After death

Almeftah

Junior Member
walaikom;

(2:260)And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. (260)

(36:77-83)Hath not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed? Yet lo! he is an open opponent. (77) And he hath coined for Us a similitude, and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away? (78) Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation, (79) Who hath appointed for you fire from the green tree, and behold! ye kindle from it. (80) Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Aye, that He is! for He is the All-Wise Creator, (81) But His command, when He intendeth a thing, is only that he saith unto it: Be! and it is. (82) Therefor glory be to Him in Whose hand is the dominion over all things! Unto Him ye will be brought back. (83)
 

um_mustafa

sister in Islam
As Salamu Alekum brothers and sisters

I'd like to add something to this debate overhere, but, um I'm a little confused, so if you let me bro Delta, are you a Muslim? I'm sorry for asking this question, it's just out of my ignorance.

Well then, mind you notice that the numbered sentences in bro/sis xSharingan01x reply that you commented upon are actually surat al Qyyama (75)? I think you should have shown some more respect in your comments on these verses from the words of Allah, whether you'r a muslim or not, and your only excuse is that you may have been ignorant about it being a surat.

Anyways, I can't really get the point in your question, so I'll post my answer according to what I understood, and you may correct me if this's not what you want. Well, you'r asking how Allah will bring us back after being dead and barried (and completely lost as you said), and I'm asking you back, haven't you believed and confessed (if you did) that Allah is almighty, omnipotent and all powerful? So what'r you asking about? I mean, c'mon brother, he created you the first time just from NOTHING, not even a single complete cell (with 46 chromosomes if you can get what I mean), Should be it difficult for Him to re-creat you again, sould be there any source or not?
{And He it is Who originates the creation, then will repeat it (after it has been perished); and this is easier for Him. His is the highest description (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but He, and there is nothing comparable unto Him) in the heavens and in the earth. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise} (30:27)
{Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah (mixed male and female sexual discharge - semen drops). Yet behold he (stands forth) as an open opponent.(77) And he puts forth for Us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: "Who will give life to these bones after they are rotted and have became dust? (78) Say: (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) "He will give life to them Who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation! (79)} (36:77-79)
He'll re-creat you, with whatever does this mean; your personality, your brain, way of thinking, what you like and dislike, your spirit. As regard your deeds, they'r already preserved, as presvious posts made clear. Still I can't understand what's your problem with the soul, I think it's clear that everybody'll be re-createrd as a WHOLE; your body, your soul, yourself... Now what's up with "getting your bones into paradise"? I can't figure how you'd like to know that, as it's a matter of Unknow (ghayb غيب) you know, we don't even know where the paradise is, or how it'll be like in that day. Again I tell you that Allah is omnipotent, all powerful, and for sure he'll bring us in front of him that day,regardless of the way.
{And the Trumpet will be blown (i.e. the second blowing) and behold from the graves they will come out quickly to their Lord} (36:51)
So you may just need to stop worrying about it. I see you may also need to read a little bit more about the judgement day, as there, in chaa' Allah, everything'll be just different.

There'r a couple of more verses you may need to read:
{And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.} (21:104)
{That is their recompense, because they denied Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and said: "When we are bones and fragments, shall we really be raised up as a new creation? (98) See they not that Allâh, Who created the heavens and the earth, is Able to create the like of them. And He has decreed for them an appointed term, whereof there is not doubt. But the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers) refuse (the truth - the Message of Islâmic Monotheism, and accept nothing) but disbelief (99)} (17:98-99)

Now, and regardless of all I've already said, I'd like just to add this information. I read it in some book, but I can't really remember its name. That's it, no human body decays completely, but rather there'll be always at least this one very cell that'll resist decaying, and from which the whole body will be formed again for resurrection, and it's at the lower coccyx (the lowest part of your vertebral column). Well, I don't know actually how authentic this information is, but it just makes sense, right? I mean, we all know now that, thanks to modern science, even a single cell is enough to clone a whole human being, right? NO, actually not, know why? because of the following Hadith, which is an authentic one, narreted by both Bukhary and Muslim, goes:
"There were a man who, upon his death, ordered his children to burn him, mill him, then scater his ash with wind (or half of his ash on land and half of it in the sea in another narration) when he dies. He said: 'If Allah'll achieve power over me, He'll punish me with a punishment that He won't inflict on anyone else from all of his creation'. That's because he had not saved for his meeting with Allah a single good deed. So when died, his children did as he commanded. Allah ordered the land, and it gathered all it had of him, (and He ordered the sea, and it gathered all it had of him), and then the man was standing. His lord said to him: 'What made you do that?' He said: 'I feared you, and You know best'. And so Allah forgave him."
I dunno if you got the point yet; Allah need not a cause or a way, He rather:
{Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" - and it is!} (36:82)

Well, I dunno if this's what you were asking for, and if so whether it was helpful. Please feel free to ask any more questions. I apologize for whatever offense or harm I may have done to you, as it's for sure unintended. Whatever mistakes or shortcomings there should be, they'r from myself and from asshytan, and whatever goodness and rightness there should be, they'r from Allah almighty alone, all praisings are to Him.

