Clark ran away and blocked me so I wasn't able to respond to you on the thread. I'll respond here
What he is responding to is not a straw man. You really shouldn't use words if you don't know what those words actually mean. A straw man argument is when you take the argument of someone else and create a different version of it to make it easier to knock down.
This person did not say that Mormons argue that Mormonism is just a tolerant Islam and then try to knock that down. That would be a straw man. Instead this person just gave their opinion on Mormonism and what it is in reality, regardless of what Mormons argue.
Giving your opinion on something doesn't mean that you're engaging in a straw man even if someone thinks your opinion is wrong about it
Further what they mean is that Islam claims that God had established a religion through Jesus and his apostles and then it became corrupted so God had to send another prophet to correct the corrupted religion and that prophet came along and completely changed and went against what Christianity taught and believed
Mormonism did the same thing, saying that Jesus taught and believed one thing but Christianity became corrupt and perverted it and fell away. So we needed another prophet to come along and correct what Christians had messed up and bring it back to supposedly what Jesus originally taught, which goes against what we actually have in Scripture
That's what they mean and that is absolutely a true statement. Sorry but reality doesn't change because you don't like it.
The original poster blocked me so I can't respond there, but you all just jumped to assumptions and attack. Truly sad. This was not a what about you post. I AGREE with the opening post. The point was that a crucifix IS NOT just a Roman Catholic thing. Many Protestant churches ALSO have crucifixes. So this was an attack on them too. That was ALL I was saying, but yall just got offended and jumped to assumptions. Learn some humility. Might help you honestly engage with others.
Well this is going to be fun to debunk. You claim to show proof Jesus is not God. In order to do that you would need to establish that Jesus is not divine. Misrepresenting the Trinity and listing alleged pagan parallels does not accomplish that. So nope you never proved Jesus isn’t God. But we’ll get to that. Let’s go sentence by sentence shall we. “The Trinity is idolatry.” - That assumes what you need to prove. Idolatry involves giving a creature the worship owed to God. Whether Jesus is a creature or God incarnate is precisely the question under discussion. So just asserting something isn’t evidence.
“It claims that God became a man, took the form of a man.” - More specifically, God the Son became genuinely human while remaining divine. Christianity teaches a real incarnation, not merely a human appearance.
“And that man, Jesus Christ is separate from God, The Father.” - Jesus is personally distinct from the Father, but he is not a separate divine being. You have confused distinction of persons with separation of divine essence. Just as all non trinitarians do when they try to argue against the Trinity. They have to misrepresent it to address it.
“But they are co-equal, co-eternal alongside The Holy Spirit.” - Yes. Each person fully possesses the one indivisible divine nature. None is a created or lesser deity.
“These three separate entities are one and the same in unison.” - That is not the Trinity. Christians confess one divine being in three distinct persons. Their unity consists in the one divine essence, rather than an agreement among independent gods. So they are not the same in unison. They are the same BEING.
“Now what is the difference between the concept of Christian incarnation and Hinduism?” - You need to compare specific teachings. Calling both concepts “incarnation” does not establish that they mean the same thing, much less that Christianity borrowed its teaching.
“Or Buddhism?” - Which Buddhist teaching are you referring to? Naming another religion supplies no argument against Jesus’ divinity.
“God becoming avatars like Vishnu?” - Even if we grant a resemblance involving divine manifestation, resemblance does not establish equivalence or dependence. You still need to show that the Christian claim is false. But also Vishnu’s avatars concern a deity appearing or descending in different forms, but the Trinity concerns the eternal identity of the one God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These persons are not successive manifestations, and the incarnation means the eternal Son assumed a complete human nature while remaining distinct from the Father and the Spirit. It is not an avatar of the Father or Spirit.
“Or even worse…. Idol worship?” - Calling something idol worship does not prove it is. You must first establish that Christians worship someone who is not God.
