Do Moslems, Christians & Jews Believe in the Same God?

One in a series of excerpts adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s new book, The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam

One of the clichés endlessly repeated by those who would conceal the dangerous potentialities inherent in Islam is that Moslems "believe in the same God" as Christians and Jews. But this is a severe distortion of the truth, for what Moslems fundamentally believe is that they know the true nature of the God that Judaism and Christianity tell lies about. Lies for which Christians and Jews will be punished in hell. The fact that Moslems share Levantine monotheism with us thus makes them more, not less, antagonistic to us on a religious level. Hopes for reconciliation on the grounds of common monotheism, as opposed to a realistic "good fences make good neighbors" civilizational détente, are wishful thinking.

The widespread belief in the non-Muslim world that Islam accords respect to the Old Testament and the Gospels as steps in progression to Mohammad’s revelation is mistaken. Modern Muslim apologists try to stress the supposed underlying similarities and compatibility of the three faiths, but this is not the view of orthodox Islam. Muhammad’s insistence that there is a heavenly proto-Scripture and that previous "books" are merely distorted and tainted copies sent to previous nations or communities means that these scriptures are the "barbarous Koran" as opposed to the true, Arabic one. (Let’s leave aside for a minute the puzzling question of how any degree of "distortion" of the Koran could produce either an Old or a New Testament.) The Tradition also regards the non-canonical Gospel of Barnabas, and not the New Testament, as the one that Jesus taught. The Koran alone is the true word of God and sets aside all previous revelations.

While the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends are the second most important original source of Islam. In other words, Islam contains an awful lot that Christians have deliberately rejected over the years as religiously unsound. There are also influences of Sabaism, of Zoroastrianism, and of ancient Arabian paganism, including the divine sanction for the practices of polygamy and slavery. The reports in both the Koran and the Hadith (authoritative traditional sayings) concerning paradise, the houris, (virgins) the youths, the jinn (genies) and the angel of death have been directly taken from the ancient books of the Zoroastrians. Zoroastrianism also originated the story that on the Day of Judgment all people will have to cross a bridge stretched across hell leading to paradise on which the unbelievers will stumble and fall down to hell.

The biblical stories been passed on to Muhammad presumably from Jewish and Christian sources, but it is probable that he never read the Old or the New Testament. Those narratives had deeply impressed him, but being incomplete and imprecise, they gave his imagination free rein. Of the books of the Old Testament he knew only of the Torah or Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms, while the Scriptures he treats collectively as "the Gospels." Muhammad took these narratives as they were given to him, and their use in the Koran amounts to random, approximate and often badly misunderstood reproduction of the Talmudic traditions and the Apocrypha. Moreover, they are of course devoid of their original contexts and of the spiritual message of the original.

Many Old Testament stories are changed beyond recognition, and can be treated as a "source" only in the most general sense. Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice. "Haman" was pharaoh’s chief minister, even though the Haman known to Jews lived in Babylon one thousand years later. Moses was picked from the river not by his sister but by his mother. A Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, even though Samarians arrived only after the Babylonian exile. The accounts of Moses’ life are sketchy and say nothing of his character, descent, the time he was sent as a prophet, the purpose of his mission, and where, how and why he appointed Aaron as his deputy. It does not relate the argument between them and the people of Israel, which is crucial to the story. The story of Noah reflected Muhammad’s dilemmas and difficulties rather than Noah’s mission, and even the names of the idols that Noah warns against are Arabic.

The Koran makes reference to Jesus, Mary and events related to them, but with a critical distinction. It explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified: Allah made the Jews so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ: "They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them." Muslims claim that an impostor by the name of Shabih was crucified, and he resembled Jesus in his face only. It seems illogical to those who count "proud" as one of the "99 most beautiful names of Allah" that Jesus, who was capable of raising the dead and of healing the blind and the leper, willingly submitted to the cross and failed to destroy the Jews who intended to hurt him. Islam rejects the whole concept of the crucifixion, claiming that it is against reason to assume that Allah would not forgive man’s sins without the cross: to say so is to limit his power: "He forgives whom he will, and he chastises whom he will."

The denial of the Trinity is also explicit: Allah begets not, i.e. he is no Father; and was not begotten, that is, he is no Son; and no one is like him, which means he is no Holy Spirit. "They are infidels who say, Allah is the third of three." But "Isa" is not the Son of Allah, only a special prophet, and the Christians’ contrary claim shows how they are perverted. The Christians are guilty of blasphemy because of their belief in the "trinity" of Allah, Mary, and Jesus. The "real" Jesus was a righteous prophet and a good Muslim who paved the way for the final prophet, Muhammad himself.

There is a wishful myth in circulation among liberals that Islam accords respect to all "people of the book," i.e. Christians and Jews in addition to Moslems. While Islam indeed accords them a higher standing than it does to polytheists like Hindus (pace the question of whether Hinduism properly understood is truly polytheistic) or African animists, this hardly amounts to respect. Of all the "people of the book" only Muslims can attain salvation. Jews’ and Christians’ refusal to acknowledge Mohammed as the messenger of God dooms them to unbelief and eternal suffering after death. Christians are mortal sinners because of their belief in the divinity of Christ, and their condemnation is irrevocable: "God will forbid him the garden and the fire will be his abode."

Unlike the Christian faith in God revealing Himself through Christ, the Koran is not a revelation of Allah – a heretical concept in Islam – but the direct revelation of his commandments and the communication of his law. It has been said that the Koran, to a Muslim, is not the perfected Gospel, it Christ, the Word Incarnate. This is a somewhat tenuous metaphor, however, not a valid parallel: Christian God "comes down" and seeks man because of His fatherly love. The Fall cast a shadow, the Incarnation makes reconciliation possible. Allah, by contrast, is cold, haughty, unpredictable, unknowable, capricious, distant, and so purely transcendent that no "relationship" is possible. He reveals only his will, not himself. Allah is "everywhere," and therefore nowhere relevant to us. He is uninterested in making our acquaintance, let alone in being near to us because of love. We are still utterly unable to grasp his purposes and all we can do is what we have to do, to obey his command.

The Koran claims to be the fulfillment of a religious design which was imperfectly revealed to the Jews and to the Christians. It is the crowning synthesis, the final word. But viewing the matter objectively, leaving aside for a moment the question of the actual truth of the book, it seems hard to see how the Koran is a synthesis of anything. The way in which Christianity makes sense – again, simply as a logical matter and leaving aside the truth of it – as a fulfillment of Judaism, is clear even to the unbeliever. But the Koran’s claim is singularly implausible. Non-Muslim commentators fail to see in what way is the Koran an improvement over, or advancement on, the moral teaching, language, style, or coherence of the Old and New Testament. It is looks, feels, sounds like a construct entirely human in origin and intent, clear in its earthly sources of inspiration and the fulfillment of the daily needs, personal and political, of its author.

Finally, one cannot ignore that whatever mildly friendly things the Koran may say about Judaism and Christianity in its early part, the late Surras also signify the final break with the Jews and Christians, who are fiercely denounced. The Muslims must be merciless to the unbelievers but kind to each other. "Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them." War, not friendship, is mandatory until Islam reigns everywhere. Muslims are ordered to fight the unbelievers, "and let them find harshness in you." They must kill the unbelievers "wherever you find them." The punishment for resistance is execution or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides. By the stage in his life during which these Surras were written, Muhammad was no longer trying to convert his hearers by examples, promises, and warnings; he addresses them as their master and sovereign, praising them or blaming them for their conduct, giving laws and precepts as needed. His raw dogmatism stands, finally, naked of all pretence.

No. They are an Antichrist religion.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Translations of Qur'anic Verses by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

Say: "Praise be to Allah Who begets no son and has no partner in (His) dominion: nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: Yea magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17: 111

Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": 18: 4

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be" and it is. 19: 35

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 19: 88/89

For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 19: 92

No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods) behold each god would have taken away what he had created and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! 23: 91

He begetteth not nor is He begotten; 112: 3

There is no common ground with an antichrist religion that seeks to destroy innocent people.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7 ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Translations of Qur'anic Verses by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

Say: "Praise be to Allah Who begets no son and has no partner in (His) dominion: nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: Yea magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17: 111

Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": 18: 4

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be" and it is. 19: 35

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 19: 88/89

For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 19: 92

He begetteth not nor is He begotten; 112: 3

If you would like to enlighten me as to how my Bible that I now read [King James, Amplified Bible, or the New American Standard versions], which are widely available and read, has anything to do with what "some dead [Catholic] Roman emperor tells [me] what to believe about Christ," as you first claimed that a dead emperor is, that would be a great answer from you.