Jazak Allahu Khyran
Wassamlu Alekum Warhmatu Allah


Muhammad
Salams Br, Delta is a Christian who is trying to bate us, he wants to make us belive his religion is best , go over his other posts and you can see what he is doing,
W/salam
 

Almeftah

Junior Member
And who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah when he is summoned unto Al-Islam? And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (61:7) Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light however much the disbelievers are averse. (61:8) He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of Truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse. (61:9)
 

mezeren

Junior Member
Assalamu Aleikum

The world's population is believed to be just over 6.6 billion, each of us humans are unique, each of us has his own experiences, memories, etc......something as our unique "data-bank" different from each other, is what makes us unequaled, and singular beings

Well, how does Allah restore our "data-bank" after we die ? our body is finished, everyone knows that, once died and buried it is lost forever

Will He make a new data-bank ?

I ask this because a religion must have answers to this "human" and logic questions


Dear delta,

to find the right answers one's intentions must be right.if u study islam and compare it with other religions such as christianity and still believe that islam is not the religion to follow than your questions like this will not help anyone including yourself.
from your sentence,I ask this because a religion must have answers to this "human" and logic questions, i understand that you find the answers in christianity,otherwise,you shouldn't be believing in any religion.please,do share your findings.

when you say,our body is finished, everyone knows that, once died and buried it is lost forever, makes me believe that you know nothing about scince.there is a rule in physics that,forgive my english,nothing in this universe will go to nonexistance,they just change forms.Who said to you that your body will be lost forever?you will become something else but you will be around in a way.let me remind you,today,scientists work on 3.000 years old mummies and exemine their DNA's,finding relations between them.i once even read that,some are thinking about getting DNAs together and coloning mummies,they say it is impossible today but who knows what happens in the future.

so,dont worry about Allah's job.he promises it,then,he will make it.you should do your job and find the correct way.

take care.
 

Bawar

Struggling2Surrender
Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters!

I have a request from my dear muslims brothers and sisters.

If you do not know the answer to a question, please do not disrespect a person.
Let more knowledgeable brothers/sisters answer it.

Why do you ignore the command of Allah ta'ala who commands us to do dawah in a way that is best?

What is the point of calling ourselves muslims if we don't practice what we preach?

I am forced to mention names here. Dear sister um-mustafa, I dont think you have the ability to answer the questions put forward by brother Delta so you should apologise for what you said.

Wassalamu alaikum
 

um_mustafa

sister in Islam
Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters!

I have a request from my dear muslims brothers and sisters.

If you do not know the answer to a question, please do not disrespect a person.
Let more knowledgeable brothers/sisters answer it.

Why do you ignore the command of Allah ta'ala who commands us to do dawah in a way that is best?

What is the point of calling ourselves muslims if we don't practice what we preach?

I am forced to mention names here. Dear sister um-mustafa, I dont think you have the ability to answer the questions put forward by brother Delta so you should apologise for what you said.

Wassalamu alaikum

Salams Br,
below I willgive you the PM delta sent and you can judge , I can answer if I want to but I have found that he wants to convert us .

"Hi, um_mustafa

I'm intending to make people think by their own, you must not be afraid
to question Islam Faith. The truth is out there. You have the internet
why don't you make your own research trying to "defend" Islam and the
prophet against all the bad claims ?

I believe in God, but not in your Islam God and fables

I'm a Roman Catholic

I hope one day you could see what I see about Islam, but it is you who
must do that, not me

If you have any question about my religion I'm glad to answer

I wish you all the best"


I agree in dawah if the person wants to know with open mind , may be Allah Ta'la will guide him.
 

Delta

Banned
What a bad deed you made, mustafa, quoting private messages

But I'm not ashamed about anything I made or said, the bad deed is in your hands not in mine. As a catholic, I never did or will do such a lamentable thing you just made

I wish you all the best, to you and to all of you
 

Happy 2BA Muslim

Islamophilic
Salams Br,
below I willgive you the PM delta sent and you can judge , I can answer if I want to but I have found that he wants to convert us .

"Hi, um_mustafa

I'm intending to make people think by their own, you must not be afraid
to question Islam Faith. The truth is out there. You have the internet
why don't you make your own research trying to "defend" Islam and the
prophet against all the bad claims ?

I believe in God, but not in your Islam God and fables

I'm a Roman Catholic

I hope one day you could see what I see about Islam, but it is you who
must do that, not me

If you have any question about my religion I'm glad to answer

I wish you all the best"


I agree in dawah if the person wants to know with open mind , may be Allah Ta'la will guide him.

:salam2:

Jazakee Allahu khayran Sister for letting us know.

Delta, I think you should read the website rules again. If you want to preach, go somewhere else.
 

island muslim

Junior Member
Dear Delta,


It would have been better if you just made thread wishing for us to debate matters of beleif after properly introducing yourself as a Roman Catholic with firm beleifs in it, instead you have chosen a devious way of by making a thread about a totally another matter and choose to pm when people responded to your post.

Thanks.
 

Ibn_Syena

Peace...
What a bad deed you made, mustafa, quoting private messages

But I'm not ashamed about anything I made or said, the bad deed is in your hands not in mine. As a catholic, I never did or will do such a lamentable thing you just made

I wish you all the best, to you and to all of you

You'r right sister Um mustafa,
I think it was really just a waste of time :(:(:(
Alhamdulillah anyways.
I think I just did my best, and now it's up to him if he's gonna reject the CLEAR TRUTH.
And no, don't worry sister, you did the right thing, leting us know about his PLANS, just not to waste time again, so thank you, jazaky Allahu khyran.


