Paul’s Contradictions on Salvation are Vast
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Paul’s gripes with the law are prominent throughout Galatians, Philippians and Romans. The content of most of these Epistles are filled with Paul’s intra-spiritual conflicts on soteriology given his Pharisaical past and Christian future, a battle not only with himself, but with his ‘super-apostle’ counterparts whom he proclaims equity with in authority and rank, yet they have never indicated such spiritual contradictions in their alleged writings[1][2]. To the contrary the ‘super apostles’ seemed to have it all figured out[3]. Paul says in his Epistle to the Philippians where he is boasting of his character[4]:
If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal,persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
According to the exegetes [5], Paul claims to be faultless, that he had followed the law to the dot. If one follows the law without fault, then they are faultless, without sin. As a sin is to disobey God’s law. Yet, contradictingly, Paul says in another Epistle, this one to the Romans [6]:
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Paul only demonstrates his perpetual confusion, he cannot reconcile his new doctrine of salvation through the Messiah, with that of the law as given by God. For if God gave the law and the law would not save, then God failed, made a mistake in giving the law and had to recompense by giving His son. E.P Sanders’ says on this notion[7]:
Paul here, separates “God’s will” from “what actually happened”. In Paul’s world, the last position is the most surprising: that God failed, that his original intention in giving the law was not achieved.
Why do Christians expect us to follow such a muddled doctrine on salvation? Am I to accept that God failed in His plans for mankind’s salvation? Am I to accept that the apostle God chose to usher in His new faith, himself did not grasp it? Am I to accept that God killed His ‘son’, because God screwed up and needed a quick-save plan? As confusing and problematic Paul’s position is, the doctrine of soteriology in Christianity is far more complicated, for if Paul’s works are the foundation for it, given that it’s already so confusing, shall we expect anything derived of it to be void of such issues? Wishful thinking at its best for out Christian brothers.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
[1] – 2 Corinthians 11:5, Bible.
[2] – 2 Corinthians 12:11, Bible.
[3] – James 2:14-16, Bible.
[4] – Philippians 3:4-6, Bible.
[5] – “Philippians 3:6”, Adam Clarke’s Commentary.
[6] – Romans 7:14, Bible.
[7] – “Paul, the Law and the Jewish People”, by E.P. Sanders, Kindle Edition, Location 1394 – 1395.
Calling Christians 
response to Ijaz
here we go again i hope you will answer my responses as i am still waiting for a response to comments on the John 3:16.
in regards to your article on Paul and salvation it seems you have already made up your mind as to wht this man thought in regards to the law and the salvation that comes though Jesus Christ.
Php 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
when we read these verses we can see that Paul is not actually boasting he is giving us some insight into the change that has taken place in his life and heart.
what Paul is saying is if you want to trust in the flesh ( our old life) then there are many things i can bring up and present as status…position…geneology…ritual.
he kept the law in such a way that MAN could not accuse him of anything, but we know that under the watchful eyes of God things are seen differently.
Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
as we can see in the verses in thebook of Acts Saul (Paul) was a party to murder but the Pharisees was of the opinion that they were doing a service to God.
so from this point of view he was a party to murder even if he and his buddies thought they were serving God.
and so he finishes up by saying that the things he trusted in as gain before, he now counts as loss in order to obtain a relationship with Jesus Christ.
paul is not confused! he read the bible properly without looking for contradictions maybe it will make sense to you.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
The whole point of the law is to reveal the fact that we are sinners, he didn’t change anything
When Paul speaks about the flesh he is talking our sinful lifestyle before he became a Christian
Hi Ijaz
I forgot to let you know a vital part of what speaks about is this
1. There are religious works people do in order to be right with God
2. There are religious works that we do because we ARE right with God.
There is a difference
Hi Henry!
The Sr. who wrote the article on John 3:16 doesn’t have a proper internet connection right now, so please bear with us in this case. Once I confirm that she has constant internet access, I will approve and she will respond, God willing. I am holding true to my promise and approving your comments although I am not in a position to reply given my medical state.