Maybe I assumed too much about your knowledge of history, or even your desire to look it up--certainly your desire to discuss it. I will rerererereiterate. (Not that you're anymore likely to read or respond to it this time.)

The current interpretation of the trinity as being simultaneously ONE and THREE entities became the establishment view only after many many years of factional disagreement about scriptural interpretation among true believers of Christ and the gospels. These various disagreements were later to be called "heresies" by the established (Nicene) view. Various Roman emperors of the 4th century alternately adhered to at least two of these factions (the Nicenes, who interpret the trinity as you do, and the Arians, whose interpretation that Christ is in some way distinct from the Father). When an Arian emperor held power he persecuted the Nicenes and vica versa. Ultimately a series of Nicene emperors held power and used it to establish the view of the Trinity most Christians have today.

You needn't reply. I know your "response". It is something like: "I believe in the word of God and the Truth of Christ and there is no reason for me to study false doctrine and the Truth has nothing to do with what anybody thinks and you only need to read the bible to know the Truth and if you don't know the Truth as I do you are going to Hell..." or something just as relevent to the discussion.

You just enjoy empty debates.

I'd settle for ANY kind of debate over what you were giving me.

Thank you for your historical information concerning the Nicenes and Arians. My understanding of the early Christian church is that those people lived in a polytheistic society. The "accepted" exception was the Jews, although, by 185 a.d., or so, their previously held "judicial" powers had been stripped. My understanding is that edicts had gone out, from the emperors, because of Jewish arm-twisting, forbidding the "secret gathering" of the early Christians. The Romans, from my understanding, were either ambivalent or disinterested, generally, in what the Christians did/did not do....until the Jews continued with their harassments against the Christians. I also understand, Nero is the first emperor who began to mistreat and allow Christians to be tortured. Their crime: 1. (to the Romans): the Christians would not refuse to believe the "Truth" and denounce their adherence to Christ. 2. (to the Jews): the Christians had separated themselves from the traditional and "acceptable" forms of worship. They stopped following, more and more, the Mosaic Law and Jewish sacred traditions. The Christians were considered "heretics."

These early Christians relied upon letters written by Paul, James, Jude, John, etc., and their memories of Paul's visits to them and their in depth religious discussions at various places, as these letters were written to those churches at that time in Phillipi, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, etc. These same letters are in the Bible I read. But, I am sure, you know all of this.

What the early Christians believed is what Christ, Himself, either taught them directly, or the disciples, who spent three years in intense, spiritual and religious discussions with Him. The disciples/apostles, recorded these understandings (i.e., letters), specifically for the purpose of reminding, instructing, and encouraging, all the saints (those who believe in Christ), as to what to believe and how to practice their beliefs.

Enter next chapters:
ca. 250 - first systematic empire-wide persecutions of Christians under Emperor Decius; churches destroyed, books burned, leaders arrested

ca. 300 - worst empire-wide persecutions of Christians under Emperor Diocletian; wants to eradicate Christianity

313 - "Edict of Milan"; Emperor Constantine I makes Christianity a legally recognized religion; official imperial support allows Christians to build large churches, produce large durable Bibles, obtain more converts, develop structures, etc.

By this time, the early Catholic church began. Catholicism has many traditions that are corruptions from biblical truth; although Constantine favored the chrisitians, he was drawn to the catholic style of beliefs.

As I previously stated, Catholicism is a corruption from biblical truth; Martin Luther, as I earlier mentioned, saw problems with what had resulted in the catholic version of truth.

These diversions from Truth, as I mentioned at another post, are irrelevant as far as the Truth remaining constant. These various offshoots from the Truth were all labled as "christian" religions, some having completely false doctrines (i.e., their core having little to do with what Jesus, Paul, John, Jude, etc. said or wrote).

Case in point: the Crusades were hailed as being "God's will." Not true. This was an edict of certain religious leaders to political rulers. Nowhere in the New Testament could anyone construe Christ's words to mean that He would have us murder nonbelievers.