“Idol worshippers did not worship the stones that their hands crafted, they worshipped the spirit of God who dwelt within it.” - Even granting that description for the worshippers you have in mind, it describes a deity inhabiting an object. Christian incarnation concerns the eternal Son personally assuming human nature. Those are different claims.
“Similarly, Jesus is a man, and God at the same time.” - Yes, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. But a human nature personally united to the eternal Son is not equivalent to a statue inhabited by a spirit.
“They do not worship the flesh, but the divine God within Him.” - That misrepresents Christianity. Christians worship the person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son incarnate. We do not teach that Jesus is an independently existing human with another person called God living inside him.
“This is idolatry.” - Repeating the accusation does not establish it. Your argument still depends on assuming Jesus is merely a creature.
“Or Ancient Egyptian Trinity’s that existed long before the narrative of the ‘Christian Trinity’ existed.” - You have confused groups of three gods with one God existing in three persons. The number three alone does not establish the same doctrine.
“Osiris, Isis, Horus.” - This is a divine family. 3 different gods, 3 beings. Horus is the son of Isis and Osiris. That differs fundamentally from the Christian claim about the one eternal divine being. One God, not three.
“Amun, Mut, Khonsu.” - “Ptah, Sekhmet, Nefertem.” - “Khnum, Satet, Anuket.” - “Sobek, Hathor, Khonsu.” - For each grouping, the same question applies. Where is the evidence that these are three coequal, eternal persons who possess one indivisible divine essence? Listing three names does not establish a Christian Trinity.
“Dying and resurrecting on the third day?” - An alleged parallel needs careful comparison with the actual ancient text.
“Where do we find these parallels?” - Finding an earlier story involving death and restoration to life would establish a resemblance. It would not, by itself, establish that Christians copied it. And every example people offer is not an actual parallel to Jesus. Your’s will be no different.
“In the Sumerian Descent of Inanna (later told of Ishtar).” - The Sumerian account does describe Inanna’s death and restoration to life. But the details show it is NOT a parallel. Inanna enters the underworld, then displaces her sister Ereshkigal from her throne. The underworld judges condemn her. Inanna becomes a corpse through the judges’ deadly pronouncement. They hang her corpse on a hook. After three days and nights, her attendant begins seeking help, it does not say she came to life after 3 days. Appeals to several gods and a rescue mission follow. Enki creates two rescuers who obtain her corpse and apply a life-giving plant and water later. Inanna must supply someone to take her place in the underworld. She hands over Dumuzid. The narrative concerns divine power, underworld rules, and the fate of Inanna and Dumuzid. It does not present her death as atonement for humanity’s sins. Sorry, but this is NOTHING LIKE the death and resurrection story of Jesus.
“A God that died and resurrected three days later, just like… you guessed it ‘Jesus’.” - That compresses the story misleadingly. After three days and nights, Inanna’s attendant begins seeking help. Several appeals follow before rescuers revive her. The text does not state that she resurrected on the third day nor is her death the same as Jesus or his bodily resurrection as a human man. Her departure also requires a substitute to remain in the underworld. This is not a voluntary death to redeem humanity from sin.
“And these beliefs are much older than Christianity itself.” - An earlier date establishes chronological priority. It does not establish borrowing. You need evidence connecting the earlier story to the Christian proclamation, and you have presented NONE.
“What do all of these pagan, idol worshipping, polytheistic beliefs and the doctrine of The trinity have in common?” - You have identified broad similarities while failing to establish equivalence in the defining claims.
“Well, everything.” - Your own comparisons fail to support that. A family of different gods, a deity inhabiting an image, and the incarnation of the eternal Son are different concepts.
“The truth is, there is only one God.” - Christians agree. The disagreement concerns whether the one God eternally exists as three persons. “One God” does not automatically mean “one person.”
“This is the reason why God has sent prophets and messengers to warn people who fell into disbelief.” - That does not establish that worshipping Jesus constitutes disbelief. You still need to address the evidence for his divine identity.
“Allah is The Greatest.” - An affirmation of your faith does not function as evidence against Christianity.
“There is only One God.” - Again, Christians affirm that. Repeating monotheism does not refute Trinitarian monotheism.
“The Israelites of the time of Moses have witnessed miracles of God like no other nation or timeline did on earth, turning to worshiping the golden calf in the absence of Moses.” - The golden calf account establishes that people can commit idolatry despite witnessing miracles. It does not establish that Jesus is an idol. That requires a separate argument.
“How easy it was for them to fall into disbelief.” - Human error is possible. That observation does not tell us which account of Jesus is true.
“The same thing happened with Jesus, He preached ‘There is only one GOD! ALLAH! Worship HIM!’ and later his followers took him to be a sacrificial God who died for their sins.” - You have presented your opinion as though it were a documented quotation from Jesus. Sorry its not. You also need to explain the Christian sources. Thomas directly addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28. Paul describes Christ’s divine status in Philippians 2:6–11. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, Paul identifies Jesus’ death for sins and resurrection as a proclamation he received and shared with the earlier apostles. In John 1, like in the Quran, Jesus is the Word of God who IS GOD and created all things. Simply declaring that the followers corrupted Jesus’ teaching does not answer that evidence.
“And Allah alas, has sent Prophet Muhammad who vindicated Jesus Christ and abolished idol worship and was a seal for all of prophethood.” - That states the Islamic conclusion. You must independently establish Muhammad’s prophetic authority before using it to overrule the Christian testimony about Jesus.
“Allah sent the Holy Quran as the Furqan, The criteria, The Quran is the final truth.” - Calling the Quran the final truth does not prove its authority. If your argument depends on accepting the Quran beforehand, it gives Christians no independent reason to accept your conclusion. And the Quran explicitly says that the Quran CONFIRMS the previous scriptures they had with them, which is what we have today, and tells Muhammad that if he doubts the revelation in the Quran go to those reading the scriptures before him (Jews and Christians who have the torah and gospel) and it will alleviate his doubt (hypothetically if he had doubt). That puts the previous scripture as the criteria to judge the quran, not the other way around. No verse in the Quran says the Quran is the criteria OVER the previous scriptures. And the Torah is called the Furqan also.
“If you truly believe in God, read the Quran and become a Muslim.” - That assumes sincere belief in God must lead to Islam. The argument you presented has not established that. I truly believe in God, read the Quran, and rejected Islam as false as a result.
“Which means ‘One Who Submits Entirely To God’.” - A religious designation does not establish that the religion’s claims are true. The question remains. What has God actually revealed about Jesus? Your post claimed to prove Jesus is not God.
You failed MISERABLY.
The person who created the thread blocked me from responding on that thread so I figured I would respond here.
The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder." The Bible wasn't written in English and the original Hebrew word isn't just general killing but specifically murder.
That's not a distortion. That's just a fact. Claiming that it is about all killing in general at all is actually the distortion.
And we know this because if we don't cherry-pick that one phrase from the Bible but rather read the entirety of the Bible, we know that there is justified killing. Literally two chapters after that verse, it explicitly gives the laws on killing in self-defense, saying that it is legally justified. Further within that same book of the Bible, it says that all those who shed innocent blood shall get the death penalty, meaning that the death penalty is justified and not a violation of that commandment.
So I'm not the one distorting the text. You are
unavailable
You can hold the correct doctrine for terrible reasons.
If you would use the same argument to defend a false belief you inherited, your argument needs work.
Being right doesn't excuse careless thinking.
The Bible was written for us, but its authors addressed people who lived in a very different world.
Before asking, “What does this mean to me?” ask “What would this have meant to them?”
Word, troll came back under his alternate account and started spamming my account, confirming why he got blocked in the first place because he's a troll
You see I didn't block him and run away. I responded to all of his claims but he repeated the same claims multiple times, ignoring every piece of evidence that was presented that refuted him and just kept spamming the same comment over and over. So he got blocked. This coward troll is like a pigeon on a chessboard knocking over pieces and then claiming victory. Bless his little troll heart.
