An Argument Against Islam - Advice Needed!

[SalamKhan]

Masha Allah, excellent distinction made by OneBlanketBoss.

Allah’s Oneness is a negating attribute i.e. negates what He is not, as does any other negating attribute. In this way, Allah is above human understanding.

The Trinity is a intellectual impossibility, and thus it goes against human understanding.

Please read my post for a brief rational defense of Islamic Monotheism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14735548&postcount=34

A quick response to meltzerboy. We do not believe that Muhammad (S), is the sole Prophet and Messenger of Allah, but he is the successor of all previous Prophets and Messengers, and supercedes them all in rank, honour and authority. As Allah is the creator of good and evil, He is the one who defines good and evil. And as there is no real intrinsic moral value in His laws, such as dietary, Allah has the authority to abrogate or replace such laws.

I have spent more time than I should have, so I will take my leave.

May Allah guide all of us to the truth and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank and honour of His beloved Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (S) and may He grant peace and blessings upon the companions, wives and family of the Prophet (S).

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Wahhabi movement is a ‘Reformist’ movement, in that it rejects the Ahlus Sunnah of the 600 year (at least) period, prior to the emergence of the movement, as heretical or corrupted, and condemns those who are in continuity with the historical Ahlus Sunnah. It’s equivalent in Christianity, would probably be Puritan Protestantism under Oliver Cromwell’s England.

Isn’t that ironic, because Islam itself condemns Christian Tradition and Jewish Tradition as heretical or corrupted and condemns those who are in continuity with the Church and Jewish faith.

There are entire theological treatises on this forum? Right…

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80566
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=374970
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543401
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1028131

On a serious note, hiding behind the claim of mystery is not valid, as it was the Church Fathers who defined the doctrine of the Trinity as one ousia and three hypostases, such terminology is not even in the Bible but was initially proposed by Origen (and perhaps the Gnostic Valentinus even earlier). The Church Fathers also criticised pagans based on the content of their beliefs. So your rush to hide behind the claim of mystery, at this point would be intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure who is hiding what and why terminology outside the Bible is forbidden - maybe you are used to arguing with Bible-only fundamentalists.

The Prophet (S), did not have any Christian uncles, but the cousin of his first wife was a Hebrew speaking Christian. Your revisionist history means nothing if you can’t even get the simplest details correct.

Big detailed mishap right… Cousin instead of uncle of the prophet – I can see all theology and scholarship depends on minute accuracy of this detail. Back to reality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira

Islamic tradition
The story of Muhammad’s encounter with Bahira is found in the works of the early Muslim historians Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa’d al-Baghdadi, and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, whose versions differ in some details. When Muhammad was either nine or twelve years old, he met Bahira in the town of Bosra in Syria during his travel with a Meccan caravan, accompanying his uncle Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib.[3] When the caravan was passing by his cell, the monk invited the merchants to a feast. They accepted the invitation, leaving the boy to guard the camel. Bahira, however, insisted that everyone in the caravan should come to him.[4] Then a miraculous occurrence indicated to the monk that Muhammad was to become a prophet.

It was the movement of a cloud that kept shadowing Muhammad regardless of the time of the day. The monk revealed his visions of Muhammad’s future to the boy’s uncle (Abu Talib), warning him to preserve the child from the Jews (in Ibn Sa’d’s version) or from the Byzantines (in al-Tabari’s version). Both Ibn Sa’d and al-Tabari write that Bahira found the announcement of the coming of Muhammad in the original, unadulterated gospels, which he possessed.[3]

The literal understanding of “our image” and “our likeness” is that God fashioned man to look like Him, and so the literal understanding must be rejected. His entity does not resemble any of His creation, nor is place or direction attributed to His entity.

Neither Jewish nor Christian sources have ever claimed “image” and “likeness” refer to physical resemblance.