Another corruption of Truth: baptizing infants for salvation. This is clearly not scriptural. Nowhere can it be found that Christ says infants must be baptized or that baptism, itself, "saves you." He says to be saved you must believe in Him. Baptism is another area of dispute amongst Christians. Some believe that it is a requirement for salvation, while others believe it is the outward expression of your inward faith; having already received salvation. These arguments produced still more "christian" sects.

Point being: just because someone calls themself or labels a sect "christian" does not make them/it "Christian." This name have been falsely applied to many sects. Unfortunately, many people believe they are a "Christian" simply because they attend a "Christian" church. Believing a falsity does not make the false belief true.

The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit. These are things Jesus said. If anything differs from His words, anything added or taken away as the basis of salvation, it is a corruption of the Truth. It then has become a belief in church dogma/doctrine rather than Christ.

And that is why I have kept harping (or as you claimed, preaching) on the Word of God. It is not my version, your version, a church's version; it is what is written in the Word and what is it that Christ says about who or what a Christian is.

I'm sure there is a reason why you are ignoring my main argument regarding the heresies. Once again, for clarity, I will rerererererereiterate. Specifically regarding the Arians and their notion of the Trinity...

The Arians were, of course, NOT "polytheistic". In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels (not some later corrupted Catholic scriptures that you keep referring to, but the same gospels that you read) as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different. The argument is made possible by the apparent conflict in interpretation as presented, for example, in Mark versus John.

I thank you for providing your definition of a Christian above. That certainly does advance the argument. Perhaps now, at long last, you will agree that Arians are indeed Christians.

Thanks for your brief chronology of some of the religious persecutions (though we could debate your interpration of them--lets not get diverted further), you still fail to recognize the imperial history as relevent to my argument--there were emperors who were alternately Nicene and Arian. Thus, you have Christians persecuting Christians. The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?

The Arians . . . would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels (not some later corrupted Catholic scriptures that you keep referring to, but the same gospels that you read) as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different.

If the Arians, who believed they were Christians, and did not believe in the Trinity (3 beings co-equally God), but, instead, believed there was one God and believed that the Holy Spirit and Christ were something less and different, then what did they believe Christ was? "The Son of God" or a "Prophet," or something else? If they believed He was only a prophet, then that would have made Christ a liar, because He Himself admitted to being God when accused of such. If they only believed He was the "Son of God," (i.e., a mortal), then again they disbelieved who He claimed to be. He also referred back to Old Testament Scriptures used to describe Himself and His coming--the long-awaited Messiah.

The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?

No, I have no doubt that their efforts made a difference in many more people being taught that God is 3 co-equal beings. I would be foolish to say otherwise.

But I must clarify something here. Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either. I was baptised and raised Catholic, taught to believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are God. But that did not make me a Christian. I became a Christian when I was 13, when I accepted Christ as my personal Savior.

I never said they did not believe in the Trinity, but why should I now expect you to show me the courtesy of reading my posts before "responding".

The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.

And it wasn't just the Arians who claimed belief in only one god, it is the Nicenes as well and, presumably, you. The Nicenes could also accuse the Arians of being polytheistic by creating a demigod out of Christ.

Don't ask me to make sense of it. I can't. But that is apparently what they believed. And if you read Mark, you see God speaking of Jesus as though he is a distinct entity. Christians typically visualize him sitting at the right hand of God--even in the spiritual world he is seen as a distinct entity. It is a contorted notion maybe, but so is the idea that the Trinity are simultaneously the same and different. Now that violates identity (a reference to another thread, sorry).

Look, don't take my word for it. Why not read up on the heresies yourself. It's just history. Maybe you'll find my facts are wrong and you'll then actually be able to form a counterargument.

Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either.

Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).

Points made by you related to the Trinity:

Your earliest remark regarding the Trinity: "The discussion I'm having stemmed from someone's remarks that unless one believes in the "Trinity of persons within the Godhead", one is not a Christian."
---------------
Then you went to "interpretation of the Trinity:"

"I never said they did not believe in the Trinity . . . The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.

----------------
"Should [they] be denied the right to be called Christian b/c they interpreted the trinity differently than the Nicenes."
-----------------
"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels . . . as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different"
-------------------
Many Arians may have had sincere beliefs in God. I do not question that (of course, there were probably many who used it against others, as some pastors or leaders do today, regardless of their faith). But it sounds to me that they had a great misunderstanding of who God is. They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.

John 1:1-5 would refute Jesus being something less than equal to God, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," as would John 10:30 "I and my Father are one," as would other Scripture. One could look to the passage of Pontius Pilate making declarations against Jesus claiming to be God, which He did not deny.

Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).

No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian." To reiterate: A Christian believes in the Trinity (something I have said all along). A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one; the Father sent the Son to die for our sins; the Son sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the believer; for this to happen, there is a belief process required. There's lots of Scripture previously quoted on this thread (by me and others), and I'm sure you know of yet still others.

Belief in the Trinity does not make one a Christian; but a Christian believes in the Trinity. To believe otherwise is to disbelieve the Scriptures, and to disbelieve that Jesus is who He claimed He was. If He was the Word, and He was in the beginning with God, and if all things were made by Him, then He was never spiritually created, because He always was and because He and the Father are one. Now, I suppose, one could argue about whether Jesus even had a hand in creating Himself as a man, since Scripture says "without Him was not any thing made that was made."

I won't mind reading up on the Arians and what they thought; in fact, I just might do that.

"Trinity of persons within the Godhead" IS an interpretation of the trinity, and in particular it is the NICENE interpretation and not the Arian interpretation. This of course has been my argument. I just assumed that you recognized the obvious and realized this as the Nicene interpretation, especially after I wrote extensively about it to you.

So, of course, I never "went to interpretation". I started there and never left.

Then, you misquote me as writing:

"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."

when in fact I wrote:

"In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."

They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.

...and around and around in circles we go. You even requote the same passages from John. You needn't assume that b/c you don't read my posts to you that I don't, foolishly, read yours. Shall I requote the same passages I previously quoted from Mark?

And so you again repeat what you already made deafeningly clear--that you believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity. Unfortunately, your personal beliefs in the Trinity have nothing to do with the argument. I'm not now nor have I been questioning or trying your faith which you seem intent on defending nontheless. You also again make clear that you will turn a blind eye to trying to understand scriptural interpretations that led others to different views on the Trinity.

No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian."

You had posted the following definition:

It was a marvellous advance that you did so, and so it was a great surprise to me. Now you alter this by adding

A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one

Which was not in your original definition above and effectively eliminates all non-Nicenes from the label of "Christian". Shall I again attempt to argue from this point only to have you change it again later? Hopeless.

I won't mind reading up on the Arians

You undid the one useful part of this whole debate--first defining Christian, then changing your definition and thus making debate with you a hopelessly moving target. Now you suggest another positive note. I wonder if you'll do it.

You can spin and twist my words about what a Christian is however you wish; this forum cannot keep up with however many times you need me to repeat myself, therefore I will not. For you to not spin, it is apparently necessary to post on every post, what Christ says a Christian is, what a person must do to become a Christian, and all the elements that belief process involves. I have listed what Christians believes in one post (the Trinity, 3 equal beings yet 1 God); another post: (what Christ says we must do to become a Christian [and then what God does once one is a Christian); another post: (believing the Trinity exists does not make one a Christian). These different posts do not change what a Christian is or how one becomes a Christian.

To understand how one gets dressed to go to work in the morning is similar: there are certain things one must do. Stating something simply like, "take a shower, get dressed, and drive" is simple. Being more specific and adding information about the shower, about the clothing, and then mentioning "putting on make up" or "putting on perfume," does not change the originally stated SIMPLE meaning. Nor would one have to continue to keep saying "get dressed," once it's already been stated---one assumes that the reader can follow along with the fact that that no longer needs to be reiterated.

You can spin and twist my words about what a Christian is however you wish

Your words exactly from post 485:

You are insincere to tell me that this (which says nothing of the trinity being the same entity) is your definition of a Christian, and then later to deny it by requiring that a Christian believe that the trinity are the same entity.

My not accepting your wavering is not the same as spin. For that matter, just what in the world do you think my "spin" is? Do you even know what "spin" means? I merely presented historical facts, posited that a "Christian" need not believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity, and you go off into a boatload of repetitive irrlevencies about true and false doctrine, and how you know Jesus, and a plethora of other things not pertaining to my original point or any historical facts. You, sir, are clearly the spinmeister.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.