -----τοῦ πατρὸς (tou patros, the Father)
τὸ ὄνομα (onoma, name)---------------τοῦ υἱοῦ (tou uiou, the Son)
                                                 -----τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (the Holy Spirit)

This is EXACTLY what the Trinity is, One God in three persons. Each member of the Trinity is a distinctive person and is God individually and the combination of the three is also God.

This is why Jesus Christ could say:

I and the Father are one John 10:30 because Jesus Christ as the Son (Prong 2) is just as much God as is the Father (Prong 1).

This is the true oneness of God, and just as the Jews of Jesus' day did not understand this:

31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” John 10:31-33

So Muhammad also did not understand it:

They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Surah 5:17

This is nothing more than the same unbelief that the Jews of Jesus' day manifested.

Ibn-Hazm Part 2

Originally posted by honeto

Why would God send or repeat His guidance so many times?

The revelations in the Bible are not simply repetitions, they are a progressive unfolding of God's plan of salvation for mankind starting with the seed of the woman in Gen 3:15.

In every subsequent revelation there is additional color added. For example, the seed would come through the line of Abraham in Gen 12:3, through David's line in Isaiah 11:1, would be born of a virgin in Isaiah 7:14, and would be born in Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 and would be a suffering servant would would solve the sin problem in Isaiah 53, and would be God Himself in Isaiah 9:6.

The Quran does not add further color in continuing this progressive revelation from God, it totally and utterly denies it. It comes centuries after the need for written revelation from God had ceased. All had been fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah.

Ibn-Hazm realized this. However, to save Islam, he came up with the absurd defense that the Bible was corrupted--a doctrine that yields a God that cannot be God--and makes no sense whatsoever.

The Virgin Birth Refutes Islam

The account of the Virgin Birth in the Quran is obviously based on the account in the Bible:

Quran:
She (Mary) said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" Surah 3:47a

Bible:
34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"  Luke 1:34

However, look at the response of the angel in the Bible:

35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35

The Biblical account explains the Virgin Birth as accomplished by the Holy Spirit and resulting in a Child, Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God--thus both the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are God, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son, respectively.

After the account of the Virgin Birth in the Gospel of Matthew, he says:

22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." Matt 1:22-23

Jesus Christ is "God with us"

Thus Surah 3:47 cannot be accepted without rejecting these three verses (and many other Quranic verses):

1. Say: Praise be to Allah, who begets no son Surah 17:111 - Jesus Christ is the Son of God

2. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! Surah 4:171 - Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are God
3. They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary" Surah 5:72 Jesus Christ is God and the son of Mary.

Is Barabbas a Prophet in Islam?

Matthew 27:16-17 reads as follows in the NIV 2010 version:

 

At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was [Jesus] Barabbas. ¹⁷ So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

 

The variant Jesus Barabbas is in a minority of manuscripts to wit, the Caesarean, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries and some of the manuscripts used by Origen.

 

Is it possible that it is thus Barabbas who is a prophet in Islam:

 

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. Surah 19:30

The modus operandi of Barabbas, who was a murderer and an insurrectionist:

The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. Mark 15:7

would fit much better with passages in the Quran such as:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them Surah 9:5

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter Surah 2:191

So Perhaps the [Jesus] Barabbas minority variant in Matt 27:16 is correct and this is the Jesus who is the prophet in Islam?

Jesus Christ Died and was Crucified - Proof #5

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu/Jesus the Nazarene was hanged [crucified]. Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

Quote from: the Babylonian Talmud which consists of documents compiled over the period of Late Antiquity (3rd to 5th centuries).

Jesus Christ Died and was Crucified - Proof #4

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion.

Quote by: Mara bar ("son of ") Serapion (1st century AD), sometimes spelled Mara bar Sarapion was a Stoic philosopher from ancient Syria. He wrote an eloquent letter in Syriac to his son, who was also named Serapion. This writing is said to be one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to a historical Jesus.

The Wise King of the Jews = Jesus Christ