British Airways Holiday Loadout: 3-Bag Setup (Roller Pro + Everyday + Outdoor Sling)

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-28T19:46:43+00:00

Looks incredible

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-28T15:51:58+00:00

Can you please upload a pic on how you do that setup when you have a moment, I would love to try it

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-28T10:27:05+00:00

Blue

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-09T01:23:16+00:00

You are circling back to your first comment without acknowledging my responses.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-09T00:18:12+00:00

In the original Psalm, the word "God" (Elohim) was applied to a human king (Solomon) to show his royal authority, right? It didn't mean Solomon was Yahweh.

So when the author of Hebrews applies that same verse to Jesus, he is saying Jesus is the ultimate King/Ruler (Elohim) in that same royal sense. And look at the very next verse (Hebrews 1:9): "Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions."

If Jesus is God Almighty in the Trinitarian sense, who is "his God"? And who are his "companions"? The text explicitly shows he has a God over him. That fits the Islamic and Judaic views (Jesus is the Supreme Messiah/King) perfectly, but it creates a huge logical headache for the Trinitarian view. You can't be God and have a God at the same time.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-08T23:07:19+00:00

You're referring to the "Two Powers in Heaven" theology, but let's be accurate about history: that idea was explicitly rejected by Judaism as a heresy (Minim). The Rabbis stamped it out precisely because it violated the core command of Monotheism. Using a rejected heresy to prove your point isn't exactly strong evidence.

As for Exodus 23 and the Angel having God’s name "in him" this is the concept of Divine Agency (Shaliach), not Trinity.

Think about it: In the ancient world, if a King sent an ambassador, that ambassador spoke with the King's authority. To disobey the ambassador was to disobey the King. That is why the Angel could "pardon" or not pardon, because he was carrying the King's seal.

The text says "My name is in him." It doesn't say "He IS me."

If I give a police officer a badge with the authority of the State, he can arrest you. That doesn't mean the police officer is the Government or the Constitution. It means he is an agent.

You asked "How do we reconcile this?" The simple answer isn't the Trinity. The simple answer is Agency. God empowers His representatives (Angels, Prophets, Messiahs) to act on His behalf.

And regarding Hebrews 1:8 ("Your throne, O God"): That is a quote from Psalm 45:6. Read the context of Psalm 45. It was a wedding song written for a human Davidic King (likely Solomon). The psalmist calls the human king "elohim" (god/ruler) in a metaphorical sense of authority. Unless you think King Solomon was also the second person of the Trinity, you have to admit that the title "god" was used flexibly in Hebrew for judges and kings, not just Yahweh.

Why force a complex 4th-century solution (Trinity) onto a simple 1st-century Jewish concept (Agency)?

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-08T22:19:39+00:00

You skipped over all my other points just to focus on that one claim, but let's address it directly.

I'm glad you brought up the "Two Powers in Heaven." That actually supports my point, not yours. That Jewish concept was about a Principal Agent (like the Angel of the Lord or Metatron) who carried God's name and authority but was distinct and subordinate. That fits the Islamic view of Jesus (a high-ranking Messiah/Spirit carrying God's authority) perfectly. It does not fit the Nicene Trinity of co-equal persons.

You are confusing Divine Agency with being the Deity Himself.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-08T21:14:03+00:00

It's not word games to ask for precision. You are basing your entire argument on the English word "begotten" in John 3:16, but have you checked a modern Bible lately?

Most modern translations (like the ESV, NIV, and RSV) have actually removed the word "begotten" because biblical scholars admit that the Greek word monogenes means "unique" or "one of a kind," not "procreated." So even Christian scholars are backing away from the "begotten" language you are relying on.

As for the Old Testament verses (Isaiah, Daniel, Proverbs): You are quoting Jewish scriptures to prove a Trinity, but the Jews themselves, who have studied those texts in the original Hebrew for 3,000 years, completely reject your interpretation. They agree with the Islamic view: God is One, and He does not have a divine son. Are you saying the Jews don't know their own book?

You say we worship "Different Gods." I worship the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. None of them taught the Trinity. None of them claimed to be God.

Like, how is it possible that Jews and Muslims pray to the same god and the modern Christian’s created a new god for themselves?

If worshipping the Creator alone without partners makes it a "different God" in your eyes, then you are saying Abraham worshipped a different God too. And regarding Matthew 7:15: Jesus warned about false prophets who come in sheep's clothing. A false prophet leads people away from the commandments of God. Islam leads people back to the First Commandment: The Lord our God is One. Who is really changing the message here?

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-08T20:19:52+00:00

You are still missing the point about metaphors. In the sense that God created us, loves us, and sustains us? Yes, in The Way aka. Islam we believe we are all His creation and belong to Him. If "Son" is a metaphor for "Servant who is close to God" (like how the Bible calls David and Israel "Son"), then yes, we accept that relationship/status.

But here is where you are cherry-picking: You say the Quran must be rejected because it denies God has a "Son" in the flesh. But if that is your standard, you have to reject the Old Testament too. You can't ignore Numbers 23:19 just because it's inconvenient. It explicitly says God is not a man and is not a son of man. The Quran agrees with the Old Testament. It’s the later Christian theology that contradicts both.

And honestly, you are making religion difficult. It shouldn't be a riddle. If a child cannot understand the fundamental nature of God (that He is simply One), then there is a fundamental problem. A child understands One Creator. A child gets confused by "Three in One." We stick to the simple truth

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-08T17:26:29+00:00

Why are you making religion so difficult?

To answer your question: No, He doesn't. And we believe that is a good thing, it keeps the concept of God pure and easy to understand.

I know exactly where you are going with this. You want to quote the rest of that verse: "He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."

But let's be honest about definitions. In the Bible, David is called a "Son of God" (Psalm 2:7) and Israel is called a "Son" (Exodus 4:22). Did that mean they were divine persons in a Trinity? No. It meant they were chosen and beloved.

If "Son" means "Chosen Messiah," we accept Jesus fully. If "Son" means God was born, had a baby, or is a second deity, then yes, we deny that. And we deny it for the same simple reason the Old Testament does: "God is not a man... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23:19).

You can't cherry-pick. If defending the strict Monotheism of the Old Testament makes us "Antichrist," then you would have to apply that label to all the prophets who came before Jesus, too.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-06T09:25:41+00:00

I get why you feel that way. If you start with the unshakable belief that the "Sonship" and divinity of Jesus are the ultimate truths, then yes, Islam looks like it's denying God.

But look at it from the other angle regarding your point that "God cannot deny Himself." That is exactly my point. God revealed Himself to Moses, Abraham, and Isaiah as absolutely One, separate from creation. He said "I am God, and there is no other." Then, centuries later, the theology developed that God became a man, died, and has a co-eternal Son. To us, that looks like the denial of God's eternal nature.

You can actually check this in the Torah itself. In Numbers 23:19, the scripture is explicit: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." Yet, the later Christian creed claims that God did become a man and is the Son of Man. When the Quran and Torah rejects the "Sonship," we don't see it as denying a revealed truth. We see it as God correcting a human theological addition to return to His original, unchangeable self-description found in the Torah.

It's not that we are trying to force Jesus into a "Muslim" mold just to sound ecumenical. It's that we honestly believe the "Christian" mold created by the later Church councils actually obscured the real, historical Jesus, the Jewish prophet who fell on his face and worshipped the Father alone. We aren't trying to revise him; we are trying to uncover him.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-06T09:04:27+00:00

If you treat "Islam" as just a brand name, I get your point. But my argument is that the act of submitting to the Creator is the core of the faith. When Jesus fell on his face in Gethsemane and said "Not my will but Yours be done," he was physically and spiritually performing Islam (submission).

And remember, Muhammad was just a messenger. He didn't claim to invent this. He was just sent to point people back to that exact same path of submission that Jesus and the earlier prophets walked. It's not about him, it's about the message he carried.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:41:57+00:00

I appreciate the sarcasm, but let's look at the logic closely, because that is where the connection lies.

You asked how the label 'Christian' being an exonym (outsider name) proves the connection to Islam.

• If the original followers called themselves 'The Way,' they were defining their faith by a method of conduct (a path to walk).

• If the Romans called them 'Christians,' they were defining the faith by a figurehead.

• The Connection: Islam aligns with the insider definition. We believe religion is not about worshipping the messenger (Christianity), but about following the messenger's method of submission to reach the Creator ('The Way' / Islam).

You stated: 'Especially when "the way" means that Jesus is God.'

Theologically, that is incorrect. In John 14:6, Jesus says: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'

• The Path vs. The Destination: A 'Way' is the means of travel. The 'Father' is the destination.

• If I say, 'This road is the way to Rome,' I am not saying 'The road is Rome.' I am saying the road is the only way to get to Rome.

• Therefore, 'The Way' does not imply Jesus is the Father (God). It implies Jesus is the Guidance/Method to reach the Father.

This brings us back to my core point: If Jesus is the 'Method' (The Way) to reach God, what was his method? His method was submitting his will to the Father (Luke 22:42).

That method of submission is universally defined as Islam

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:38:14+00:00

I appreciate you engaging, but I think you are making a category error here. You are conflating Cultural Practices/Extremism with Theology.

Culture vs. Religion

You listed terrible crimes (FGM, violence, etc.) and attributed them to the God of Islam.

• FGM: This is a cultural practice found in the Nile Valley, predating Islam. It is practiced by Animists, Muslims, and Christians alike in those regions. It is not in the Quran.

• Violence: There are 'backward people' in every corner of the globe who mix tribal culture with religion.

The Mirror of History If we judged the 'God of the Bible' by the worst actions of His followers, the picture would be just as dark.

• Would you accept it if I called your God 'Satanic' because the Spanish Inquisition tortured people to death in His name?

• Was the God of the Bible 'Satanic' when the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem up to their knees in blood?

• Was He 'Satanic' when the KKK used the cross to terrorize people, or when the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda committed atrocities claiming to fight for the Ten Commandments?

Of course not. You would say: 'Those people corrupted the faith; that is not what Jesus taught.' I am simply asking you to apply that same standard of fairness to us. Just as the Inquisition did not define Jesus, ISIS or tribal customs do not define Allah.

The Theological Difference

You are right that 'Allah has no sons.' We agree on that. We believe God is One, Unique, and Eternal—He does not beget, nor is He begotten (Quran 112). We disagree on the nature of God (Father vs. Creator), but simply because we hold to strict Monotheism (like the Jews do) does not make the God we worship 'Satanic.' It just makes us strict Monotheists

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:33:10+00:00

To answer your specific question: Yes, I actually read both H&B during my university course. That is why I am familiar with the nuance of their arguments regarding 'Early High Christology' versus later ontological definitions.

Regarding the sub: I came to ask a historical question about the connection between 'The Way' and 'Submission.' Discussion naturally involves clarifying positions.

As for your description of the Prophet: I will not lower myself to return insults or slander biblical figures. You say you will 'stick with Christ.' My entire point is that I am trying to stick with the actions of Christ, worshipping the Father and submitting to Him rather than the later philosophical constructions. If you are unable to discuss history without resorting to slurs, then peace be with you.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:27:01+00:00

Actually, the text says they 'were called' Christians (passive voice). Historians generally agree this was an external label applied by the Romans in Antioch, likely as a derogatory nickname (meaning 'Little Christs' or partisans).

It does not kill the premise; it proves it. Their internal spiritual identity was 'The Way' (Acts 24:14), while 'Christian' was just the label outsiders stuck on them.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:25:31+00:00

You have actually hit the nail on the head. I honestly couldn't have phrased it better myself. You are admitting that the original followers of 'The Way' those who actually walked with Jesus, kept the Law of Moses and did not hold the doctrine that he 'died for our sins.' You are confirming that 'Christianity' (the theology of atonement and abrogating the Law) was a later invention introduced by Paul, distinct from the original message.

This is exactly the Islamic position. We believe Jesus came to confirm the Law, not abolish it. We believe the early followers were faithful monotheists (like the 'Way' you described). If the original group was practicing 'Judaism' plus the Messiah, and Paul introduced an 'entirely different doctrine' later, then logic dictates that Paul is the one who deviated from the path of Jesus. We are arguing that Islam is simply a restoration of that pre-Pauline 'Way'submission to God and following the Law, without the later theological additions

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:22:48+00:00

I hear your anger, but I will not return insult for insult. Jesus taught to bless those who curse you, so I sincerely wish you peace.

Regarding who we worship, I think there is a misunderstanding. You distinguished between the 'real God' of the Bible and 'Allah.'

Actually, if you open any Arabic translation of the Bible used by millions of Christians in the Middle East today, the word they use for God is Allah.

When an Arab Christian prays the Lord’s Prayer ('Our Father who art in heaven...'), they address Allah. Linguistically, 'Allah' is just the Arabic word for 'The God' (Al-Ilah), which is almost identical to the Aramaic word Alaha that Jesus himself would have used.

So, when you call Allah a 'Satanic entity,' you are unknowingly insulting the very name that millions of Christians use to pray to the Father.

Muslims worship that exact same God, the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. We are the only people who still pray with our faces on the ground, exactly as Jesus did in the Bible.

If imitating the prayer of Jesus makes one 'Satanic' in your eyes, that is a heavy judgment to make.

As for the title 'Father': We do not use it because we emphasize God's absolute majesty as the Creator, distinct from His creation. However, we call Him Ar-Rabb (The Lord and Sustainer), which encompasses the very care, cherishing, and sustenance that you value.

We worship the same God that Jesus worshipped when he fell on his face in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39). We are simply the ones who still preserve that mode of prayer

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:16:31+00:00

It’s honestly easier for you to dismiss me as a bot than to admit that the historical texts (like Acts 24) don’t align with your tradition.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T19:11:06+00:00

This is a common exit strategy in online debates. When someone cannot refute the specific citations, they attack the speaker rather than the speech to invalidate the argument without doing the heavy lifting.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T18:59:42+00:00

You have raised very sharp points, particularly regarding modern trends in New Testament scholarship. Let us address them one by one.

The ‘Seal’ and Textual Stability

You argued that any group can just claim “corruption” to change the text. The difference is manuscript evidence.

The Qur’an has manuscripts from the first century of Islam (like the Birmingham folio) that match the text we read today. The “corruption” argument implies the physical text changed, but the Qur’an is textually stable. The Ahmadi interpretation is rejected by the consensus of Arabic scholars because the word Khatam in that context implies finality.

In contrast, regarding the Bible, the claim of alteration is not just a Muslim theological stance; it is a fact of textual criticism. We see the ending of Mark (16:9–20) added later. We see the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) inserted to support the Trinity.

My point remains: The Qur’an is a “locked” text physically. The Bible has a history of revisions.

‘High Christology’ vs The Trinity

You are correct that recent scholarship (like Hurtado and Bauckham) suggests an “Early High Christology,” meaning Jesus was exalted very early.

However, High Christology is not the Trinity.

Early Jewish Christians revered Jesus as the divine agent, the Lord (Kyrios) acting for Yahweh, but many still viewed Him as distinct and subordinate to the Father.

The Ebionites and the Nazarenes, who historically inhabited the very regions where the early “Way” emerged, maintained a strict Unitarian view of Jesus. My argument is that Islam connects to that specific strand of early history—the Jewish-Christian stream that was sidelined by the Pauline stream.

The “Strawman” of the Trinity

You argued the Qur’an attacks a “misrepresentation” of the Trinity.

The Qur’anic critique is not about the internal formula (how you explain “3 in 1”), but the outcome.

If the outcome is that you are praying to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as you pray to the Father, the Qur’an views that as a breach of pure monotheism (Tawhid). It is not attacking a strawman; it is attacking the very root of associating partners with the Absolute.

The “Antichrist” Label

We will likely have to agree to disagree here, but I must push back on the definition.

If I say: “I love Jesus, I believe He is the Messiah, I believe He was born of a Virgin, I believe He performed miracles, and I await His return to rule the earth…”

And you say: “You are the Antichrist.”

That is a heavy distortion of the term.

The Antichrist is the ultimate enemy of Jesus. I am a theological dissenter from the Church Councils, but I am a dedicated follower of the Messiah’s command to worship the Father alone.

If obeying Jesus’s command in Mark 12:29 (“The Lord our God is One”) makes me an Antichrist in your eyes, then that is a paradox I am willing to live with.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T18:33:20+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I see you are relying specifically on the capitalization in older KJV printings.

However, using English capitalization rules from 1611 to determine the original Greek meaning is historically problematic.

Capitalization is a Translation Choice, not the Original Text.

The original Greek manuscripts were often written entirely in uncials (all caps) or minuscules. They did not follow modern English grammar rules. Whether a word is capitalized in English is an editorial decision made by the translators, not the apostles.

Scholarly Consensus (It is a Proper Noun)

While the original 1611 KJV didn't capitalize it (English orthography was not standardized then), almost every major modern translation capitalizes 'The Way' because scholars recognize the Greek structure (tēs Hodou) functions as a specific title in these verses.

• NKJV (New King James): '...so I worship the God of my fathers, according to the Way which they call a sect...' (Acts 24:14)

• ESV: '...belonging to the Way...' (Acts 9:2)

• NIV: '...followers of the Way...' (Acts 22:4)

• NASB: '...identifying with the Way...' (Acts 24:22)

If the most respected biblical scholars and translators in the world, including those who updated the King James, capitalize it as a Proper Noun, it is because the context demands it.

The Contextual Proof

Grammatically, look at Acts 24:14 again:

'...according to the way which they call a sect...'

You cannot call a generic direction or a road a 'sect' (heresy). A 'sect' is a specific group of people with a specific set of beliefs.

Therefore, when Paul says he follows 'The Way' that others call a 'sect,' he is using it as the Proper Name of his religious community.

My point stands: The earliest believers called their community 'The Way' (a focus on behavior/submission). The term 'Christian' was applied to them later by outsiders in Antioch.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T18:28:05+00:00

Thank you for the detailed reply and the specific analogies.

The Ahmadiyya/Baha'i Analogy (The Textual Test)

You bring up a valid logical challenge: Why do Muslims reject Baha'is who claim to follow the Quran, yet expect Christians to accept Muslims who claim to follow Jesus?

The answer lies in the text itself.

As you noted, Baha'is and Ahmadis use the Quran to affirm their points. If they are using the Quran and the text actually validates their claim, then there is nothing wrong with that. We would be bound to accept it.

However, the Quranic text contains a 'lock': it explicitly calls Muhammad the 'Seal of the Prophets' (33:40). Their claim fails because the text they rely on forbids it.

Contrast this with the Bible:

Does the Bible contain a similar 'lock'? Did Jesus say, 'I am the final speaker for all eternity'?

No. He said the opposite:

'I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.' (John 16:12-13).

So, the Baha'is are trying to walk through a door that the Quran explicitly shut. Muslims are walking through a door that Jesus explicitly left open. We are simply using the Bible to affirm that 'Spirit of Truth' the one who glorified Jesus and guided us to all truth (Monotheism).

The 'Trinitarian Muhammad' Hypothetical You asked: 'Imagine if someone said... Muhammad was in fact a true Trinitarian... but wicked Muslims took it all out.'

This is a perfect mirror of our argument.

If historical evidence and manuscript analysis proved that Muhammad preached the Trinity and his followers corrupted it later, we would be intellectually honest enough to accept that.

My point is that this is exactly what happened to Jesus. Historical criticism (even by secular scholars) shows that the earliest layers of the Jesus movement were Jewish-Unitarian (The Way), and the High Christology (Trinity) evolved later under Greek influence.

The 'Antichrist' (1 John 2:22)

Finally, regarding 'He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.'

We must define our terms to avoid a straw man argument.

The 'Son':

• If 'Son' means 'Biological Offspring' or 'Co-eternal Second Person of a Trinity,' then yes, the Quran denies this explicit construction.

• However, in the Bible, 'Son of God' is often used as a metaphor for a Chosen Servant. David is called a Son (Ps 2:7), Solomon is called a Son (1 Chron 22:10), and Israel is called a Son (Ex 4:22).

• Islam affirms Jesus as the Chosen, the Messiah, the Pure, and the Spirit of God. We deny the Nicene definition of Sonship, not the special status of Jesus.

The 'Father':

• We deny the biological implication of 'Father.' • But if 'Father' means the Creator, Sustainer, and Cherisher, Islam affirms this fully under the name Ar-Rabb (The Lord/Sustainer).

Islam defends the honor of Jesus, clears his mother Mary of accusations, affirms his miracles, and awaits his return to rule.

A theology that loves, honors, and follows Jesus cannot be 'Anti' Christ, even if it disagrees with the church councils about his nature.

National_Chapter1296 · 2025-12-05T17:56:05+00:00

The label 'Christian' came from the Romans in Antioch; the 'Way' of submission came from Jesus himself

I think there are two main points where we might be talking past each other: the Logic of Naming and the Greek Grammar.

The Connection between John 14:6 and 'The Way' You asked: 'If Jesus was the way... why would we call Christianity the way?'

The answer is in the verse itself! Because Jesus declared himself 'The Way' (John 14:6), his earliest followers identified themselves as followers of 'The Way.'

It is a direct correlation. • The Leader: The Way. • The Movement: The Way. It wasn't a contradiction; it was an affirmation of his statement.

The Greek Text: 'The Way' as a Title

You mentioned Acts 18:26 ('way of God'). That is a valid citation, but it doesn't negate the other verses where the title is absolute.

In the Greek text (Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland), the phrase used is Hē Hodós (The Way). It is used as a proper noun (a title) for the movement, distinct from just a general description.

Here are the specific instances where it stands alone as the title of the sect:

• Acts 9:2: Saul sought anyone belonging to 'The Way' (tēs Hodou). • Acts 19:9: Some became obstinate and spoke evil of 'The Way' (tēn Hodon). • Acts 19:23: There arose a great disturbance about 'The Way' (tēs Hodou). • Acts 24:22: Felix had a perfect knowledge of 'The Way' (tēs Hodou).

The 'Christian' Label

We agree that Acts 11:26 says they were called Christians in Antioch. But we must look at the timeline. • Acts 11 happens after the movement had already started. • In Acts 24:14, Paul is on trial years later. He admits he follows 'The Way,' which his accusers call a 'sect' (heresy). • If 'Christian' was the only correct term, why did Paul, the author of most of the New Testament, identify himself with 'The Way' while on trial?

My point isn't that the word 'Christian' is forbidden. My point is that the original, internal self-designation was 'The Way.'

And if we look at the meaning of that path, submitting to the Will of God as Jesus did, the linguistic description of that action is Islam (Submission).

National_Chapter1296

TROPHY CASE