What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
My third rebuttal to Answering Islam's rebuttals:
It appears to me that Quennel Gale is playing a dirty trick with the reader. He is trying to make this discussion go too long in time and in length of material to bury some of his weak points. He seems to try to cut and paste too much material from other web sites to make his argument look very powerful in appearance. He still uses his bad attitude and language when he presents his points.
Well, he had failed to answer a very fundamental question that no Christian in this world was able to answer:
Since the time of the creation of Adam which existed probably billions of years ago, why the concept of Trinity (God is three parts united together) was not born till 150 to 300 years after the disappearance of Jesus peace be upon him? The concept of Trinity is now the dominant among Christians. How come this domination did not exist billions of years ago with the other GOD's valid and divine non-Christian religions before Christianity ever came to existence?
So how many gods got mad at Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit? The One True Living Undivided Allah Almighty GOD, or the three gods altogether? and if only one of the three got mad at Adam and kicked him and his wife out of paradise, then did he ask for the opinion of the other two gods? or did he just do it on his own? did the other two gods agree to kick Adam and Eve out of Heaven? or did they just swallow it and let it go this time?
You can't say that they were all acting in One when GOD Almighty was talking to Adam peace be upon him, because according to the Trinity belief, Jesus was one god of the three gods. He was on earth all by himself. And he got crucified all by himself. So this proves that according to Trinity, these 3 gods are 3 separate entities. Otherwise, Jesus and the other two gods would have been altogether preaching during the time of Jesus. Jesus also said that he will sit next to the Father (god number 1) in heaven. So he is a separate entity. To further prove that those 3 gods are three separate entities, Trinitarians believe that the "Comforter" whom Jesus promised to come after him was the "Holy Spirit". So god number 2 (Jesus) came first and left, and then god number 3 (Holy Spirit) came after to the disciples. I wonder if god number 2 and 3 can will things on their own, and create things on their own? And if they can't, then what qualifications they have that make them be part of GOD?
Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran about Jesus peace be upon him: "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. (The Noble Quran, 3:59)"
I invite the Answering Islam team to answer the following questions:
Why have all the Prophets before and after Jesus peace be upon all of them (including Jesus himself, but Trinitarians don't accept this fact) such as Noah, Lot, David, Moses, Jonah, Job, etc... all the way to Muhammad had all preached that GOD Almighty is One Living Undivided GOD?
If Trinity is such a POWERFUL belief in the Old Testament of the Bible, then how come Judaism was never found and until now is still not based on this belief of Trinity; that GOD Almighty is three gods united into One?
The Jewish response to Trinity:
Anyway, as I did invite the members of Answering Islam to respond to ALL OF MY POINTS, I still have not received any response from this Quennel Gale who writes too much (with very bad and rude language) and presents too little quality.
I would like for him to respond to the Jewish resources about Trinity being a DOMINATING belief in the Old Testament that I already presented in my first rebuttal to him which he didn't answer in his second rebuttal.
The following questions and answers are from www.jewsforjudaism.org:
Question: Doesn't the command by Matthew's Jesus to, "Go
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) show the existence of a triune deity.
Answer: Matthew 28:19 states: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Although the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together, this verse does not prove the existence of a triune deity. The verse merely indicates the author's belief that they are to be mentioned together during baptism. Each is thought to have a function in the initiation of the believer during the baptism ritual. Yet no doctrine of coequality among them is promulgated in this verse.
In the early period baptism was simply in "Christ" (Galatians 3:27) or in the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:13, Acts 8:16, 19:5). The text in Matthew represents a later stage of development, but is still not trinitarian in meaning. The doctrine of the trinity is a still later development.
Question: The word 'echad, "one," is used in the Jewish
Scriptures in either a compound or absolute sense. In what sense is 'echad used in the
Shema, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deuteronomy 6:4)?
Answer: In such verses as Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day," and Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh," the term 'echad, "one," refers to a compound united one. However, 'echad often also means an absolute one. This is illustrated by such verses as 2 Samuel 13:30: "Absolom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left"; 2 Samuel 17:12: "And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one"; Exodus 9:7: "There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one"; 2 Samuel 17:22: "There lacked not one of them that was not gone over the Jordan"; Ecclesiastes 4:8: There is one [that is alone], and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son nor brother." Clearly, the word "one" used in these verses means an absolute one and is synonymous with the word yachid, "the only one," "alone." It is in this sense, with even greater refinement, that 'echad is used in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Here, 'echad is used as a single, absolute, unqualified one. There is no mention of a triune god.
Question: Do Deuteronomy 6:4 and Psalms 110:1 teach the Trinitarian plurality of God?
Answer: By rendering Psalms 110:1 as, ". . . the Lord said to my Lord . . ."
Christians argue that Jesus is greater than David and is not only the Messiah but is part
of a Trinitarian godhead as well (see Matthew 22:42-45, Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44, Acts
2:34-36, Hebrews 1:13). Yet, a careful examination finds their hypothesis to be totally
Since le-David, in verse 1, does not always mean "written by David," but sometimes "concerning David" or "in the style of David," it cannot be said with certainty that the preposition le, often translated "of," actually indicates "composed by David." Further investigation is necessary in order to understand its meaning as governed by the context of this psalm.
Let us examine Psalm 72. It was written by David "for," or "concerning," Solomon (cf. verses 1 and 20), yet the Hebrew contains an introductory phrase similar to the one found in Psalm 110. The introductory statement, li- S'hlomo, stresses that the psalm is "concerning" Solomon rather than that it is by Solomon. Even more significant is 2 Samuel 22:51 and Psalms 144:10, where David speaks of himself in the third person. Accordingly, there is every indication that the proper translation of Psalms 110:1 is: "A Psalm concerning David. HaShem says to my master ['adoni]: 'Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" David is writing this psalm from the perspective of the individual who is going to recite it. From this perspective, David, as king, is appropriately referred to as "my master." The claim that David is actually (or also) referring to Jesus by the phrase "my master" is not supported by the text.
The privilege of sitting at the right hand is a mark of distinction (1 Kings 2:19). When God invites David to "sit at My right hand," it is to show the privileged position enjoyed by David in his relationship with God. It is not to be taken as literally indicating sitting at God's right hand. The terminology "right hand" is here used as an expression of God's favoritism toward David.
From a Christian perspective: Does the name of God (HaShem), translated as "the Lord" in many English versions of Psalms 110:1, refer to "God the Father" or to "God the Son" or does it refer to all three members of the Trinity? Christians are divided on the answer.
Concerning the word 'Elohaynu ("our God"), which appears in the Shema, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord [HaShem] our God, the Lord [HaShem] is One ['Echad]" (Deuteronomy 6:4), most Christians maintain that it is plural and should be understood in its literal sense as "our Gods," but in the sense of a "triunity." For this reason, they often interpret the verse as: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods, the Lord is a compound unity."
From this Christian explanation of the Shema, it follows that "the Lord" (HaShem) could not refer to either "God the Father" or "God the Son" alone, but must refer to all three members of the "triunity" as a whole. This being the case, how is it possible for Christians to maintain that the phrase "to my Lord" (as commonly translated in Christian Bibles) refers to Jesus? If "my Lord" refers to the second member of the supposed "triunity," Jesus, then who is the first "Lord" mentioned in the verse? If "the Lord" (HaShem) in the Shema is a "triunity" united in the divine name, that is, "the Lord is our Gods," the first "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 must also refer to the united "triunity." If this is so, then the phrase "to my Lord" automatically excludes Jesus, who allegedly is already included in the first part of the verse, "the Lord."
Furthermore, if the second "Lord," supposedly Jesus, is sitting next to the first "Lord," the triune godhead or two-thirds of it, or any aggregate of it, he cannot be part of it. That which exists outside of God cannot be God.
Question: Doesn't Psalms 110:1 show that the Messiah will not
only be greater than David but must also be a divine being?
Answer: Psalms 110:1 states: "A Psalm concerning David. HaShem says to my master: 'Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" There is no problem with accepting that one's descendants can rise to a more exalted position than we possess at present. There is no problem with David accepting that the Messiah will be greater than he is. But, there is nothing in this verse to show that David is referring to the Messiah when he writes 'adoni, "my master," "my lord." Moreover, there is nothing in David's words to indicate that the individual he refers to as "my master" is a divine being. David "concerning" himself wrote Psalm 110 poetically in the third person. Christians explain this verse based on New Testament exegesis. The Marcan Jesus says:
How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said by the Holy Spirit; "The Lord [kyrios] said to my Lord [kyrio mou], 'Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies beneath your feet.' David himself calls him 'Lord,' how is he then his son? (Mark 12:35-37).
Mark's rendering uses the Greek word kyrios, "lord," twice in the sentence, and the Christian translations into English capitalize the initial letter of the word to read "Lord" in both instances. Jesus' discourse is only possible if he and those he spoke to were conversing in Greek. The exegetical problems that Mark's Jesus refers to are only apparent in the Greek rendering and renderings from the Greek into other languages. In the Greek text, the initial kyrios is a reference to "the Lord," that is, God, and translates the Tetragrammaton (Y- H-V-H, the four letter name of God often referred to in Hebrew as HASHEM--THE NAME). The second kyrios, renders 'adoni, "my master," "my lord" (which according to Mark's understanding refers to "the Christ"). That is, the Greek, kyrios, is used to render two separate and distinct Hebrew words in the Greek translation. The confusion it creates in Greek does not exist in the Hebrew original. As a result, the Marcan Jesus' exegesis is non-existent in the Hebrew and incorrect in its understanding of the Greek rendering.
Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are
one [hen]." Doesn't this show that they are one in essence?
This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29).
There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.
Question : In the Book of Revelation we find the verse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). But what do you do with Revelation 22:13, which appears to be Jesus speaking (see verse 16), when he says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"? Doesn't the command by Matthew's Jesus to, "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) show the existence of a triune deity.
Answer: Despite the distinctiveness with which God and Jesus are regarded in the New
Testament some Christians are under the misconception that God and Jesus form two-thirds
of a triune deity. Partial responsibility for this error is due to the New Testament
writers, who use a number of designations for Jesus, which are the same as those given to
God in the Jewish Bible and in the New Testament. The resulting confusion as to whether
certain New Testament passages refer to God or to Jesus helped to produce the belief in a
That Jesus, who is considered by the New Testament writers to be the link between God and creation, is called by some of the same designations that are applied to God is understandable. After all, the New Testament writers believed that God had conferred a tremendous amount of power upon this angelic being, so why not, as well, some of His names, which express certain facets of His being? But it is nevertheless clear that although the God of the New Testament interacts with the world He created solely through His "firstborn" (Colossians 1:15-17), the latter is still subservient to God. Because of the exalted yet subservient position in which they envision Jesus, the New Testament writers do not believe it compromises God's status to apply some of His names to Jesus (cf. Ephesians 1:21, Philippians 2:9, Hebrews 1:4). The use of common names is not intended to indicate that Jesus is of one substance with God.
Perhaps, if "the Alpha and the Omega" in Revelations 22:13 is actually a reference to Jesus it stems from the New Testament belief that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the first thing created by God. What is significant is not so much the use of this name as the fact that whenever the relationship between God and Jesus is treated, the New Testament writers always describe God as superior to Jesus.
In any case, in verse 12 the subject of verse 13 ("the Alpha and the Omega") says he is "coming quickly." Since Jesus has not come "quickly" this is either false prophecy or the text is not speaking about Jesus.
Question : God said: "Let us make man in our image . .
." (Genesis 1:26) and "Come, let us go down, and there confound their
language" (Genesis 11:7). To whom does the "us" refer?
Answer: Trinitarian Christians maintain that Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 are prooftexts of an alleged tri-unity god, but this claim is erroneous. The inference that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, "And they created man in their image." Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation 'Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself' yet he refers to himself as "we" (see also Ezra 4:16-19).
You still need to respond to the rest of my other points, which forms most of my original paper:
As I mentioned in my Answering Trinity paper, after carefully reading Quennel's claims, I found out that he only picked and chose from my paper without actually responding to everything. I personally know why he did that. He only picked and chose what his papers that he stole from other Christian sites respond to. The stuff that his papers did not respond to, he simply ignored. Well, as I said on the top of the page, he likes to copy and paste too much material to deceive the reader and make him think that he is very knowledgeable and he answered everything, when in reality he only pasted approximately 30% of my personal points.
Back to Answering Trinity section.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube