Ron Grossi: God is not a man

Sat Apr 30 16:35:59 EDT 2005

Larry Bates,

I truly appreciate the dignified tone of your
response. Kindly allow me to respond.

IN SPITE OF THE BIBLE, NOT BECAUSE OF IT?
=========================================

First I do apologize for the earlier long
discourse; I am afraid this might be just as
long. There is much to discuss and I try
to be through.

Having said that, and to respond to your
point, please be informed that I did not take
any scripture out of context so as to reach a
conclusion of my own. If you'd be kind enough
to point out one incident I will promptly
apologize and will take it back.

With that said, I hope you are fair enough to
agree that if someone makes a claim that then
the same person should back that claim up with
proof. That out of context claim you make,
brother, is made without proof.

Please tell us how Christ the "man" (Acts 2:
22), and "the son of man" (Luke 9: 58) are
not part of the Christian textual sources
or how they were taken out of context. How
is that when it is proclaimed in the Law
attributed to Almighty God that "God is not a
man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23:
19) that this part of the Law (given Acts 2:22,
and Luke 9: 58) is not applicable to Christ
PBBUH or any other man and son of man from
the beginning of time until the end of time.

You see, Larry, if someone were to write an
essay and post satellite images in support
of the fact that earth is spherical, anyone
defending the false notion that the earth is
flat can simply counter: "you are taking
things out of context." But these words will
not do, as any fair person can confirm.
Without proof, a claim is what it is: just a
claim. The burden of proof is on the one who
makes the point to prove it, not on the other
party to refute what was not proven.

In my case, proof was offered in defence of
my assertions from what Christian authorities
themselves regard as Christian textual
sources of divine origin. Does that not carry
enough weight for you so as to be convinced?

If people will read in their textual sources
that "God is not a man ... neither the son of
man" and *yet* go on to believe in- and even
argue the exact opposite of that- just
because they have an opinion, then what is the
Bible for then? If people are going to believe
that Christ the "man" (Acts 2:22), and the "son
of man" (Luke 9: 58) is Almighty God Himself
in spite of Numbers (among others), then what
is the point of these people having textual
sources for their beliefs?

Wouldn't it be better if these people got
together, sat down, and wrote a novel and
made a religion out of it? This is what the
Church of Scientology did. Perhaps then that
novel would agree with their man-made
beliefs, namely that "God is a man and is the
son of man" in spite of (Numbers 23: 19)?
That "God will dwell on the earth" in spite
of (1 Kings 8: 27)? That "there are other
'Gods' with God" and that "there is now someone
like unto God" in spite of (Isaiah 46:9)? And
so on and so forth?

After all, let's face it, Larry, the novel is
there inside your (plural) head, and it is
from which you are all reading to us that
Christ PBBUH the "man" and "the son of man"
is actually God; but whether you realize it
or not, you are doing so in spite of the word
of God as found in the Bible, not because of it.
I truly don't know how to make a mention of
this and not appear like I wish to offend
you, which is truly not my intention, but I
must inform you anyway: does the word "anti"
ring any bells?

PLURAL GOD?
===========

Do you believe that God is one or not? Was it
not Christ PBBUH himself who said that the
"Lord our God is one Lord" (as opposed to a
"tri-une" Lord) or was he not? Is there a
single explicit mention of the word "Trinity"
in the entire encyclopaedia of books called
the Bible? Just one? There is none, can you
believe it?

THE DONKEY RIDE
---------------

Please read from the New Testament:

"... and they sat him thereon." (The Donkey)
(Matthew 21:7)

"... and he sat upon him." (The Donkey)
(Mark 11:7)

"... and they set Jesus thereon." (The Donkey)
(Luke 19:35)

"... Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey)
(John 12:14)

In "Is The Bible God's Word"[1], Ahmed
Deedat writes:

"Could God Almighty have been the author of
this incongruous situation - going out of His
Way to see that all the Gospel writers did
not miss their footing recording of His
"son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City - and
yet "inspiring" them to blackout the news
about His "son's" heavenly flight on the
wings of angels?"

I note the exact same amazing situation here. Why is
it so important to have all the Gospels
mention the donkey incident but not have one single
explicit remark anywhere about what effectively will
decide the eternal fate (repeat: eternal
fate) of many: the alleged "trinity"?
Astonishing, no?

WHY NOT A PENTINITY?
--------------------

Yes "as humans we will never fully understand
the Trinity in this lifetime," but so would
be the case, I put it to you, concerning
"dualnity," (as in two) "quadrupinity",
"pentinity", etc., if there is actually such
words. You see the issue is not merely that our
minds are unable to deal with these
impossible concepts, but also (and equally
importantly) that we must remember that these
concepts were never explicitly mentioned in
the word of God. And so the question that
faces us is this: why a "trinity," and not a
"pentinity"?

Any person can make up things in any aggregate
along the lines of your crude (yet unproven
theory) of what makes God like a man, even when it is
the Bible that states not only that "God is not a
man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23:
19), but also that "God is a Spirit" (John
4:24).

Nevertheless, one can add charisma, and the subconscious
mind to your physical, spiritual, and
emotional "aspects" and get that imaginary
"penta-une" false god to be also like man, so
as to make a man into Almighty God, may He be
glorified above all of this. No, Larry. God
is one, period. This is all human invention
and has nothing to do with divine
revelations.

Moreover, do you not see that by saying "Tri"
that you are automatically arguing for
plurality in God? One does not equal three,
Larry, not logically, and not linguistically.
All the universally agreed norms of language
and reason and even algebra are lined up in
defence of God against such illogical
notions. Not that Almighty God needs any
defence.

READ
====

I have read for C. S. Lewis and if I am not
mistaken, seen Josh McDowell lecture on TBN.
But the matter is different here, Larry. I
don't know about McDowell, but I know that C.
S. Lewis was questioning the existence of
God, not whether or not if he believed in a
"trinity" and in Christ PBBUH the "man" and
"son of man" as God that he would then be
doing so in spite of the word of God as
reported in the Bible, not because of it.

And since you made that offer, then allow me
to suggest you read the Qur'an. There is
truly no excuse for anyone not to read it,
especially that it is even available online
for free download.[2]

By the way, did you know that the first verse
revealed on prophet Muhammad PBBUH was
"Read!" upon which the prophet replied to
angel Gabriel PBBUH: "I am not learned." And
this, we hold, is a direct fulfillment of
Isaiah 29:12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and
he saith, I am not learned."
(Isaiah 29: 12)

Here is the first revealed verses of the Qur'an:

"Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
Createth man from a clot. Read: And thy Lord
is the Most Bounteous, Who teacheth by the
pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not."
(Translation, Qur'an, 96: 1)

OPINION VS. DIVINE REVELATIONS
==============================

You and I are entitled to our opinions, as
is the case for all the people of this earth.
These might even matter to someone. When
it comes to the issues of the unseen, however,
then our opinions (including mine I assure
you!) are just worthless. It is not within us
to have our minds dwell in the unseen. This
is the job of divine revelations. This is
their sole purpose: to reveal to us from the
world of the unseen that which we cannot
grasp or know on our own.

If you and I and everyone else are going to
make our opinions matter more than divine
revelations then not only would we be deceiving
ourselves that our inconsequential opinion is
now divine truth (which it is not), but we
would also be very likely at odds with Almighty
God's truth.

HOW DO WE INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?
===============================

Your point that there is only one way to God
is a valid one. The issue is not that, but
whether you and I are following that only
way; or to keep to the topic of this thread,
whether Grossi's post accurately describes
that way.

You say that Christ PBBUH is the only way,
but did you know that Christ PBBUH is not
even your designated prophet? Believe it or
not Muhammad PBBUH is. And I know this might
come as a shock, but they both peace and
blessings of Almighty God be upon them PBBUT,
preached the same religion: the worship of
one God, we inherit heaven by keeping the
law and the commandments, i.e. surrendering
one's will to Almighty God, which is Islam in
a nutshell. They even prayed the same! In
Matthew 26:39 we are told that Christ PBBUH
"fell on his face, and prayed!" Must I remind
you who else falls on their faces to pray?

Moreover, and on at least two occasions in
the Bible, Christ PBBUH is explicitly
proclaiming that he was sent only to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, not to anyone
else of the Gentiles.

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but
unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
(Matthew 15: 24) (see also Matthew 10:6).

And so even when he was the way, Christ PBBUH
was so to his people of the house of Israel
only (and this not according to my convenient
opinion, but according to the reported first
person words attributed to Christ PBBUH), and
only in the span of time that he lived on
earth, and hence this excludes people of
times past and future, especially of the
Gentiles.

With that said, it is indeed true that people
will struggle to come to terms that Islam (of
all religions) is God's divine Truth, which
it is. That is, I have come to believe, is
mankind's present test.

