Allah

[LittleLambofJesus]

DP.........Sorry

 

[BereanTodd]

Well, I am coming into this thread 14 pages deep, but let me give some of my thoughts. I found this post by Polycarp to be a good springboard to some of my thoughts.

Let me try something here: I'm going to make a series of assertions, non-argumentative in nature, and some or all of you tell me, or the thread generally, where I am wrong.

1. ilah is the Arabic word for god. Note the lowercase. If we were having a peaceful conversation with a Muslim about Zeus or Thor, we would agree that each is an example of a false ilah. Of course, it also means god when speaking of the real god.

2. Allah means God, and is most likely a contraction of Al- (the) plus ilah, in the same sense as we can talk about Lord North or Lord Salisbury in British history but The Lord means God Almighty.

3. Islam uses Allah as the name and/or title for the God whom Mohammed taught about and whom they proclaim.

4. Arabic Christians use Allah where we would use "God" as the proper title for the Holy Trinity.

Does any part of that, spelled out in sequence, seem in error to anyone?

Points 1-4 I absolutely am in agreement with. 'Allah' as a general name for God I have no problem with, just as I have no problem with going into the terminology of any other language. It is missiologically the smart thing to do in fact, and that is backed up by the fact that as you pointed out in number 4, arabic Christians use the word.

Now, I do think it is more proper to speak of YHWH, Jehovah, Yeshua, and I prefer those more specific names. But as a general name, akin to 'God' in the English, I have no problem with Allah.

5. There are allegations, which I personally have never seen substantiated anywhere but anti-Islam hate sites, that Allah was used as the name or title of a moon god before Mohammed when the Arabs were polytheistic. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, just that I've never seen it borne out on a site with documentation I feel I can trust

I'm not going to state that it is absolute fact, but I am much more convinced than you. Not that nescasarily the term is exact, but that some of the concepts of these pagan gods made their way into the Islamic vision of God is frankly undeniable.

I will speak more of this in some some of your points to come ...

6. Mohammed believed himself called to proclaim the God of Abraham as the one true God, in place of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon. He used Allah, "the God," as the name or title of the God of Abraham.

How much I agree here depends on how much you mean he was proclaiming the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was not proclaiming the same God, but rather a god who is more of an amalgamation of various sources, including taking the Hebraic God, and mixing in some of the pagan thoughts of the area.

This is evidenced by the complete lack of any unity of thought on the character or nature of God between the Judeo-Christian God and that of Islam. The nature, thoughts, characteristics, traits, etc of God between the two traditions share nothing in common.

7. His conception of who God is, is entirely at odds with the Christian conception, and in large measure with the Jewish conception too. And obvously it does not include God as the Holy Trinity, among many other errors.

Well I agree with you here, although I think you understate the dicotomy, the distinction between the Hebraic God and the Islamic one.

8. Nonetheless, because he was pointing to the God in whom we believe, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses, of the Prophets, the one of whom our Lord Jesus Christ spoke and whom the Apostles proclaimed, we would be in error to call Allah a false god. A very erroneous understanding of God, definitely. But Mohammed was pointing to the right God, but saying completely false things about Him.

I could not disagree with you more. They claim to be pointing to the same God. I can similarly claim the sky is red. That does not make it so.

The traits, actions, involvement, character of God between the Judeo-Christian view and the Islamic view share no point of connection. There is no similarlity, no agreement. Islam does NOT worship the same God by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Jipsah
And when God came in person, Judaism rejected Him and His revelation. Judaism is a dead end, and their theology suffers from the same defects as does that of Islam. God Himself entered into human history, and they rejected, and reject, both Him and His revelation.

From what I read of the NT/NC, these are mainly the "Jews" that didn't recognize Him, and as we know the Priesthood and Temple are no more.
In fact, symbolically, I can view these as the ones in Ezekiel 39 and in my discussion with Islam, they even view Matt 21:43 as the Kingdom taken from the "Jews" and given to Islam!!!! They do tend to "pick and choose" parts of our Bible to use a lot of times. Peace.

Matt 23:33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of the Gehenna?
Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Ezekiel 39:12 "For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them, in order to Cleanse/purify the Land.

http://www.christianforums.com/t951973&page=5

Matthew 21:43. (Jesus was talking to the pharisees and he told them)

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of GOD will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing fruits from it.
My question is why and who is that nation GOD has given his kingdom to?

Originally Posted by sunrise0
apparently, the Great nation belongs to Ishmael

will someone please tell us where is this nation?

 

[Nadiine]

http://www.christianforums.com/t951973&page=5

Matthew 21:43. (Jesus was talking to the pharisees and he told them)

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of GOD will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing fruits from it.
My question is why and who is that nation GOD has given his kingdom to?

Originally Posted by sunrise0
apparently, the Great nation belongs to Ishmael

will someone please tell us where is this nation?

Again as was suggested in other threads, GO TO ROMANS 11 which explains that this is all temporary as God works in the Gentile nations to bring salvation.

When that time is over, GOD IS GOING BACK TO FOCUS ON THE JEWS. He is NOT done with them, and they continue to be the apple of His eye and are the original branch we're grafted into.

 

[Nadiine]

I am woman, mother of two, wife of my hubby, I am the first and last in the heart of my family. I am one.

This doesn't work. You are applying it outside the terms it's applied in scripture - as symbolic of a meaning you place it onto/ as over 1 subject.

God claims to be the first and last quite literally since He is ETERNAL - we were not first and cannot be, and WE only exist eternally by Him (making us in His own image).
He's the begining & end literally and figuratively over all things.
We aren't a Trinity as God is - He shares all things with "Himself". That includes names, attributes and power. Man does not have this ability.

I disagree - only in the essence that you are a "UNIT" as one family, you can be a plural oneness. But not the beginning & end; God is always First literally & figuratively. (imo)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
http://www.christianforums.com/t951973&page=5

Matthew 21:43. (Jesus was talking to the pharisees and he told them)

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of GOD will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing fruits from it.
My question is why and who is that nation GOD has given his kingdom to?

Originally Posted by sunrise0
apparently, the Great nation belongs to Ishmael

will someone please tell us where is this nation?

Again as was suggested in other threads, GO TO ROMANS 11 which explains that this is all temporary as God works in the Gentile nations to bring salvation.

When that time is over, GOD IS GOING BACK TO FOCUS ON THE JEWS. He is NOT done with them, and they continue to be the apple of His eye and are the original branch we're grafted into.

But only an "elect" will be saved according to Daniel 12/Luke 21.
The "Jews" have their own translation/interpretation of Daniel 12 and maybe you can go straighten out the Muslims on Matt 21:43, as they need all the help they can get LOL. Peace.

Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael [Revelation 12] shall stand up, The great prince who stands [watch] over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble [Luke 21:25], Such as never was since there was a nation, [Even] to that time. And at that time your people shall be saved, Every one who is found written in the Book.

 

[Chickapee]

Originally Posted by sunrise0
apparently, the Great nation belongs to Ishmael

will someone please tell us where is this nation?

love the thoughts here about this ,,,
thought of the parable of two sons the first and second Mat 21:28¶But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.Mat 21:31Whether of them two did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

the second son didnt do it , but said he would hummmmm ? first and last ?last shall be first first , flesh was first ? Ishmael will be last and last Spirit will be first ;0 Isaac 2son born of faith ..
as the first son repented and did do afterwards

one first said he would do as his father asked but did NOT DO IT
the other said he would not do it , and later repented

and did do it ..... Mat 21:45And when the chief [first ] priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
see the pretense and man pleasing here ??? not GOD pleasing the gentile nations was going to be the insturment
in THE LORDS HAND
GENTILES TO PROVOKE
Gentiles
( Heb., usually in plural, goyim), meaning in general all nations except the Jews. In course of time, as the Jews began more and more to pride themselves on their peculiar privileges, it acquired unpleasant associations, and was used as a term of contempt.

In the New Testament the Greek word Hellenes, meaning literally Greek ( as in Act 16:1,3; 18:17; Rom 1:14), generally denotes any non-Jewish nation.



of the 2 sons JEWS
the thing is to me they both are of the seed of abraham father of a great multitude Abraham = "father of a multitude" or "chief FIRST of multitude"

1) friend of God and founder of Hebrew nation via God's elective covenant[faith ]Derivation. ( 1.) The name is derived, according to some, from Eber or Heber [Christs linage in luke 3 ]the pharrieses confess they are the seed of abraham

Ishmael and Isaac 2 types here , one of faith in their own flesh works and the other faith in spirit of God s will

two sons of abrahams seed Gal 4:23But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.


seeing the gentiles as [all nations ] the sign provoking the repentance
of the 3 excused from the great supper God prepared parable
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles,[all nation ] for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles[all nations ]; how much more their fulness?

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles[all nations ], inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles[all nations ] be come in.

Rom 15:9 And that the Gentiles[all nations ] might glorify God for [his] mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles[all nations ]


Luk 14:17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; '''for all things''' are now ready. Luk 14:23And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled.


everything is ready [finnished ] and being executed 1.to carry out; accomplishto perform or do
to give effect or force to (a law, decree, judicial sentence, etc.). to carry out the terms of (a will). Power to become the sons of God
in MY Fathers house are many mansions if it were not so I would have told you ...a preparing to recive ...

wow , can see a little bit thinking about it

God bless peace C ...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
http://www.christianforums.com/t951973&page=5

Matthew 21:43. (Jesus was talking to the pharisees and he told them)

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of GOD will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing fruits from it.
My question is why and who is that nation GOD has given his kingdom to?

Originally Posted by sunrise0
apparently, the Great nation belongs to Ishmael

will someone please tell us where is this nation?

love the thoughts here about this ,,,
thought of the parable of two sons the first and second Mat 21:28¶But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.Mat 21:31Whether of them two did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you......................................

Thanks and great post.
I will post it on that thread the Muslims started.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Actually, the Shema above is a PROOF of a Trinity. God in Hebrew is "Elohim" (PLURAL). (adding 'im' to a word in Hebrew makes it plural - equivalent to the English "s" added to the end of a word making it plural).

It reads that Elohim (plural) is ONE (singular) Lord. Technically, that's poor grammar if it wasn't meant to relay a specific point that God is plural, yet ONE God.

The trinity is taught from the OT into the NT. Here's an even stronger proof of a Trinity:

Isaiah 44:6
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:'I am the first and I am the last,And there is no God besides Me.​

This is CHRIST as the Redeemer, called (Hebrew) 'YHWY OF ARMIES/hosts' as well as claiming the same name together, "first and last". BOTH cannot be first unless they were co-eternally existant together. And, there is no other God besides them.

The trinity cannot be escaped - namely when you combine it all together.


Right, and this is why the Trinity term was coined. It defines a unity of 3 individual & unique persons/beings operating as ONE Godhead. Similar to how the Supreme Court is ONE judicial body, yet with many members that make up the court.


Actually, all 3 share all things together, and they are all 3 seen doing the same acts as One God. If I had time I'd give some of the examples w/ scripture - I'll try to add them all later in another post

I just had to ask Nadiine because of a current discussion on this very thing. Maybe you can help clear the air on this as I find it very confusing sometimes especially when its worded outside of the Nicene creed. Seems the more others describe it the more confusing it becomes, as I lose my marbles at times.

Ok, here... The bold emphasis "is mine" on this

It defines a unity of 3 individual & unique persons/beings operating as ONE Godhead.

I am curious Nadiine (so Im asking ya) We were having a discussion on this not too long ago about "wording" in regards to the "trinity". How easy it can be to perhaps slip in wording etc when we are on a forum like this. Not that this would be intentional as asuredly I know I mean not too ever. Though its something everyone could very easily slip up on concerning the Nicene creed.

I would like your imput on this because sometimes (I'll just use your example) as I know you believe in the Nicene creed (as I myself might not use "the word" trinity" I agree with it) The wording is always a bit tricky as we have been discussing.

Look here at the wording which could be considered unorthodox. This indeed can be very tricky. (wouldn't you agree?)

tri·the·ism (trī'thē-ĭz'əm)

n. Christianity.

The belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct gods, heretical in orthodox Christianity.

Source

http://www.answers.com/topic/tritheism

What distinshes between the two in your eyes? Help me to understand.

The Father who is God, the Son who God, and the Holy Spirit who is God . These meaning (in accordance to what you wrote) "three separate and distinct person/beings" verses each as "God" under one Godhead right? This rather then each as "persons" under one Godhead. They do appear rather close in their desciptions.

Why would this other definition be regarded as "evil" (Im truly curious) because they sound so similiar..

Given each is ascribed as God (as you pointed out) and yet so even Trithiesm does one concludes as three "Persons" (beings)? verses "three Gods" yet both attribute to God (each) and both appear to conclude under one under one. Did I miss something

My question is in regards to how both sides "ascribe to them" (this is hard to word sorry)... Both sides ascribe God to the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, thats ok I get that.

Its the "concluding them". In the both cases wherein each side seems to find fault with the other (on the basis of their own definitions). One side (the Nicene creed) as you are conveying it concludes three SEPARATE and DISTINCT "persons"/ BEINGS (as you wrote right?) rather then EACH being God (thus "gods" as Tritheism?) or as THEM (plural God). On one hand both can say (Father God, Son, God, and Holy Spirit God) ALL separate and distinct (as BOTH acribe to right?) yet AS ONE GODHEAD.

So the one side (as your showing) concludes as THREE as being "separate and distinct" PERSONS and BEINGS yet under ONE Godhead ... (My head could spin at this point lol)

Is it three BEINGS or ONE BEING? Three equally God yet persons /beings under one God? OK....I just lost myself now Trying to get how you word this thing.

Wanna start a thread on that? You said you might gather more on it.

Thanks

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is it three BEINGS or ONE BEING? Three equally God yet persons /beings under one God? OK....I just lost myself now Trying to get how you word this thing.

Wanna start a thread on that? You said you might gather more on it.

Hi. I have no idea why this thread at the link below was started on the GA Board, and if the Atheists/Jews/Muslims were confused before, this thread just put them over the edge LOL. Already almost 10,000 views on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4685926-3gods-1-trinity-1-god.html
3gods-1-trinity-1-god

so genez, you dont think its against God's law to worship 3 separate beings and call all three of them (in union) God?

doubtingmerle has a point. In the old testiment when the bible mentions god, it uses him and he, which are singular terms.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Hi. I have no idea why this thread at the link below was started on the GA Board, and if the Atheists/Jews/Muslims were confused before, this thread just put them over the edge LOL. Already almost 10,000 views on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4685926-3gods-1-trinity-1-god.html
3gods-1-trinity-1-god

so genez, you dont think its against God's law to worship 3 separate beings and call all three of them (in union) God?

doubtingmerle has a point. In the old testiment when the bible mentions god, it uses him and he, which are singular terms.

I think my questions are OFF, I cant word MY QUESTIONS

((Nevermind Nadiine))

If I cant put forth the question right how does one get a right answer? LOL

I'm comparing TWO veiws (One of those) which states three persons and the other three gods. Yet both combine into ONE GODHEAD (under the three "persons" or "gods" depending on how each side shows it ). Its ok to say Each are God (as I listen) but "in combination" count them NOT as "Gods" (plural) though both sides show them as such but one side uses "persons" (plural) under the GODHEAD (the other "gods") as concluded by both sides yet thats not accptable wording.. So both sides disagree with the other.. and each thinks the other is heresy. This is what Im weighing out... between these two.

Im simply BORED in the present moment

I think someone had it right when they said just dont "go there" (to which I agreed). I just wanted to sit and give an EAR not ADD any imput (on my end).


Thanks for the link maybe I'll delve into the 51 page monster MAYBE NOT

Sorry, I didnt want to Hijack the thread into this particular direction I was simply quoting Nadiine to ask her how she "puts it together" in contrast (over and against the other). I was told copy pasting someones post response from one thread into another (to restart another topic) was a "no no" (even though I see that done). So I was sorta strapped in how exactly to approach it.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, it's against CF rules to be a tritheist and bear a "Christian" icon or post in CO areas -- that was decided some time ago in response to LDS (Mormon) questions.

But in response to the "Elohim foreshadows the Trinity" comment, I think it's very interesting to note that the word Elohim is plural but governs singular verbs, contrary to any other similar Hebrew usage. To me, that says a great deal in one simple grammar usage.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Well, it's against CF rules to be a tritheist and bear a "Christian" icon or post in CO areas -- that was decided some time ago in response to LDS (Mormon) questions.

Absolutely I understand that loud and clear

I included that very thing in the post showing that it is indeed an unorthodox perspective.

But in response to the "Elohim foreshadows the Trinity" comment, I think it's very interesting to note that the word Elohim is plural but governs singular verbs, contrary to any other similar Hebrew usage. To me, that says a great deal in one simple grammar usage.

That IS interesting

How would you describe the differences between the two in regards this observation?

Maybe you can better word those particular differences. I know you are much more qualified then myself.

As you can tell I cant even ASK my questions rightly

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Yesusbesertakita]

I've read MANY threads on this forum where people refer to Allah as the God of the Muslim's as if this is a proper name of some "false god" and that is just not true, so I would really like to set the record straight and educate those who are unaware of the fact that "Allah" is the ARABIC WORD ~for~ GOD.

Just as "Dios" is the SPANISH word for GOD.

And "Dieu" is the FRENCH word for GOD.

"Allah" is the ARABIC word for GOD.

It is not the "proper name" of a particular Islamic God connected only to Muslims. Even Arabic CHRISTIANS use the word "Allah" to refer to GOD. The Aramaic BIBLE uses the word "Allah" for GOD, as it is the Arabic word ~for~ God.

I would just like to ask that we please keep that in mind when making statements about Muslims and "false gods" so that we don't insult our Arabic brothers and sisters in CHRIST because of our lack of knowledge on this subject.

Many thanks!!
angelmom

In Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, we use the word Allah to address God. Maybe it's because of the arabic background of these place. But we Christians here still know who we worship, who we have faith in and who we believe. Although our Muslim friends sometimes get confused when we use the name Allah when addressing our God, be we believe the God we worship is different. Our God has so many different names used to call him, but that don't mean we worship different God.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi i found this very helpful , in the many names of God and how purposed


in the Bible just keep scrolling down , its very informative
so which name do we have for the purposed name of God allah , in aramic do you have yb from maylasia ??
God bless you all peace , C

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.html

 

[Nadiine]

I am curious Nadiine (so Im asking ya) We were having a discussion on this not too long ago about "wording" in regards to the "trinity". How easy it can be to perhaps slip in wording etc when we are on a forum like this. Not that this would be intentional as asuredly I know I mean not too ever. Though its something everyone could very easily slip up on concerning the Nicene creed.

I would like your imput on this because sometimes (I'll just use your example) as I know you believe in the Nicene creed (as I myself might not use "the word" trinity" I agree with it) The wording is always a bit tricky as we have been discussing.

Look here at the wording which could be considered unorthodox. This indeed can be very tricky. (wouldn't you agree?)



What distinshes between the two in your eyes? Help me to understand.

The Father who is God, the Son who God, and the Holy Spirit who is God . These meaning (in accordance to what you wrote) "three separate and distinct person/beings" verses each as "God" under one Godhead right? This rather then each as "persons" under one Godhead. They do appear rather close in their desciptions.

Why would this other definition be regarded as "evil" (Im truly curious) because they sound so similiar..

Given each is ascribed as God (as you pointed out) and yet so even Trithiesm does one concludes as three "Persons" (beings)? verses "three Gods" yet both attribute to God (each) and both appear to conclude under one under one. Did I miss something

My question is in regards to how both sides "ascribe to them" (this is hard to word sorry)... Both sides ascribe God to the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, thats ok I get that.

Its the "concluding them". In the both cases wherein each side seems to find fault with the other (on the basis of their own definitions). One side (the Nicene creed) as you are conveying it concludes three SEPARATE and DISTINCT "persons"/ BEINGS (as you wrote right?) rather then EACH being God (thus "gods" as Tritheism?) or as THEM (plural God). On one hand both can say (Father God, Son, God, and Holy Spirit God) ALL separate and distinct (as BOTH acribe to right?) yet AS ONE GODHEAD.

So the one side (as your showing) concludes as THREE as being "separate and distinct" PERSONS and BEINGS yet under ONE Godhead ... (My head could spin at this point lol)

Is it three BEINGS or ONE BEING? Three equally God yet persons /beings under one God? OK....I just lost myself now Trying to get how you word this thing.

Wanna start a thread on that? You said you might gather more on it.

I don't know if going into the Trinity debate is going off topic or not. But in the context of defining [the Christian] God, I think it applies to the OP.

I gathered short paragraph from a website that defines it pretty well by saying this:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We believe the Bible teaches that there is but one being of God, yet there are three Persons who share this one being of God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Each Person is fully and completely God, each is described in Scripture as possessing the attributes of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed in the relationship described by the term "Trinity."[/FONT]

http://aomin.org/AOFAITH.html from their statement of faith pg.

And this is their lengthy & detailed page basically addressing the 'Oneness' movement which isn't trinitarian- to define the Trinity taught thruout the Bible. I think it's a very extensive & detailed study on why the Trinity (tri-unity) is factual.
http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html

and a paragraph or 2 from that page (out of ll Trinitarian Concepts)
"the whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons." This follows logically on the heels of asserting the indivisibility of the being of God, for if three Persons share that one being, they must share all of that being. The Father is not just 1/3 of God - he is fully Deity, just as the Son and the Spirit
and:
The Shema might be sufficient to demonstrate the point, for this recital begins at Deuteronomy 6:4 with the words, "Hear, O Israel; Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one." This concept of monotheism separates Judaism (and Christianity) from any kind of polytheistic religion.
---------------------------------------------
These sources save me time explaining it all - but I will go into detail about how the concept of the Trinity is found:

It's gathered by COMBINING ALL OF THE SCRIPTURES together in what they say about God from Genesis to Revelation - what their duties are, what they share, what they do, what they have (attributes, powers etc.) how they relate to one another, what they claim (as one Godhead) etc.

It's not by just reading one verse & making up a Trinity. In my personal study of the Trinity & Oneness & polytheism, I found that the Trinity is the ONLY doctrine that doesn't contradict scripture somewhere else.
All other definitions of who God is fail eventually. It's consistent w/ all the Bible.

Lastly, I don't think we as humans (His creation) with our limited understanding and fallen nature can FATHOM exactly who God is in His fullness of being.
We can know some specifics, but I don't think we'll grasp it's complete fullness & magnificance until we're face to face with Him. & quite frankly, if we COULD understand God fully - (who He is in all His glory), then imo, He wouldn't be such a magnificent, complex or glorious GOD at all.

Man cannot claim to 'corner the market' on all God is or has becuz the fullness of God is beyond our understanding in all it's many limitations.

 

[Yesusbesertakita]

Hi i found this very helpful , in the many names of God and how purposed


in the Bible just keep scrolling down , its very informative
so which name do we have for the purposed name of God allah , in aramic do you have yb from maylasia ??
God bless you all peace , C

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.html

Good question. I've never thought about it since I use English Bible. I'll check it out as my homework and let you know about it

 

[Yesusbesertakita]

God who creates and gives life.


"Pada mulanya Allah menciptakan langit dan bumi."
-Kejadian 1:1

or

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
- Genesis 1:1

I hope this explains.

 

[Nadiine]

Different people seem to be claiming different things - the point is this, whether or not "Allah" is a 'name of God' in some language of a certain country or not, THE CHRISTIAN GOD, YHWY (who is a Trinity: 3 who consist of the one true God: Father, Son, Spirit) IS NOT THE ALLAH OF THE KORAN/QURAN.

Here's a page on why they are not the same God or religion.
http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/islam/IS0403W1.htm

Some highlites:
Here, the Koran emphasizes that Christians are unbelievers because they accept the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity

The Koran stresses that Allah only "loves" those who do good, but that he does not love those who are bad. Allah himself emphasizes that he does not love the sinner.6 Thus, the love of Allah is not the love of the God of the Bible. The biblical God does love the sinner—in fact, He loves all sinners

Allah is considered the direct author of both good and evil. This is not the God of the Bible. While the biblical God is sovereign and permits evil, He is not its direct cause.

Allah is ultimately unknowable and incomprehensible
George Houssney writes, "we humans can never know Allah, because he is so far from us and so different from us. The only knowledge Muslims may admit to is knowledge about Allah, not a personal, experiential knowledge of him. People cannot know Allah and should not even try to know him

The Christian claim that humans can have a relationship with God is considered by Muslims to be a metaphysical impossibility.

 

[Chickapee]

God who creates and gives life.


"Pada mulanya Allah menciptakan langit dan bumi."
-Kejadian 1:1

or

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
- Genesis 1:1

I hope this explains.

thank you so muchYB!! !! you did do good homework!

GOD created 'elohiym {el-o-heem'}430 to us
'' All things ''BY HIS WISDOM

i put this up for reference
peac and thank you God bless your soul C

...Use in the Bible: : In the Old Testament Elohim occurs over 2000 times. Elohim is first used in Gen 1:1.

Variant spellings: None

TWOT Reference: 93c

Strong's Reference: 0430

Elohim in the Septuagint: theos — the standard Greek word for god, "a transcendent being who exercises extraordinary control in human affairs or is responsible for bestowal of unusual benefits" (BDAG). It specifically refers to the monotheistic God of Israel.

Meaning and Derivation: Elohim is translated as "God." The derivation of the name Elohim is debatable to most scholars. Some believe it derived from 'êl which, in turn, originates from the root word, 'wl (which means "strong"). Others think that Elohim is derived from another two roots: 'lh (which means "god") in conjunction with 'elôah (which means "fear"). And still others presume that both 'êl and Elohim come from 'eloah.

Further references of the name Elohim in the Old Testament: Complete list available here.