Well, umm dear Delta, just a little word for you,
For me, I just can't imagine someone playing games or cheating, in order to convey a divine idea, weird and contradictory huh? If you'r searching for the truth and really willing to find it out, it'd be really our pleasure to help you, whether you become convinced or not. But if you'r trying to DEFEAT us, I'm telling you, you'll NEVER be able to. For there's no whatever question you may have or think of, there'r no both logic and wording answers for it in Islam, and I'm (as well as all brothers and sisters here) challenging you!

One last thing; just go and have a look, there'r so many reverted brothers and sisters overhere, mainly from your roman catholic sect, why don't you just go and ask them about their feelings now? about the peace they found in Islam and in submission to one might God? just open your heart brother and go with sincere intention of finding out the truth. May Allah enlighten your vision and guide your heart.

Peace be upon those who follow the right path


Muhammad
 

umm hussain

Junior Member
Forgive me Brother

but you can't use the "soul" artifact to justify anything, otherwise you will just accept Christians believes about 2 in 1 or 3 in 1.......whatever

you will just be one of them, and a Islam apostate

Do you want that ? be careful, because this is a big sin

hie

Believing that humans have a soul does not mean a person believes in trinity. You are obviously missing something. Muslims believe a person has a soul and that soul is taken out of your body when a person dies but we do not know what it looks like neither does any other human being and if they claim to have knowledge of what the soul looks like they are definitely liars.

A college degree does not equal intelligence. What good is a degree if someone cannot add 1+1+1 which is 3 by the way because trinity says 1+1+1=1 ???????????????????????????????. Where is the sense in this?

I was Catholic like you but started searching for the truth with an OPEN mind and praise be to Allah I found Islam hope you do so to. Your becoming Muslim only benefits you and not accepting the only true way only affects you especially in the hereafter.

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty.



The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"



If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

By the way Catholics do believe in life after death. I have heard about heaven and hell ever since Sunday School. Why not go and ask the Priest how people can live again in paradise after they are dead? That could be a starting point? Maybe before you try to understand Islam understand your religion first so that you are able to pick out what is wrong in it to help aid you in the search for the truth if that is what you are after.

Wish you all the best
 
Assalamu Aleikum Mohsin

Not God, because He Is

But humans once dead their existence is finished, they ended To Be

And if you believe in life after death then something from you must survive

It is pure logic, but I can't find any answer to this in the religion of Islam

Dear Delta,

I hope you are sincere and open minded. Only you and God knows best.

You seem to lack some basic knowledge of Islam. The answer to your question is simple. You do not have the same knowledge that God has!

It is God that created us and it is God to whom we return.

What is "pure logic"? Many scientists have reverted to Islam and have found the answers in the Quran.

Not a single leaf falls from a tree without Allah not knowing. You say "how"? Allah is the All-Knower. Read the 99 attributes of Allah. Our knowledge is limited in ways Gods is not.

Those whom Allah guides none can misguide those whom Allah lets go astray none can guide.

Furthermore for your own information (FYI):

Allah= Has no gender (not male and not female)
"He" is used only out of respect and dignity - not for gender
Allah = Always singular - Never plural
"We" is used only as the "Royal WE" just as in English for royalty
Allah =Means "The Only One to be Worshipped"
 

Mohsin

abdu'Allah
Well since now your intentions are known to us, let us try to answer your question your way. You as a Catholic should have heard about the Sadducees and you must have heard about the rejection of life after death or resurrection.
Few points to clear your doubts on this issue. The issue of doubting bodily resurrection is not new and though many Jews now claim that resurrection is not the orthodox view, this is not the orthodox position.
Biblical References to the Afterlife

Some scholars claim that belief in the afterlife is a teaching that developed late in Jewish history. It is true that the Torah emphasizes immediate, concrete, physical rewards and punishments rather than abstract future ones. See, for example, Lev. 26:3-9 and Deut. 11:13-15. However, there is clear evidence in the Torah of belief in existence after death. The Torah indicates in several places that the righteous will be reunited with their loved ones after death, while the wicked will be excluded from this reunion.
The Torah speaks of several noteworthy people being "gathered to their people." See, for example, Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah). This gathering is described as a separate event from the physical death of the body or the burial.
Certain sins are punished by the sinner being "cut off from his people." See, for example, Gen. 17:14 and Ex. 31:14. This punishment is referred to as kareit (kah-REHYT) (literally, "cutting off," but usually translated as "spiritual excision"), and it means that the soul loses its portion in the World to Come.
Later portions of the Tanakh speak more clearly of life after death and the World to Come. See Dan. 12:2, Neh. 9:5.

Resurrection and Reincarnation

Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses. Belief in resurrection of the dead is one of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith. The second blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, which is recited three times daily, contains several references to resurrection. (Note: the Reform movement, which apparently rejects this belief, has rewritten the second blessing accordingly).
Source

Now even the historians tell us that at the time of Jesus (PBUH) a group of people rejected this and a good example can be taken of Nicodemus. He seems so confused about this issue.
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(John:3)
You should know that not only Muslims but Orthodox Jews and many Christians beleive in bodily ressurection. Now it is a matter of faith that how it will happen. Just wait and watch we will all be gathered there and all our doubts will be cleared, inshaAllah.