It’s not that I made up my mind, I’ve read several commentaries not limited to but including EP Sanders’ cited text, Dr. James Daniel Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus”, Adam Clarke’s exegesis, John Gill’s exegesis, John Darby’s exegesis, Matthew Henry’s exegesis. Compared to this, what scholarly and critical texts have you read to derive your conclusion? Do you depend on your own ideas and beliefs (see: eisegesis), do you study any exegetical works? It’s pretty extant that Paul believed that salvation through Christ was the only means of salvation:
You said and I quote, “when we read these verses we can see that Paul is not actually boasting he is giving us some insight into the change that has taken place in his life and heart.” How did you arrive at that conclusion? Your own scholars say the exact opposite, “He shows what he had to boast of as a Jew and a Pharisee.” According to Matthew Henry’s exegesis on the verse, he was boasting, according to EP Sanders’ book (which I cited), he was ‘exaggerating’, which to me is another word of boasting. In fact, your own God, Christ, in 2 Corinthians 12:5-9, punishes Paul due to his extravagant boasting. Just for the tally, your God, your Bible, your scholars all agree he was boasting and you….think the opposite. Given the evidence, I’d say you’re outnumbered. The rest of your post is irrelevant as it’s based on a fault foundation (i.e. the lie that Paul was not boasting).
There is no correlation between this comment, “I forgot to let you know a vital part of what speaks about is this” and the rest of it, in relation to what I posted in my article or to what I answered you with in my previous comment.
defender of krisnha, how many PERSONS in the trinity did it take to punish the son for the sins of humankind? how many persons? did any of them require JOINT APPLICATION to punish the living day lights out of jesus the human/spirit? please tell us.
“Why do Christians expect us to follow such a muddled doctrine on salvation? Am I to accept that God failed in His plans for mankind’s salvation? Am I to accept that the apostle God chose to usher in His new faith, himself did not grasp it? Am I to accept that God killed His ‘son’, because God screwed up and needed a quick-save plan? As confusing and problematic Paul’s position is, the doctrine of soteriology in Christianity is far more complicated, for if Paul’s works are the foundation for it, given that it’s already so confusing, shall we expect anything derived of it to be void of such issues? Wishful thinking at its best for out Christian brothers.”
i will quote the following because robert spencer has tried to prove that prophet Muhammad (p) did not exist
there are two scholars who had recently debated on justin rileys radio show
it is the LAST response which may answer the query you make
JB: Why would Christians who started out with a heavenly Jesus known by revelation only want to later make him an historical figure?
RC: You could ask that question of all the other gods in antiquity. You start out with the celestial deity who is then put on earth in history. You want to know the possible reasons they were doing that. We KNOW they were doing it.
*** We know Irenaeus and other “Church Fathers” knew this — and accordingly created genealogies tracing “the truth” back through genealogical lines.
One of the possible reasons is argued by Kurt Noll, last chapter in ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus”: he argues there is a polemical and basic natural selection advantage to a church that packages its deity as a historical figure and creates a tradition that it can trace back. So creating this idea that Peter knew Jesus personally and was the first in the tradition and it can be traced back to him is rhetorically useful.***
**** Embarrassing? That’s the apologetic line but it does not stack up against boasts over the crucifixion;
****Paul persecuted the church in the canonical tradition, yes, but what was the origin of this claim? Who doubted it?
**** The idea of a Messiah being crucified, or at least put to death in the first time of his appearance, does indeed find a place within Second Temple Judaism — as Levenson and others discussed here have demonstrated. RC skirts closely to one of these ideas when he speaks of a belief in the actual (atoning) death of Isaac.
MG: One of the problems with this view is that early Christians actually had a lot of trouble explaining the crucifixion. Paul said the idea was a stumbling block to the Jews. This is something they are not spending time manufacturing, but rather spending time attempting to explain. It’s kind of embarrassing to them at first.**** So Paul at first persecuted the Christian movement,**** and presumably persecuted it for coming out with this preposterous idea that the Messiah would be crucified. So they are working with a tradition or idea that was horrifying to many others – that the Messiah in the recent past was crucified. ****
JB: It’s the idea of the criterion of embarrassment often used in HJ studies.
JB then asks MG if he thinks this [preaching an ’embarrassing’ doctrine like this] to be a likely thing in a Jewish culture, though it may have happened in pagan cultures.
MG: The Gospel of Mark is trying to explain that the idea of a crucified Messiah is not barmy. He admits the disciples are thinking, “This can’t be right.”
The early Christian gospel was always “this great struggle with this great paradox”.
JB: Turns to RC and challenges him with the idea that if one was to make up a story then one would not make up this one because it’s going to be too hard to sell.
RC: Creating absurd and embarrassing and paradoxical religions was very common at the time. Example, god Attis died through castration and to be a priest one had to be castrated. This is not an argument for a real Attis who really castrated himself.
Many demigods die and rise from the dead — always called “suffering/passion” — and by believing in this the devotee could also be saved from death.
Hey Mansubzero
To answer your question all three…it was all three that was involved in the resurrection
Gai 1:1 the Father. John 2:19-22 the Son. Romans 8:11 the Holy Spirit. Maybe it should just say God raised him but it doesn’t
i didn’t ask about the ressurection. HOW MANY persons in your trinity beat up jesus’ spirit ? how many? evangelicals say that the father POURED his wrath on to jesus, so how many persons is the father? did the father require JOINT APPLICATION from the other 2 persons to punish the the 3rd person? to BEAT UP someone would require that the someone is A SERPERATE person, so how many persons BEAT up the 3rd person? was it all 3 or 2 or just the one person?
Hi Mansubzero
I thought I already gave a response to please check the Jewish Torah in regards the more than one person.
Firstly where does the bible say the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus?
Next read these verses in Genesis because you guys claim we Christians are Polytheist when the Koran does not even speak about what we believe.
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
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, and bowed himself toward the ground,
In this text how did Jehovah appear to Abraham?
Gen 19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
How many Jehovah’s are in verse 24?
Jews don’t believe what Christians believe so if the Torah is corrupted who was corrupted to help?
Here is God pouring his wrath out on Sodom can you show me God pours his wrath on Jesus.
I know according to bible everyone’s sin was laid on him which is what Isaiah says, I have you the scriptures revealing the Trinity involved in the resurrection.
So you ask a stupid question of how Fathers are there, why don’t you pay attention to what is being said before asking silly questions.
you really need a punch in your face, i think that would solve matters quickly. i ask a b*m like you again. who punished the sons spirit on the cross? the romans screwed, blued and tatooed the FLESH, not the spirit. the only person who could POUR his wrath on his (sons)spirit is the one who GAVE him to do list/ bossed him about IN THE first place.
lets look @ isaish , WT* has it got to do with jebus?
http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/06/it-is-finished-for-richard-carriers-dying-messiah-part-2/
Throughout the song of the Suffering Servant, the servant is described as oppressed, smitten, stricken, afflicted, like a lamb to the slaughter. Let’s take a look again at Psalm 44:
Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not gone out with our armies. You made us turn back from the foe, and our enemies have gotten spoil. You have made us like sheep for slaughter, and have scattered us among the nations. You have sold your people for a trifle, demanding no high price for them. You have made us the taunt of our neighbors, the derision and scorn of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples. All day long my disgrace is before me, and shame has covered my face at the words of the taunters and revilers, at the sight of the enemy and the avenger. All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way, yet you have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love. (Ps 44:9-26)
Virtually all the same language used in the post-exilic song of the Suffering Servant is used here in this exilic Psalm to describe the nation of Israel. Moreover, take note that in vv. 4-6 of this psalm (quoted earlier), the speaker alternates between the first person singular (a collective voice of Israel) and the first person plural. In the same way, the song of the Suffering Servant speaks of Israel as a collective.
Note further that Psalm 44 expressly says that Israel is killed and expresses hope for restoration: “Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love.” In the same way, Isaiah 53 says that the servant is cut off and buried, only to be restored to prosperity and greatness by virtue of Yahweh’s faithfulness. This same metaphor of death is found in the famous “valley of the dry bones” vision in the exilic Ezekiel 37, where Ezekiel is given a vision of a valley full of skeletons, and is told by the messenger, “Mortal, these bones are the whole house of Israel” (Ezek 37:11), not just the individual Israelites who had died. But in the very next verse Ezekiel is then told to comfort Israel in their captivity, to “prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel” (37:12). This of course does not speak of a literal bodily resurrection of dead Israelites, but of a metaphorical resurrection, a restoration of “the whole house of Israel.”
The same thing is seen in Hosea 6:1-2: “‘Come, let us return to Yahweh; for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” This image of death and resurrection as a metaphor for Israel’s liberation from oppression is also seen in Isa 26:19. So in Psalm 44, Israel is “sinking down to the dust,” but expresses hope of restoration. In Ezekiel 37, “the whole house of Israel” is a “valley full of dry bones,” but will be “brought up from the grave.” Likewise, in Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant is “cut off from the land of the living” and “given a grave,” but will “prosper” and be “exalted.”
Note also that in Psalm 44, Israel accuses Yahweh, saying, “Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Likewise, in Isaiah 53, “Yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him with pain.” And again in both cases, Israel is proclaimed to be innocent:
All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way. . . . If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. (Ps 44:17-18, 20-21).
By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? . . . They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth . . . the righteous one, my servant. (Isa 53:8a, 9, 11b)
“They made his grave with the wicked” means that Israel was “cut off” in Babylon.
Some would argue that the servant is not Israel because the servant is said to suffer for the transgressions of many. After all, Israel is not guiltless, as the servant is portrayed. Rather, Israel is being punished in exile for its sins. But this would be wrong. What is presented here is an idealized portrait of Israel. Remember that just above in Psalm 44, Israel proclaims its innocence to Yahweh and its faithfulness to the covenant. And in fact, this is what the author of Second Isaiah says, in the voice of Yahweh, about Israel expressly, just prior to the beginning of the song of the suffering servant:
Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what am I doing here, says Yahweh, seeing that my people are taken away without cause? Their rulers howl, says Yahweh, and continually, all day long, my name is despised. Therefore my people shall know my name; therefore on that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here am I. (Isa 52:3-6)
Here the author has Yahweh proclaiming Israel’s innocence. He says that Israel was innocent when they were captive in Egypt, that they were innocent when oppressed by the Assyrians, and are innocent now too while in bondage in Babylon. Yahweh’s “name is despised” because his innocent servant, Israel, is suffering.
So whose sins, then, are forgiven on account of the Servant’s suffering? If Israel is, according to Isaiah 52-53, innocent, for whose guilt is Israel atoning? The answer is obvious: remember that the speaker in Isa 53:1-10 is the nations and kings, the ones who taunted Israel, the ones who afflicted Israel, the ones who saw nothing of value in Israel that they should step in to save them. It is for these sins that Israel’s suffering atones. Israel’s suffering and subsequent exaltation effects the very purposes of Yahweh: to make the nations take notice so that they will recognize Yahweh’s power and come to worship him. Israel’s suffering and exaltation makes Israel a light to the Gentiles. This is a pervasive theme throughout Second Isaiah, and is shown in a number of ways.
END QUOTE
u speak out of your backside when you try to superglue jebus to the verses in isaiah.
OKAY, you have 3 persons in the pagan polythiest 3 MINDs trinity.
the trinity, which consists of 3 persons under an umbrella called “god” r supposed to be 3 co EQUALS
the son WAS not CO-EQUAL when he SWITCHED off his powers temporarily
there is the father who had ACCESS TO the sons spirit
WHich person in the trinity PUNISHED the hell/ crap out of the person of the son? who did it? WHO is responsible? and did he REQUIRE joint application to punish the son?
did god PUNISH god? did 3 persons PUNISH one PERSON ? how does it work PAGAN?
“Here is God pouring his wrath out on Sodom can you show me God pours his wrath on jesus.”
so explain how it works, CAUSE I DON’T GET IT
there are 3 persons in the trinity
how many persons PUNISHED the PERSON of jebus? how many?
did ALL 3 persons punish the person of jesus?
if that is the case, then how many PERSONS of jesus was there? if one person had power to punish the person of jesus by punishing him ALONG with the father , then we have 2 DIFFERENT jesus’.
jesus ‘ “sacrifce” is rendered human sacrifice.
jebus is alledged to have died for past and future sins
christians assume that his phony “sacrifice” is EQUIVALLENT TO AN eternity in hell
god will put souls in HELL
who poured the WRATH OF hell on jesus’ spirit?
did jesus along with the spirit + father pour wrath unto himself?
look, i have made it easy for you to understand.
other questions
did god work through the romans when he had jesus die for past and future sins?
if you make roman destruction of jesus’ flesh equivalent to an ETERNITY IN HELL fire, then DID the romans TEMPORARILY borrow an attribute from god? did they some how magically share in gods wrath giving ? or did god give his wrath to the romans temporarily and he himself had an attribute missing?
how do 3 persons PUNISH one person who is supposed to be the 3rd person in the 3 persons ?
Hi Mansubzero
a punch in face? that shows how sad you guys are you sound like you need to be educated you asked me how many fathers am I correct?
i gave you a verse from the Jewish Torah about Jehovah let me show you again because you’re talking about CHRISTIANS being POLYTHEIST and that accusation is not directed to the JEWS so let’s look at the verse.
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
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, and bowed himself toward the ground,
notice it says the Lord (Jehovah) appeared to Abraham as a MAN! right and the Jews believe God is one.
now look at these verses
Gen 19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
we notice there are TWO Jehovah’s one on the earth the other in heaven so before I answer your questions we need to decide if this is the case.
and secondly where does the bible say the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus on the cross?
then we can do business instead of talking like a donut just debate properly
Hi Mansubzero
tell me who is speaking in this verse and also who are the two that are sending this person?
Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
you keep going on trinity three gods three minds etc because you don’t understand scripture and what Christians believe you come out with madness that make no sense to Christians.
you try to explain something you don’t understand and it sounds like gibberish.
work the text and come back and keep your language clean i don’t how you can be a Muslim i hope not because by your example why would i ever want to become one.
i wonder whether a pagan triplet worshipping polythiest like you understands ANYTHING i have written? who punished the 3rd person in the trinity? the 3rd person punished himself
yes/no ?
did the romans PUNISH COMPLETE/FULLY/100 PERCENT god, OR DID THEY punish the 3rd PERSON ?
i know u r dumb, this is why i am trying my best to make it easy 4 u.
Hi Mansubzero
According Christians WHO is the 3rd person of the Trinity? What does that have to do with Jesus?
Hi Mansubzero
If you knew what Christians believe you wouldn’t ask such a stupid question.
You said…
i wonder whether a pagan triplet worshipping polythiest like you understands ANYTHING i have written? who punished the 3rd person in the trinity? the 3rd person punished himself
yes/no ?
Can you tell me who is the third person of the Trinity? Because your koran says the following
Pickthall
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
What Christian believes in the Father Mother and the Son as gods?
Pickthall
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
Say not three what Mansubzero? Three gods three men three women three what?
Pickthal
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
So according to your scriptures the third of three is Allah, I don’t know or ever heard of any Christians that believe this I don’t think Muhammad knew either.
You Muslims are opposing something your god couldn’t even explain properly in his own book come on let’s be real if you are going to reject something as false as least reveal it in the right way.
The koran is not rejecting the trinity you have to change the meaning of one of your verses in order to do so. For example…
005:073 Rashad
Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.
005:073 Yusuf Ali
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
005:073 Khan
Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God – Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.
This is how Muslims lie to get their scripture to fit what they want it to say…the word Trinity is NOT IN THE ARABIC TEXT so why is it in the English translation.
Your prophet was against Polytheist and didnt know what the real Christians believed because if after 600 years of Christian history churches and teaching he couldn’t get it right why on earth didnt Allah reveal the true belief of the church.
And by the way what is this painful torment that will befall them?
ibn anwar kicked your as s on unveiling christianity. how bad are your bruises on your back side? please tell me.
@defendchrist , you do not know a word of Arabic and think Quran misinterprets the trinity.
The Quran is spot on in describing the Trinity .
See the following link for a brilliant and academic analysis of your claims.
http://unveiling-christianity.org/2012/04/26/quran-misrepresent-the-trinity/