A Few Questions for S.O.L. Adherents
-
Ah yes, the comfort being part of a majority brings. Though, you do bring some interesting and debatable points, which I'd like to discuss if possible.
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate! -
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthless -
There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthlessI disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being. -
Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Can't tell if trolling or retarded
-
I disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being.All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
-
All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
-
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
Yes of course.
Quran is a guide for everything needed to be righteous and for a good world. Political, Economical, Social etc...
-
I am grateful for this thread.
I have tried and failed to read stuff SOL has written more than once, as I seem to lack the patience or mental fortitude necessary to parse out what he is actually trying to convey. Having read this thread thus far I feel more secure in my initial decision to dismiss his writings as rambling nonsense.
Me too!
AGREE ) -
What does Paul and Luke and the Gospel has to do with paganism? And if I asked you what is paganism would you know?
What surprises the most about some people in this forum that as Koranist you would think that they would be the last people on Earth to throw that accusation at anyone given in the Koran paganism and polytheism is the unforgiveable sin. And to see that thrown on characters like Paul and Luke is truly amazing.
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
He told you to study Wicca so you could convert to it. You love that kind of bullshit after all
-
Peace Mr. Q. As much as I dislike Paul, here goes
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God
Show me where he said that? He referred to him as the son of God, but he reserved "theos" with the definite article "ho" for God, and not Jesus.
with all the fullness of Deity residing in him.
He did not say that the fullness of Deity (as in the PERSONHOOD of God) resided in him. He said that the fullness of divinity resided in him, i.e. the moral and ethical goodness of God. He used the greek word "theioites" or "godliness".
He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God
You have to understand the Jewish view of salvation. It was as much political and existential as it was anything else. Recognizing that the salvation of the Jewish nation in accepting Jesus' death as the means of returning the Jewish people to their original identity is what he was talking about. This is a complicated concept that requires an understanding of the entire salvation history of the Jewish people. Moses interceded for the Jewish people (I believe there is a parallel in both Torah and Quran for this) and no one would deny that Moses was fully human.
and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life.
Paul did not refer to Jesus as Lord in any deified sense. The first creed of Christianity is found in Romans. It is "Iesous kurios", or "Jesus is Lord." It is the counter to the political creed of Rome "Kaesar kurios" or "Caesar is Lord". Jesus was the political figurehead of the church, which was a spiritual/political institution directly in opposition to Rome.
His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
Again, while I do not like Paul, I think he was dishonest about certain things, I do not believe that he taught polytheism or paganism.
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.It is unfortunate to see ''muslims'' who, to come to the conclusion that Islam needs nothing more than the Qu'ran, studied, cogitated and had to go to the core, judge a philosophy by what users wrote on Wikipedia. Why did you not do the same for Islam? Hypocrisy and sloppiness are certainly traits ''muslims'' should try to sweep. Again, if you think 'studying' something is reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia, then...
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
-
From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
-
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name. - Tao Te ChingThis is why I suggest to the religious, such as Mr.Q, to study Taoism.
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship. While Allah, or decomposed, allathee la illah (instead of the traditionalist comprehension and decomposition of the word - al ilah) literally who is not God, is an ever-living creative force who seeks nor asks worship, but servitude - not to it, as it is self-sustaining - but from one (human) being to the other (human, animal or/and nature).
Gods and religions grant an everlasting forest-like paradise to who ever worships them, and/or repents verbally (if one sinned) . While the creator requires truthful action and continuous fight against the base desires.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
Please see your inbox.
-
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship.
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.
The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
-
nope
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
Yeah but shouldn't you look at the original meaning of god?
Also god for worship was first used by the Queen of Babylon.
God is an idol and will stay an idol.
Allah literally means who is not god ( deity for worship and adoration ) -
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * hu-t?-m was based on the root * hau(ə-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".
The literal definition of a God is an idol that is worshiped, invoked and called upon. Furthermore, the definition of the Arabic word 'ilah' is "an object of worship". It is your choice to say that your creator is an 'ilah' while it calls itself 'Allah' (allathee LA ILAH - who is NOT God), but perhaps you know better than it. You can persist in trying to support your views falsely, I could care less, we will all face the creator one day. Let us not waste any more time and space on the server of free-minds by repeating the same things over and over again.
Shit... it went classified
The reason is that there are a lot of cheerleaders, who, without thinking, reject a view because it is alien to them, and they are too attached to their culture, religion and ego to put it to the test for a second. These same babblers annoy and say nothing intelligent, and so I prefer to discuss calmly with one.
-
This is why I suggest to the religious, such as Mr.Q, to study Taoism.
Which is why I suggest you study and follow the Quran more than SOL.
We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed. (3927)
And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative. (1854)Despite your silly little straw man arguments and petty insults I still find you amusing. I simply asked you to use the Quran to justify your theologies and you instead insulted and made stuff up about things I never talked about. I do believe I stated in the first post, no red-herrings or personal attacks, did I not?
I asked you to use the Quran and you say you can't because you don't understand it and can't translate it, yet in the same breath comdemn those who do follow it as misguided, misinformed, "religious" and backward. Interesting. Wouldn't you have to understand it before you condemn others for wrongly following it?
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship. While Allah, or decomposed, allathee la illah (instead of the traditionalist comprehension and decomposition of the word - al ilah) literally who is not God, is an ever-living creative force who seeks nor asks worship, but servitude - not to it, as it is self-sustaining - but from one (human) being to the other (human, animal or/and nature).
You alone we serve, You alone we seek for assistance. (15)
And We did not send any messenger before you except that We inspired him that "There is no god but Me, so serve Me." (2125)
This is your nation, one nation, and I am your Lord so serve Me. (2192)
And your Lord said "Call on Me and I will respond to you." Surely, those who are too arrogant to serve Me, they will enter Hell, forcibly. (4060)
"And that you should serve Me? That is a straight path." (3161)You can play semantics if you want and say "well by serving man and nature we are serving God" but why would you not say that to start with? Why not say we serve God by applying and upholding the Quran's teachings?
Lastly, you never did answer these verses below either. Please don't go back again and say you don't understand the Quran and can't translate it so you can't comment on the below verses, except of course to claim they are wrong, because you believe in a weak premise from Abdun Nur stated above. If you want to comdemn, mock and ridicule people for following the Quran, the least you can do is present the "correct" understanding, from the Quran, besides personal opinions and personal beliefs.
And He is the One who is a god in the heaven and a god on earth. And He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable. (4384)
Your god is Allah; whom there is no god but He. His knowledge encompasses all things. (209
And Allah said "Do not take-up two gods, there is only One god, so it is Me that you shall reverence." (1651)"I wonder why some keep on believing things that are neither sustainable philosophically, linguistically nor quranically."
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
What does Paul has to do with the Trinity. The Trinity is not even a concept in the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with Paul saying Jesus was the intercessor. Here lies the problem with youyr definition of shirk.
Anyways you seem not to understand how the Trinity concept was formed.
As can be seen in this article about the Trinity, Trinitarians quote many of Jesus's disciples when talking about the trinity and not just Paul. None of these quotes are explicit and are often taken out of context and avoid other quotes by the disciples.
References used from Scripture
Although the New Testament does not use the word "" (Trinity) nor explicitly teach it, it provided the material upon which the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated. Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all," while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael "Hear, O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is one." led the early Christians to question which way the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in unity. Later, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were systematized into a Trinity?one God subsisting in three persons and one substance?to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.
In addition, the Old Testament has also been interpreted as foreshadowing the Trinity, by referring to God's word, his spirit, and Wisdom, as well as narratives such as the appearance of the three men to Abraham. However, it is generally agreed that it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions directly with later Trinitarian doctrine.
Some Church Fathers believed that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the prophets and saints of the "Old Dispensation", and that they identified the divine messenger of Genesis 167, 2117, 3111, Exodus 32 and Wisdom of the sapiential books with the Son, and "the spirit of the Lord" with the Holy Spirit. Other Church Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen, argued in his Orations that the revelation was gradual
The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further.
Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function." The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the 2nd century forward, and other scholars hold that the way the New Testament repeatedly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is such as to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God".
References to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Some biblical verses specifically reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct entities in a single narrative. While trinitarians interpret these passages as support for the notion of a Trinity, because these verses speak of distinct entities mentioned by name, and not of a Trinity, non-trinitarians also appeal to these verses in support of their argument that a Trinity was not envisioned at the time of their authorship.
"As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and landing on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"
"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"
"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."
The eighth chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, which contains many complex formulations of the relationship between God, Christ, and Spirit, including "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead," "all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God," and "the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."Some verses also reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as part of a single formula, which trinitarians view as support of a Trinity, though not explicitly stated. Non-trinitarians argue that because these verses are conclusions to their respective books, they may be later trinitarian formulaic additions to the original works, which were added after the doctrine of the Trinity had begun to be debated and accepted as dogmatic.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (see Trinitarian formula). It has been claimed that writings of Eusebius show the mention of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to have displaced a request by Jesus that his disciples baptize people in his name. However, all extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew unanimously contain the trinitarian baptismal formula without variation at 2819.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."Comma Johanneum
In addition to these, 1 John 57, which is found in the King James Version but not in modern English translations, states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one." However, this Comma Johanneum is not considered to be part of the genuine text. It is not included in the official Latin text of the Roman Catholic Church, nor in Vulgate manuscripts earlier than about AD 800. Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, seems not to have known the text. The earliest undoubted reference to it is by 4th-century Priscillian, but some hold that it was referred to by 3rd-century Cyprian. It is commonly found in Latin manuscripts other than the earliest, but is absent from the Greek manuscripts except for a few late examples, where the passage appears to have been back-translated from the Latin. Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version was based, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with a manuscript containing it, while still suspecting, as is now agreed, that the phrase was a gloss.
Jesus as God
God the Father (top), the Holy Spirit (represented by a dove), and child Jesus, painting by Bartolom? Esteban Murillo
As opposed to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John also portrays Jesus as the creator of the universe, such that "without him was not any thing made that was made." Some render John 11 as "the Word was a god", "the word was godlike", "the word was divine", denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the verse.The Gospel of John ends with Thomas's apparent confession of faith to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 11 and John 2028 identify Jesus with God.
Other passages of John's Gospel interpreted in this sense include, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.", "I and the Father are one.", "....the Father is in me and I am in the Father.", and "....he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah saw, while other texts are also understood as referring to Jesus as God.
There are also a few possible biblical supports for the Trinity found in the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, quotes Jesus as saying, "all things have been handed over to me by my Father". This is similar to John, who wrote that Jesus said, "All that the Father has is mine". These verses have been quoted to defend the omnipotence of Christ, having all power, as well as the omniscience of Christ, having all wisdom.
Expressions also in the Pauline epistles have been interpreted as attributing divinity to Jesus. They include "For by him all things were created things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him" and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form", and in Paul the Apostle's claim to have been "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father".
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
All implicit verses and all taken out of context and all selective quoting and nothing explicit.