Valerie Karras - Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective:

For the Greek Fathers, this spiritual capacity of human nature is encapsulated in the language of Gen. 1:26-7: God created humanity according to God’s own “image”. Furthermore, both the Eastern Church and the medieval Latin Church distinguished between the “image of God” (Latin imago Dei) and the “likeness” or similitude of God, based on the differences between Gen. 1:26 and 1:27. The image designated the potential or capabilities inherent in all human beings, i.e., qualities such as reason; the likeness meant true likeness (at the level of human existence, of course) to God, the realization of human potential as the perpetual fulfillment of a dynamic process between the human person and God. The Greek Fathers in particular developed a generous anthropology around the concept of the imago Dei, even for postlapsarian human nature; as Gregory of Nyssa states in his Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes, the divine imprint may be obscured but it is still intact.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Christians of course disagree, since there are myriad of examples in the Bible and Sacred Tradition of this revelation.

God is Eternal, not finite in Christian theology, so you’ve got this wrong.

That would be a contradiction, however, this is not what Christians are saying.
God the Son is not finite, but when the Son became man, his humanity was finite. You are confusing the Second Person of the Trinity as ONLY human post-incarnation. God the Son came among us for a time, but is a Divine Person.

Don’t understand what you are saying here.

Okay maybe I typed too fast so let me correct what I was trying to say. I am well aware that Christians believe that Jesus is a divine being. However, Jesus humanity is obviously not divine. Catholic Christians also believe that Jesus had 2 natures. One Divine, and One human. So you are telling me that the 2nd Person in the trinity did indeed become HUMAN. So the 2nd person in the trinity had finite attributes like not knowing the hour, depending on food, water, shelter and ect.

NOW…Catholics also believe that God the Father NEVER became Human. So the 2nd person in the trinity became finite while the first person in the trinity remained Infinite. Here you have a huge contradiction between the first person in the trinity and the second person in the trinity. Even if you say Jesus never lost his divinity he did become finite AND infinite in the same time at ONE point. So regardless. Jesus humanity contradicts his own and his fathers divinity according to the Catholic explanation of the Trinity.

This is what I was saying. Imagine a religion teaching God is LOVE but he will punish only the righteous and and reward only the wicked. How can a loving God do such thing? Its a mystery some would say.

The mathematical explanation I used was to symbolizes the trinity and the Eternal Oneness of Allah.

You said in your previous post both understandings of God are a mystery so if one is wrong because it can not be comprehended the other one is wrong as well. Well I have to disagree

There are three DISTINCT Persons in the trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Son, the Son is NOT the Spirit, and the Spirit is NOT either of them. SO three distinct. That adds the number 3. 1+1+1 equals 3. However, the Church teaches there is Only ONE God. My logic fails to understand.

. Ask me how much would remain if you take 1 out of infinity. Infinity would remain. Even if we took something out NOTHING has changed. Now as a human I obviously can not explain that but its logical to say; Infinity will ALWAYS remain infinite matter what.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Masha Allah, excellent distinction made by OneBlanketBoss.

Allah’s Oneness is a negating attribute i.e. negates what He is not, as does any other negating attribute. In this way, Allah is above human understanding.

The Trinity is a intellectual impossibility, and thus it goes against human understanding.

Please read my post for a brief rational defense of Islamic Monotheism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14735548&postcount=34

A quick response to meltzerboy. We do not believe that Muhammad (S), is the sole Prophet and Messenger of Allah, but he is the successor of all previous Prophets and Messengers, and supercedes them all in rank, honour and authority. As Allah is the creator of good and evil, He is the one who defines good and evil. And as there is no real intrinsic moral value in His laws, such as dietary, Allah has the authority to abrogate or replace such laws.

I have spent more time than I should have, so I will take my leave.

May Allah guide all of us to the truth and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank and honour of His beloved Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (S) and may He grant peace and blessings upon the companions, wives and family of the Prophet (S).

Thank you brother! I have been following your posts for a while here in CAW. You are one of the most informed Muslims that I have ever encountered on the Net.

 

[steve_b]

First thing first, Jesus(pbuh) never thought the doctrine of the Trinity concept anytime during his Ministry. This is a fundamental belief in the Catholic Church and yet Jesus(pbuh) has brought many parables to his disciples but NOWHERE does he claim that there are actually 3 persons in the God Head nor does Jesus say that The Holy Spirit is The Creator of the universe! You will not find this from the words of Jesus (pbuh) himself.

Second. The Oneness of Allah is something ABOVE human understanding because God is so unique and so Majestic that we can not reach with our consciousness to understand how the Divine functions and operates. The Trinity in the other hand however claims something that goes AGAINST human understanding. For one we have no problem in God being the eternal absolute nor do Catholics have any objections to this. But they draw a huge line by saying God is Eternal but finite in the SAME time. This is like me saying God is Love but he will only reward the wicked and punish only the righteous. You might then ask me, but how can God be a Loving God in that sense? Imagine my answer be saying…its a mystery. Same thing with how the Catholics and Protestants approach the difficulty in explaining God being a finite being while God the Father NEVER became a finite being and remained infinite the Whole time while in the SAME time the Son and the Father are both ONE.

Another example, if I said that 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus equal 1 but my logic can not be understood cannot be compared to somebody who says, if you take 1 away from INFINITY you have an infinity amount left.

I hope this helps.

It’s best not to misrepresent, but to represent accurately what is actually taught and believed

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

using that link, just click on the particular link to the question/answer you’re looking for

 

[SalamKhan]

Isn’t that ironic, because Islam itself condemns Christian Tradition and Jewish Tradition as heretical or corrupted and condemns those who are in continuity with the Church and Jewish faith.

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80566
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=374970
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543401
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1028131

Not sure who is hiding what and why terminology outside the Bible is forbidden - maybe you are used to arguing with Bible-only fundamentalists.

Big detailed mishap right… Cousin instead of uncle of the prophet – I can see all theology and scholarship depends on minute accuracy of this detail. Back to reality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira

Neither Jewish nor Christian sources have ever claimed “image” and “likeness” refer to physical resemblance.

I wasn’t going to reply, but maybe one last time.

What point are you even trying to make? Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A) in your very own Gospels, accused the Jewish leaders of his day with corruption. Early Christians accused Jews of corrupting scripture in order to obscure Messianic prophecies. Origen acknowledged Celsus’ claim that Christians have been corrupting their scriptures, as true. Jerome agreed with the Jews that it was in fact the scriptures held by the Christians which are corrupt. Franciscan groups throughout the Middle Ages condemned Rome as corrupt and apostate. The Protestant Reformers charged Rome with corruption, innovation and heresy. Sedevacantists today charge Rome with apostasy. What is your point?

Silly me, and here I thought you misunderstood my initial statement that I hadn’t seen anyone on this forum attempt to actually answer questions about the Trinity. By, entire treatises, I thought you meant actual Church theologians.

I did not say it was forbidden. Your reading comprehension isn’t very good. Either that, or your anger and hostility has severely impaired your mind. You emphasise mystery, yet the Church Fathers adopted Origen’s terminology, which are based on Greek philosophy. So you will adopt such terminology, without need of an explanation? As for ‘Bible-only Christians’, you might want to look at my early posts on this forum. I’m a former ex Muslim, who was heavily attracted to Catholicism.

Silly me, I thought you meant Waraqa, who was the cousin of the first wife of the Prophet (S), not his cousin; so you still got it wrong. As for Bahira, the Prophet (S) once in his life visited Bahira with his uncle, and the Prophet (S) did not personally greet Bahira, this was when the Prophet (S) was a child. Do you want to know something Wikipedia probably won’t tell you? Christians had great integrity fabricating legends of Bahira in order to explain the origin of Islam, even one of your very own ‘saints’, John of Damascus had such high integrity as to use this fabricated legend in his polemics against Islam.

I know, I literally told you that the first millennium church rejected anthropomorphism, it was merely something worth noting, as I had mentioned.

 

[SalamKhan]

Thank you brother! I have been following your posts for a while here in CAW. You are one of the most informed Muslims that I have ever encountered on the Net.

Jazak Allahu Khayran brother. I consider myself only a student of knowledge. So although I post a lot about Islamic Theology, I still consider myself a novice in this science. I try not to argue too much nowadays, as Imam Ghazzali said that arguing is a sign of ignorance.

Perhaps you can PM your email, and we can talk more, In Sha Allah.

 

[steve_b]

To: SalamKhan,

Question, (links are operational)

Re: #34 , and Islam’s denial of the Trinity

How would Islam answer the following

who is "us" , when it says “let us”, and "our" , when it says “our image” and “our likeness” in this passage from Genesis 1:26,

No body answered the question.

In Genesis 1:26, God was creating. Who is “us” and who is “our” referring to?

Nope.

Majestic plural is when there is more than one and one is speaking for all. If there is only one, then there is no “us” and no “our”

So who is “us” and “our” referring to?

Masha Allah, excellent distinction made by OneBlanketBoss.

Allah’s Oneness is a negating attribute i.e. negates what He is not, as does any other negating attribute. In this way, Allah is above human understanding.

The Trinity is a intellectual impossibility, and thus it goes against human understanding.

Please read my post for a brief rational defense of Islamic Monotheism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14735548&postcount=34

I have spent more time than I should have, so I will take my leave.

May Allah guide all of us to the truth and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank and honour of His beloved Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (S) and may He grant peace and blessings upon the companions, wives and family of the Prophet (S).

Salam,

my questions and points have not been answered.

take a look at this post. Find the question you have and open the link. Any questions?

#85

 

[SalamKhan]

To: SalamKhan,
Salam,

my questions and points have not been answered.

take a look at this post. Find the question you have and open the link. Any questions?

#85

You asked originally “How would Islam answer the following”

And I said my piece, then you responded:

*"Nope.

Majestic plural is when there is more than one and one is speaking for all. If there is only one, then there is no “us” and no “our”

So who is “us” and “our” referring to?"*

Don’t change the question just because you find the answers of Islam (which you initially asked for) and Judaism to be unacceptable to your personal bias. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I will unsubscribe to this thread.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What point are you even trying to make? Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A) in your very own Gospels, accused the Jewish leaders of his day with corruption. Early Christians accused Jews of corrupting scripture in order to obscure Messianic prophecies. Origen acknowledged Celsus’ claim that Christians have been corrupting their scriptures, as true. Jerome agreed with the Jews that it was in fact the scriptures held by the Christians which are corrupt. Franciscan groups throughout the Middle Ages condemned Rome as corrupt and apostate. The Protestant Reformers charged Rome with corruption, innovation and heresy. Sedevacantists today charge Rome with apostasy. What is your point?

The point is that the ‘reformists’ term is a bit silly, perhaps ‘restorationists’ in their own mind at least.

Silly me, and here I thought you misunderstood my initial statement that I hadn’t seen anyone on this forum attempt to actually answer questions about the Trinity. By, entire treatises, I thought you meant actual Church theologians.

Those are quoted by many within the links.

I did not say it was forbidden.

You said it was the Church rejected (or anathemized) anthropormorphism as heresy, in response to literal ‘image’ and ‘likeness’, implying that Islam does no such anthropormorphism.

Your reading comprehension isn’t very good. Either that, or your anger and hostility has severely impaired your mind.

I’m not angry, maybe you are right -my reading comprehension is not good. I could claim illiteracy and divine inspiration thwarted by demonic attacks.

You emphasise mystery, yet the Church Fathers adopted Origen’s terminology, which are based on Greek philosophy. So you will adopt such terminology, without need of an explanation?

As a learned ex-exMuslim previously interested in Catholicism, you know quite well those explanation are easily found. Greek philosophy was only one adoption, try Syriac, Copt, and a few others and one sees that the Mystery is still only defined not explained fully.

As for ‘Bible-only Christians’, you might want to look at my early posts on this forum. I’m a former ex Muslim, who was heavily attracted to Catholicism.

Then why insist on Chapter and Verse in regard to the Trinity? The early orthodox Church believed it, taught it, anathemized those who opposed it, etc. what more do you need?

Silly me, I thought you meant Waraqa, who was the cousin of the first wife of the Prophet (S), not his cousin; so you still got it wrong.

Sorry, most folks I know would consider their wife’s cousin one of “their cousins” in commonspeak.

As for Bahira, the Prophet (S) once in his life visited Bahira with his uncle, and the Prophet (S) did not personally greet Bahira, this was when the Prophet (S) was a child. Do you want to know something Wikipedia probably won’t tell you? Christians had great integrity fabricating legends of Bahira in order to explain the origin of Islam, even one of your very own ‘saints’, John of Damascus had such high integrity as to use this fabricated legend in his polemics against Islam.

The same “fabrication” was used by Muslims to praise the “christianity” of the monk as “true christian”, as opposed to the orthodox ones who opposed them (Risala al-Kindi, 9th Cent; al-Jahiz, 869; al-Muttawakal, 861).

 

[SyroMalankara]

By the way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waraka_ibn_Nawfal:

Waraka (or Waraqah) ibn Nawfal ibn Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusayy Al-Qurashi (Arabic ورقه بن نوفل بن أسد بن عبد العزّى بن قصي القرشي) was the paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Waraka and Khadija were also the first cousins twice removed of Muhammad: their paternal grandfather Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was Muhammad’s matrilineal great-great-grandfather.[1] By another reckoning, Waraka was Muhammad’s third cousin once removed: Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was a grandson of Muhammad’s patrilineal great-great-great-grandfather Qusai ibn Kilab.

Waraka was the son of Nawfal b. Asad b. ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā b. Ḳuṣayy, and Hind bt. Abī Kat̲h̲īr. Waraka was also proposed to be married to Khadija but the marriage never took place.[2]

Waraka was a Nestorian priest and is revered in Islamic tradition for being one of the first hanifs to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad.[3]

---

Uncle isn’t too far off at all.

 

[steve_b]

You asked originally “How would Islam answer the following”

And I said my piece, then you responded:

*"Nope.

Majestic plural is when there is more than one and one is speaking for all. If there is only one, then there is no “us” and no “our”

So who is “us” and “our” referring to?"*

Don’t change the question just because you find the answers of Islam (which you initially asked for) and Judaism to be unacceptable to your personal bias. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I will unsubscribe to this thread.

I didn’t change the question.

 

[meltzerboy]

Masha Allah, excellent distinction made by OneBlanketBoss.

Allah’s Oneness is a negating attribute i.e. negates what He is not, as does any other negating attribute. In this way, Allah is above human understanding.

The Trinity is a intellectual impossibility, and thus it goes against human understanding.

Please read my post for a brief rational defense of Islamic Monotheism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14735548&postcount=34

A quick response to meltzerboy. We do not believe that Muhammad (S), is the sole Prophet and Messenger of Allah, but he is the successor of all previous Prophets and Messengers, and supercedes them all in rank, honour and authority. As Allah is the creator of good and evil, He is the one who defines good and evil. And as there is no real intrinsic moral value in His laws, such as dietary, Allah has the authority to abrogate or replace such laws.

I have spent more time than I should have, so I will take my leave.

May Allah guide all of us to the truth and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank and honour of His beloved Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (S) and may He grant peace and blessings upon the companions, wives and family of the Prophet (S).

Thank you for answering my question. Do you mean the Muslim dietary laws can be replaced down the line? My point was that these laws of Halal are so reminiscent of the kosher laws: not exactly the same, but close. Insofar as the intrinsic moral value of the laws are concerned, in Judaism we also believe they do not have intrinsic moral value by nature; nonetheless, they are moral laws since G-d commanded them. In other words, G-d’s Law supersedes natural law.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

It’s best not to misrepresent, but to represent accurately what is actually taught and believed

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

using that link, just click on the particular link to the question/answer you’re looking for

I am well aware of the Catholics position on the Trinity and I read the New Testament numerous times. Nowhere in the 4 Gospels does Prophet Jesus (pbuh) talk to his disciples about the Trinity. Nowhere does He make the claim that The Holy Spirit is also the Creator of the Universe or the third person of the God-head or that they are three distinct persons.

According to the Gospels Jesus spoke many parables, there are also a quite recorded events he participated in ie. performing miracles, casting out devils, calling people to prayer and ect. but when it came down to preaching the fundamental teachings of Christianity you don’t get that directly from the words of Jesus.

 

[gmcbroom]

No where in the Koran does the word Dawa appear yet it is a significant doctrine of Islam. The trinity is implied in catholism just as dawa is implied in Islam. This argument gets old.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

No where in the Koran does the word Dawa appear yet it is a significant doctrine of Islam. The trinity is implied in catholism just as dawa is implied in Islam. This argument gets old.

the word Dawa doesn’t but it calls people to faith and righteous deeds. And The Prophet Mohammad (S) was sent to all of mankind to preach Islam also as a mercy.

 

[steve_b]

I am well aware of the Catholics position on the Trinity and I read the New Testament numerous times. Nowhere in the 4 Gospels does Prophet Jesus (pbuh) talk to his disciples about the Trinity.

Jesus is not only son of God, but God the son. THAT is clear in the NT.

I gave you the following explanation of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

I said , using that link, just click on the particular internal links to the question/answer you’re looking for.

Please do that if you’re really interested in discussing this subject.

Or ask questions, rather than make faulty accusations and statements

One:

Nowhere does He make the claim that The Holy Spirit is also the Creator of the Universe or the third person of the God-head or that they are three distinct persons.

Re: 3 persons within God, you’re proving you didn’t read the link I gave you.
catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

One:

According to the Gospels Jesus spoke many parables, there are also a quite recorded events he participated in ie. performing miracles, casting out devils, calling people to prayer and ect. but when it came down to preaching the fundamental teachings of Christianity you don’t get that directly from the words of Jesus.

All this shows is that you haven’t read the Gospels.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Jesus is not only son of God, but God the son. THAT is clear in the NT.

I gave you the following explanation of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

I said , using that link, just click on the particular internal links to the question/answer you’re looking for.

Please do that if you’re really interested in discussing this subject.

Re: 3 persons within God, you’re proving you didn’t read the link I gave you.
catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

All this shows is that you haven’t read the Gospels.

Steve look at my previous posts. I clearly said that Catholics claim Jesus is the second person of the trinity. Why are you telling me something I already know what the church teaches. Also, I did click on the link but I will be honest i didn’t read it because I am familiar with most of it. I did make some mistakes in my posts because i typed to fast which i admitted to however I am well aware of the position the church takes on the trinity matter as well as their teachings regarding the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him)

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

J

Re: 3 persons within God, you’re proving you didn’t read the link I gave you.
catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

All this shows is that you haven’t read the Gospels.

No i didn’t read the article but I know the Catholics belief about the trinity but I simply said according to the Gospel Jesus never said anything about the Holy Spirit being the third person of the trinity nor does he make claims the holy spirit is divine as well.

I read the Gospels many times.

 

[steve_b]

Steve look at my previous posts. I clearly said that Catholics claim Jesus is the second person of the trinity. Why are you telling me something I already know what the church teaches.

Why? Because

• You deny the Trinity.
• You don’t refer to Jesus as God you refer to Him as a prophet
• So I’m giving you the proof for where the understanding of 3 divine persons in one God comes from.
• Father
• Son
• Holy Spirit

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

That is why.

One:

Also, I did click on the link but I will be honest i didn’t read it

I could tell

One:

because I am familiar with most of it.

And the fact you don’t agree / believe, in the information given, is a completely different matter.

One:

I did make some mistakes in my posts because i typed to fast which i admitted to however I am well aware of the position the church takes on the trinity matter as well as their teachings regarding the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him)

Can you dismiss your following statements as just typing too fast?

• First thing first, Jesus(pbuh) never thought the doctrine of the Trinity concept anytime during his Ministry. This is a fundamental belief in the Catholic Church and yet Jesus(pbuh) has brought many parables to his disciples but NOWHERE does he claim that there are actually 3 persons in the God Head nor does Jesus say that The Holy Spirit is The Creator of the universe! You will not find this from the words of Jesus (pbuh) himself.
• Nowhere in the 4 Gospels does Prophet Jesus (pbuh) talk to his disciples about the Trinity.
• Nowhere does He make the claim that The Holy Spirit is also the Creator of the Universe or the third person of the God-head or that they are three distinct persons.
• According to the Gospels Jesus spoke many parables, there are also a quite recorded events he participated in ie. performing miracles, casting out devils, calling people to prayer and ect. but when it came down to preaching the fundamental teachings of Christianity you don’t get that directly from the words of Jesus.

You weren’t asking questions there, you were making statements. Statements that show you really don’t know who Jesus is or what Jesus taught.