[وَقَالُواْ مَا هِىَ إِلاَّ حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَآ إِلاَّ الدَّهْرُ وَمَا لَهُمْ بِذَلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَظُنُّونَ - وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ ءَايَـتُنَا بَيِّنَـتٍ مَّا كَانَ حُجَّتَهُمْ إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ ائْتُواْ بِـَابَآئِنَآ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـدِقِينَ - قُلِ اللَّهُ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يَجْمَعُكُمْ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَـمَةِ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ وَلَـكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ]
(24. And they say: "There is nothing but our life of this world, we die and we live and nothing destroys us except Ad-Dahr (time). And they have no knowledge of it, they only presume.) (25. And when Our Clear Ayat are recited to them, their argument is no other than that they say: "Bring back our (dead) fathers, if you are truthful!'') (26. Say (to them): "Allah gives you life, then causes you to die, then He will assemble you on the Day of Resurrection about which there is no doubt. But most of mankind know not.'')


Allah mentions here the creed of Ad-Dahriyyah and the Arab idolators who embraced their creed, denying Resurrection,

[وَقَالُواْ مَا هِىَ إِلاَّ حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا]

(And they say: "There is nothing but our life of this world, we die and we live....'') They say that there is only this life, some people die while others are born to life, without Resurrection or Judgement. This was the creed of Arab idolators who used to deny Resurrection, in addition to, the creed of the atheist philosophers among them who denied the creation and Resurrection. This was also the statement of atheist philosophers who deny the Creator and think that the world will return to its original form once every thirty--six thousand years, when everything will restart its life--cycle again! They claim that this cycle was repeated for infinity, thus contradicting the sound reason and the divine revelation. They said,

[وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَآ إِلاَّ الدَّهْرُ]

(and nothing destroys us except Ad-Dahr (time).) Allah the Exalted said in reply,

[وَمَا لَهُمْ بِذَلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَظُنُّونَ]
(And they have no knowledge of it, they only presume.) they speculate and guess!


[إِنَّهُمْ يَرَوْنَهُ بَعِيداً - وَنَرَاهُ قَرِيباً ]

(Verily, they see it afar off. But We see it (quite) near.) (70:6), they discount the possibility that Resurrection will ever come, while the believers believe that its occurrence is easy and imminent.


[وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ وَيَوْمَ تَقُومُ السَّاَعةُ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَخْسَرُ الْمُبْطِلُونَ - وَتَرَى كُلَّ أُمَّةٍ جَاثِيَةً كُلُّ أمَّةٍ تُدْعَى إِلَى كِتَـبِهَا الْيَوْمَ تُجْزَوْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ - هَـذَا كِتَـبُنَا يَنطِقُ عَلَيْكُم بِالْحَقِّ إِنَّا كُنَّا نَسْتَنسِخُ مَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ ]
(27. And to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And on the Day that the Hour will be established -- on that Day the followers of falsehood shall lose.) (28. And you will see each nation humbled to their knees (Jathiyah), each nation will be called to its Record (of deeds). This Day you shall be recompensed for what you used to do.) (29. This Our Record speaks about you with truth. Verily, We were recording what you used to do.)
 

al-fajr

...ism..schism
Staff member
alpha beta gamma delta :D

:rolleyes:
What a bad deed you made, mustafa, quoting private messages

But I'm not ashamed about anything I made or said, the bad deed is in your hands not in mine. As a catholic, I never did or will do such a lamentable thing you just made

I wish you all the best, to you and to all of you

You dont have to run away you know ...im enjoying this thread, a lot of the stuff is very interesting and is being posted thanks to your ever so enquiring mind :D
 

Bawar

Struggling2Surrender
My sincere apologies

Assalamu alaikum dear sister umm-mustafa!

I sincerely apologise for what I said. How would I know. I thought Delta was here with pure heart to truly learn something, not to do his own dawah, but now I know what the score is and that is why I apologise.

I learned a lesson so I will be more careful next time.

As for you dear Delta, I have two things to say.

If you want to do dawah to your faith, you should do it at your own forum when people visit you for guidence. This forum is for doing dawah to Islam and that is what i thought you were here for, to learn about islam.

Secondly, you should not be doing one thing secretly and another openly. Secretly you are inviting memebers of this forum to Christianity while openly you are coming across as if you have genuine questions and seek answers.

So sister umm-mustafa did the right thing to expose your intentions. You should not use wicked ways in order to do something holy.

No intentions to offend you this is just my honest opinion.

Peace be on those who seek guidence
 

um_mustafa

sister in Islam
Walikum salam, Brother Bawar, it is no problem , your intentions were pure, and we can all learn from this inshallah , may Allah Ta'la guide us all .
 

Delta

Banned
just open your heart brother and go with sincere intention of finding out the truth.

First I never, never, disrespected anyone like what mustafa did to me, violating my privacy. Shame on you. But that is some kind of behavior that you must justify including your prophet behavior bellow

Second I never lied, never said I was a muslim or christian, was you who made that conclusion

Third :

John, 18-38.
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth ? ...

Strange truth you have, for me is just a big shame and I can't even imagine this type of a behavior because I have little children. Keep your prophet for you, this is not my type of God.



Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=7688

and this :

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 142.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.142

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4814&doc=0&IMAGE=%DA%D1%D6+%C7%E1%CD%CF%ED%CB
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
First I never, never, disrespected anyone like what mustafa did to me, violating my privacy. Shame on you. But that is some kind of behavior that you must justify including your prophet behavior bellow

John, 18-38.
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth ? ...

Strange truth you have, for me is just a big shame and I can't even imagine this type of a behavior because I have little children. Keep your prophet for you, this is not my type of God.



Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=7688

and this :

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 142.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.142

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4814&doc=0&IMAGE=%DA%D1%D6+%C7%E1%CD%CF%ED%CB
:salam2:good evening,

Here is a little article about the trinity that i d like to share with you if you don t mind,it is more of a historical analysis about the origin and the eventual development of the trinity dogma.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

by Cher-El L. Hagensick



The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.



The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1



Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and the ‘King of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures’ (316).



Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day’ (16).



Egypt’s history is similar to Sumeria’s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a ‘transcendental, above creation, and preexisting’ one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were ‘combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity’ (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: ‘All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah’ (Hornung 219).



Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that ‘from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity...’ (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that ‘the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus’ probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential ‘in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds’ (128-129).



These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans,’ and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it’ (Caesar 595).



Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church’s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, ‘Dies irae,’ which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of ‘David and the Sibyl”(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great’s words to a missionary: ‘You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity’ (qtd. in Laing 130).



In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).



We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.



The word ‘trinity’ was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christ’s death, and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned. According to Pelikan, ‘One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)



If the Trinity did not originate with the Bible, where did it come from? To find the origins of the Trinity in Christianity, we need to take a look at the circumstances in which early Christians found themselves.



Even the Church of the Apostles’ day was far from unified. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that ‘the mystery of iniquity doth already work’.{# 2Th 2:7} Throughout his book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, the German New Testament scholar, lexicographer, and early Church historian, Walter Bauer, effectively proves that many early Christians were influenced by gnosticism. He believes it possible that certain ‘[heresies recorded by early Christian Fathers] originally had not been such at all, but, at least here and there...were simply ‘Christianity”(xxii). Bauer goes even further, as he proves that early Christians in Edessa appear to have been followers of the Marcion’s beliefs (considered heretical today), with ‘orthodox’ views being so strongly in the minority that ‘Christian’ referred to one with Marcion’s beliefs, and ‘Palutian’ to one with ‘orthodox’ (by today’s standards) beliefs (21-38). In his work The Greek Fathers, James Marshall Campbell, a Greek professor, bears out the great fear of gnosticism prevalent in the early church.



With Gnosticism being so predominant in this early period, it behooves one to learn what they believed, for many early church writings were defenses against gnosticism. Gnosticism borrowed much of its philosophy and religion from Mithraism, oriental mysticism, astrology, magic, and Plato. It considered matter to be evil and in opposition to Deity, relied heavily on visions, and sought salvation through knowledge. The late Professor Arthur Cushman McGiffert interprets some of the early Christian fathers as believing the Gnosticism to be ‘identical to [sic] all intents and purposes with Greek polytheism’ (50). Gnosticism had a mixed influence on the early Christian writers: like the pendulum on a clock, some were influenced by Gnostic thought, while others swung to the opposite extreme.



Knowledge was also the desire of the Greek philosophers. We owe a lot to these sages of old. J. N. D. Kelly, lecturer and principal at St. Edward Hall, Oxford University, states that ‘[the concepts of philosophy] provided thinkers... with an intellectual framework for expressing their ideas’ (9) to the extent that it became the ‘deeper religion of most intelligent people’ (9). The eminent theologian Adolf Harnack considered Greek philosophy and culture to be factors in the formation of the ‘ecclesiastical mode of thought’ (1: 127). According to McGiffert, the concepts of philosophy prevalent during the time of the early church were Stoicism, which was ‘ethical in its interests and monistic in its ontology’ and Platonism, which was ‘dualistic and predominately religious’ (46).



That these philosophies affected Christianity is a historical fact. What did these philosophers teach about God? In Plato’s Timeus, ‘The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul’ (qtd. in Laing 129). Laing attributes elaborate trinitarian theories to the Neoplatonists, and considers Neoplatonic ideas as ‘one of the operative factors in the development of Christian theology’ (129).



Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from Greek philosophy? No. However, in a comparison between the church of the third century and that of 150-200 years before, the noted German theologian, Adolf Harnack, finds ‘few Jewish, but many Greco-Roman features, and... the philosophic spirit of the Greeks’ (1: 45). In addition, Durant ties in philosophy with Christianity when he states that the second century Alexandrian Church, from which both Clement and Origen came, ‘wedded Christianity to Greek philosophy’ (Caesar 613); and finally, Durant writes of the famed pagan philosopher, Plotinus, that ‘Christianity accepted nearly every line of him...’ (Caesar 611).



World conditions were hardly conducive to the foundation of a new and different religion. Pagan gods were still the gods of the state, and the Roman government was very superstitious. All calamities were considered the displeasure of the gods. When the dissolute Roman government began to crumble, it was not seen as a result of corruption within, but as the anger of the gods; and thus there were strong persecutions against Christians to placate these gods.



In such a time was Christianity born. On one side were persecutions; on the other the seduction of philosophy. To remain faithful to the belief of Jesus Christ meant hardship and ridicule. It was only for the simple poor and the rich in faith. It was a hard time to convert to Christianity from the relatively safer paganism. In the desire to grow, the Church compromised truth, which resulted in confusion as pagans became Christians and intermingled beliefs and traditions. In his Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Pelikan discusses the conflict in the Church after AD 70 and the decline of Judaic influence within Christianity. As more and more pagans came into Christianity, they found the Judaic influence offensive. Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament (13-14).



With this background, the growth and evolution of the Trinity can be clearly seen. As previously stated, the Bible does not mention the Trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah, and after his resurrection he was ‘raised to the right hand of God’ but not considered as God (1: 78). Bernard Lonergan, a Roman Catholic priest and Bible scholar, concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in a single, supreme God (119). As for the holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that early Christians considered the holy Spirit ‘not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the church’ (111). Durant summarizes early Christianity thus: ‘In Christ and Peter, Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman’ (Caesar 579).



As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions of the pagans. The writers of these ‘Apologies’ are known to us now as the ‘Apologists’. Pelikan states that ‘it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism’ (Emergence 30). Campbell agrees when he states that ‘the Apologists borrowed heavily, and at times inappropriately, from the pagan resources at hand’ (23). They began the ‘process of accommodation’ between Christianity and common philosophy, and used reason to ‘justify Christianity to the pagan world’ (22-23).



The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek philosophy were related. As for the Trinity, McGiffert asserts, ‘Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God’ (107). Justin’s God was ‘a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things’ (107).



Not only was the Church divided by Gnosticism, enticed by philosophy, and set upon by paganism, but there was a geographic division as well. The East (centered in Alexandria) and the West (centered in Rome) grew along two different lines. Kelly shows how the East was intellectually adventurous and speculative (4), a reflection of the surrounding Greek culture. The theological development of the East is best represented in Clement and Origen.



Clement of Alexandria (c.150-220) was from the ‘Catechetical School’ of Alexandria. His views were influenced by Gnosticism (Bauer 56-57), and McGiffert affirms, ‘Clement insists that philosophy came from God and was given to the Greeks as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ as the law was a schoolmaster for the Hebrews’ (183). McGiffert further states that Clement considered ‘God the Father revealed in the Old Testament’ separate and distinct from the ‘Son of God incarnate in Christ,’ with whom he identified the Logos (206). Campbell summarizes that ‘[with Clement the] philosophic spirit enters frankly into the service of Christian doctrine, and with it begins... the theological science of the future’ (36). However, it was his student, Origen, who ‘achieved the union of Greek philosophy and Christianity’ (39).



Origen (c.185-253) is considered by Campbell to be the ‘founder of theology’ (41), the greatest scholar of the early church and the greatest theologian of the East (38). Durant adds that ‘with [Origen] Christianity ceased to be only a comforting faith; it became a full-fledged philosophy, buttressed with scripture but proudly resting on reason’ (Caesar 615). Origen was a brilliant man. At 18 he succeeded Clement as president of the Alexandrian school. Over 800 titles were attributed to him by Jerome. He traveled extensively and started a new school in Cesarea.



In Origen we find an important link in the changing view of God. According to Pelikan’s Historical Theology, Origen was the ‘teacher of such orthodox stalwarts as the Cappadocian Fathers’ (22) but also the ‘teacher of Arius’ (22) and the ‘originator of many heresies’ (22). Centuries after his death, he was condemned by councils at least five times; however, both Athanasius and Eusebius had great respect for him.



As he tried to reckon the ‘incomprehensible God’ with both Stoic and Platonic philosophy, Origen presented views that could support both sides of the Trinity argument. He believed the Father and Son were separate ‘in respect of hypostasis’ (substance), but ‘one by harmony and concord and identity of will’ (qtd. in Lonergan 56). He claimed the Son was the image of God.



In the way in which, according to the bible story, we say that Seth is the image of his father, Adam. For thus it is written: ‘And Adam begot Seth according to his own image and likeness.’ Image, in this sense, implies that the Father and the Son have the same nature and substance. (qtd. in Lonergan 58)



He also maintained that there was a difference between the God and God when he said ‘_ß _&hibar; 2, __is indeed the God [God himself].... Whatever else, other than him who is called _ß _&hibar; 2, __, is also God, is deified by participation, by sharing in his divinity, and is more properly to be called not the God but simply God’ (qtd. in Lonergan 61).



As Greek influence and Gnosticism became introduced into the Eastern church, it became more mystical and philosophical. The simple doctrines that Jesus taught to the uneducated gave way to the complex and sophisticated arguments of Origen.



As Clement and Origen represented theological development in the East, so Tertullian had tremendous influence in the West. Kelly explains that the West, centered in Rome, gave greater credence to the traditional role of faith than to philosophy, and was more apt to expound on scripture (4).



It was Tertullian (c.160-230) who first coined the term trinitas from which the English word ‘trinity’ is derived. He clarifies thus the ‘mystery of the divine economy... which of the unity makes a trinity, placing the three in order not of quality but of sequence, different not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in manifestation’ (qtd. in Lonergan 46). At other times he used other images to show his point, such as the monarchy: ‘... If he who is the monarch has a son, and if the son is given a share in the monarchy, this does not mean that the monarchy is automatically divided, ceasing to be a monarchy’ (qtd. in Lonergan 47). Again, Tertullian explains the concept of being brought forth: ‘As the root brings forth the shoot, as the spring brings forth the stream, as the sun brings forth the beam’ (qtd. in Lonergan 45).



Tertullian did not consider the Father and Son co-eternal: ‘There was a time when there was neither sin to make God a judge, nor a son to make God a Father’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48); nor did he consider them co-equal: ‘For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48). In Tertullian we find a groundwork upon which a trinity concept can be founded, but it has not yet evolved into that trinity of the Nicene Creed.



The world around the early Church was changing. The Roman empire began to crumble and Constantine came to power. He wished to unify the Empire, and chose Christianity to do so. But Christianity was far from unified.



Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small seaside village of Nicea for a council to unify the church. McGiffert summarizes the council: three main groups were present at this council: Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the Trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version, and a very large ‘middle party’ led by Eusebius of Cesarea whose various theological opinions did not interfere with their desire for peace (259). Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted the Arian creed first and it was rejected. Then Eusebius of Cesarea submitted the Cesarean baptismal creed. Instead of submitting a creed of their own, the anti-Arians modified Eusebius’, thereby compelling him to sign it and completely shutting the Arians out. Those Arians who did not sign were deposed and exiled (261-263).



Thus Constantine had his unified Church which was not very unified. McGiffert asserts that Eusebius of Cesarea was not altogether satisfied with the creed because it was too close to Sabellianism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three aspects of one God). Eusebius was uncomfortable enough with the Nicene creed that he felt it expedient to justify himself to his own people in a long letter in which he states that he ‘resisted even to the last minute’ until the words were examined and it was explained that the words ‘did not mean all they seemed to mean but were intended simply to assert the real deity of the Son...’ (264-265). McGiffert goes on to show that a ‘double interpretation [was authorized by the leaders] in order to win Eusebius and his followers.’ (266).



Lonergan shows just how much of the creed Eusebius took exception to as the words were explained. ‘Out of the Father’s substance’ was now interpreted to show that the Son is ‘out of the Father’, but ‘not part of the Father’s substance.’ ‘Born not made’ because ‘made’ refers to all other creatures ‘which come into being through the Son’, and ‘consubstantial’ really means that the Son comes out of the Father and is like him (75). It is clear that the council strongly lacked unity of thought. Lonergan goes on to explain that the language of debate on the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son has made many people think that the ‘Church at Nicea had abandoned the genuine Christian doctrine, which was religious through and through, in order to embrace some sort of hellenistic ontology’ (128). He concludes that the Nicene dogma marked the ‘transition from the prophetic Oracle of Yahweh... to Catholic dogma’ (136-7).



The end result was far less than Constantine had hoped. That he personally was never truly swayed to Athanasius’ views is amply shown by Durant: Constantine invited Arius to a conference six years later; did not interfere with Athanasius’ expulsion by the Eastern bishops; had an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, baptize him; and had his son and successor, Constantius, raised as an Arian (Age 7-8).



The Nicene was not a popular creed when it was signed. Durant affirms that the majority of Eastern bishops sided with Arius in that they believed Christ was the Son of God ‘neither consubstantial nor co-eternal’ with his Father (Age 7). Arianism has never been truly quenched. While the West accepted the Athanasian view of the Trinity, and the East accepted the Trinity of the Cappadocian fathers, Arianism lives on in the Unitarian Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in many smaller religions.



There is an unfortunate side to the whole Athanasian/Arian debate. Campbell could find no parallel in medieval nor modern times in the intensity of debate (49). Historically, this ‘doctrine of God’ has proved to be a bloody doctrine that has no relation to the true God of love, nor His Son Jesus Christ. Durant details the problems that arose from the Council at Nicea and summarizes that period with a dreadful verdict: ‘Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome’ (Age 8). Thus they perverted the teachings of Christ: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’,{# Mt 19:19} and of his apostles: ‘If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us’.{# 1Jo 4:12}



The evolution of the Trinity can be well seen in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.2 As each of the creeds became more wordy and convoluted, the simple, pure faith of the Apostolic church became lost in a haze. Even more interesting is the fact that as the creeds became more specific (and less scriptural) the adherence to them became stricter, and the penalty for disbelief harsher.



In summary, the common culture of the day was one filled with triune gods. From ancient Sumeria’s Anu, Enlil, and Enki and Egypt’s dual trinities of Amun-Re-Ptah and Isis, Osiris, and Horus to Rome’s Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva the whole concept of paganism revolved around the magic number of three. In Greek philosophy, also, we have seen how the number three was used as an unspecified trinity of intelligence, mind, and reason.



In stark contrast, is the simple oneness of the Hebrew God. Jesus was a Jew from the tribe of Judah. He claimed to be sent to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’.{# Mt 15:24} His apostles were all Jews. His god was the Jewish God. He called himself the Son of God and acknowledged his role as the Christ, {#Mt 16:15-17} and the Messiah. {#Joh 4:25-26} His message was one of love, righteousness, and salvation, and he despised the religious dogma of tradition. What a contrast from the proceedings of the Council of Nicea and the murders that followed! He gave the good news of his coming kingdom to the poor and meek: the lowly of this world. He did not require dogmatic creeds that had to be believed to the word, but rather said, ‘Follow me’.{# Mt 9:9}



There can be no doubt: Jesus was a stranger to all sides of the political proceedings in Nicea. He never claimed to be God, but was content to be God’s son. His creed was not of words that must be followed to the letter, but rather of spirit: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’.{# Mt 4:8} He did not require wealthy and learned bishops to mingle philosophy and pagan polytheism with his simple truth, but blessed the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’.{# Mt 4:1-12} No, it was not from Jesus that the dogma of the Trinity came.