Will they contemplate that they might be
utterly misguided, that Islam of all
religions is the God's Truth, that its Arab
prophet PBBUH of the third world is actually
the seal of the Almighty God's prophets, the
comforter that Christ PBBUH foretold? Will
they follow their pride or will they let
their minds decide?

To have Christianity as the Truth temptation of
mankind makes no sense. The Christian West
boasts to have the power, the money, the
science-- they boast they have everything.
Earthly that is. So they must be right in
worshiping a "trinity"? Right?

But that is an easy test, Larry. If Islam was
the Truth and a Muslim failed the test and
worshiped a "trinity" in stead of his one
true God, he might think that he will gain
something in this world. But a Christian who
gives up the "trinity" and his earthly
wealth, power, and pride that comes with the
magic of the West actually seems to many that
he will lose according to the earthly ways.
No? which is the tougher test, Larry, you
tell me.

A tougher test would be to have you choose
between that alleged earthly power and wealth
and Almighty God's truth, even if hidden in
the weakest and most poor of places. Or was
Christ PBBUH wealthy and powerful compared to
the scribes and Pharisees or the Romans?
David PBBUH to Saul? Moses PBBUH to Pharaoh?
Don't you see the pattern here?

If Christ PBBUH was really "son of God" in
the literal sense or "God" as per the
scripture and word of God, we would be the
first to worship, Larry.

"Say: "If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I
would be the first to worship." Glory to the
Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord
of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free)
from the things they attribute (to him)!"
(Translation, Qur'an 43: 81-82)

But he is not so. And this according to your
own scriptures. People are making Christ "God,"
and believing him to have been crucified and
later resurrected in spite of "the word of
God" as found in the Bible, not because of
it. The only way you can make your beliefs
agree with your sources is if either you
replace them with something that matches your
claims, or that you expunge those parts from
the present scripture that testify that
Christ is "a man" and "son of man" and that
"God is not a man ... neither the son of man"
and that the resurrected are spirits equal
unto the angels having spiritual bodies. For
while these things are still in your Bible
then you have a serious problem.

Here is an ex-practicing American Christian
sharing his thoughts on a topic related to
our discussion:

"I remember thinking a few years ago, when I
was studying about Christianity and Islam,
that it sure would be nice to have Jesus
around today so that I could go up and ask
him two questions: 1) Is it more important to
believe that God is "One" or "Tri-une"? and
2) What do I need to do in order to get into
Heaven? However, once I thought about it a
bit more, I realized that I already had
answers to these questions! The New Testament
shows how Jesus EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY
answered both of these questions - not to
mention the Qur'an! How could a prophet doing
the work of Almighty God do otherwise? If
something such as the "Doctrine of the
Trinity" or having Jesus as one's "Lord and
Personal Savior" is so important, it would be
unjust - if not criminal - for it not to be
an explicit teaching. It should be kept in
mind that Jesus' audience was made up mostly
of Jews, so when he mentioned "One God", they
certainly understood it in an absolute and
non-Trinitarian way.

"Those of you who don't already know Jesus',
peace be upon him, clear answers to these
direct questions, please see Mark 12:28-34;
Matthew 22:35-40; Matthew 19:16-17; Mark
10:17-19 and Luke 18:18-20.

"On top of all this, the New Testament says
that Jesus, peace be upon him, went around
preaching "the gospel". (See Matthew 4:23,
9:35, 11:5; Mark 1:15, 8:35; Luke 4:18, 7:22,
9:6 and 20:1). Based on this fact, Christians
should be able to COMPLETELY derive their
doctrines and "Gospel message" from the words
of Jesus as reported in the New Testament.
However, everyone who has taken a look at the
evidence should be able to conclude that
Christians certainly cannot do this - they
have to appeal to the epistles of Paul and to
an innovated Trinitarian vocabulary. So what
was this "gospel" that Jesus was preaching?
Was it CLEARLY the Divine Incarnation, the
Atonement and the Trinity? I certainly feel
that the longest and most eloquent sermon in
the New Testament (Matthew 5-7), commonly
know as "The Sermon on the Mount", lends
support to the Pure Monotheism of Islam, not
to Trinitarian Christian belief."[3]

Peace,
Obaid

RESOURCES
=========
[1] Deedat, Ahmed, Is The Bible God's Word, March 1980. April 2005:
http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/bible/index.html.
[2] Download a free Qur'an viewer: http://www.divineislam.co.uk/
[3] Squires, Robert, "A Muslim Response to a Christian Response." April
30, 2005:
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=261&page=0

PS: I posted a response to BrianQ here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web/msg/048f37bac5b14460?hl=en