Egypt blogger jailed for 'insult'

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Actually, it is the same God....the One Creator. Not all Christians believe in the Trinity because this idea came later.....well after the life of Jesus. The idea of the Trinity was added to later versions of the Bible....it was not included in the original Biblical text. That is why Jewish, Muslim, and many Christians do not believe in the Trinity....but they still share the belief of having 1 God.

As I mentioned above, you completely missed Scott's point.

[m&n 0]

n Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While the "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text - that is, not the actual words of Jesus - as can be seen by two factors:

1) Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and

2) The "Great Commission" was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost - see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

THE DOCTRINE TAKES SHAPE

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son

does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

A FORMAL DOCTRINE IS DRAWN UP

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

THE CHURCH PUTS ITS FOOT DOWN

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

DEBATE CONTINUES

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus:

"...Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

(Luke 4:8)

ISLAM AND THE MATTER OF THE TRINITY

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam.

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses

three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:17) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)

"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:

"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92)

[Saddle Bronc 124]

m&n, read post #34!

[Bosco 1]

Criticizing a president.....especially the characters running the world these days......is completely different than criticizing a Prophet in a cartoon.

Notes:

• Only Muslims consider Muhammad as "prophet" (not recognised this way even by Mormons, or Hindus)
  
• To date, no Muslim has protested about the blasphemies made against Jesus (such as "Last Temptation...")
  
• Muhammad is dead, grave still occupied
  
• If you think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (both considered as LDS "prophets") are not criticised (even in US), you would be totally wrong
  

So why is criticising the long-buried "prophet" of one religion, in a country where that religion is NOT in a majority (and is also NOT where the majority of that religion live), wrong?

You are incorrect. Muslims have protested against blasphemies made against Jesus, although certainly not on the scale it was done in response to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The play "Corpus Christi" comes to mind. It depicted Jesus as a homosexual. Muslims were outraged and there was a fatwa issued by UK's Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed calling out the playwright for blasphemy.

Muslims also joined in Da Vinci code protests in India, Pakistan and other countries because of its portrayal of Jesus. The film was banned in Pakistan.

And there have been issues with Passion of the Christ and even Prince of Egypt in Muslim countries.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Bosco

[peezey 0]

[*]To date, no Muslim has protested about the blasphemies made against Jesus (such as "Last Temptation...")

So why is criticising the long-buried "prophet" of one religion, in a country where that religion is NOT in a majority (and is also NOT where the majority of that religion live), wrong?

passion plays/movies are blasphemy?

[m&n 0]

If they wanted to, a muslim would protest about any blashemy made to any of the prophets sent to Earth by God.....Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David, Jesus, Muhammad.....and the many others. I do not understand what you mean when you say that "Muhammad is dead, grave still occupied"......yes, he did die.

Criticizing a president.....especially the characters running the world these days......is completely different than criticizing a Prophet in a cartoon.

Notes:

• Only Muslims consider Muhammad as "prophet" (not recognised this way even by Mormons, or Hindus)
  
• To date, no Muslim has protested about the blasphemies made against Jesus (such as "Last Temptation...")
  
• Muhammad is dead, grave still occupied
  
• If you think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (both considered as LDS "prophets") are not criticised (even in US), you would be totally wrong
  

So why is criticising the long-buried "prophet" of one religion, in a country where that religion is NOT in a majority (and is also NOT where the majority of that religion live), wrong?

You are incorrect. Muslims have protested against blasphemies made against Jesus, although certainly not on the scale it was done in response to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The play "Corpus Christi" comes to mind. It depicted Jesus as a homosexual. Muslims were outraged and there was a fatwa issued by UK's Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed calling out the playwright for blasphemy.

Muslims also joined in Da Vinci code protests in India, Pakistan and other countries because of its portrayal of Jesus. The film was banned in Pakistan.

And there have been issues with Passion of the Christ and even Prince of Egypt in Muslim countries.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

For both Bosco and m&n, also, read post #39 (my earlier mention of #34 was a typo)

[Jenn! 918]

For both Bosco and m&n, also, read post #39 (my earlier mention of #34 was a typo)

I believe this is an issue of debate, and not so cut and dried as you've presented it.

Edited February 23, 2007 by jenn3539

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Criticizing a president.....especially the characters running the world these days......is completely different than criticizing a Prophet in a cartoon.

Notes:

• Only Muslims consider Muhammad as "prophet" (not recognised this way even by Mormons, or Hindus)
  
• To date, no Muslim has protested about the blasphemies made against Jesus (such as "Last Temptation...")
  
• Muhammad is dead, grave still occupied
  
• If you think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (both considered as LDS "prophets") are not criticised (even in US), you would be totally wrong
  

So why is criticising the long-buried "prophet" of one religion, in a country where that religion is NOT in a majority (and is also NOT where the majority of that religion live), wrong?

you just had to bring up the pesky details, eh?

[peezey 0]

For both Bosco and m&n, also, read post #39 (my earlier mention of #34 was a typo)

Can you explain the relevance of post 39 in regards to the comment you made that Muslims don't protest blasphemous depictions of Jesus, and so Bosco gave you examples that refute your claim?

Edited February 23, 2007 by peezey

[Bosco 1]

There is only 1 God. The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim people believe in the same One God but have differed with regards to other things.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one God, but it doesn't follow that it is the same God. Christians believe that the one God is three Persons -- The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God in the flesh; fully Man and fully God. Islam explicitly denies both the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Therefore, in spite of them both being monotheistic, Islam and Christianity simply do not believe in the same God.

Also, (and m&n would be well-advised to take note): Arya Samaj Hindus are also monotheistic, and hate idols--but they have no more connection with the Biblical God than the Vedas (which they use as their basis, disregarding the Puranas, etc.) have with the Bible.

(Arya Samaj is heavily represented in RSS/VHP/BJP top-cadres, though most of these are NOT educated in the Samaj's "DAV" system)

For Dean: Jews believe in the same God (as Christians), and even implicitly in the trinity:

• (Gen 1:26 And God said "Let US make man in OUR image..."
  
• Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, THREE men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door...
  
• Lots of mentions of "Angel of the Lord", which many Gentile Christians (and Messianic Jews) believe to be a preincarnate appearance of Jesus[/url]
  

Jenn is right on when she says this is an issue for debate...

This website has quite a different take on the use of "our".

Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and Isa 6:8 are scriptures rarely used in this day to support the theory of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, and ordinarily, not used by one who is truly aware theologically for the reasons depicted below

And sums it up:

4. To write anything else into this scripture regarding the composition of God’s internal being based upon his use of a plural pronoun in referring to Himself, alone, or based upon the use of the Hebrew uni-plural noun in reference to God and other reverential beings, real or unreal, is pure speculation and borders upon reckless arrogance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While being jailed for free speech is obviously abhorrent, I'm wondering if it would be less offensive if it had taken place in a non middle-eastern country like China, where a good few people were indifferent to US IT companies setting up shop to help the communist government to broadly censor the Chinese public.

Edited February 24, 2007 by erekose

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

God is a lie and anyone who claims to be his prophet is a lying d1ck.

[Fandango 1,439]

God is a lie and anyone who claims to be his prophet is a lying d1ck.

God is no lie, now go sit in the corner for 15 minutes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]