Is this positive proof that the Trinity owes it origins to paganism and philosophy? The evidences of history leave little doubt. The concept of the Trinity finds its roots in Pagan theology and Greek philosophy: it is a stranger to the Jewish Jesus and the Hebrew people from which he sprang.



Reference Notes



1. Hislop devotes the first 128 pages of his book The Two Babylons to proving that the Christian Trinity is directly descended from the ancient Babylonian trinity. In particular, he convincingly proves that the origin of the Babylonian trinity was the triad of Cush (the grandson of Noah), Semiramis (his wife), and Nimrod (their son). At the death of Cush, Semiramis married her son, Nimrod, and thus began the confusion between the father and son so prevalent in early paganism.



It is interesting to note that the Gnostics considered the Holy Spirit to be the ‘motherly mystery of God,’ based on its attributes. It is also interesting to note that a modern controversy wants to bring back the feminine side of the Trinity by making the Holy Spirit feminine. (This is a very weak argument based on the attributes of the Holy Spirit as Paraklete (comforter) and the fact that, in Hebrew grammar, the word for spirit, Ruach, is feminine.)



2. The three most famous Christian creeds are the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian (or Trinitarian). The words of these three creeds show us a lot about the evolution of the Trinitarian theology. The creeds are printed below as translated in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and quoted in pages 18-20 of an unpublished work by Bible Scholar, Eugene Burns.



The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed was the creed used during the first two centuries AD. It was not written by the Apostles, though it bears their name:



I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:



And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:



I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.



The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed, as commonly used today, is a revision of the original creed signed at Nicea in 325 AD. It was revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381.



I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.



And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.



And I believe in the Holy Ghost, (the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son); who is with the Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets).



And I believe [in] one catholic and apostlic [sic] church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.



The Athanasian, or Trinitarian creed was probably written sometime in the fifth century. Although it bears the name of Athanasius, it was not written by him.



Whosoever [sic] will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.



And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.



Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.



Works Cited



Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Trans. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins. Ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1979.



The Bible.



Burns, Eugene. The Doctrine of Christ. np



Campbell, James Marshall. The Greek Fathers. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.



Carter, Jesse Benedict. The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: A Study in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from the Foundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1972.



Durant, Will. Our Oriental Heritage. New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.



—Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.



—The Age of Faith. New York: Simon. 1950. Vol. 4 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.



Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity.



Philadelphia: Westminster P. 1972.



Harnack, Adolf. History of Dogma. Trans. Neil Buchanan. 3rd German ed. 3 vols. New York: Dover. 1961.



Hart, George. Egyptian Myths. Austin: U of Texas. 1990.



Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship. 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.



Hooke, S. H. Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. Norman: U of Oklahoma P. c1963.



Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.



Isaiah. Ed. A. Cohen. Rev ed. London: Soncino P. 1983.



Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper. 1959



Laing, Gordon Jennings. Survivals of Roman Religion. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.



Lonergan, Bernard. The Way to Nicea: The Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology. Trans. Conn O’Donovan. Philadelphia: Westminster P. 1976. Trans. Of De Deo Trino. Rome: Gregorian UP. 1964. 17-112



McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1. New York: Scribner’s. 1932.



Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 5 vols.



—Historical Theology: Continuity and Change in Christian Doctrine. New York: Corpus. 1971.



Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. New York: New American Library. 1968.



The Soncino Chumash. Ed A. Cohen. 2nd ed. London: Soncino P. 1983.

ps. Anways dear delta this is not the right place for you to debate,moreover it is a website to learn and discover really the basics of Islam most of the time for newbies,so i would kindly remind you t stick to the sites rules,if you wich to debate these issues there are tons of websites over there,who are engaged in this type of activity to your satisfaction inshallah
peace be with you catch you later inshallah
jameel
 

ShyHijabi

Junior Member
Salaam,

I find it humourous that Delta accuses Umm Mustafa of doing a bad deed when all she did was post a PM. If he was truthful and not deceitful then he would have no anger/shame in his PM being posted. I've locked horns with this character in the past and he is not interested in learning about Islam, as shown by his actions.

He comes here to create fitna and argue and try to convert others to Christianity. The word "trinity" doesn't even exist in the Christian bible. The idea of trinity didn't exist until the Nicean council came together and VOTED on the divinity of Jesus. (pbuh) That's right, the person the Christians worship as God is because of a vote. The Roman Catholics pray to dead people (saints), to Mary (ra) invoking her intercession, and confess thier sins to a sinful human. (preist) They commit so many levels of shirk it's not even funny.

We worship the One True God, and he calls it a fable. And his practice of religion is based more off tradition than even his holy scriptures. The Catholics say that the decrees from the pope are perfect and unquestionable, shirk! A human...a filthy, sinful human...they treat his words as the words of God. He is slick and cunning, comong on here pretending to be interested when all he wnts to do is spread his own agenda. Beware my brothers and sisters of this wolf in sheeps clothing.

Wasalaam

~Sarah
 

Delta

Banned
I find it humourous that Delta accuses Umm Mustafa of doing a bad deed when all she did was post a PM.

What she did was violating my privacy posting my reply to his question, this one :

waste of time
i meant you are the waste of time because you are intent on wasting other peoples time , with a lot of talk that does not make sense I hope you can be guided

Or did you thought that was I who made the first contact ? but he can lie, for now on I will expect everything

I replied and he did what he did, disrespecting my privacy, but if you agree with this ... great, who am I to discuss your muslim ethics ?
 
Top