Thanks a lot sister
May Allah bless you , too

Thanks a million sister

The Father ≠ The Son ≠ The Holy Spirit

The Father = God
The Son = God
The Hply Spirit = God

So
God = God = God

hence,

if we consider, God = 1

1 = 1 =1

So,

1 + 1 + 1 = 1



opssss !!!!!

The Father ≠ The Son ≠ The Holy Spirit


ٍSo,
God ≠ God ≠ God

As a result
1 ≠ 1 ≠ 1

1 + 1 +1 = 3

Gee !!!!!
I = We = you
It's more confusing !!!!!!

You and all the members of this great forum have the right to copy or do whatever you like, that's why I did it!!!!

You don't need to ask for permission at all sister
It's me who should say " Jazaki Allah Khier " as you convay it to other forums and sites, to be in our good deeds, inshallah

align=justify]CENTER]thank you brothers and sisters for all your effort .i share you in the same subject and here a part of book of The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop

Objects of Worship
Section I
Trinity in Unity
If there be this general coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question
arises, Does the coincidence stop here? To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only to
bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome, and then it will be
seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other. These Mysteries were long shrouded
in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least
attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the
"Mysteries" occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might
be, in all essential respects these "Mysteries" in the different countries were the same. Now, as
the language of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source
from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians,
on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion. From Zonaras we find that the
concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was to this effect; for, speaking of
arithmetic and astronomy, he says: "It is said that these came from the Chaldees to the Egyptians,
and thence to the Greeks." If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy
from Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the priests, that
is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion from the same quarter. Both
Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to substantially the same result. The statement
of Bunsen is to the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and "the
primitive empire in Babel." Layard, again, though taking a somewhat more favourable view of
the system of the Chaldean Magi, than, I am persuaded, the facts of history warrant, nevertheless
thus speaks of that system: "Of the great antiquity of this primitive worship there is abundant
evidence, and that it originated among the inhabitants of the Assyrian plains, we have the united
testimony of sacred and profane history. It obtained the epithet of perfect, and was believed to be
the most ancient of religious systems, having preceded that of the Egyptians." "The identity," he
adds, "of many of the Assyrian doctrines with those of Egypt is alluded to by Porphyry and
Clemens"; and, in connection with the same subject, he quotes the following from Birch on
Babylonian cylinders and monuments: "The zodiacal signs...show unequivocally that the Greeks
derived their notions and arrangements of the zodiac [and consequently their Mythology, that
to be continue[/CENTER[/align

was intertwined with it] from the Chaldees. The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion
is not to be rejected." Ouvaroff, also, in his learned work on the Eleusinian mysteries, has come
to the same conclusion. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of
having transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: "These
positive facts would sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, that the Mysteries
transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local notions, never lost the
character of their origin derived from the cradle of the moral and religious ideas of the universe.
All these separate facts--all these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which
places in the East the centre of science and civilisation." If thus we have evidence that Egypt and
Greece derived their religion from Babylon, we have equal evidence that the religious system of
the Phoenicians came from the same source. Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of
the Phoenician idolatry must have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers,
included Babylonia. "The worship of the Architic Venus," says he, "formerly flourished as much
among the Assyrians as it does now among the Phenicians."
Now to establish the identity between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have
just to inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in
these Babylonian Mysteries. In prosecuting such an inquiry there are considerable difficulties to
be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata
of the earth's surface, so it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a
complete and connected account of the system established in that country. But yet, even as the
geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there, and what "crops out" of
itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and
general contents of the different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean
Mysteries. What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what actually "crops
out" in different directions, to a large extent necessarily determines the character of much that
does not directly appear on the surface. Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian
character of the ancient Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us
in our researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine and practice of
the two Babylons--the Babylon of the Old Testament and the Babylon of the New.
And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The
ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the unity of the Godhead;
and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human
affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme
over all. Most other nations did the same. "In the early ages of mankind," says Wilkinson in his
"Ancient Egyptians," "The existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created all things,
seems to have been the universal belief; and tradition taught men the same notions on this
subject, which, in later times, have been adopted by all civilised nations." "The Gothic religion,"
says Mallet, "taught the being of a supreme God, Master of the Universe, to whom all things
were submissive and obedient." (Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) The ancient Icelandic mythology calls
him "the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the living, and awful Being; the searcher
into concealed things, the Being that never changeth. " It attributeth to this deity "an infinite
power, a boundless knowledge, and incorruptible justice." We have evidence of the same having
been the faith of ancient Hindostan. Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet
the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of
Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: "Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no
image" (Veda). He "illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live
15
when born, and that to which all must return" (Veda). In the "Institutes of Menu," he is
characterised as "He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the external
organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity...the soul of all beings, whom no being
can comprehend." In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very
language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far
purer faith.
Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but
there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His
dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated
by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory
speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to
Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew
Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from
Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or compassionate one." But Rahm
also signifies the WOMB or the bowels; as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language
applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition
that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in
one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity
with the Supreme, using the following words: "The great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place
my foetus, and from it is the procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the
various forms which are conceived in every natural womb." How could such language ever have
been applied to "The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being,
before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord," but from
the connection between Rahm "the womb" and Rahm "the merciful one"? Here, then, we find
that Brahm is just the same as "Er-Rahman," "The all- merciful one,"--a title applied by the Turks
to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now,
had once known that "the most holy, most high God," is also "The God of Mercy," in other
words, that he is "a just God and a Saviour." And proceeding on this interpretation of the name
Brahm, we see how exactly their religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the
account of the origin of all things, as given in Genesis. It is well known that the Brahmins, to
exalt themselves as a priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for
many ages taught that, while the other castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma--
the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him--they
alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books
which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the
Vedas, speaking of Brahma, it is expressly stated that "ALL beings" "are created from his
MOUTH." In the passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in
connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt what was the
real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty and exclusive pretensions of the
Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the
"Merciful and Gracious One" (Exo 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who
in the beginning "spake and it was done," "commanded and all things stood fast," who made all
things by the "Word of His power." After what has now been said, any one who consults the
"Asiatic Researches," may see that it is in a great measure from a wicked perversion of this
Divine title of the One Living and True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men

