Yeshua's Message, lost in translation, lost in theology ? Part III

      Continuing with why Raja Petra's hypothesis is flawed. I want to point out what the
Quran says about the Trinity. This in reference to his statement in not knowing why we disagree.

And to both Christians as well as Muslims who know that Muslims accept Jesus but reject Christianity, allow me to explain why. And that explanation can be summed up
in just one word:  the Trinity (okay, so that’s two words).
 
Verse 171, chapter 4 of the Qur’an talks about Jesus and has this to say:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
 
So there you have it. Islam regards Jesus to be of virgin birth. However, Islam regards Jesus as merely a messenger of God and it flatly rejects the Trinity. No two ways about it and no compromise on the matter. And those Christians who also reject the Trinity are People of the Book as far as Muslims are concerned while those who uphold the Trinity are not followers of Christ but deviants and heretics who are apostates in the Muslim perspective. That is Islam’s position on the Trinity.

I have highlighted these paragraphs, so that, i do not take what he has said out of 
context. I am not an islamic scholar. I am simply going to point out a verse that explains
itself. If Muslims read what it says, they can decide if the Quran really describes the 
nature of the Trinity

[5:116]   GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me 
and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter 
what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know
my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

[5:117]   "I told them only what You commanded me to say, that: `You shall 
worship GOD,my Lord and your Lord.' I was a witness among them for as long as 
I lived with them. When You terminated my life on earth, You became the Watcher 
over them. You witness all things.

The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th AD along with the later Athanasian Creed.

These creeds were used more than 600 years before the advent of Islam. I suggest
one should compare these carefully worded documents with this claim. This is why 
i don't believe Muslims really know what they are saying, that the Quran refutes 
the Doctrine of the Trinity. There is no verse in the Quran that talks about the true 
nature of the Trinity. 

Yeshua's Message, lost in translation, lost in theology ? Part II

       Raja Petra or Pete as some know him as, in his opening statement begins
with a quandry

  Now, why did Emperor Constantine who was not even a Christian 
take so much trouble to interfere in Christianity and decide what form 
Christianity should take? In fact, it was Constantine who called for the 
Conference and who took charge of the proceedings. 

        Raja Petra is not raising anything new or unheard off.  Essentially, what he
is trying to say is that the Emperor Constantine forced the concept of the Trinity
at the Council of Nicaea 325AD. I have addressed what he said, in an earlier blog.
See Constantine and the Council of Nicaea .  In that blog article, i pointed multiple
accounts of early Christian fathers, and personal statements written in letters,
as proof that Christ divinity was understood prior to the Council of Nicaea. What
could be referred to as a legal precedent i.e. stare decisis. These are documented
facts prior to the gathering at Nicaea.


    Proceeding with a new hyphothesis that there was a big battle between Unitarians?
and Trinitarians after the Council Nicaea. Forced apon, a mythical genocide, in
Christendom between the two factions.
 
    Raja Petra is spinning yarn faster than i can lay a foundation of logic. He probably
is not aware that there are different types of Unitarianism. One started as a movement
in Europe in the mid 16th century. Unitarian churches in the United States, are really,
atheist churches. I know that it sounds like an oxymoron. Ask Dan Barker, a famous
atheist.

   Raja Petra also associates Christendom as the net result of many wars in the Dark
Ages to the period of Enlightment. I do agree that Christian Nations were involved
in sectarian warfare. What i disagree with, the nature of the involvement was the result
of the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah. In a one statement Raja Petra makes to John
MacKee (Why the Bible can use Allah) he quotes:

John Mackee, and please, please, please tell the Christians that this is what Jesus said:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace,  but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes
will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not 
worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy
of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake 
will find it. (Matthew 10.34-39)

Did Yeshua mean, go to war, and murder in my name inorder to spread the Good
News ? I'll let the reader decide. Luke's passage is clearer.

²⁵ A large crowd was following Jesus. He turned around and said to them, ²⁶ “If you 
want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and 
mother,wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, 
you cannot be my disciple. ²⁷ And if you do not carry your own cross and follow
me, you cannot be my disciple.²⁸ “But don’t begin until you count the cost. (Luke 14)

Politicians, Goverments and Religious Authorities certainly used the banner of
Christianity to justify or turn a blind eye, to unjust wars, colonialism, and yes,
massacres. What did Yeshua, in effect, say to anyone who used his name

 "Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. ~ Matthew 7:21

I think it is important that Raja Petra raised these issues. The Church has ,and will
have much soul searching, repentance, and acknowledgement off, sins of the past.
This had nothing to do with 'Unitarian Christians of James, Peter and the other 
Apostles, and the Trinitarian Christians of Paul.'

This apparent wedge of two groups of apostles, is really, made up. There was a
disagreement between Peter and Paul ,stemming from an Incident at Antioch.
Circumcision of Gentile Christians versus the Jewish Christians. If what Raja Petra
said was true. The apostles would not have gone separate ways, to the furthest
corners of the world ,and lay their lives on the line. Both Peter and Paul were
martyred in Rome in 66AD. Why didn't they plot against each other or lead jihadist
armies the likes of what occurred after the death of the founder of Islam? There
always has to be a cause and effect in order to explain a hypothesis.

In Part III, i will show what the Quran really says about the Trinity, in reference
to Raja Petra's quote

            

Yeshua's Message, lost in translation, lost in theology ? Part I

          It may appear that i am fixated with the musings of Raja Petra Kamaruddin's
articles. His latest entry not knowing why we disagree ,appears to be embarrassing,
if not, an eye opener to Christians. I feel the need to address his points, factually,
 and in a logical manner. It is my hope that while his statements appear to have a
'smoking gun' effect on followers of Yeshua. I will remove the 'smoke' from the 'gun'.
I will point out what Historicity, Bible, and the Quran has to say about his statements
pointing to the Trinity.

       Before i proceed, i would like to make an analogy made by my Malaysian high
school physics teacher.

       Conventional electrical theory posits that electricity flows from positive to
negative. Prior to the discovery that electrons, flow or vibrates, from negative to
 positive. The discovery of the true nature of electricity, hence did not negate,
conventional electrical rules i.e. left-hand-rule, right-hand-rule. Why? because the
scientific world would have had to destroy millions of physic books written prior
to the discovery of the true nature of electron flow.

       The nature of electrons proof that electricity operates in the opposite manner.
However, conventional rules, do explain correctly, motor generator principles.
Do we really know what electricity really is. Ask, any Physics Noble Laureate,
how do electrons flow through a vacuum tube ? If we cannot really describe
something empirical like electricity that has been used, researched, and applied
for hundreds of years from microprocessors to large turbine generators.

      Can i truly describe our Creator ? Honestly, i can't. I can say that, what i have
discovered, indicates that a Trinitarian Being, is the conventional notion of the God
i believe in.  The Trinity explains conventionally the relationship between
Yahweh, his Ruah (Spirit), and  the Messiac (Messiah)

  

           

The Enigma of the Trinity

           Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) in his blog article you cant debate hudud
makes a bold assertion that Christianity cannot be explained in a logical manner.
I quote

          Disputing Hudud would be just like disputing the Trinity or arguing
that it is illogical that Jesus was the Son of God or that Jesus died and came
back to life three days later.  Since when do we use logic to debate religion?
         
        Actually, what he assumes is not really true. You can show evidence that
there was man named Yeshua ben yosef. His followers claimed that he was
the promised Messiac (Chosen One of the Lord). Once you have established that
point. Provide evidence as to the character of the Messiah. What RPK really
means is that one cannot provide empirical evidence as to the Supernatural.
Some time ago i had a conversation with Syed M a blogger. Although, i am not
going to publish our conversation. I'd like to share somethings that i said
personally to him about the Trinity.


  Since you asked about the Trinity. Let me explain directly from the Hebrew, no
loss of translation. This is what is written in the Tanakh. I am not lying. God is Yahweh (YHWH). God has a Spirit (Ruah Hakodesh). God sends a Messiah (Messiac). Hebrews don't believe the Messiah in the Son of God. Christians do.
Why? Read Isaiah 53 (Tanakh) directly

 וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה (Verse 1) and is the arm, of the Lord Yah·weh יְהוָ֖ה ū·zə·rō·w·a‘ וּזְר֥וֹעַ 

I researched it myself what the Trinity is. I didn't ask my pastor or read it from
a book that explains the Trinity. I was challenged many times and i went to look
for proof directly from the source. These are direct word for word, not translated
from the Hebrew. Look, i understand that God cannot be 3 (i.e. different gods) 
persons (but 1 God perceived as 3 different distinctness) . The word
Elohim (~ plural) for Lord , denotes that God is much more complicated, than
human understanding. You know know more than most Muslim(s) about the
Hebrew text. I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to pray to the 
'God of Abraham' to reveal himself to you. A generic prayer, no Jesus, no Yeshua,
no Muhammed etc.....


      As for the term, Son of God. Yeshua himself uses the term 'Father' repeatedly.
The Tanakh, does refer to the 'Son of God' in Psalm 2:7


 יְֽהוָ֗ה            אָמַ֘רי            אֵלַ֥            בְּנִ֥י   
 b(e)ni      el-ay         a-mar         Adonai (YHWH)
 My Son,  unto me,   has said,    My Lord

The term Trinity best explains the relationship between Yahweh ( The Lord),
Ruah Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) , and the Messiac (Messiah).

If one is interested in a detailed explanation on the nature of the Trinity.
I suggest reading Mere Christianity by C. S Lewis. Pay special attention
to chapter 2 ( See audio book below at 1:09)

]