that all those moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of
India so offensive to the eye of purity. *
* While such is the meaning of Brahm, the meaning of Deva, the generic name
for "God" in India, is near akin to it. That name is commonly derived from the
Sanscrit, Div, "to shine,"--only a different form of Shiv, which has the same
meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv, "brightness or splendour"
(Dan 2:31); and, no doubt, when sun-worship was engrafted on the Patriarchal
faith, the visible splendour of the deified luminary might be suggested by the
name. But there is reason to believe that "Deva" has a much more honourable
origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee, Thav, "good," which is
also legitimately pronounced Thev, and in the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo,
"The Good." The first letter, represented by Th, as shown by Donaldson in his
New Cratylus, is frequently pronounced Dh. Hence, from Dheva or Theva, "The
Good," naturally comes the Sanscrit, Deva, or, without the digamma, as it
frequently is, Deo, "God," the Latin, Deus, and the Greek, Theos, the digamma in
the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in Greek. This
view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord (Matt 19:17):
"There is none good but One, that is (Theos) God"--"The Good."
So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the
Living God, severely condemned His own people fo r giving any countenance to it: "They that
sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of the ONLY ONE, *
eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together" (Isa
66:17).
* The words in our translation are, "behind one tree," but there is no word in the
original for "tree"; and it is admitted by Lowth, and the best orientalists, that the
rendering should be, "after the rites of Achad," i.e. "The Only One." I am aware
that some object to making "Achad" signify, "The Only One," on the ground that
it wants the article. But how little weight is in this, may be seen from the fact that
it is this very term "Achad," and that without the article, that is used in
Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead is asserted in the most emphatic
manner, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," i.e., "only Jehovah."
When it is intended to assert the Unity of the Godhead in the strongest possible
manner, the Babylonians used the term "Adad." Macrobii Saturnalia.
In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise
that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral
triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. *
* LAYARD's Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a
symbol of their "triform divinity."
In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to
pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between
such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye
compare unto Him?"
The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called
Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * The
Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of
such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. (Fig. 3) ** The accompanying cut (Fig.
4) of such another divinity, worshipped among the Pagans of Siberia, is taken from a medal in
the Imperial Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and given in Parson's "Japhet." *** The three heads are
differently arranged in Layard's specimen, but both alike are evidently intended to symbolise the
same great truth, although all such representation of the Trinity necessarily and utterly debase the
conceptions of those, among whom such images prevail, in regard to that sublime mystery of our
faith.
* PARKHURST'S Hebrew Lexicon, "Cherubim." From the following extract
from the Dublin Catholic Layman, a very able Protestant paper, describing a
Popish picture of the Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be seen that
something akin to this mode of representing the Godhead is appearing nearer
home: "At the top of the picture is a representation of the Holy Trinity. We beg to
speak of it with due reverence. God the Father and God the Son are represented as
a MAN with two heads, one body, and two arms. One of the heads is like the
ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the head of an old man, surmounted
by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the
form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind, and repugnant
to Christian feeling, to look at this figure." (17th July, 1856)
** Babylon and Nineveh. Some have said that the plural form of the name of
God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of
persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen
divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was
triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.
*** Japhet, p. 184.
In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is
represented with three heads on one body, under the name of "Eko Deva Trimurtti," "One God,
three forms." *
* Col. KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology. Col. Kennedy objects to the application
of the name "Eko Deva" to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on
the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm. But in so doing he
is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that triform
image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a curse is
pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Seva, the
three divinities represented by that image.
In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same
form, under the name of "San Pao Fuh." All these have existed from ancient times. While
overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the
world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject,
which comes out so distinctly in Genesis

The threefold invocation of the sacred name in the blessing of Jacob bestowed
on the sons of Joseph is very striking: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God,
before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which fed me all
my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the
lads" (Gen 48:15,16). If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob could
never have invoked him as on an equality with God. In Hosea 12:3-5, "The Angel
who redeemed" Jacob is expressly called God: "He (Jacob) had power with God:
yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication
unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God
of Hosts; The Lord is his memorial."
When we look at the symbols in the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely
examine them, they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as signifying
"Time without bounds." But the hieroglyphic meaning of the circle is evidently different. A
circle in Chaldea was zero; * and zero also signified "the seed."
* In our own language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among
the Chaldeans; for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And
whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without
doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators
at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently
come from the Chaldee, zer, "to encompass," from which, also, no doubt, was
derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a "saros."
(BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great "Seed," was
looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle
(BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, "the circle," and zero, "the
seed," was easily established.
Therefore, according to the genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent
founded on double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, "a circle,"
was understood by the initiated to signify zero, "the seed." Now, viewed in this light, the triune
emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal
faith. First, there is the head of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for "the seed"; and
lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove; * showing, though blasphemously, the unity of
Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost.
* From the statement in Genesis 1:2, that "the Spirit of God fluttered on the face
of the deep" (for that is the expression in the original), it is evident that the dove
had very early been a Divine emblem for the Holy Spirit.
While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God,
and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, yet there is evidence
that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in
regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of
God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation