/* */

PDA

View Full Version : How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?



Fivesolas
04-11-2011, 03:27 PM
I would like this thread to, as much as possible, to represent how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. The title of this thread could be read with this emphasis: How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

This thread is started from another, where this kind of discussion could take the other off-topic somewhat. Here are some suggestions:

How does the Qur'an represent the Trinity?

How does the Qur'an represent the Sonship of Jeus?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
04-13-2011, 12:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
I would like this thread to, as much as possible, to represent how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. The title of this thread could be read with this emphasis: How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

This thread is started from another, where this kind of discussion could take the other off-topic somewhat. Here are some suggestions:

How does the Qur'an represent the Trinity?

How does the Qur'an represent the Sonship of Jeus?
The Qur'an says very little about Christianity. the most notable ayyat regarding christianity would be:

5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
Latajidanna ashadda alnnasiAAadawatan lillatheena amanoo alyahooda waallatheenaashrakoo walatajidanna aqrabahum mawaddatan lillatheena amanooallatheena qaloo inna nasara thalikabi-anna minhum qisseeseena waruhbanan waannahum layastakbiroona
Reply

siam
04-13-2011, 04:06 AM
The Quran also says very little about the trinity.

Because there are some stories similar to the Bible....Some people think the Quran is about the Bible---it is not---it's primary concern are not "Jews"/"Christians" but the People of the time of the Prophet(pbuh) and mankind in general over time. The Quran is not a book of "corrections" of the Bible---but primarily a book of Guidance to all mankind. ----Yes, it does on occassion answer specific questions posed by Jews/Christans to the Prophet(pbuh) and makes some general statements....but the Quran is foremost about Guidance.

Even the general statements about Jews/Christians are meant as Guidance---for example 5:82---emphasises humility, seeking knowledge, and simplicity as qualities that make a worthy person......

Most Christians aren't interested in the wisdom and Guidance of the Quran---they are mostly interested in what the Quran says about them----so one ends up with a distorted idea.......
Reply

Ramadhan
04-13-2011, 11:02 AM
AFAIK, the does not say anything about trinity.
However, in several Qur'an verses, Allah condemns nasara who take up jesus as son of God.
In a Qur'an ayat, Jesus (pbuh) also implored that he never taught his followers to worship and elevate him as son of God.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Sol Invictus
04-13-2011, 03:12 PM
i'll be quite frank and say that whenever the qur'an takes it upon itself to speak of the trinity it shows that the source of the qur'an does not seem to possess an accurate knowledge of what the trinity really is. given this problem, it has been my experience that in recent years muslims have moved away from claiming that the qur'an actually says anything about the trinity (i still remember when i would see arguments along the lines of "the qur'an is superior to the bible because while the latter does not even mention the trinity, the qur'an does and refutes it") because whenever these passages are examined, one finds that they clearly misunderstand what the trinity really is. that said, even if, for the sake of the argument, we accept that the qur'an says nothing about the trinity, it still incorrectly articulates the divinity of christ, and does not have a proper understanding of the basis for his sonship. it seems to believe that christ's sonship rests in the fact that the father engaged in a sexual union with mary ('the mother') to produce christ (the son). anyway, this is simply an initial post and we can get down to the details later.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-13-2011, 03:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The Qur'an says very little about Christianity. the most notable ayyat regarding christianity would be:
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
The Quran also says very little about the trinity.

Even the general statements about Jews/Christians are meant as Guidance---for example 5:82---emphasises humility, seeking knowledge, and simplicity as qualities that make a worthy person......

Most Christians aren't interested in the wisdom and Guidance of the Quran---they are mostly interested in what the Quran says about them----so one ends up with a distorted idea.......
If the Qur'an says so little about Christianity or the Trinity and just makes general statements about Jews/Christians, then how is it that so many posts are made in this forum from Muslims who object to this and that thing which they assert is to be found with the doctrines and beliefs of the Christian Church and yet the first time I, who was raised in the Christian Church and have been a pastor for 30 years, have ever heard of these these supposed Christian teachings are from Muslims on this forum? If not from the Qu'ran or the Hadith, and certainly not from the Bible or the teachings of the Church, then from where do Muslims derive these erroneous views with regard to Christianity that are apparently held within Islam?
Reply

Woodrow
04-13-2011, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If the Qur'an says so little about Christianity or the Trinity and just makes general statements about Jews/Christians, then how is it that so many posts are made in this forum from Muslims who object to this and that thing which they assert is to be found with the doctrines and beliefs of the Christian Church and yet the first time I, who was raised in the Christian Church and have been a pastor for 30 years, have ever heard of these these supposed Christian teachings are from Muslims on this forum? If not from the Qu'ran or the Hadith, and certainly not from the Bible or the teachings of the Church, then from where do Muslims derive these erroneous views with regard to Christianity that are apparently held within Islam?
Peace Gene,

In my humble opinion I suspect some of it comes from us former Christians. Many of us do see statements in the AHadith and Quran as being refutations of Christianity and often believe that was/is their purpose. also since we do come from a variety of backgrounds and denominations, we sometimes have conflicting views on such matters as the Bible and the Trinity.

The next largest cause I suspect comes from some of the modern day non-mainstream Christians. In particular some of the "Bible based" charismatic fringe element. since the mid 1800s there has been numerous individuals breaking away from any established denominations and presenting their own interpretation of Christianity based only upon the bible with no adherence to doctrine or canons.

As a result of those two things and Christian/Muslim contacts being more common, it is probable that many views that do not represent all Christians and even erroneous views, are the views of Christianity we are now often seeing.

To add to the problem. Us humans, all humans, are very lazy creatures and we often travel the easiest path. today that path is the internet and we all become instant experts on any subject if we can type in the name of a subject, with at least a close approximation at spelling it correctly. For many of us our replies to anything are a fast google search followed by cut and paste.

It is understandable we will disagree over our perspective beliefs. But, I hope we can all learn to disagree over actual beliefs and not misconceptions. We can live with honest, truthful disagreements. Misconceptions and lies only lead to hostility.
Reply

siam
04-14-2011, 04:02 AM
The Quran is a book of Guidance. Its Guidance is based within a framework called Tawheed. Tawheed is about ONE God/monotheism and the Quran has A LOT to say about that. Tawheed is the major concept that centers and balances all other concepts, whether these are economic principles, concepts of governemnt/governorship or principles of etiquette, or personal/family relationships....etc
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-14-2011, 10:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
The Quran is a book of Guidance. Its Guidance is based within a framework called Tawheed. Tawheed is about ONE God/monotheism and the Quran has A LOT to say about that. Tawheed is the major concept that centers and balances all other concepts, whether these are economic principles, concepts of governemnt/governorship or principles of etiquette, or personal/family relationships....etc

TBDAQ -- True, But Doesn't Answer the Question.

How does this address any of the questions previously asked in the thread with regard to the Qur'an offering commentary on Christianity, or for that matter guidance with regard to Christianity?
Reply

Ubeyde
04-14-2011, 12:56 PM
The Qur'an mentions those Chrisitans and Jews who know of the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhamad (SA) and the Quran but they have altered and lied to the people about his and its coming..

It reads in the Bible, that there will be a Prophet from Mecca who will be illterate- and to that person Christians and Jews should follow and give glad tidings to.. but in the above statement that isn't the case because Corrupt people decidied to alter the Books of Revelation..
Reply

Fivesolas
04-14-2011, 07:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ubeyde
The Qur'an mentions those Chrisitans and Jews who know of the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhamad (SA) and the Quran but they have altered and lied to the people about his and its coming..

It reads in the Bible, that there will be a Prophet from Mecca who will be illterate- and to that person Christians and Jews should follow and give glad tidings to.. but in the above statement that isn't the case because Corrupt people decidied to alter the Books of Revelation..
Woodrow above reported the following from the Qur'an:
5:82 "Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."

How is it that you can believe this and yet believe that such ones would lie to people and alter their sacred texts?
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-14-2011, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
Woodrow above reported the following from the Qur'an:
5:82 "Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."

How is it that you can believe this and yet believe that such ones would lie to people and alter their sacred texts?
Because The Quran also says this,
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

Note the "Many".

Reply

Grace Seeker
04-14-2011, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ubeyde
The Qur'an mentions those Chrisitans and Jews who know of the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhamad (SA) and the Quran but they have altered and lied to the people about his and its coming..

It reads in the Bible, that there will be a Prophet from Mecca who will be illterate- and to that person Christians and Jews should follow and give glad tidings to.. but in the above statement that isn't the case because Corrupt people decidied to alter the Books of Revelation..

I accept that these are statements that you believe are true. Though I know they are related in your mind, what are the specific passages that substantiate each of the several points you have made:


1) Where in the Qur'an does it mention those Chrisitans and Jews who know of the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhamad (SA) and the Quran?


2) Where in the Qur'an does it mention that Christians and Jews have altered and lied to the people about the comming of Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an?

3) I know where you believe it is found in the Bible that Prophet Muhammad is referred to, but where does it mention in the Qur'an or the Hadith that Prophet Muhammad is referred to in the Bible?

4) Where in the Qur'an or Hadith does it mention that corrupt people decidied to alter the Books of Revelation?
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-14-2011, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Because The Quran also says this,
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

Note the "Many".

I have been told that this only refers to some Christians and not all. You yourself noted the term "many". And I have also been told that many Christians think different from one another. Some ascribe to orthodox beliefs and some ascribe to heterodox beliefs. Where does the Qur'an say whether it is the orthodox or the heterodox that is on the right course or the wrong course?


The Bible itself speaks of people who once believed and practice the Christian faith rightly and then turned to follow a course that one might describe as evil:
Revelation 2

2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Revelation 2

...you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam.

Revelation 3

I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life.


Could any of these be the people that the Qur'an speaks of in 5:66?
Reply

Fivesolas
04-14-2011, 07:47 PM
Also,

Look at the following translated from Pickthal: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them..." 7:157

Or this one

And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:90


7:157 is especially interesting because gives the impression that we (or the Muslim) would be able to find Muhammed talked about in the Torah (the books of Moses) and the Gospel (which I take to mean the life and teaching of Jesus) that are with us. Either this text is timeless, and applies to every generation since written, or else it is in reference to that generation in which it was written...between 600-623AD.

We do have whole copies dating from the 5th century, and ancient translations from the same time period. I find it hard to understand why Muslims would try to convince Christians and others that the New Testament (or Old) has been malicously corrupted so much that the actual Gospel has been lost. The speal from the Qur'an is that I (or a Muslim) should be able to find Muhammed spoken of in the Old and New Testaments. But, then I am told that the Old and New Testaments have been so corrupted that they cannot be relied upon as a source of guidence.

Never once does the Old or New Testament reference a future book, such as the Qur'an, in the manner in which the Qur'an references the Old and New Testament. And I am not seeing in the Qur'an's teaching any thought that the Torah and Gospel which is with me is unreliable.


And this part, "And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession..." What is meant by "confirmign that in their possession" If the first part is to refer to the Qur'an, and the later part to the Old and New Testaments (Bible), then why would it be supposed that the Bible has been corrupted beyond recognition? Doesn't this Surah suggest any corruption at all? Wouldn't the skeptical Jew or Christian search their Scriptures to see if the things Muhammed claimed were true.

It would be just like when the Apostle Paul went and preached to the Berean Jews that it says they searching the Scriptures daily to see if the things Paul preached were true. Paul never once chided them if they did not believe by suggesting the the Old Testament Scriptures were corrupt!! Rather, he worked to show them FROM the Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, crucified, and risen from the dead.

Again, it is said that the Christians twisted and corrupted their Scriptures. This implies intent, full knowledge. Which means malicious intent, fraud, deceipt, and of the worst kind, to decieve men in such a way that doesn't just rob them of temporal goods, but eternal. Why would such ones, when being persecuted by Rome or others, not immediately give up and sacrifice to the gods? It is a fact of history that if the Christians were to show their allegience to Ceaser, by offering to the gods and calling Ceaser Lord, they would be released. Yet, they chose to hold to their faith and suffer the most cruel penalties.

It is sometimes rebuffed in that men of conviction have often died for what they believed in. True enough. But this is not the point we are making. We are not saying that because Christians suffered and died for their belief, therefore it is true. We are answering the critic who is suggesting that the Christians themselves with malicious and purposeful intent corrupted their Scriptures for their own personal gain would then later choose to suffer the loss of all things, even their lives, to maintain such a ruse. We find this very incredible, if not impossible, to believe. A man may die for a lie believing it to be true, but who dies for a lie knowing it is such?

My point is this. I am hearing from Muslims that the Bible is so corrupt that it cannot be trusted. I am looking at the words of the Qur'an to see if this view comes from it, but I cannot find it. Here is the kind of thing I keep finding...

Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. 5:47

If you go and read that in context, it is most certainly referring to the Old and New Testament. This Surah is NOT speaking to Muslims per se, but to the Christians (who else is the People of the Gospel), and it is saying to us to judge by that which God has revealed to us in the Law and Gospel, Torah and Injeel, Old and New Testaments. To such an admonision I agree to. I am glad to listen, hear, weigh and test the things taught by Muhammed as seen in the Qur'an and judge them by what is revealed by God beforehand in the Old and New Testaments.
Reply

Fivesolas
04-14-2011, 07:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Because The Quran also says this,
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

Note the "Many".
And I note that their are among them those who are on the right course. I won't dispute with the text as it is something you hold holy. However, who is the judge of these things? How can it be known that any did or did not stand by the Law and the Gospel if it said now that the Law and the Gospel have been corrupted beyond recognition? All I have to judge that this is the case is what Muhammed said. But it is Muhammed's words that need judging. Those of you who did not receive Muahmmed as a prophet know what I mean....whether it was in 600AD or 2011AD, anyone standing and claiming to be a prophet..to speak for God, we know by what was revealed by God before that God often does this to test our hearts to see if we will remain faithful to Him. (Deut 13)
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-14-2011, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
7:157 is especially interesting because gives the impression that we (or the Muslim) would be able to find Muhammed talked about in the Torah (the books of Moses) and the Gospel (which I take to mean the life and teaching of Jesus) that are with us. Either this text is timeless, and applies to every generation since written, or else it is in reference to that generation in which it was written...between 600-623AD
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
My point is this. I am hearing from Muslims that the Bible is so corrupt that it cannot be trusted. I am looking at the words of the Qur'an to see if this view comes from it, but I cannot find it.
Look, What we believe is that, the Bible is NOT entirely fabricated. There are many parts in it, which are the true words of God. But, it is a really difficult task for us to find out what is true and what is false. And, for the record, the reason why we say that all of it is not true is because The Glorious Quran says so,

"So woe to those who write the 'scripture' with their own hands, then say: 'This is from Allaah,' in order to change it for a small price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn” [Quran, 2:79]

"… who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allaah,” but it is not from Allaah. And they speak untruth about Allaah while they know." [Quran: 3:78].

So, The Bible was meant for a particular time and NOT The Quran, The Quran is meant for the entire humanity till the end.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-14-2011, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
Those of you who did not receive Muahmmed as a prophet know what I mean....whether it was in 600AD or 2011AD, anyone standing and claiming to be a prophet..to speak for God, we know by what was revealed by God before that God often does this to test our hearts to see if we will remain faithful to Him. (Deut 13)
true. case in point is the matter of the bahai faith. why is it that muslims at large do not convert to the bahai religion? it is for the fact that they measure this new 'revelation' by what the muslim deity had supposedly already revealed and seeing that the tenets of the bahai faith are not in keeping with those of islam, they simply cannot bring themselves to convert. the bahai religion simply is not in keeping with what the qur'an says of itself. in the same manner as the muslim disbelieves in the bahai religion because of the revelation they have already received, the christian also does not accept the new revelation given by the islamic prophet because it is simply not in keeping with what god has already revealed. therefore, the christian is not a muslim for the same reasons that he is not a bahai nor a mormon; these new revelations are not in keeping with what god has already revealed and they make god out to be a liar for having previously claimed that his words would abide forever and no manner of evil would prevail over his words.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-14-2011, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
I won't dispute with the text as it is something you hold holy.
That is really kind of you. Thank You.

format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
Those of you who did not receive Muahmmed as a prophet know what I mean....whether it was in 600AD or 2011AD, anyone standing and claiming to be a prophet..to speak for God, we know by what was revealed by God before that God often does this to test our hearts to see if we will remain faithful to Him. (Deut 13)
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him......" [Deuteronomy:13]

That is exactly what The Quran commands,

“O mankind! Be dutiful to your Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer, Allah).." [Quran, 4:1]

"Verily, I am Allah: There is no god but I: So worship Me (only), and perform regular prayers for My remembrance.” [Qu’ran 20:14]

“The Revelation of this Book (the Holy Qur’an) is from Allah, the Exalted in Power Full of Wisdom. Verily, it is We Who have revealed the Book to you in Truth: so worship Allah alone offering Him sincere devotion.” [(Qu’ran 39:1-2]

And there are so many more verses that declare The Unity of Lordship of God Almighty.

And, whatever the Prophet Muhammad spoke was from divine inspiration, it was not his own words, just like the Prophet Isa.

“Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed,” [(An-Najm (The Star) 53:3-4]
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2011, 02:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
true. case in point is the matter of the bahai faith. why is it that muslims at large do not convert to the bahai religion? it is for the fact that they measure this new 'revelation' by what the muslim deity had supposedly already revealed and seeing that the tenets of the bahai faith are not in keeping with those of islam, they simply cannot bring themselves to convert. the bahai religion simply is not in keeping with what the qur'an says of itself. in the same manner as the muslim disbelieves in the bahai religion because of the revelation they have already received, the christian also does not accept the new revelation given by the islamic prophet because it is simply not in keeping with what god has already revealed. therefore, the christian is not a muslim for the same reasons that he is not a bahai nor a mormon; these new revelations are not in keeping with what god has already revealed and they make god out to be a liar for having previously claimed that his words would abide forever and no manner of evil would prevail over his words.
The same thing could be said about the Jews and how they see christainty - If christainty is completion of the messenic prophecy why dont the Jews at large accept christainty and christ? The understanding of the OT of a christian and a Jew is very different so much so that christianty preety much does away with the law thanks to Paul while the Jews find that shocking - Can you imagine what a Jew thinks of a man being born of virgin birth, Or God actually coming down as a man - Its a total rewrite.

Your argument is as blind as the people that reject christ with all his miracles and proofs. He was a proof of God - Just like Muhammad pbuh is for the sealing of the Abhramic messege. Prophets have the authority to tell us what God commands.
Reply

siam
04-15-2011, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
TBDAQ -- True, But Doesn't Answer the Question.

How does this address any of the questions previously asked in the thread with regard to the Qur'an offering commentary on Christianity, or for that matter guidance with regard to Christianity?
The question has already been answered in that the Quran is a Guidance to all mankind---not just to Christians and Jews.

---as to what kind of Guidance?---there are several spheres that the Quran addresses within the framework of Tawheed, such as spirituality, social justice, liberty, economic justice...and such......These are areas that Christians and Muslims can work together to make a better world. The ethico-moral principles in the Quran are the same as those taught by Jesus Christ(pbuh).

for example, Jesus Christ(pbuh) was also against usury. The Quran sets out the ethico-moral principles of setting up an economic system based on shared risks and profits---what in bussiness terms is called "win-win". ---in today's sytem, the big banks have more to gain and the debtors have more to lose creating an imbalance. (win-lose)....

Justice is something that can be implemented by all human beings irrespective of their religious label....
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 03:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
The same thing could be said about the Jews and how they see christainty - If christainty is completion of the messenic prophecy why dont the Jews at large accept christainty and christ? The understanding of the OT of a christian and a Jew is very different so much so that christianty preety much does away with the law thanks to Paul while the Jews find that shocking - Can you imagine what a Jew thinks of a man being born of virgin birth, Or God actually coming down as a man - Its a total rewrite.
the first difference is that christians do not believe that the jewish scriptures are corrupt. if you were to look at the jewish scriptures you would find that repeatedly the scriptures testify that the majority of the jews would not accept what god was about to do (though jews would of course say that these verses speak of past groups etc.). furthermore, the very jewish scriptures speak of a new covenant which god would make with the jews and it would be unlike the one he made with them when he brought them out of egypt. this is referring to the mosaic covenant:

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. --- Jeremiah 31:31-33 NIV

a different word for covenant is testament. here god is saying that he will make a new testament with the children of israel. then notice the words of christ:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. --- Luke 22:19-22 NIV

the new covenant which god promised is christianity and in the same way that the old covenant was ushered in with the blood of a sacrificial lamb (Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." --- Exodus 24:8 NIV), the new covenant was also ushered in by the blood of the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. christianity has a clear continuation from judaism, in fact for the first few decades it was categorized as a jewish sect. we find clear evidence within the bible pointing to a new covenant that god would make with his people as it regards christianity but there is no such line of continuation when it comes to islam. muslims themselves see this and this is why they have to claim that the words of god were corrupted (even though the bible is very clear that god's word endure forever) because they cannot establish a line of continuity if we take the bible at face value. in fact almost every religion that tries to incorporate the bible within their beliefs have to claim that the bible was somehow corrupted etc. and thus we should not really look towards it but to the new teachings of their particular prophet (whether this be muhammad, joseph smith etc. it is all the same). so while the christian can affirm the whole torah and prove their beliefs from there, the muslim and most other religions cannot and therefore have to claim that the books are corrupted in order to answer for why they cannot establish a line of continuity.

that said, according to jewish scripture god did indeed come down as a man and even ate with abraham, so it isn't that shocking. and as it regards to paul and the law, what he said was actually a very jewish thing to say. just as paul said that gentiles do not need to accept the law of moses to be saved, the jews also say the exact same thing! as a jew paul followed the law of moses but precisely because this law was only given to the jews, he said that gentiles did not need to follow it. ask any jew, they will tell you the exact same things. according to judaism the law of moses is only for the jews. so your point is moot. anyway, the main point here is that muslims, mormons, bahai's etc. cannot establish a line of succession (nowhere in the new testament do you find any mention of another covenant that god will make with the arabs etc.) and as such they are forced to say that the bible is corrupt and as such we should instead turn to the teachings of their particular leader.
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2011, 03:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the first difference is that christians do not believe that the jewish scriptures are corrupt. if you were to look at the jewish scriptures you would find that repeatedly the scriptures testify that the majority of the jews would not accept what god was about to do (though jews would of course say that these verses speak of past groups etc.). furthermore, the very jewish scriptures speak of a new covenant which god would make with the jews and it would be unlike the one he made with them when he brought them out of egypt. this is referring to the mosaic covenant:

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. --- Jeremiah 31:31-33 NIV

a different word for covenant is testament. here god is saying that he will make a new testament with the children of israel. then notice the words of christ:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. --- Luke 22:19-22 NIV

the new covenant which god promised is christianity and in the same way that the old covenant was ushered in with the blood of a sacrificial lamb (Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." --- Exodus 24:8 NIV), the new covenant was also ushered in by the blood of the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. christianity has a clear continuation from judaism, in fact for the first few decades it was categorized as a jewish sect. we find clear evidence within the bible pointing to a new covenant that god would make with his people as it regards christianity but there is no such line of continuation when it comes to islam. muslims themselves see this and this is why they have to claim that the words of god were corrupted (even though the bible is very clear that god's word endure forever) because they cannot establish a line of continuity if we take the bible at face value. in fact almost every religion that tries to incorporate the bible within their beliefs have to claim that the bible was somehow corrupted etc. and thus we should not really look towards it but to the new teachings of their particular prophet (whether this be muhammad, joseph smith etc. it is all the same). so while the christian can affirm the whole torah and prove their beliefs from there, the muslim and most other religions cannot and therefore have to claim that the books are corrupted in order to answer for why they cannot establish a line of continuity.

that said, according to jewish scripture god did indeed come down as a man and even ate with abraham, so it isn't that shocking. and as it regards to paul and the law, what he said was actually a very jewish thing to say. just as paul said that gentiles do not need to accept the law of moses to be saved, the jews also say the exact same thing! as a jew paul followed the law of moses but precisely because this law was only given to the jews, he said that gentiles did not need to follow it. ask any jew, they will tell you the exact same things. according to judaism the law of moses is only for the jews. so your point is moot. anyway, the main point here is that muslims, mormons, bahai's etc. cannot establish a line of succession (nowhere in the new testament do you find any mention of another covenant that god will make with the arabs etc.) and as such they are forced to say that the bible is corrupt and as such we should instead turn to the teachings of their particular leader.
This is all nice and good but talking to alot of Jews they definitly dont regard Jesus pbuh as God, or the messiah and most of them say that christians either misrepresent the OT and misread it to support there own NT narrative (which you clearly did and would say muslims do the same thing). It has no serious bearing to any Jew. If all the evidence was so clear why dont the Jews convert to christainty and accept Jesus as the messaih and bow down to him as there God - Face it your preaching is seen by the people that were given the OT (Jews) as a joke just the way you see Mormonism or any other religion.

Indeed Muslim can see passages affirming a prophet from the OT and some statements from the NT - Im sure your well aware of them - "One of them is a prophet unto Moses" - The christains say this is talking about christ, The muslims say its about Muhammad pbuh - Ofcourse theres also the famous Ishmeal will be a great nation line as well. So we have enough proof for own beliefs - where we will say the bible as been "changed" is where stories of prophets like David pbuh doing not so Godly actions in the OT.

Mormonism still believe Jesus pbuh is the messiah and I've never heard them say that the Torah and NT are corrupted. Never met a bahi but they probably be in the same line as the Ahmeddiya movement.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 04:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
This is all nice and good but talking to alot of Jews they definitly dont regard Jesus pbuh as God, or the messiah and most of them say that christians either misrepresent the OT and misread it to support there own NT narrative (which you clearly did and would say muslims do the same thing). It has no serious bearing to any Jew. If all the evidence was so clear why dont the Jews convert to christainty and accept Jesus as the messaih and bow down to him as there God - Face it your preaching is seen by the people that were given the OT (Jews) as a joke just the way you see Mormonism or any other religion.

Indeed Muslim can see passages affirming a prophet from the OT and some statements from the NT - Im sure your well aware of them - "One of them is a prophet unto Moses" - The christains say this is talking about christ, The muslims say its about Muhammad pbuh - Ofcourse theres also the famous Ishmeal will be a great nation line as well. So we have enough proof for own beliefs - where we will say the bible as been "changed" is where stories of prophets like David pbuh doing not so Godly actions in the OT.

Mormonism still believe Jesus pbuh is the messiah and I've never heard them say that the Torah and NT are corrupted. Never met a bahi but they probably be in the same line as the Ahmeddiya movement.
greetings zafran, as it regards the matter of the jews, my point is to stress that the christian can prove their beliefs from the old testament and as such does not need to claim that it has been corrupted. the muslim on the other hand cannot. if you could then you would not say that it is corrupted. the prophecies about muhammad cannot be proven by using the bible (i remember a similar discussion about the one about whether muhammad is the comforter spoken of in the gospel of john and it ended with the claim that muslims could not prove this from the bible because once again, the bible is so corrupt that any proof the muslim would have had has been removed) and if you don't believe this, you can start another a thread on these as well and i can already tell you that it will end with the claim that the bible is corrupt which is why you can't prove your point as it regards the passages you cite. i do encourage you to start such a thread because in my experience, they always end the same way. if we take the bible at face value than the muslim cannot prove their beliefs which is once again why the muslim claim is that the old and new testament are corrupt. they would not need to claim this if they could actually prove what they were saying.

as it relates to the matter of judaism and christianity, you seem to forget that christianity was started by jews and was characterized as a jewish movement and so your claim is rendered null. islam on the other hand began not in israel but in saudi arabia by the arabs. it isn't a matter of trying to prove why jews at large don't believe in christianity simply for the fact that christianity was itself started by the jews! so no, your point does not work in this case either.

both mormons and bahais believe that one should primarily look at their new revelations. and as such, they do in fact believe that where the bible says that it is the final fulfillment of the promises of god etc. we should ignore this because the fulfillment is actually whatever book it is that they adhere to (whether this be the qur'an, or the book of mormon etc.).
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2011, 05:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings zafran, as it regards the matter of the jews, my point is to stress that the christian can prove their beliefs from the old testament and as such does not need to claim that it has been corrupted. the muslim on the other hand cannot. if you could then you would not say that it is corrupted. the prophecies about muhammad cannot be proven by using the bible (i remember a similar discussion about the one about whether muhammad is the comforter spoken of in the gospel of john and it ended with the claim that muslims could not prove this from the bible because once again, the bible is so corrupt that any proof the muslim would have had has been removed) and if you don't believe this, you can start another a thread on these as well and i can already tell you that it will end with the claim that the bible is corrupt which is why you can't prove your point as it regards the passages you cite. i do encourage you to start such a thread because in my experience, they always end the same way. if we take the bible at face value than the muslim cannot prove their beliefs which is once again why the muslim claim is that the old and new testament are corrupt. they would not need to claim this if they could actually prove what they were saying.

as it relates to the matter of judaism and christianity, you seem to forget that christianity was started by jews and was characterized as a jewish movement and so your claim is rendered null. islam on the other hand began not in israel but in saudi arabia by the arabs. it isn't a matter of trying to prove why jews at large don't believe in christianity simply for the fact that christianity was itself started by the jews! so no, your point does not work in this case either.

both mormons and bahais believe that one should primarily look at their new revelations. and as such, they do in fact believe that where the bible says that it is the final fulfillment of the promises of god etc. we should ignore this because the fulfillment is actually whatever book it is that they adhere to (whether this be the qur'an, or the book of mormon etc.).
so why havent the Jews accepted Jesus pbuh as there messaih if you can "prove" it from the OT - I also give you proof from the OT but you seem to ignore that look at my post again and see that muslims as well can prove there religion from the OT which I just did in my last post. So your point is null and viod - you seem to like going in christian circles without actaully reading what one writes. Its annoying.

By the way a history lesson saudi never existed until the 1920s. Islam began with Adam pbuh and is the religion of Abhrham pbuh.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 05:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
so why havent the Jews accepted Jesus pbuh as there messaih if you can "prove" it from the OT - I also give you proof from the OT but you seem to ignore that look at my post again and see that muslims as well can prove there religion from the OT which I just did in my last post. So your point is null and viod - you seem to like going in christian circles without actaully reading what one writes. Its annoying.
the fact is that the jews did in fact accept christianity. are you forgetting that the immediate leaders of the early church were all jewish? are you forgetting that at the very least until 70 AD christianity was classified as a sect within judaism? are you forgetting about the very jews who looked to their torah and saw that christianity was the truth? are these not jews? the fact that christianity was started by the jews themselves completely refutes your point. unlike islam, and i do not mean this as an insult, christianity is not a religion started by an outside group who did not possess the torah nor study it but rather it was started by jews themselves who attended the synagogue and meditated on the torah. it is was a jewish movemnt started by jews themselves. this is not true of islam.

that said, what proof from the torah have i ignored.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
By the way a history lesson saudi never existed until the 1920s. Islam began with Adam pbuh and is the religion of Abhrham pbuh.
good point. while i was speaking of the area which we now call saudi arabia i'm perfectly willing to concede this point. though that said, it is not a history lesson that islam began with adam. there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2011, 05:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the fact is that the jews did in fact accept christianity. are you forgetting that the immediate leaders of the early church were all jewish? are you forgetting that at the very least until 70 AD christianity was classified as a sect within judaism? are you forgetting about the very jews who looked to their torah and saw that christianity was the truth? are these not jews? the fact that christianity was started by the jews themselves completely refutes your point. unlike islam, and i do not mean this as an insult, christianity is not a religion started by an outside group who did not possess the torah nor study it but rather it was started by jews themselves who attended the synagogue and meditated on the torah. it is was a jewish movemnt started by jews themselves. this is not true of islam.

that said, what proof from the torah have i ignored.


good point. while i was speaking of the area which we now call saudi arabia i'm perfectly willing to concede this point. though that said, it is not a history lesson that islam began with adam. there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.
If you want to read selectively thats fine by me - clearly you've shown here that Jews are still Jews and have not accepted christainty - on purpose your not reading my post fully and second by claiming that a small minority of Jews represent the entire Jewish faith. The vast majority of the Jews dont accept christainty and its view on there book. Indeed many Jews accpeted Islam at the time of the prophet as well - but why are the Jews still Jews today and havent accepted christ as there messaih - but as your good at not answering questions I dont expect a rational reply.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 05:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
If you want to read selectively thats fine by me - clearly you've been exposed here that Jews are still Jews and have not accepted christainty.
greetings zafran, if we're going to ignore the very founders of christianity, and the fact that the early church was entirely jewish, or the fact that christianity was considered to be a jewish sect by both jews and christians, and if we're going to claim that the messainic jews (something you should look up) we have with us today are not in fact jewish, then i suppose i suppose that you have a point but given that i for one do not choose to ignore this, i will have to disagree with you. that said, we have gone really off-topic and perhaps it would be best if any subsequent discussion was done in a new thread. i will however give you the last word in order to say whatever else you feel that you might wish to say.
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2011, 05:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings zafran, if we're going to ignore the very founders of christianity, and the fact that the early church was entirely jewish, or the fact that christianity was considered to be a jewish sect by both jews and christians, and if we're going to claim that the messainic jews (something you should look up) we have with us today are not in fact jewish, then i suppose i suppose that you have a point but given that i for one do not choose to ignore this, i will have to disagree with you. that said, we have gone really off-topic and perhaps it would be best if any subsequent discussion was done in a new thread. i will however give you the last word in order to say whatever else you feel that you might wish to say.
why havent the Jews today not accepted that christ as there messaih when clearly vast majority of them balme christians of misrepresenting there book? (this is third time I'm asking this) - but as your clearly running away thats fine by me if you cant answer the glaring question.
Reply

Tyrion
04-15-2011, 05:50 AM
From my understanding, the Quran acknowledges a trinity in the Christian belief, and denounces any form of it. There are other verses that talk about a specific kind of trinitarian belief that was apparently popular at the time, which included Mary... Pretty sure that group existed in the past, and we still see forms of Mary worship in certain Christian groups today... It's odd that someone mentioned that the Quran had a confused or incorrect view of the trinity, when it seems (just by looking at history or the different Christian sects) that the Christians themselves have never really understood or been able to consistently define the trinity... IMO anyway.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-15-2011, 07:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.
If you say this, then can you prove from the OT and NT , the term "Christianity" or "Christians" anywhere mentioned? And btw i really wanted to know when was the term Christian used for the very first time and by whom.

Was it used by Jesus pbuh himself to describe his followers? OR was it coined by somebody else?
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 09:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
If you say this, then can you prove from the OT and NT , the term "Christianity" or "Christians" anywhere mentioned? And btw i really wanted to know when was the term Christian used for the very first time and by whom.

Was it used by Jesus pbuh himself to describe his followers? OR was it coined by somebody else?
greetings, i believe that if we're going to get sidetracked like this, we should really start a new thread but i must also ask you what the above has to do with the claim that islam historically is not the first religion? more than simply proving where the name comes from one should look at what the teachings were and it's quite clear that the earliest christians believed in the death, ressurection and deity of christ. this is attested by both christians themselves and non-christians. moreover, are you seriously going to place doubt with the word christians when your qur'an itself uses this to speak of the people of the book? can you find me a passage within the qur'an where allah condemns the christians for calling themselves christians? if not, why are you trying to raise doubts that your own deity never raised?

once again, we are getting off-topic and any further talk should be done within another thread.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-15-2011, 10:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.
You said that, dint you? i just questioned you back, asking about Christianity.... Because i dont know how you people call yourselves Christians (Followers of Christ) when Jesus PBUH never himself addressed you people as that !!!

And i don't want to create doubts, May God protect us all. Ameen.

It would be a good idea to start a new thread. You could do so.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-15-2011, 11:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
You said that, dint you? i just questioned you back, asking about Christianity.... Because i dont know how you people call yourselves Christians (Followers of Christ) when Jesus PBUH never himself addressed you people as that !!!
greetings, i am more surprised that you would find issue with that given that allah in the qur'an calls christians, "christians" all the time. if we are wrong for using this name than would the muslim deity be equally as wrong? and could you please direct us to the passage where he says that christians have been using the wrong name for themselves? if there is no such condemnation within the qur'an, then where are you getting your objection from seeing as allah was perfectly fine with using the term 'christians'.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
And i don't want to create doubts, May God protect us all. Ameen.
on this point we are in agreement.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
It would be a good idea to start a new thread. You could do so.
i appreciate the offer but given that this was your query and it was you who wished for an answer on the subject and not me, i would think that you would have to be the one to start this thread. that is of course if your question hasn't been already answered.

and now, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic (seeing as my post seem to arouse quite the response): on reading this thread it would seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an. can we christians take this to be the general opinion of muslims? and if he doesn't speak of the trinity, why is this the case (given that this was the prevalent belief at the time of the islamic prophet as it concerns christianity)?
Reply

Ubeyde
04-15-2011, 11:36 AM
and now, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic (seeing as my post seem to arouse quite the response): on reading this thread it would seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an. can we christians take this to be the general opinion of muslims? and if he doesn't speak of the trinity, why is this the case (given that this was the prevalent belief at the time of the islamic prophet as it concerns christianity)?

The Quran does not teach of the Trinity because there is no Trinity according to Islamic teachings. To believe in the Trinity is to believe in Shirk- i.e. Polytheism.
Christians are not quoted in Arabic as Christians also, it is used in the Translations of the Holy Qur'an so that we know who Allah is talking about.

As I stated in my first post, some time ago, that the Qur'an tells Muslims to offer glad tidings to the Christians or People of the Book.
Reply

Tyrion
04-15-2011, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ubeyde
seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an.
But there IS mention of the trinity... Right? Read my post...
Reply

Ubeyde
04-15-2011, 08:39 PM
I am not Hafiz of the Quran but I am pretty sure there is no mention of a Trinity of anysort within the Qur'an as that would be a contradiction to the fundamental belief of Muslims, i.e. there is only one God worthy of worship.

Yes we believe in the Virgin Mary, Yes we believe in the Archangel Gabriel and yes we believe that Jesus (PBUH) was one of the best Prophets (PBUT).

But we do not add them to our prayers- we may ask Allah Ta'ala to bless these persons, but never ascribe them in worship with our Lord.
Reply

Tyrion
04-15-2011, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ubeyde
I am not Hafiz of the Quran but I am pretty sure there is no mention of a Trinity of anysort within the Qur'an as that would be a contradiction to the fundamental belief of Muslims, i.e. there is only one God worthy of worship.

Yes we believe in the Virgin Mary, Yes we believe in the Archangel Gabriel and yes we believe that Jesus (PBUH) was one of the best Prophets (PBUT).

But we do not add them to our prayers- we may ask Allah Ta'ala to bless these persons, but never ascribe them in worship with our Lord.
*Sigh* You didn't read my post did you? Actually, I'm not even sure if you read the OP... Nobody here is trying to say that the Quran is promoting the Trinity. The question being asked was how the Quran represents Christian beliefs. There are verses that mention the trinity, not to promote it, but to denounce it as falsehood. There are other verses that mention a specific kind of trinity that included Mary, since this was a belief that was present at that time. Please read before you post.





O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusuf Ali)




They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72, Yusuf Ali)

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73, Yusuf Ali)



And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116, Yusuf Ali)
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 01:57 AM
greetings tyrion. at the moment you seem to be the only person here who believes that the qur'an speaks against the trinity. to be sure, i quite think that you are correct but it is precisely because the qur'an speaks against what it thinks is the trinity that we have a problem. when we examine the verses that we should take as a condemnation of the trinity, we find that they are all formulated improperly and this is incorrect. it is kinda like if i were claiming to speak against the concept of tawhid but in my condemnation of what i thought to be tawhid i started condemning the erroneous position held by the nation of islam that allah was w. fard muhammad. anyway, let us examine some of the passages from the qur'an that you have brought up because yusuf ali does something fairly interesting with his translation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusuf Ali)
actually, the word trinity is not in that passage and what allah had actually said was "say not three". the arabic word for the holy trinity is "al-thaaluuth al-aqdas" and yet in the above we find not this term but rather "thalaathatun" (wa-laa taqooloo thalaathatun) which once more would be translated as "say not three". this is how it is translated in the sahih international version, pickthall's version, shakir's version among others. now, i ask you, was allah unaware of what the actual arabic word for the trinity was? if allah chose to use the word three then where does yusuf ali get the right to change the words allah had used. furthermore, he doesn't include the word trinity in brackets in order to let the reader know that this is his own inclusion and not what allah said but rather passes his revision of the text as if it were revealed that way by the source of the qur'an. that's something to think about.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72, Yusuf Ali)
the above is another error but this time it is not the fault of yusuf ali (though we should note that in the arabic, the word blaspheme is not there. this is not to say that there is no condemnation present but rather yusuf ali once again substitutes his own words for the word that the muslim deity had used in the arabic text). the fact of the matter is that it is fundamentally wrong to say that god is jesus. no trinitarian has ever said this and you will never find this formulation in any trinitarian creed. the statement has always been "jesus is god". the claim that god is jesus actually teaches the heresy of sabellianism and this was condemned by trinitarians hundreds of years before the advent of islam. in recent years, it would seem that muslims have picked up on this:

This is not a modern idea, but one that has been held by Christians throughout the centuries. This was even noted by Muslim author Neal Robinson, who makes mention of an ancient Nestorian reference:

... The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur'an echoes only the latter half of the statement. C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531. (Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; bold emphasis mine)
once again, we are left to wonder why the source of the qur'an incorrectly formulated the christian belief?

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73, Yusuf Ali)
once again we find that yusuf ali changes the actual words of the muslim deity (as an aside, notice once again that he adds blaspheme in there when that is not the word that the muslim deity used...but this is only a minor point). what i have placed in bold is actually not in the arabic text and yusuf ali once again tries to pass these off as the words spoken by the muslim deity by not at least placing them within parentheses to show that these are his own words. you will note that most translators correctly translate the above as:

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. --- Pickthall

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. --- Shakir

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. --- Sahih International


the above are the proper translations yet the problem is that they are all in error. never is the father (whom allah is identified with throughout the qur'an and islamic tradition) called the third member of the trinity. you will never find it in any christian text. the father is the first person, the son the second, and the holy spirit the third. furthermore, the trinity is not defined as one of three but rather three in one. yusuf ali actually sees that if he were to only go along with the words that allah used then he would be in error. hence why quite ironically, it is only in mistranslating the words of the muslim deity that he at all gets the trinity correctly and that in itself is telling. now, you might find nothing wrong with that but we certainly can't get past the fact that if we only go by the words of the muslim deity and not by the alterations of yusuf ali, then we have ourselves clear errors in the formulation of the christian doctrine. this is why in one of my previous posts i had said that in recent years, muslims have moved away from claiming that there are any clear condemnations of the trinity within the qur'an because every single passage that is brought up is actually completely wrong.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
There are other verses that mention a specific kind of trinity that included Mary, since this was a belief that was present at that time.
i just noticed the above. first off, there is no proof that collyridians had an altered trinity which substituted mary for the holy spirit. where are you getting this? sure they worshiped mary as a goddess but this is not the same as adding her to the trinity. if anything they would now possess two gods, the one triune god and mary. the biggest source of information we have one this heresy comes from the panarion and nowhere does it say that mary became a member of the trinity. furthermore, this heresy was present in 375 AD, there is absolutely no evidence that it still existed in the time of muhammad. if it were the case that it existed, where are the christian texts which date to the time of the islamic prophet which speak concerning this heresy? this in itself is one of the most important points. there is absolutely no text which condemns the practices of christians who worship mary during the time of the prophet; if collyridianism still existed then it would have been condemned among the other heresies but it is not. so once again we have a claim that is completely unsupported. what is likely is that after this heresy died out, it was still within the "thought-world" of the arabs and because of these heretics, the arabs would have thought that the trinity consisted of a father, a mother and a son. this explains why, while there are condemnations of an improper trinity consisting of the father, mary and christ within the qur'an, there is absolutely no condemnation of the proper trinity (consisting of the father, the son, and the holy spirit). we cannot ignore this point. why would the muslim deity not mention that the holy spirit was only the angel gabriel and not divine? why is there no such condemnation within the qur'an? the simple answer is because the source of the qur'an simply did not possess accurate knowledge of the trinity and thought that the trinity included mary and not the holy spirit. if you don't believe this then simply read through the qur'an and tell us what is the only type of "trinity" which is condemned within he qur'an? it certainly isn't the proper trinity.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-16-2011, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i am more surprised that you would find issue with that given that allah in the qur'an calls christians, "christians" all the time.
Allah, Glorified be He never mentioned the term "Christians" directly. what is mentioned is the term "Nasraniyya" which means "helpers of Jesus" and "Ahlul Kitaab" which means "people of the book".

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
if allah chose to use the word three then where does yusuf ali get the right to change the words allah had used
Yusuf Ali is NOT changing the words of God. It's merely a translation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
he fact of the matter is that it is fundamentally wrong to say that god is jesus. no trinitarian has ever said this and you will never find this formulation in any trinitarian creed. the statement has always been "jesus is god".
Wait a sec!! i don't get this !! What exactly is the difference ?? How can u say "jesus is God" and at the same time say "God is not Jesus" ?!?! I AM CONFUSED !! :confused:
Are you trying say that their "essence" is not the same?!?!?

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
furthermore, the trinity is not defined as one of three but rather three in one.
Trinity cannot be defined as "one of three" BTW!!!Because, Trinity is a noun and it HAS to be "three in one". so, this point of yours is baseless!!
Reply

Tyrion
04-16-2011, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
sure they worshiped mary as a goddess but this is not the same as adding her to the trinity.
I probably should have said it spoke of a different kind of worship then. That particular verse doesn't mention a trinity, and just points out that there were some who had taken Mary and Jesus as Gods to be worshiped.

I'm not sure why you keep pointing out "problems" with Yusuf Ali... You keep trying to portray him as deceiving the reader by adding words. Keep in mind, these aren't translations, but attempts at the meaning. This should show you how exactly these verses were taken through history. I understand that the verse says "say not three", but that doesn't change the fact that it has been taken to refer to the trinity by most people. Are you implying that you have a better understanding of the Quran than scholars?

I'm not going to bother with the other points you brought up. I'm not in the mood to get into a back and forth that won't get anywhere...
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 06:39 PM
greetings umm abdurrahman and thanks for the response.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Yusuf Ali is NOT changing the words of God. It's merely a translation.
the point is that it is not a translation. he is adding his own words and passing them off as the words of the muslim deity. he is also changing the words that the source of the qur'an used. notice how his translation is so different from the other ones?

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
ait a sec!! i don't get this !! What exactly is the difference ?? How can u say "jesus is God" and at the same time say "God is not Jesus" ?!?! I AM CONFUSED !!
Are you trying say that their "essence" is not the same?!?!?
i can see how this point might be confusing. the christian claim is that jesus is god; not that god is jesus. the statement "god is jesus" actually implies the heresy of sabellianism (which was condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam) and it posits that there is only a single divine person who operates under the modes of the father, the son, and the holy spirit instead of a single divine being who exists as the persons of the father the son and the holy spirit. in simpler terms, the statement god is jesus implies that there are no other persons within the being of god while the statement jesus is god does not imply this heresy. in a similar manner, to say math is quantum mechanics would be completely wrong but to say that quantum mechanics is math would be wholly correct because the former implies that math only exists as quantum mechanics while the latter does not. anyway, i had included a quote in my post which summarized the divinity of christ as "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". no trinitarian has ever said the latter and you will find this formulation in none of our creeds. yet the source of the qur'an mistakenly formulates his statement as such and so we must ask ourselves why in fact this is the case? whether or not muslims believe in christianity, it doesn't change the fact that the qur'an formulates the christian doctrine incorrectly and ends up condemning something that trinitarians themselves condemned a long time before muhammad was even born. all you have to do is look at church history and in particular sabellianism (a brief google search would suffice).

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Trinity cannot be defined as "one of three" BTW!!!Because, Trinity is a noun and it HAS to be "three in one". so, this point of yours is baseless!!
i don't understand how my point is baseless when you have just agreed with me that "one of three" is incorrect. the words of allah are "one of three". the words of yusuf ali are "one of three within a trinity". are you going to choose the words of yusuf ali over the words of allah? and if you don't choose the alterations that yusuf ali has made over the 'perfect' (sorry, no offense meant by the quotes. this is simply to show that i do not believe that the qur'an is perfect) qur'an then you are basically saying that yusuf ali improved on the pure speech of allah. if however, you don't choose the improvements that yusuf ali has made, then you end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian belief. once again, this is why in recent years muslims have begun saying that there is no clear condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an because all the passages are wrong if taken as condemnations of the christian trinity.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-16-2011, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73, Yusuf Ali)



And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116, Yusuf Ali)

I'm confused. I thought that this thread had to do with how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But what is presented here are not Christian beliefs. No Christian I know of (now or in history) has ever said "Allah is one of three in a Trinity" or, for that matter, that God is one of three.

Nor do I know of any Christian who has ever suggested that Jesus said "Worship me and my mother as gods."

Are you saying that the Qur'an asserts that these are Christian beliefs? If the Qur'an never errs, then it would seem to me that the Qur'an must be critiquing some spurious religion that grew up in the region, because it isn't critiquing Christianity in these passages as these aren't actual Christian beliefs.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I'm not sure why you keep pointing out "problems" with Yusuf Ali... You keep trying to portray him as deceiving the reader by adding words. Keep in mind, these aren't translations, but attempts at the meaning. This should show you how exactly these verses were taken through history. I understand that the verse says "say not three", but that doesn't change the fact that it has been taken to refer to the trinity by most people. Are you implying that you have a better understanding of the Quran than scholars?
no, in fact i'm saying that i agree with you that these are passages directed against the trinity and this is why they are wrong. a simple look at church history will show you that all these formulations were condemned by trinitarians themselves and as such the qur'an has said nothing about the proper trinity. once again, you are welcome to look into your qur'an and see if you can find a single condemnation of a trinity which consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. there is no such thing. instead we are always met with the erroneous view that the christian trinity consists of the father, mary and jesus. this then leads muhammad to claim that jesus is not the son of god because he thought that this had to do with a sexual union between god and a consort. notice how many times the source of the qur'an says that god could not have a son because he has no consort? notice how many times christians are accused of imitating the polytheists (who believed in their gods being born out of sexual unions)? the fact of the matter is that the qur'an contains no refutation of the trinity as was believed by christians in the time of muhammad nor today.

the simple question is why does the qur'an never condemn the proper trinity? this was the most prevalent belief among the christians and so why would the qur'an go out of its way to condemn a string of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before islam but never actually condemn the proper trinity?
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-16-2011, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i don't understand how my point is baseless when you have just agreed with me that "one of three" is incorrect. the words of allah are "one of three". the words of yusuf ali are "one of three within a trinity". are you going to choose the words of yusuf ali over the words of allah? and if you don't choose the alterations that yusuf ali has made over the 'perfect' (sorry, no offense meant by the quotes. this is simply to show that i do not believe that the qur'an is perfect) qur'an then you are basically saying that yusuf ali improved on the pure speech of allah. if however, you don't choose the improvements that yusuf ali has made, then you end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian belief. once again, this is why in recent years muslims have begun saying that there is no clear condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an because all the passages are wrong if taken as condemnations of the christian trinity.
Peace brother !!!
Firstly, The Glorious Quran is FULLY CORRECT and FREE FROM MISTAKES!!! It is WE humans, who fail to understand the meanings from it. It is WE who are mistaken. May God Guide us all. Ameen. the same thing happened with the Injeel and the Torah. they wer free from mistakes. Us, human beings, when we don't understand anything, we try to interpret it in our way, interpret it how our mind feels comfortable with!! that is were we go wrong!!! :'(
May God Guide us all to The Truth. Ameen.

Let me explain to you in simple terms,
"one of three" refers to one aspect of three aspects!!!
"three in one" refers to the concept of trinity(three) in itself, not of any one aspect.
After giving such simple explanation, i hope u understand the point. It is just english grammar!! :P
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-16-2011, 07:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Us, human beings, when we don't understand anything, we try to interpret it in our way, interpret it how our mind feels comfortable with!! that is were we go wrong!!! :'(
May God Guide us all to The Truth. Ameen.
Isn't this the truth! Humans have a tendency to pride in their own understanding. :nervous:
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 07:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Let me explain to you in simple terms,
"one of three" refers to one aspect of three aspects!!!
"three in one" refers to the concept of trinity(three) in itself, not of any one aspect.
After giving such simple explanation, i hope u understand the point. It is just english grammar!! :P
greetings umm abdurrahman, i must sincerely apologize beforehand because i'm about to say that i still don't understand what you're getting at. i really don't mean to come off as if i'm being obstinate but i seriously don't understand. the christian claim is that god is three in one. to say that god is one of three would be incorrect (and furthermore the actual quote from the qur'an in the arabic is that god is the third of three so more than simply misrepresenting the trinity, it assigns the wrong position to the father. the father is never the third member but rather the first).

edit: actually i think i see where you're going but the problem is still the fact that that is not what the muslim deity said. if we simply go with what the muslim deity has said then we are in error. even if we decide to look at the pure speech of allah within the qur'an we find that he says "god is the third of three" and this clearly is erroneous. you could try to argue that yusuf ali has gotten the trinity right, but it is impossible to argue that the trinity is correct in the pure arabic qur'an.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Firstly, The Glorious Quran is FULLY CORRECT and FREE FROM MISTAKES!!!
i'm sorry but i can not agree to this. in the same manner you could simply not accept it as a fact if i made the claim that the bible is never wrong, it's only us that are wrong. sure we may believe thsi of our respective holy books but we could never claim this as a prima facie fact within a debate.

i feel that i should mention that i am not trying to be disrespectful with this. i respect your beliefs but i simply cannot believe in them because after having learnt church history and seeing the many ways that the trinity can be formulated incorrectly (let's be honest, it really is a complex doctrine) i am unable to believe in the qur'an in part because it commits the very same errors that were condemned before the advent of islam. this would not be a problem if christians had only condemned these formulations after muhammad began spreading the message of islam because then quite clearly it would just be a way of discrediting the qur'an, but the fact that christians had condemned these formulations before anyone had even heard of the qur'an means that christians are not being dishonest and these are real mistakes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
May God Guide us all to The Truth. Ameen.
i completely agree. if at least we cannot come to an agreement on every point of theology, it is good that we can at least find a common basis in our search for the truth and our hope in the one--the only god--who will lead us to this truth.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-16-2011, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
to say that god is one of three would be incorrect (and furthermore the actual quote from the qur'an in the arabic is that god is the third of three so more than simply misrepresenting the trinity, it assigns the wrong position to the father. the father is never the third member but rather the first).
The Quran is NOT talking about TRINITY as a whole in those verses. It is talking about God being a "part" of the trinity. one of three, meaning one part of the trinity.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-16-2011, 08:31 PM
^^ And God is telling us that those claims are WRONG !!
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-16-2011, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i respect your beliefs but i simply cannot believe in them because after having learnt church history and seeing the many ways that the trinity can be formulated incorrectly (let's be honest, it really is a complex doctrine)
Can i know about this in detail.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 08:46 PM
greetings.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
The Quran is NOT talking about TRINITY as a whole in those verses. It is talking about God being a "part" of the trinity. one of three, meaning one part of the trinity.
which qur'an is saying this? yusuf ali's version or allah's version? you will notice that the words of allah are "god is the third of three" while yusuf ali changes the words to "one of three". if you claim that the english translation is only a translation of the meaning of the qur'an then we have ourselves a problem seeing "one of three" does not carry the same meaning as "the third of three". should we look at the pure speech of allah or the pure speech of yusuf ali? the fact of the matter is that you wish to use the words of yusuf ali hence why you are not arguing from what the arabic qur'an says (that is, "god is the third of three") but from what one of many english translations says.

notice also how the majority of other translations are uniform and it is only yusuf ali that translates this text considerably differently. once again we have the choice between the words of allah and the words of yusuf ali. if you choose the words of allah then we have ourselves a mistake, if we choose the words that yusuf ali himself has inserted (which change the meaning of the arabic) then we have room to argue that his formulation is correct. the problem is that this is an improvement on the true arabic qur'an. either option you choose you end up discrediting the qur'an. that said, this still does not explain the other mistakes in formulating the doctrine of the divinity of christ as "god is the messiah" when no christian would ever say this and we have clear documentary evidence of trinitarians specifically saying "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". nor does this explain why there is no condemnation of a trinity which consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit anywhere in the entire qur'an.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-16-2011, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Can i know about this in detail.
oh dear, this is very long. hmm, off the top of my head there is sabellianism (the belief that god is only one person and that the terms the father, the son, and the holy spirit are only roles he assumes and then discards), there's arianism (the belief that jesus is a god but that he hasn't always existed), adoptionism (the belief that jesus hasn't always been the son of the father and that instead god took him as his son at some point in time. incidentally, this is another mistake we find in the qur'an). there's (ontological) subordinationism (the belief that the members of the trinity aren't ontologically equal but rather that the father is the highest god, so to speak, and that the son and holy spirit are inferior to him in nature), and much much more. i'm sure that simply googling something like christian heresies will give you a long list of all the ways that the divinity of christ and the formulation of the trinity could be stated incorrectly.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-16-2011, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
The Quran is NOT talking about TRINITY as a whole in those verses. It is talking about God being a "part" of the trinity. one of three, meaning one part of the trinity.

Here is the thing. Christians would agree. God is not one part of the Trinity. So, I don't know what particular group of people held to that point of view, maybe there was a spurious religion that the Qur'an was critiquing. But it isn't a crititque of the Christian faith for it doesn't accurately represent any doctrine of Christianity.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-16-2011, 10:27 PM
Firstly it has to be established that the Quran does not really treat Judaism and Christianity as independent religions but as deviations from, and corruption of the message delivered by Gods Prophets. Hence there is no question of its stating what the modern Jews and Christians think to be the correct articles of their faiths. The Quran is set to pointing out that what the Jews believed and practiced at the time were errors and that their scriptures had been altered and manipulated to accommodate such faults and incorrect beliefs. It also vigorously attempts to correct and rectify those errors.

What the modern Jews and Christians believe to be the correct doctrines of their faiths are not the same as those believed and practiced by the predecessors because these religions have undergone a number of reforms and modifications since the advent of Islam. It is never an exaggeration if we say that Quran influenced these reforms especially in Christianity.

The Quran is basically not describing the tenets of Judaism and Christianity but was pointing out how the followers of these faiths had deviated from the original teachings of their prophets.

Also the Quran does not identify the entities or persons that constituted the Trinity. It simply denounces the whole concept as antithetical to and subversive of true monotheism. The orientalists write that the Quran has classified Mary as a person in the Trinity and maintain that is an error. However, a simple glance at the present day Catholics is sufficient to show that they indeed worship Virgin Mary and address their prayers to her. This is no different if you look at the history of Christian nations. The recent proclamation of the Pope relating to the bodily assumption of Mary supports this conclusion.

The Quran also points out other errors such as against the Jews insinuations and innuendo against Mary where it unequivocally asserts her chastity and purity of character. Against the doctrine of the Trinity it uncompromisingly asserts the absolute and immutable unity of God.

Against the Jews and Christian notion of sonship, it emphatically states that God does not have any son nor is he a father to anyone as such. Against the divinity of Christ, it insists on his humanity and asserts that he was only a Prophet of God. It further states that those who worship him as god are unbelievers and are going against true monotheism.

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)

It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:

“But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.” (Library of Islam, pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title “Mother of God” by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a “member” of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism (See the Quran 4:171; 5:73) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (See the Quran 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

“... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.” (Quran 18:110)

“... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)

– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures:

“... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ...” (Quran 21:92)


Compiled and put together using sources from Islamreligion and pbuh.us
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-16-2011, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
let's be honest, it really is a complex doctrine
That is quite an understatement. The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than “I believe it because I was told to do so.” It is explained away as “mystery” – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is not the author of confusion ...”

Its inventor the bishop Athanasius confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

So there is no doubt that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God nor is it supported by the Bible but quite the contrary for this dogma is entirely man made in origin.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-16-2011, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)

It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.
OK. What's your point? As a trinitarian Christian I completely agree -- "they do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God" -- to say any different than this would to not be speaking of the Trinity as understood by Christians.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism.
Again trinitarian Christians would agree. The whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. This is why we do not hold to such an idea. Again, if you think otherwise, then you as yet do not understand what Christians mean when we speak of the Trinity.


In the Quran, God’s Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

“... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.” (Quran 18:110)

“... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)

– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures:

“... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ...” (Quran 21:92)


Compiled and put together using sources from Islamreligion and pbuh.us
Amen. And AMEN. As a follower of Jesus the Christ and a worshipper of the one true God who has made himself known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I totally and 100% agree.



I've asked more than once, but have yet to get an answer. What do these statements from the Qur'an have to do with the topic of this thread? This thread is supposed to be about how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But these things that the Qur'an speaks about are not representative of Christian beliefs. As the Qur'an is never in error, it must be some other spurious religion that these passages are critquing, because none of those beliefs that are being attacked as blasphemous are accurate representations of Christianity.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-17-2011, 01:40 AM
i have just seen your response hamza. i'll respond to this soon along with your other post in another thread. right now i'm a bit preoccupied but after i have responded, i would very much like you to begin posting your own words because while your points are fairly easy to reply to, it does somewhat cease to be a discussion when all that is presented are the words of other people. anyway, i will either reply by sunday evening or monday afternoon.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-17-2011, 03:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i have just seen your response hamza. i'll respond to this soon along with your other post in another thread. right now i'm a bit preoccupied but after i have responded, i would very much like you to begin posting your own words because while your points are fairly easy to reply to, it does somewhat cease to be a discussion when all that is presented are the words of other people. anyway, i will either reply by sunday evening or monday afternoon.
It also ceases to be a fruitful discussion when all of what is presented by yourself regarding the Quran are from anti-Islamic websites rather than proper unbiased research. I look forward to your replies.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-17-2011, 10:40 AM
greetings hamza.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
What the modern Jews and Christians believe to be the correct doctrines of their faiths are not the same as those believed and practiced by the predecessors because these religions have undergone a number of reforms and modifications since the advent of Islam. It is never an exaggeration if we say that Quran influenced these reforms especially in Christianity.
please give us an example of how islam forced christians to reshaped their trinity. the fact of the matter is that the above is false. it would be more accurate to say that the 'christian' west reformed islam (particularly as it concerns slavery in predominantly muslim countries) than that islam somehow reformed christianity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
The Quran is basically not describing the tenets of Judaism and Christianity but was pointing out how the followers of these faiths had deviated from the original teachings of their prophets.
wait a minute, are you saying that the qur'an is pointing out the errors of christians? then why is it that te qur'an itself inaccurately formulates the trinity, the divinity of christ, the sonship of christ, the position of the father etc.? are we to believe that it was pointing these out by formulating them incorrectly? are you seriously going to argue this way?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Also the Quran does not identify the entities or persons that constituted the Trinity. It simply denounces the whole concept as antithetical to and subversive of true monotheism. ( a ) The orientalists write that the Quran has classified Mary as a person in the Trinity and maintain that is an error. However, a simple glance at the present day Catholics is sufficient to show that they indeed worship Virgin Mary and address their prayers to her. This is no different if you look at the history of Christian nations. The recent proclamation of the Pope relating to the bodily assumption of Mary supports this conclusion.
( a ) let's say that catholics worship mary, that still does not mean that they add her to the trinity. all catholics believe that the trinity consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. no catholic will tell you that they believe that mary is divine. therefore the qur'an is in error when it says the following (by the way, the commentary to these are my words):

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist — it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. — Surah 4:171 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

It would seem that three stands in place for the trinitarian doctrine of three divine persons. Now we should note the persons involved in the above passage: Allah (who quite clearly is identified with the Father both in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition), Jesus, and Mary. Right from the start we are met with a serious problem. Mary is included in the category of the three divine persons. She is named as a member of the Godhead—of the trinity while this has never been the case at all. Instead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are treated to the Father, the Mother, and the Son. Hence why the Islamic prophet can later on claim that it is far from God’s glory to have a son seeing as he saw the sonship of Christ as being accomplished through a sexual union between God (the Father) and Mary (the Mother).

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah — Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. — Surah 5:72-75 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

Once again the Qur’an incorrectly articulates the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and in fact condemns sabellianism instead of the trinity. It then goes on to commit a subsequent error in defining the Father’s position as the third member of the trinity. The Father is not the third but rather the first. And God is not the third of three but rather three in one. These aren’t simple mistakes that we can gloss over when it is claimed that the Qur’an is a book from God. Yet it must be said that both the Christian and Muslim know that the above formulations are wrong seeing as neither one of these who is knowledgeable on the subject will define the trinity with the Father being the third person or as God being the third of three instead of three in one.

Notice how Mary once more makes an appearance in a passage that is aimed specifically at condemning the trinity? The source of the Qur’an mentions that Christ and Mary ate food in order to show that they aren’t divine (seeing as God has no need to eat) but they make the great mistake of including Mary in the equation when the context is aimed at condemning the three divine persons whom Christians worship. Once again, the Qur’an is under the impression that the trinity consists of a Father, a Son (Christ), and Mary (a mother) instead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! The text is very clear (“Look how We make clear to them the signs”) that it believes Mary to be part of the Holy Trinity.


And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me — to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. — Surah 5:116-117 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

Let us remember that Muslims accuse Christians of worshiping three separate deities (and as such we are accused of polytheism). Can we count the number of persons involved in the above passage? Once again we have the Father, Christ, and Mary. These three and only these three. There is no subsequent exchange between the Muslim deity and Christ where he asks Jesus if he told his followers to take him and the Holy Spirit as gods beside Allah. That is indeed telling because it is either that the Qur’an is perfectly alright with this, or, more likely, that the source of the Qur’an simply was unaware of what the trinity truly consisted of. This is a great problem because the above is a purported discussion that Christ will have with Allah when the latter is about to condemn Christians for the apparent errors of their faith. This then clearly shows that the Islamic prophet thought that the Christian religion (in this respect) consisted merely of the worship of Mary and Jesus as gods beside the Father! Where is a condemnation of the worship of the Holy Spirit?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)
the fact of the matter is that you are trying to pass off the words of yusuf ali as those of allah. why do you not use the translations which are actually accurate to the arabic? in the pure speech of the qur'an the muslim deity says that "they are disbelievers who say that allah is the third of three. there is no god except god." this is completely wrong because no trinitarian would ever say that god is the third of three. for one thing, the father is the first person and not the third and the trinity is "three in one" and not "one of three" or "even the third of three". at the very least we are in agreement that surah 5:73 speaks of the trinity and because it does we can clearly see that this is an error.

i thought about responding to every one of your claims but then thought it would be better to stick to the matter of how the qur'an represents the beliefs of christians. it is quite clear that it misrepresents them completely. it is telling that in your post you did not even try to argue that the representations within the qur'an are accurate but rather that the qur'an was never actually trying to describe what christians really believed. that is called setting up a strawman and therefore, any way you try to argue the matter, we end up with the qur'an being wrong about what christians believe.

this post was done in a bit of a hurry but i await your response. i would ask if you could also show us where we can find a correct formulation of the trinity within the qur'an.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-17-2011, 07:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
either option you choose you end up discrediting the qur'an. that said, this still does not explain the other mistakes in formulating the doctrine of the divinity of christ as "god is the messiah" when no christian would ever say this and we have clear documentary evidence of trinitarians specifically saying "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". nor does this explain why there is no condemnation of a trinity which consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit anywhere in the entire qur'an.
Peace ,

What i'm understanding from your posts is that you doubt the "authenticity" of The Glorious Quran a lot!!! About all the points that you have mentioned, i too would want to see the basis of your arguments, that is, i want to know:
1) Where exactly is the Trinitarian concept mentioned in the order that you're talking about? in the Bible?are they the words of Jesus? or some disciple?
2) "Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?

These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-18-2011, 03:26 AM
greetings, it is always a pleasure and i do mean this because so far, we have been able to maintain a conversation that has not degenerated to the use of insults.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.
at the moment i'd much rather stick to the topic because for the sake of the argument, we could even say that the bible does not teach the matter of the trinity at all and my points would still work. once again the following are my words but i place them in italics because they are not original to this thread:

Muslims will often claim that the Trinity was created during the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. instead of this having been a doctrine held by the first Christians. Even if this were true, it would still not change the fact that the Islamic prophet would have had hundreds of years to know what Christians in fact believed and there is entirely no excuse for the Qur’an to be making such glaring mistakes.

that said, if the chance comes up, i will try to give the christian basis for the trinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
2) "Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?
let us first say that whether or not this point is understood by muslims or not, it does not change the fact that this is a crucial matter to christians and we even have a reference from a text dated to around 550 AD which quite clearly concludes the matter of the trinity with "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". therefore, to claim that christians supposedly say "allah is the messiah" is actually incorrect. this is the important point and this is the error we find in the qur'an. anyway, as it relates to better understanding this, you will have to remember that christians believe that the one god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. no christian creed ever states the divinity of christ as "god is jesus" because this would mean that there is only one divine person in the being of god (just as it is wrong to say that math is quantum mechanics because that would mean that math only exists as quantum mechanics. the proper way of saying this is "quantum mechanics is math"). this actually implies the heresy of sabellianism which stated that there was only one divine person who operated under the modes of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. to the sabellian, we do not have three divine persons but rather only roles that the single divine person undertakes (in the same way that a single individual can be a father to his children, a son to his father, a brother to his siblings etc.). the church condemned this doctrine hundreds of years before the advent of islam and so the very fact that the qur'an implies that christians say that "god is jesus" is factually wrong.

if the source of the qur'an really knew what it was talking about then it would have condemned christians for saying "jesus is god" and not the inversion. one does not need to believe in the divinity of christ in order to be able to condemn it properly. imagine that i wanted to condemn the concept of tawhid but my condemnation consisted of the following:

"they surely do blaspheme who say tawhid. w. fard mohammed is not god. oh muslims desist in such grave utterances, it will be better for you."

from the above, would you think that i have a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you would say no because from the context you would be able to tell that my position is in error. i am merely doing the same with the qur'an. from the context we can see that the qur'an has misunderstood the trinity, the sonship of christ, and his divinity. every time that the topic of the three divine persons whom christians worship is brought up, you see that it always refers to allah, christ and mary. it is always a father, a son, and a mother. allah repeatedly says that he cannot have a son because he does not have a wife (see how this implies the belief that the christian sonship refers to a sexual union between god and mary?). never in the qur'an will you find talk of three divine persons whom christians worship and have a list of the proper trinity. the trinity you find in the qur'an always includes mary. now if muslims wish to claim that this simply means that allah is talking about setting up partners along with god and not necessarily the trinity (which for one thing doesn't work seeing as even the muslim translators have seen that certain passages clearly refer to the trinity which is why yusuf ali had to drastically change the words of allah so that his condemnation of the trinity would be correct. yet in the pure speech of the arabic qur'an, it is still wrong) then why doesn't he condemn the worship of the holy spirit? why does allah spend his time condemning the little heresies but never speaking a word against the most prevalent christian belief during the time of muhammad and even now? where is the condemnation of the proper trinity where allah says not to worship jesus and the holy spirit along with him? this simply isn't there. there are exactly zero such passages in the qur'an.

from all of the above, one will see that the qur'an regularly misrepresents the beliefs of christians and then goes on to attack those misrepresentations instead of attacking the real thing. imagine if in my condemnations of tawhid, i only attacked the belief that w. fard muhammad was allah, would you think that i then had a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you wouldn't and it is for the same reasons that i state that the qur'an has no idea of what the trinity actually is. you'll notice that everyone at this point has ceased arguing that the representations of the trinity within the qur'an are accurate and this in itself speaks volumes. so as far as this topic is concerned, the qur'an, for various reasons, consistently portrays the most fundamental beliefs of christians (and primarily trinitarians) completely incorrectly.

not to offend, but most muslims do not see the problems with what the qur'an says because they do not have a grasp of church history and do not know that all these heresies were condemned hundreds of years before muhammad (in fact it is often the case that they do not even know that these are misformulations in the first place and that no trinitarian creed would ever say this nor has ever said this). as a christian who actually knows what the trinity teaches and how it is properly formulated and the many ways that it can be improperly stated, i am acutely aware of how incorrect the statements within the qur'an are. the fact is, that you don't even need to believe my words here, all it would take is a simple google search of the heresy i have mentioned to see what the documents dating to hundreds of years before muhammad said concerning these heresies. we are not dealing with faith here but simply history.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
It also ceases to be a fruitful discussion when all of what is presented by yourself regarding the Quran are from anti-Islamic websites rather than proper unbiased research. I look forward to your replies.
what exactly did i get from anti-islamic websites? all i did was open up a qur'an. that said, everything that is not my words i had placed in quotes.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-18-2011, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
"Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?

These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.

I actually wrote you a response to this, but I see it has disappeared. I'm too tired to re-write it all a second time tonight. but it actually makes sense. Briefly, we aren't talking math, so forget about things like the law of reciprocity where if A=B, then B=A. If you want to think symbolically, use a logic sentence: If p, then Q. But given Q does not therefore imply P.

Have you ever eaten an orange? When you did, did you eat orange peel, orange seeds, and orange flesh? Or did you just eat orange flesh? I'll bet when you did you just ate the flesh of the orange, yet you didn't say that you ate orange flesh, you said that you ate an orange. So it is correct to say that orange flesh is orange. But on the other hand, it would not be correct to say that an orange is orange flesh. For there is more to an orange than just orange flesh, there is also orange peel and orange seed.

Now the above is a metaphor, it is not a perfect representation of what we mean when we say that Jesus is God, but that we can't say that God is Jesus. Nonetheless, I hope it might give you some idea of why we would say this. I can try to speak more to this again another day, but not now.
Reply

Tyrion
04-18-2011, 08:27 AM
I wonder where Brother Woodrow is... I feel like he'd be the best person for this discussion, since he has a lot of experience with both Christianity and Islam.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-18-2011, 11:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I wonder where Brother Woodrow is... I feel like he'd be the best person for this discussion, since he has a lot of experience with both Christianity and Islam.
greetings tyrion. i do agree with the sentiment displayed in your post but would extend the offer to anyone who has at some point been a christian (and of course to born muslims as well). the fact is that if you have had a proper understanding of the trinity and just briefly looked at the heresies which were condemned by the early church, you would see that the qur'an repeats these very same errors when it thinks itself to be talking about what christians actually believe. this is why in recent years muslims have moved away from saying that the qur'an actually speaks of the trinity because every reference to this effect is completely wrong. yet this is not a defense because aside from the matter of the trinity, it also gets the issue of the sonship and the divinity of christ wrong so will we at this time say that it doesn't speak of these things as well? not to mention, translators such as yusuf ali have clearly seen that certain passages do in fact refer to the trinity and as such have been forced to mistranslate them so that while they would remain incorrect in the pure arabic qur'an, they would at the very least be correct in the english translation.

once again, you will note that at this point no one is arguing that the references in the qur'an are at all correct. at this point we are all agreed on the matter that they are wrong; hence why most muslims in this thread preemptively claimed that there was no mention of the trinity in the first place.
Reply

Al-manar
04-18-2011, 12:55 PM
peace be upon all

though I decided long ago not to participate in any thread apart of mine,though the very short time for me online , but due to one dear invitation to the thread ,I would make a fast visit to clear a point (the only point I see would merit my input) ....

I have to teach sol-invectus a second lesson in Arabic ...

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three."

the above are the proper translation.


for you and non-Arabic speakers, it can't be the proper ,yusuf Ali (and others similar) is the proper one he just should have put (trinity) in brackets ......

let's first expose the mistakes of the ignorant source which you quoted from:

the first linguistic mistake :

the ignorant source ,can’t even read the Quran properly , he placed a wrong Stress on the end of the word (three) (thalatha)....

making it ((thalaathatun) , while it isn’t


ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ

It is ( thalithuthalathatin)



Second : the translations of M. M. Pickthall and those alike mustn't have translated ( thalithuthalathatin) into (third of three) as that would trick the readers into the meaning ( the third in order ) which (by linguestic neccesity) isn't the meaning inteded

The expression (thalithu thalathatin) would never convey for the Arab reader a meaning of order ,it simply means (one of three)

Let’s visit both the Arabic grammatical references and the tafsirs:

The comprehensive reference of Arabic grammar (the book of Alkfaaf) كتاب الكفاف فى قواعد اللغة العربية

http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/...AdadMadoud.htm

under the term numerical rules in Arabic , he wrote


الذين قالوا إنّ الله ثالث ثلاثة[ (المائدة 5/73)

الترتيب والتسلسل والتتابع غير مرادة في الآية، وإنما المراد أنهم قالوا: إنّ الله تعالى واحد من ثلاثة. ولو كان الترتيب
مراداً لقالوا: إنه ثالث اثنين. وانظر إلى ما جاء في صحيح البخاري
تجد المسألة على أوضح الوضوح. فدونك النصّ الحرفي، كما ورد فيه: [عن... خرجت رابع أربعة من بني تميم أنا أحدهم، وسفيان بن مجاشع، ويزيد بن عمرو بن ربيعة، وأسامة بن مالك بن حبيب بن العنبر، نريد ابن جفنة الغسّانيّ بالشام فنَزلنا على غدير...]. ولو أراد الترتيب لقال: [خرجت رابع ثلاثة] أي: تَقَدَّمَه الثلاثةُ، ثم خرج هو بعدهم، فكان رابعاً


By grammatical necessity ,Order,sequence in any kind is not intended in such verse ,if it denotes order, then the expression (thalithu ethnaini) (ثالث اثنين) has to be used …


Similar example of that rule from the Quran :

The expression (thaniathnaini) (ثالث اثنين) (one of two)

The Quran - 9:40 If you do not succour the Apostle, then [know that God will do so -just as] God succoured him at the time when those who were bent on denying the truth drove him away, and he was but] one of two: when these two were in the cave, [and] the Apostle said to his companion, "Grieve not: verily, God is with us.


it doesn’t denote order at all , it doesn’t denote that the companion of the prophet was expelled by the pagans and then the prophet later as his second ,but they been expelled together ..


another similar meaning in Sunna narration :

http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...477&pid=588439


Muhammad ben udai said : I was one of four رَابِعَ أَرْبَعَةٍ (rabea arbaaten) who travelled to Syria etc….. (narrated Altabarani)

If he wanted to get the reader a meaning of order, he would have used ( rabea thalathaten) رابع ثلاثة

........

That linuguestic rule is found in all the Arabic grammatical references eg; The comprehensive grammatical encyclopedia


check

الموسوعة الشاملة - شرح قطر الندى

http://www.islamport.com/b/5/loqhah/...%EC%20003.html

etc etc etc………………………………..


the same linguistic note is mentioned in the classic tafsirs:



Tafsit Alqutubi

تفسير الجامع لاحكام القرآن/ القرطبي
قوله تعالى : لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله ثالث ثلاثة أي : أحد ثلاثة ، ولا يجوز فيه [ ص: 185 ] التنوين ; عن الزجاج وغيره ، وفيه للعرب مذهب آخر ; يقولون : رابع ثلاثة ; فعلى هذا يجوز الجر والنصب ; لأن معناه الذي صير الثلاثة أربعة بكونه منهم . وكذلك إذا قلت : ثالث اثنين ; جاز التنوين


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ,without intention of conveying the meaning of order ..



Tafsir al-Kabir (al-Razi)


تفسير مفاتيح الغيب

المسألة الأولى: { ثَلَـٰثَةً } كسرت بالإضافة، ولا يجوز نصبها لأن معناه: واحد ثلاثة. أما إذا قلت: رابع ثلاثة فههنا يجوز الجر والنصب، لأن معناه الذي صير الثلاثة أربعة بكونه فيهم.


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ....



Tafsir albaidawi

تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي

{ لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَـٰلِثُ ثَلَـٰثَةٍ } أي أحد ثلاثة،


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ....


Tafsir Aljallalen:

تفسير تفسير الجلالين/ المحلي و السيوطي

{ لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَالِثُ } آلهة { ثَلَٰثَةً } أي أحدها

the same exact words are mentioned in the other classical tafsirs


Tafsir Alshawkani
Tafsir Ibn Atia
Tafsir Ibn Adel
Tafsir Altabarani
Tafsir Alaloosy
Tafsir Ibn Ashoor


sol-invectus ,you have been victimized for the second time ,by those critics who either half educated ..or know the matter in depth, but would like to trick those non-Arab readers who hardly can check such linguestic arenas ...

A sincere advice to you, at least when it comes to Arabic ,stop parroting what you get from the christian critics before you check well what would advanced Arabic learners would comment.....
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-18-2011, 02:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
we could even say that the bible does not teach the matter of the trinity
If the Bible doesn't teach Trinity, then what is the basis of your belief? Is it reliable? How can the non Christians accept it if the Bible doesn't talk about it at all?!?!

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
there is only one divine person in the being of god
Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Ephesians 4:6 — One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Chronicles 17:20 — O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Nehemiah 9:6 — Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

The above references clearly negate the concept of any other God. If "Jesus is God" and "Holy Spirit is God" and so on.. Then doesn't this mean associating partners?!?!
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-18-2011, 02:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
no christian creed ever states the divinity of christ as "god is jesus" because this would mean that there is only one divine person in the being of god (just as it is wrong to say that math is quantum mechanics because that would mean that math only exists as quantum mechanics. the proper way of saying this is "quantum mechanics is math"). this actually implies the heresy of sabellianism
actually wanted to quote the above^^
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-18-2011, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
sol-invectus ,you have been victimized for the second time ,by those critics who either half educated ..or know the matter in depth, but would like to trick those non-Arab readers who hardly can check such linguestic arenas ...

A sincere advice to you, at least when it comes to Arabic ,stop parroting what you get from the christian critics before you check well what would advanced Arabic learners would comment.....
greetings al-manar and welcome to the dicussion (this thread seems to only be getting better and better). if what you say is indeed correct (and i do not at this point have to disagree with the above), it still does not change the fact that we have ourselves successive misformulations within the qur'an concerning the christian trinity. for the sake of honesty i can see myself agreeing with the first point (and even then this would not hurt my position seeing as we're both agreed in the fact that he should have included parentheses seeing as the word trinity is not there. at this point i am left to wonder what exactly you have proved?) but your second claim is actually quite ambiguous. if anything you are simply saying that the qur'an is not clear in it's expression of the order. i should also note that even if we take this ambiguity of order at face value, we still have ourselves a problem in the formulation of the trinity as "one of three" instead of "three in one" (or even one in three). you and i are both in agreement that this is passage speaks concerning the trinity (for i doubt you would make such a defense if you didn't at the least believe this to be so) and yet even if we look to yusuf ali's version we have ourselves a misformulation of the trinity. once again, yusuf ali (or rather, the muslim deity) is speaking of the trinity and then says "say not one of three". the trinity is not defined as such. his statement should have been "say not three in one, for there is no god except allah" etc. even if we take your position we still end up with a misformulation. if not, could you refer us to the christian creed where we find the trinity defined as one of three?

on the matter of your sincere advice, i can only say that you make such a claim as if it ends up disproving the argument. even factoring everything that you say, the argument remains unchanged and you do not succeed in vindicating the muslim deity.

now, can we begin to focus on the rest. and if we are going to get into this matter i'd first like to know how you're going to argue this. are you taking the position that the qur'an deals specifically with the trinity or that it doesn't deal with the trinity. your post has failed to vindicate the passage in question and has ignored everything else. you may perhaps not have had the time to focus on anything else but i would very much like it if in your next response you engage my other points along with this current one (seeing as it is still the case that we have ourselves a misformulation*). i must admit that i like your response and did not expect this but you have over-estimated its force for it has not at all proven its point and certainly has not refuted anything else that has been said so far. you have only shown that the qur'an is imprecise (we certainly do not need to think of imprecision in negative terms here. let us accept this as a neutral term and not a fault with your holy book) in the position of the father but this once again leaves us with an error in which the trinity is misformulated (and not an error concerning the position of the father). that said, i must say that i appreciate this first lesson in arabic even if it has not changed the discussion at all. we still have a mistake in the very passage your arabic lesson dealt with.

certain questions which are casually related to this topic are the following: do you believe that you can gain a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs of christians (as concerns the trinity) from the qur'an? if yes, can you cite for us the passages which show this (the most basic belief would be that the triune god is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. it would be unfair to ask anything more detailed than that)? if not then would this not mean that the qur'an misrepresents what christians believe? an example of what i'm getting at with this question would be the fact that from the bible (and i suppose the qur'an) we can gain an accurate (and perhaps even more than basic) understanding of the fundamental beliefs of polytheists. they worshiped idols and the qur'an & bible are quite detailed in the regard that the idols were variously made from wood, gold, precious stones etc. and that the people would worship these as the very gods themselves. can we agree that this is an accurate portrayal of the most prevalent form of polytheism? on this point we are all in agreement. yet given that the qur'an is so proficient on this matter, is it equally as proficient as it regards the trinity? what we find in the bible and qur'an is a fairly accurate description of the practises of the polytheists and even though the polytheist would not necessarily agree with the conclusion of our holy books (i.e. that their worship is without value) they would not however deny the fact that the portrayal is accurate. can you say the same for the portrayal of the trinity? why or why not?

my belief is that an accurate portrayal is not present because the source of the qur'an simply was unaware of the actual trinity. while it is fairly easy to understand the beliefs of the polytheists simply from observing them, the islamic prophet could not do the same as it regarded the matter of the trinity for it truly can be quite complex. being unable to read or write, he would not have a proper understanding of christian doctrine and terms such as mother of god would easily lend themselves to misunderstandings. anyway, that's my take and it is all predicated on whether or not we can find an accurate portrayal of the christian trinity. to be sure, if such a thing can indeed be found within the qur'an than this point would be disproven and this thread would have largely served its use.

that said, you've so reinvigorated this discussion that i find myself almost impatient for your response (and hopefully your post will invite the other muslim brothers and sisters to participate here again).

* as i understand it, your argument on the matter of "one of three" sought to show that it was not addressing the position of god but rather simply saying that he constituted one of the members of the trinity. if this then is the case then we do not have an error on this account (though this in itself is vague and what you're basically saying is that the qur'an is not precise in its refutation but for the sake of the argument let us accept this as a proper point at present) but then an error of the formulation of the trinity.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-18-2011, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
If the Bible doesn't teach Trinity, then what is the basis of your belief? Is it reliable? How can the non Christians accept it if the Bible doesn't talk about it at all?!?!
please quote my full sentence because as is you have changed the meaning of my words. it is not the case that i said that the bible does not teach the trinity but rather a case of me not even having to defend the position that the bible does indeed teach it in order to prove my points. it's simply a means of not getting side-tracked into arguments that have no bearing on this particular discussion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
The above references clearly negate the concept of any other God. If "Jesus is God" and "Holy Spirit is God" and so on.. Then doesn't this mean associating partners?!?!
you assume unitarianism for all those references. no trinitarian argues that we have three gods and as such what you have shown above (i.e. your biblical references) does not even harm the trinitarian position. in order to make your case you have to show that oneness only refers to unitarianism (as such you would have denied any claims made by the trinitarian) but you have not and no muslim argument has ever shown this to be true because it is simply factually false. but i will indeed await your response.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-18-2011, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
it is not the case that i said that the bible does not teach the trinity but rather a case of me not even having to defend the position that the bible does indeed teach it in order to prove my points. it's simply a means of not getting side-tracked into arguments that have no bearing on this particular discussion.
If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-18-2011, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?
like i said earlier, i will not enter into a debate on the trinity because i do not need to prove this from the bible in order for my points to work and as such the issue is irrelevant. off the top of my head, i believe that at the moment i'm involved in at least 3 in depth debates and as such it is to my benefit to try to reduce my 'workload' as much as possible. once again, i'm not going to get side-tracked into discussions that will end up proving nothing as far as my point is concerned.

the fact that you find it confusing should not be troublesome at all. the trinity deals with god as he is in himself, you being merely a finite creature would it then not seem likely to be unable to perfectly understand the infinite being who is god? if simple confusion is all it would take to disprove any conception of god then could you please explain to us how exactly the concept of no beginning works? do you perfectly understand this? of course you don't so along the lines of your argument, the muslim deity fails to be the one true god as well. but once more, this conversation is neither here nor there. if you wish to discuss the matter so badly then perhaps it would be best to start a thread on the matter. as is, i'm quite preoccupied with this one here and while i'm perfectly fine with discussing anything which relates to this topic, i'll have to avoid all discussion within this thread which will not prove nor disprove my main argument. thanks.
Reply

gmcbroom
04-18-2011, 08:48 PM
Whew! That was alot to read from the 1st page all the way to here! Suffice it to say there are over 100 hundred heresies that the Catholic Church has had to fight. Sol Invictus is correct in saying a great many heresies were dealt with a long time ago some if not most before the time of Mohammed. So in essence we can go round and round over the Trinity but it won't go anywhere. Muslims believe one thing and Christians another and that is an area that isn't going to change anytime soon as that subject is an area pits 2 different faiths against each other. This probably amuses atheists to no end.

Therefore, I believe we should get back to the original poster's question. From a different angle. How does the Qu'ran represent Christian beliefs.

Here, I'll start. Jesus gave us 2 great commandments that contain the whole of the Law. To Love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind. The second to love your neighbor as yourself.

In essence the first is to love God. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself in short don't treat your neighbor badly.

Does The Qu'ran have a similar set of commandments or hadith to these?

Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-19-2011, 01:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?
Firstly, the verse you cite is not only taken out of context, but cut short in and of itself -- and not only is it taken out of the context of the passage surrounding it, but the translation you have cited is archaic and old English so you must not simply inject the modern definition of the word 'confusion' into a text where the word carried a different meaning.

Original Word: ἀκαταστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: akatastasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah)
Short Definition: disturbance, upheaval, revolution
Definition: disturbance, upheaval, revolution, almost anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere.

Source: Biblos

The passage:
1 Corinthians 14
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-19-2011, 02:26 AM
glad to see my christian brethren picking up on the points i've missed.
Reply

Aprender
04-19-2011, 02:43 AM
Didn't read all of the posts here but I thought this video was pretty cool in outlining how Islam goes along with some of the teachings in the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2078297437216#

Not sure how to post Google videos here but check it out for yourself.
Reply

Aprender
04-19-2011, 02:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
Not trying to start a debate with you there and I'm not disagreeing with you but even disorder of the mind prevents peace. Even you have to acknowledge that the Trinity has been and continues to be very confusing to people no matter which style of diction is used in the Bibles.

But let's get back to the topic.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-19-2011, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
Not trying to start a debate with you there and I'm not disagreeing with you but even disorder of the mind prevents peace. Even you have to acknowledge that the Trinity has been and continues to be very confusing to people no matter which style of diction is used in the Bibles.
greetings aprender, the fact that it might be confusing still does not mean that that bible passage fits. in fact, you have to wrest it out of context in order to make it fit. even if we were to admit your point, then the same would apply to the muslim deity. the attribute of having no beginning, of existing when there was no space at all etc. all these things are incredibly mind-boggling and if you say that you understand these things perfectly then you are a liar. so therefore, if we go by what seems to be the muslim argument here, then islam has been equally refuted. it would seem that in a bid to find anything that could be used against the christian doctrine, we have ceased examining our own points to find out whether or not they are self-refuting. yet, at the very least discussions such as this are able to show us the errors in our logic.

but yes, let us get back to the topic. i am still awaiting responses from a couple of people.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-19-2011, 03:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm confused. I thought that this thread had to do with how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But what is presented here are not Christian beliefs. No Christian I know of (now or in history) has ever said "Allah is one of three in a Trinity" or, for that matter, that God is one of three.

Nor do I know of any Christian who has ever suggested that Jesus said "Worship me and my mother as gods."

Are you saying that the Qur'an asserts that these are Christian beliefs? If the Qur'an never errs, then it would seem to me that the Qur'an must be critiquing some spurious religion that grew up in the region, because it isn't critiquing Christianity in these passages as these aren't actual Christian beliefs.
i see that some of our Christians are on a little crusade here. let me take a moment or two to respond.

IN GENERAL, Christians are treated as 2 kinds: those who follow Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both of them, who are treated as "believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward"

and as those that reject Islamic Monotheism, "18:57And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance - they will never be guided, then - ever.

And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,
18:101 Muhsin Khan
(To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Quran), and who could not bear to hear (it).
18:102 Muhsin Khan
Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allah's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliya' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism).
18:103 Muhsin Khan
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?
18:104 Muhsin Khan
"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!
18:105 Muhsin Khan
"They are those who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.
18:106 Muhsin Khan
"That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.
18:107 Muhsin Khan
"Verily! Those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, shall have the Gardens of Al-Firdaus (the Paradise) for their entertainment.
we have this explanation also:

18:4 And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
18:5 Muhsin Khan
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.
and turning to the present here:

18:56 Muhsin Khan
And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!

18:57 Muhsin Khan
And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, but turns away from them forgetting what (deeds) his hands have sent forth. Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this (the Quran), and in their ears, deafness. And if you (O Muhammad SAW) call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.
I'm confused. I thought that this thread had to do with how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But what is presented here are not Christian beliefs. No Christian I know of (now or in history) has ever said "Allah is one of three in a Trinity" or, for that matter, that God is one of three.
does the Qur'an say it is quoting Christians? is that why you are confused? the Qur'an is explaining to ISLAMIC MONOTHEISTS how Christians have "devolved" Allah into the " god the father" of the New Testament, which IS one of the 3 parts of the Christian Trinity. Christians have made their Prophet, Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both of them, as the "son" part of the trinity and their shirk has elevated Jibreel, Peace be upon him, into the "third" part of the triune godhead.

Christians may PRETEND it is a poor explanation, but a polytheist just can't "get it!"

Nor do I know of any Christian who has ever suggested that Jesus said "Worship me and my mother as gods."
AGAIN, does the Qur'an say it is quoting Christians? or does it say who it is quoting on Qiyama?
in ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM, if you pray to someone, you have treated them as an "associate" or "partner" of Allah!

are there Christians who pray to Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both him AND Marriam Umm Isa, Peace be upon her?

ABSOLUTELY!

If the Qur'an never errs
STOP RIGHT THERE! the Qur'an NEVER errs!

La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah
Reply

Aprender
04-19-2011, 04:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings aprender, the fact that it might be confusing still does not mean that that bible passage fits. in fact, you have to wrest it out of context in order to make it fit. even if we were to admit your point, then the same would apply to the muslim deity. the attribute of having no beginning, of existing when there was no space at all etc. all these things are incredibly mind-boggling and if you say that you understand these things perfectly then you are a liar. so therefore, if we go by what seems to be the muslim argument here, then islam has been equally refuted. it would seem that in a bid to find anything that could be used against the christian doctrine, we have ceased examining our own points to find out whether or not they are self-refuting. yet, at the very least discussions such as this are able to show us the errors in our logic.

but yes, let us get back to the topic. i am still awaiting responses from a couple of people.

I'm so sorry brother but I honestly don't understand your logic here at all. The Qur'an and the Bible are not the autobiographical pieces of God. I don't understand how that would refute Islam or Christianity if someone thought that they understood the origins of the Creator. There would be no way to confirm their understanding as it would be based solely on their own ideas and wouldn't be up for discussion.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-19-2011, 04:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings, it is always a pleasure and i do mean this because so far, we have been able to maintain a conversation that has not degenerated to the use of insults.


at the moment i'd much rather stick to the topic because for the sake of the argument, we could even say that the bible does not teach the matter of the trinity at all and my points would still work. once again the following are my words but i place them in italics because they are not original to this thread:

Muslims will often claim that the Trinity was created during the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. instead of this having been a doctrine held by the first Christians. Even if this were true, it would still not change the fact that the Islamic prophet would have had hundreds of years to know what Christians in fact believed and there is entirely no excuse for the Qur’an to be making such glaring mistakes.

that said, if the chance comes up, i will try to give the christian basis for the trinity.


let us first say that whether or not this point is understood by muslims or not, it does not change the fact that this is a crucial matter to christians and we even have a reference from a text dated to around 550 AD which quite clearly concludes the matter of the trinity with "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". therefore, to claim that christians supposedly say "allah is the messiah" is actually incorrect. this is the important point and this is the error we find in the qur'an. anyway, as it relates to better understanding this, you will have to remember that christians believe that the one god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. no christian creed ever states the divinity of christ as "god is jesus" because this would mean that there is only one divine person in the being of god (just as it is wrong to say that math is quantum mechanics because that would mean that math only exists as quantum mechanics. the proper way of saying this is "quantum mechanics is math"). this actually implies the heresy of sabellianism which stated that there was only one divine person who operated under the modes of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. to the sabellian, we do not have three divine persons but rather only roles that the single divine person undertakes (in the same way that a single individual can be a father to his children, a son to his father, a brother to his siblings etc.). the church condemned this doctrine hundreds of years before the advent of islam and so the very fact that the qur'an implies that christians say that "god is jesus" is factually wrong.

if the source of the qur'an really knew what it was talking about then it would have condemned christians for saying "jesus is god" and not the inversion. one does not need to believe in the divinity of christ in order to be able to condemn it properly. imagine that i wanted to condemn the concept of tawhid but my condemnation consisted of the following:

"they surely do blaspheme who say tawhid. w. fard mohammed is not god. oh muslims desist in such grave utterances, it will be better for you."

from the above, would you think that i have a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you would say no because from the context you would be able to tell that my position is in error. i am merely doing the same with the qur'an. from the context we can see that the qur'an has misunderstood the trinity, the sonship of christ, and his divinity. every time that the topic of the three divine persons whom christians worship is brought up, you see that it always refers to allah, christ and mary. it is always a father, a son, and a mother. allah repeatedly says that he cannot have a son because he does not have a wife (see how this implies the belief that the christian sonship refers to a sexual union between god and mary?). never in the qur'an will you find talk of three divine persons whom christians worship and have a list of the proper trinity. the trinity you find in the qur'an always includes mary. now if muslims wish to claim that this simply means that allah is talking about setting up partners along with god and not necessarily the trinity (which for one thing doesn't work seeing as even the muslim translators have seen that certain passages clearly refer to the trinity which is why yusuf ali had to drastically change the words of allah so that his condemnation of the trinity would be correct. yet in the pure speech of the arabic qur'an, it is still wrong) then why doesn't he condemn the worship of the holy spirit? why does allah spend his time condemning the little heresies but never speaking a word against the most prevalent christian belief during the time of muhammad and even now? where is the condemnation of the proper trinity where allah says not to worship jesus and the holy spirit along with him? this simply isn't there. there are exactly zero such passages in the qur'an.

from all of the above, one will see that the qur'an regularly misrepresents the beliefs of christians and then goes on to attack those misrepresentations instead of attacking the real thing. imagine if in my condemnations of tawhid, i only attacked the belief that w. fard muhammad was allah, would you think that i then had a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you wouldn't and it is for the same reasons that i state that the qur'an has no idea of what the trinity actually is. you'll notice that everyone at this point has ceased arguing that the representations of the trinity within the qur'an are accurate and this in itself speaks volumes. so as far as this topic is concerned, the qur'an, for various reasons, consistently portrays the most fundamental beliefs of christians (and primarily trinitarians) completely incorrectly.

not to offend, but most muslims do not see the problems with what the qur'an says because they do not have a grasp of church history and do not know that all these heresies were condemned hundreds of years before muhammad (in fact it is often the case that they do not even know that these are misformulations in the first place and that no trinitarian creed would ever say this nor has ever said this). as a christian who actually knows what the trinity teaches and how it is properly formulated and the many ways that it can be improperly stated, i am acutely aware of how incorrect the statements within the qur'an are. the fact is, that you don't even need to believe my words here, all it would take is a simple google search of the heresy i have mentioned to see what the documents dating to hundreds of years before muhammad said concerning these heresies. we are not dealing with faith here but simply history.


what exactly did i get from anti-islamic websites? all i did was open up a qur'an. that said, everything that is not my words i had placed in quotes.
Greetings Sol,

I agree in narrowing down the discussion to the main matter in hand which is the discussion regarding the Qur'an's stance on Christian beliefs. As mentioned in my last post the Quran does NOT identify the entities or persons that constituted the Trinity. It simply denounces the whole concept as antithetical to and subversive of true monotheism.

The Qur'an said "third of three" and that is all. It does not say anything else. So it is saying "don't say that God is the third of three persons in the Godhead". No where does it say "third of three Gods". "Third of three" simply means what Baidhawi, Suyuti and Qurtubi said it means: "He is one of them".

If one was to look at the major tafseers in the past 1000 years from classical scholars such Ibn Kathir, Tabari, Suyuti and Qurtubi on this issue, then one would realise that the Qur'an does not say what constitutes the trinity but that the Almighty is simply rejecting and condemning it on a theological level.

Al-Manar in his previous post also gave you a lesson in arabic in that the "third of three" in the way it is written in arabic refers to "one of them" and not third in line as you have falsly tried to imply. You gave an arabic transliteration in one of your previous posts in this thread which you clearly took from an anti-Islamic website for i have read exactly where you took it from and that is why i stated that you should not blindly take from such websites which will only give you that which is contrary to the truth but you should do proper research looking at both sides for if you continue to look at one side then you will be left with false misconceptions and that which is contrary to the truth.

You have also mentioned that the verses could be referring to Sabellianism on a couple of occassions but who says it isnt referring to Sabellianism or any other denomination or sect with similar beliefs? It is quite possible that the Qur'an is condemning people like William Blake for Northrop Frye said:


"The final revelation of Christianity", observes William Blake, "is, therefore, not that Jesus is God, but that "God is Jesus." (Northrop Frye, "The Religious Vision of William Blake", in Toward a New Christianity, edited by Thomas J. J. Altizer, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, 1967, page 40)

It's also possible that the statement "God is Jesus" isn't a statement of identity, but a statement of predication (using William Lane Craig's terminology). Just as the statement "God is love" (1 John 4:10) does not intend to say that God is an entity called love, but rather has the attribute of love, similarly "God is Jesus" could mean to say that Jesus is an attribute of God.

Let us look at a Christian apologetic James Patrick Holding in his article Jesus As God's Wisdom, and the Trinity Doctrine:

Jesus, as God's Word and Wisdom, was and is eternally an attribute of God the Father.

Holding also states:

It is not sufficient to object that because Jesus is a person, he cannot be an "attribute" of the Father. Personhood is not incompatible with being an attribute of another person. Moreover, we should not presume that our inability as humans to have a personal attribute also means that God cannot have one.

So even orthodox Christians like Holding believe that Jesus is an attribute of God. Therefore, if someone has the intention of uttering a statement of predication stating "God is Jesus" then he is well within his bounds of stating so. What Shamoun needs to prove is that Allah's intention for saying "God is Jesus" isn't that of predication just like how Allah does in other verses (e.g. Allah is Merciful, that doesn't mean Allah is an entity called Mercy, but rather shares that attribute).

One may also refer to Imam Fakhr Al Din Ar-Razi's commentary on Surah 5:17 where he tries to argue philosophically that the orthodox Christian belief "Jesus is God" and the concept of the incarnation itself implies that "God is Jesus" whether Christians themselves like to acknowledge that or not.

Why should the Qur'an need to mention the specific beliefs of all Christian donominations over the past 1500 years? Surely if it referred to the beliefs of one particular denomination then other denominations would have stated that it goes against their own beliefs etc .So the Qur'an does not need to go into any great detail about the specific beliefs of Christianity simply because there have been way too many denominations over the past 1500 years and this is even the case in the present day. He simply rejects such absurdities on a theological level.

The Qur'an certainly does not need to give anyone a lesson in what all of the countless Christian denominations specifically believe in but it simply rejects the idea of ascribing partners to God:

and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Surah 6:101

The Almighty is above such ludicrous paganistic beliefs which have absolutley NO backing at all in the Bible but quite the contrary and nor does it have any backing in the teachings and words of Jesus and it certainly is NOT part of any monesthetic belief in the one true God.

Even you Sol in the back of your mind must realise and accept that the concept of the trinity does not at all correlate with the beliefs of the Bible or the words and teachings of Jesus. Surely if such a belief is so fundamental then it would have been clearly explained by God or Jesus and it would have been clearly written about in the Gospels but you know yourself that all the evidence indicates that it was created several hundred years after Jesus and this is even confirmed by Christian scholars!

So for all of those hundreds of years it remained a mystery when suddenyl it was "discovered" hidden in the words of the Bible. Sol a man of your intelligence cannot possibley believe that.

I have read up on the trinity on various different Christian sites and they all have different intepretations of what they "think it may or may not mean but none of them are entirely sure what the trinity is actually about and i am sure over 95 % of Christians also do not know what the trinity isactually about even if they claim to know.

I do not mean to offend you when i say that whenever i read up on the trinity it is truly mind boggling and it can actually make a persons mind go haywire. Yesterday i was reading up about it and had to stop because i started to get a slight headache. No matter how you look at it, It just does NOT make any sense and i speak for countless Christians out there when i say that.

What is the excuse given to Christians regarding the absurdity of such illogical concepts such as the trinity? That it is a "supernatural" concept and that it is not meant to be understood but blindly accepted.

Right now you may refuse to believe what i am saying but surely this will continue to play on your mind until a time comes where you cannot accept it no more and realise the truth in that NO such belief exists in the bible or the words and teachings of Jesus for Jesus came to re-establish the law of Moses for he said it himself and he did not come to claim God-hood but those after him attributed these lies to him and changed and twisted his teachings and words as is emphasised in the Dideche.

There is NO doubt Sol that if you have read up history that you will realise that the trinity, the blood atonement of Christ as well as the belief of ascribing partners to God and many others have all been derived from greek mythological beleifs which you know were very popular at the time and era around that region and these paganistic beliefs permeated its way into what was at the beginning monosthetic beliefs soon after the ascension of Christ.

One only needs to do a little research to establish these facts and how polluted and corrupted the words and teachings of Jesus became after he left this earth for even Christian scholars do not deny the unreliablity of the gospels due to the fact that theri true origins are not known nor is the knowledge of when and where they were written.

I pray the Almighty opens your heart to the truth for it cannot be possible that you can continue for too long in your life to believe in such an unfounded illogical concept as is the trinity and the ascribing of partners to the one true God who is not in need of anyone but is self sufficient. Ameen
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-19-2011, 07:04 AM
greetings hamza, you've forced me to post another response within this thread much sooner than i would have liked. but be that as it may, it's best that i replied as soon as i could because after i've shown the errors within the above post, i would very much like for you to try again seeing as your response is certainly one of the better one's that this thread has seen (and once again i encourage all our muslim brothers and sisters to participate).

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
The Qur'an said "third of three" and that is all. It does not say anything else. So it is saying "don't say that God is the third of three persons in the Godhead". No where does it say "third of three Gods". "Third of three" simply means what Baidhawi, Suyuti and Qurtubi said it means: "He is one of them".
look at my response, even if we admit this to be true it still does not change the error seeing as we're talking about the trinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
"The final revelation of Christianity", observes William Blake, "is, therefore, not that Jesus is God, but that "God is Jesus." (Northrop Frye, "The Religious Vision of William Blake", in Toward a New Christianity, edited by Thomas J. J. Altizer, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, 1967, page 40)
hamza, do you know who william blake is? or did you just use the quote because he formulated the christian creed as erroneously as the qur'an? for one thing, william blake was opposed to christianity as it was in his day. furthermore and more importantly, he believed that everyone was god. god is you, god is me, and yes, god is jesus. now let me make one more comment on the matter of sources before we continue: why is it that you brought a heretic* (one that lived a little over a thousand years after muhammad) in order to prove a point as it concerns christianity. did the muslim deity have william blake in mind when it revealed that verse? did it have a sort of new age pantheism in mind? would it be perfectly alright for me to quote from members of the nation of islam to prove a point against sunni muslims? would it be alright for me to quote from shia hadith collections in order to prove a point against sunni muslims? william blake didn't even belief in the trinity and so we must really ask ourselves why you have no qualms with quoting an individual who does not even believe this at all when you would be against the same practise if i did this in respect to sunni muslims and members of the nation of islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
It's also possible that the statement "God is Jesus" isn't a statement of identity, but a statement of predication (using William Lane Craig's terminology). Just as the statement "God is love" (1 John 4:10) does not intend to say that God is an entity called love, but rather has the attribute of love, similarly "God is Jesus" could mean to say that Jesus is an attribute of God.
this is actually where things get good. would it be alright to assume that william craig has not said that "god is jesus"? i'm sure he hasn't and from your post it doesn't look like it and so we must actually look at the meaning contained in the example you have brought forth. you have correctly said that the claim "god is love" does not mean "love is god"** and so we must ask ourselves, what does the former actually mean? "god is love" means that god possesses love, while the statement "god is jesus" means that jesus possesses divinity (this is true only if we follow the grammatical rule of "god is love" because if we don't then it merely means what i said in the first place, i.e. that this refers to the sabellian heresy. i'm only following the example of "god is love" because this statement was brought up by yourself). you'll note that you did say that it is not a statement of identity and as such is therefore a statement of possession (the matter becomes a bit complex because possession and identity could go hand in hand but if we are to follow the very example that you yourself have given then my point is on the right course) and if this is the case then once again we do not have the trinitarian christian understanding that jesus is himself god but merely that jesus was divine (more specifically, jesus is divine though he is himself not god a la "god is love/love is god" or rather "god is love/love is not god"). this leads us to arianism which once again was condemned by the early church. the above was very messy and while no matter how you argue it, the saying still leads to a condemnation of a heresy, i believe that the real condemnation is that of sabellianism simply for the fact that if the source of the qur'an wanted to condemn arianism and more importantly, if his words were not concerning identity but predication along the lines of god is love, then he really could have done so in a much easier manner. your point failed when you brought up the matter of god is love because when this logic is used we end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian doctrine (i wasn't kidding when i said that there are numerous ways to formulate the christian doctrine incorrectly and you have once again simply proved my point).

* ironically, i was the first to say that this passage did not condemn the christian claim but the heresy of sabellianism and as such it could not be used against trinitarians. you now quote a heretic in order to prove (what exactly is your position here. if the passage truly is directed at a heresy then why do you seem to be arguing against my point) that my position is wrong and i'm certainly at a loss here. i've claimed that the formulation is heretical and cannot be used to condemn the proper christian doctrine...you then quote a heretic as a way of somehow undermining my claim and so i must ask you how exactly this disproves my point?

** i could actually end here seeing as even your claim shows that "god is jesus" is not the same thing as "jesus is god" (in the same regard as "god is love" is not the same as "love is god"). this is precisely what i had argued in the first place. that is, if your claim is correct then following the logic you have shown us above, we could not say "jesus is god" (this once again is exactly what arians would believe) and as such cannot be used to condemn the actual christian claim. the more we look to these passages the more they cease to actually be talking about trinitarian (i.e. the biggest group of christians at all).


format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Holding also states:

It is not sufficient to object that because Jesus is a person, he cannot be an "attribute" of the Father. Personhood is not incompatible with being an attribute of another person. Moreover, we should not presume that our inability as humans to have a personal attribute also means that God cannot have one.
actually, you're making him say something he does not actually say. notice that the word attribute is in quotations. he is not using this in the very same sense as "love is an attribute of god" and you even get this understanding when he starts talking about the wisdom of god in old testament literature and how this was to be distinguished from how the attributes of god were commonly spoken of:

"Just as our own words and thoughts come from us and cannot be separated from us, so it is that Jesus cannot be completely separate from the Father. But there is more to this explanation, related to the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality.

We speak of Christ as the "Word" of God, God's "speech" in living form. In Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern thought, words were not merely sounds, or letters on a page; words were things that "had an independent existence and which actually did things."
does goodness have an independent existence other than from god? or does omniscience, or does justice? i certainly don't know how muslims understand this but christians don't believe so. god is the very source of goodness and goodness could not exist independently of him. if christ were merely an attribute in the sense that you speak of then the writer could then not speak of christ as having an independent existence. you will note that if you were to claim, that for instance, justice or goodness etc. had an independent existence from god then we would be right back to euthyphro's dilemma and christians certainly don't agree with such an outcome. from the above, we can see that the author certainly does not mean to use the word in the manner that you try to use it but let us suppose that you were right. what would it prove? did the qur'an have this individual in mind when it revealed this verse? why is that you have been unable to back your points from trinitarian creeds but have consistently used words of heretics, and people who hold no position over other christians. can we find what you are arguing for within the christian creeds and more particularly, those around the time of muhammad? if these passages are not directed against what trinitarians believe then it does not change the fact that we have ourselves no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine for all your references turn out to be condemning something else and never a teaching of the christian church. if what you have presented above is a perfectly good argument then is it alright for me to go to a muslim website which believes that the bible teaches that the christian conception of sonship refers to god having intercourse with mary and bringing this as the position of the qur'an and/or islam? i would be doing the same thing that you have done and yet i doubt that you would agree with this. the fact of the matter is that you have yet to prove your point from the actual teachings of the church. no one denies that you will be able to find things by heretics and layman that might 'prove' your point but the question is whether this is actually taught by trinitarians. all you've shown so far is that we have yet to find an actual condemnation of the christian (and particularly trinitarian doctrine) within the qur'an.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
So even orthodox Christians like Holding believe that Jesus is an attribute of God. Therefore, if someone has the intention of uttering a statement of predication stating "God is Jesus" then he is well within his bounds of stating so. What Shamoun needs to prove is that Allah's intention for saying "God is Jesus" isn't that of predication just like how Allah does in other verses (e.g. Allah is Merciful, that doesn't mean Allah is an entity called Mercy, but rather shares that attribute).
this has already been refuted above. even if we say that this is predication, by the very logic that you've used, the qur'an would then be denying and another heresy; arianism. the matter has not changed, we are still unable to find a condemnation of the christian doctrine within the qur'an.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Why should the Qur'an need to mention the specific beliefs of all Christian donominations over the past 1500 years? Surely if it referred to the beliefs of one particular denomination then other denominations would have stated that it goes against their own beliefs etc .So the Qur'an does not need to go into any great detail about the specific beliefs of Christianity simply because there have been way too many denominations over the past 1500 years and this is even the case in the present day. He simply rejects such absurdities on a theological level.
hamza, you've just changed my question. no one is asking for the qur'an to condemn all various heresies, rather we're simply asking for a passage where the qur'an actually condemns the trinity. it's a bit surprising that it would seem that the qur'an would go into such detailed condemnations--or rather it commits the same misformulations of the trinitarian doctrine as others have held in the past--and yet cannot mention that god is not existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. every single references to the three divine persons that christians supposedly worship is a reference that includes not the holy spirit but rather mary. if we let the qur'an interpret itself then we find that the only trinity detailed within it's pages is one that includes mary. if the qur'an is so busy giving detailed condemnations of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years earlier, then the only logical conclusion is to suppose that it has also condemned the trinity but when we look at what the qur'anic trinity actually is, we find that mary is always included in the list and the holy spirit is never there.

the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity. every christological doctrine turns out to be condemning heresies (rather these are misformulations but quite ironically, by condemning a misformulation of the christological doctrines, it actually succeeded in condemning heresies already condemned by the trinitarians themselves). that said, a major problem with your post is that you sources are inappropriate and if our situations were reversed, you would never accept the words of a heretic or of a layman (when they stand in contrast to what is taught by your religion). can you now try again but this time citing actually trinitarian sources when you wish to make claims which are so against the trinitarian creeds? the matter is quite simple, please simply shows us sources from the creeds of the early church and those people who "invented" the trinity when you make claims which are contrast with how the creeds are rendered. you would tell me the same thing if i were using, sufi, shia, or statements made by members of the nation of islam or even laymen when these are contrary to what is taught.

i'll be waiting for your post hamza.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-19-2011, 05:21 PM
JazakAllahu Khairan brother Hamza, your reply is really good and easy to understand. :)

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity.
Peace brother Sol,

You want us to show from The Quran where the Trinitarian doctrine is clearly condemned. But, you yourselves are not showing from the Bible where is the "TRinitarian concept" mentioned in lucid expression, in spite of me constantly asking you to do so.
If The Bible itself does not speak about the Trinity in one proper place as a full expression, how can you say that The Quran does not mention the trinitarian concept correctly?!?!?
The concept of "Trinity" has no basis at all from The Bible!! Who knows whether it is the Truth or something made up after Jesus?!?! Why should we rely on it and try to find verses from the Quran which condemn it when we know that it is not clearly mentioned in The Bible in the first place ?!?!!?


format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Therefore, I believe we should get back to the original poster's question. From a different angle. How does the Qu'ran represent Christian beliefs.

Here, I'll start. Jesus gave us 2 great commandments that contain the whole of the Law. To Love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind. The second to love your neighbor as yourself.

In essence the first is to love God. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself in short don't treat your neighbor badly.

Does The Qu'ran have a similar set of commandments or hadith to these?
Yes,The Quran does have verses which are Similar to the Decalogue.

(Surah Al An'aam: 151-153)

Mentioned as points below-
1)"Do not take partner with Allah or any thing equal to Him"
2)"Be benevolent to your parents"
3)"Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We who shall provide substance for you as well as for them"
4)"Do not even come near any shameful deeds weather committed openly or secretly"
5)"Do not kill any human' soul whom Allah has forbidden except for a just cause
6)"Do not even come near (touch) the orphan's property, except to improve it, until he or she attains the age of full strength"
7)"Give full measure & weigh with equity. We do not burden any human's soul beyond its capability"
8)"Whenever you speak, speak justly even (if the matter) it concerns (against) a near relative (one near of kin)"
9)"Always fulfill your covenant with Allah"
10)"This is my way (the straight path), then follow it and do not follow other paths. They will scatter you from this (straight) path"

Similar verses from The Christian scriptures- (Exodus 20:2-4) (Exodus 20:12) (Exodus 20:13) (Exodus 20:14) (Exodus 20:13) (Exodus 22:22)(Exodus 20:16) (Exodus 19:5) (Deut. 4:2).
Briefly mentioned below:
1)Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2)Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing...
3)Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain...
4)Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.....
5)Honour thy father and thy mother..
6)Thou shalt not kill.
7)Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8)Thou shalt not steal.
9)Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10)Thou shalt not covet...
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-19-2011, 06:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
does the Qur'an say it is quoting Christians? is that why you are confused? the Qur'an is explaining to ISLAMIC MONOTHEISTS how Christians have "devolved" Allah into the " god the father" of the New Testament, which IS one of the 3 parts of the Christian Trinity. Christians have made their Prophet, Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both of them, as the "son" part of the trinity and their shirk has elevated Jibreel, Peace be upon him, into the "third" part of the triune godhead.
Christians do not believe the angel Gabriel is the third person of the Trinity.

in ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM, if you pray to someone, you have treated them as an "associate" or "partner" of Allah!

are there Christians who pray to Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both him AND Marriam Umm Isa, Peace be upon her?

ABSOLUTELY!
That's because in Islamic Monotheism, you do not acknowledge the possibility that you can pray someone without believing they are God.
Reply

Woodrow
04-19-2011, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UsayIsaIsayGod
Christians do not believe the angel Gabriel is the third person of the Trinity.

That's because in Islamic Monotheism, you do not acknowledge the possibility that you can pray someone without believing they are God.
There does appear to be some difference of opinion, between Muslims and Christians as to what prayer is. We see prayer as being worship and since all prayer is worship and we can only worship Allaah(swt) therefore we can only pray to Allaah(swt)
Reply

Al-manar
04-19-2011, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the word trinity is not there, & "one of three" instead of "three in one".
You are just not with it. Even your shell game can't save you on this one. the word that christians picked to refer to the trinity (Thaluth) which can also be used with 3 human beings as well , is not there ...and it is improper to be used there ,why?

1- You missed that one of the persons,masks ,aspects ....etc( whatever you like to define them with) of the godhead , is called the father ,whom is Synonym with Allah (God) whom you aware that he is identified with throughout the qur'an and islamic tradition.... if ( Allah) is Synonym with (the father),then when the condemning verse says (Allah is one of three) is typical to (the father is one of three) ......

2- look how nonsensical if the word (Thaluth) is followed the father :
if he used the word (thaluth) to convey the meaning ( three in one) ,the passage would be like that:
(Allah is thaluth) typical to (the father is trinity).... while according to you, the father is (one person of the trinity ) not (the trinity) .....

God is Allah nothing more to add ,Quran never suggests Allah to be such general term,rubric that absurbs (father ,son,holy spirit) .........

The verse is not paraphrasing the ( THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD) but attacking the concept , it doesn't believe in such dogma of such rubric that called God who is manifested in three aspects that are called(father,son,holy spirit) ...but God is the father ,and was put in the wrong place besides 2 of his creatures (the Quran has defined jesus as a creature , prophet , and defined the created Gabriel as the holy spirit) each of them believed by christian to be Manifestation of him and divine ,while they aren't ....
the undivine became divine besides the true divine.... and that is one of the forms of shirk....

now I guess you feel suduced to bring the issue of Father,Mary,Jesus (as trinity)..... well, don't be in a hurry ...when I have enough time to put the Arabic Quotations of the inner circle of christians around the prophet(peace be upon him),in English ,analysing 2 verses related , your hopes then, will be evaporated and your dellusions,apparent Ignorance on the topic will be more and more exposed.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-20-2011, 12:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
now I guess you feel suduced to bring the issue of Father,Mary,Jesus (as trinity)..... well, don't be in a hurry ...when I have enough time to put the Arabic Quotations of the inner circle of christians around the prophet(peace be upon him),in English ,analysing 2 verses related , your hopes then, will be evaporated and your dellusions,apparent Ignorance on the topic will be more and more exposed.
greetings al-manar, i certainly don't agree with the above but once more even if we do indeed let you have this point this would still not change anything. even if we allow the muslim position the greatest possible leeway, you still cannot vindicate your holy book:

are these from the qur'an? because in the above you have just argued that the qur'an is being vague and yet from this vagueness you can somehow extract that it was talking about the father, son, and holy spirit when in the entire qur'an any mention of three "deities" always refers to the father, mary, and christ. can you show us a precedent for this al-manar or will you agree with me that there is no such precedent to be found within the qur'an? that said, if the quotations you want to bring up are from the qur'an, then this is all well and good but the fact that you have said that the quote is vague, and yet here you are trying to extract specifics from it then we certainly do have ourselves a problem. so once again, do these quotations come from the qur'an and/or are they from christian sources or from muslim sources (if they do come from christian sources then it is acceptable. you and i both know that it wouldn't at all be hard to make up quotations 200-300 hundred years after the event so as to vindicate the muslim deity)? al-manar, the concept is rather simple, can you show us from the qur'an that there is a condemnation of the trinity. your argument depends on us completely ignoring the precedent that the muslim deity has set for themselves within the qur'an and instead looking for outside sources. why is it that you consistently ignore this simple fact and more importantly, are unable to prove your position from the qur'an?

in the above you seem to be talking about the proper trinity and so i have to ask you how you can even say what you're saying when never in the qur'an is the proper trinity highlighted. i have shown you repeated passages where the three deities that christians supposedly worship always refers to the father, the son, and mary. never does the qur'an speak of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. now which one of us is being improper in his argument here, the person who is sticking specifically to allah's perfect book or the one who needs to go outside of it (to what i'm assuming are quotations 200-300 years removed from the event) in order to try and make the qur'an say something it does not. here is an example of what i'm talking about:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist — it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. — Surah 4:171 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah — Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. — Surah 5:72-75 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me — to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. — Surah 5:116-117 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

"god is not one of three".


my position: given that every reference which details who exactly these three persons are who christians supposedly worship deals with the father, the son, and mary; it follows the rules of grammar and logic to interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones and where the author has remained vague (for we cannot expect him to be detailed at every single time he speaks of the same thing), it is proper to understand his vagueness in light of what has already been shown to be certain.

your position: clearly when the muslim deity is speaking of god not being one of three this is actually directed at the concept of the proper trinity (i.e. of the father, the son, and the holy spirit).

al-manar, one need not be a christian to see that your position is utterly against the position of the qur'an and that you ignore both the context in which every other mention of three deities is presented in and the very precedent that the qur'an sets up for itself. my position is perfectly in keeping with the other statements in the qur'an while yours is not.

let us remember that in all other matters, the qur'an is quite specific (such as the worship of idols; it even gives us the names of these idols in more than one occasion) so are we really supposed to belief that while the general principle of the qur'an has been to be detailed in what it says of the most prevalent beliefs of other religions, when it comes to the trinity it should be all but silent? of course not. if we allow the qur'an to be consistent then we'd see that it did detail the trinity--the only problem is that it got it wrong. this is why you are proposing using outside sources to try to improve on the qur'an seeing as you cannot show from your holy book that it was actually talking about the proper trinity while i, simply from following the very precedent set by the qur'an, can show that it was in error when it spoke of the trinity. the words of an author are understood from the context that he himself has set, we know the context in which every single reference to three deities that christians supposedly worship is directed at and this always is towards a trinity which involves mary. if in the above passage the author was not speaking of the marian trinity then would you not expect the author to have made this clear given that every reference to three persons so far has been one in which mary is included? was the source of the qur'an incapable of such a simple thing?

i must repeat this because we certainly can't get past this fact. from the qur'an you can't find a condemnation of the trinity but instead if you allow the qur'an to be consistent and speak for itself, you invariably end up with a mistake. this is why you try to bring in outside sources because you and i both know that when we examine all passages within the qur'an that deal with the three persons whom christians supposedly worship, they all have to do with a father, a mother and a son. there is exactly no other manner in which the qur'an represents this whenever it speaks of three gods. now instead of following what the qur'an has done in every single passage, you wish to turn around the subject to the matter of things outside the qur'an. can we not let the qur'an speak for itself given that it is a clear book? once again, if you can show from the qur'an that the passage refers to the proper trinity then this is all well and good but if your only option is to ignore everything in the qur'an and then try to make your case using everything but the qur'an then you have just proved my argument. al-manar, with all respect appropriate to such a discussion, please stop running away from the question. if you cannot prove your point from the qur'an than you have proved nothing. the overwhelming evidence is actually in support of my position and this is exactly why you do not even try to prove your point from the qur'an but appeal to outside sources. the question in this thread is simple, how does the qur'an represent the christian belief and the fact that if we look to the qur'an we are met with clear errors is obvious and even implicitly admitted by yourself by the fact that you wish to make your case not from the qur'an but from outside sources when i simply make my case from the qur'an.

you wished to say that the reference was vague, fine, we can agree to this. you wished to say that even though the passage misformulated the trinity that it had no intention of speaking of the trinity, fine we could even allow this as well but even taking all of your points at face value we still have ourselves clear errors (as an aside, notice the number of concessions i've let myself make within this thread and yet the very passages we are discussing are still clear errors. misformulations of the trinity tend to remain misformulations no matter how one tries to interpret them). all you have been doing so far is reinterpreting the words to evade one condemnation but then you lend yourself and the muslim deity to a different condemnation. the words were formulated incorrectly and as such no matter how you'll try to argue your case you'll still end up with an erroneous articulation of the christian doctrine.

that said, can any muslim who is keeping up with this discussion show that the trinitarian doctrine (either as it relates to individual members of the trinity or the trinity as a whole) is being condemned in the qur'an? of course i understand that the qur'an speaks against a trinity but can anyone here show that it is speaking against the proper trinity?

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Peace brother Sol,

You want us to show from The Quran where the Trinitarian doctrine is clearly condemned. But, you yourselves are not showing from the Bible where is the "TRinitarian concept" mentioned in lucid expression, in spite of me constantly asking you to do so.
If The Bible itself does not speak about the Trinity in one proper place as a full expression, how can you say that The Quran does not mention the trinitarian concept correctly?!?!?
The concept of "Trinity" has no basis at all from The Bible!! Who knows whether it is the Truth or something made up after Jesus?!?! Why should we rely on it and try to find verses from the Quran which condemn it when we know that it is not clearly mentioned in The Bible in the first place ?!?!!?
greetings umm abdurrahman and thanks for the response. once again you are trying to change the discussion. the qur'an is trying to condemn a christian doctrine, everyone here is agreed that christians believe in the trinity and so the fact of whether the trinity is contained in the bible is irrelevant because either way, the qur'an should be able to condemn what christians believe. we do not even have to get into a discussion on whether or not the bible teaches the trinity because it is beside the point. even if we say that the trinity was only made up in 325 AD, the source of the qur'an would have had hundreds of years to know exactly what christians believe and so the fact that the qur'an contains such errors is the real problem. this then is why i do not feel like getting into such a discussion because whether we take the christian position (that the trinity is taught in the bible) or the muslim position (that it isn't taught in the bible), we still have clear errors in your holy book.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Yes,The Quran does have verses which are Similar to the Decalogue.
he isn't speaking of the 10 commandments but rather the most important commandments repeated throughout the old and new testament: "To Love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind. The second to love your neighbor as yourself.

In essence the first is to love God. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself in short don't treat your neighbor badly."
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-20-2011, 12:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
There does appear to be some difference of opinion, between Muslims and Christians as to what prayer is. We see prayer as being worship and since all prayer is worship and we can only worship Allaah(swt) therefore we can only pray to Allaah(swt)
I see. You will find that most Christians still hold to some archaic English in their prayers, such as 'thee' and 'thy', 'thou art', etc. -- 'pray' in archaic English can simply mean 'asking'. For instance, in the archaic King James translation of the bible, it is recorded that 'Jesus prayed Simon to set sail' or something like that. Obviously Jesus was not worshiping Simon or believing he was God. ;)
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-20-2011, 01:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza, you've forced me to post another response within this thread much sooner than i would have liked. but be that as it may, it's best that i replied as soon as i could because after i've shown the errors within the above post, i would very much like for you to try again seeing as your response is certainly one of the better one's that this thread has seen (and once again i encourage all our muslim brothers and sisters to participate).


look at my response, even if we admit this to be true it still does not change the error seeing as we're talking about the trinity.


hamza, do you know who william blake is? or did you just use the quote because he formulated the christian creed as erroneously as the qur'an? for one thing, william blake was opposed to christianity as it was in his day. furthermore and more importantly, he believed that everyone was god. god is you, god is me, and yes, god is jesus. now let me make one more comment on the matter of sources before we continue: why is it that you brought a heretic* (one that lived a little over a thousand years after muhammad) in order to prove a point as it concerns christianity. did the muslim deity have william blake in mind when it revealed that verse? did it have a sort of new age pantheism in mind? would it be perfectly alright for me to quote from members of the nation of islam to prove a point against sunni muslims? would it be alright for me to quote from shia hadith collections in order to prove a point against sunni muslims? william blake didn't even belief in the trinity and so we must really ask ourselves why you have no qualms with quoting an individual who does not even believe this at all when you would be against the same practise if i did this in respect to sunni muslims and members of the nation of islam.


this is actually where things get good. would it be alright to assume that william craig has not said that "god is jesus"? i'm sure he hasn't and from your post it doesn't look like it and so we must actually look at the meaning contained in the example you have brought forth. you have correctly said that the claim "god is love" does not mean "love is god"** and so we must ask ourselves, what does the former actually mean? "god is love" means that god possesses love, while the statement "god is jesus" means that jesus possesses divinity (this is true only if we follow the grammatical rule of "god is love" because if we don't then it merely means what i said in the first place, i.e. that this refers to the sabellian heresy. i'm only following the example of "god is love" because this statement was brought up by yourself). you'll note that you did say that it is not a statement of identity and as such is therefore a statement of possession (the matter becomes a bit complex because possession and identity could go hand in hand but if we are to follow the very example that you yourself have given then my point is on the right course) and if this is the case then once again we do not have the trinitarian christian understanding that jesus is himself god but merely that jesus was divine (more specifically, jesus is divine though he is himself not god a la "god is love/love is god" or rather "god is love/love is not god"). this leads us to arianism which once again was condemned by the early church. the above was very messy and while no matter how you argue it, the saying still leads to a condemnation of a heresy, i believe that the real condemnation is that of sabellianism simply for the fact that if the source of the qur'an wanted to condemn arianism and more importantly, if his words were not concerning identity but predication along the lines of god is love, then he really could have done so in a much easier manner. your point failed when you brought up the matter of god is love because when this logic is used we end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian doctrine (i wasn't kidding when i said that there are numerous ways to formulate the christian doctrine incorrectly and you have once again simply proved my point).

* ironically, i was the first to say that this passage did not condemn the christian claim but the heresy of sabellianism and as such it could not be used against trinitarians. you now quote a heretic in order to prove (what exactly is your position here. if the passage truly is directed at a heresy then why do you seem to be arguing against my point) that my position is wrong and i'm certainly at a loss here. i've claimed that the formulation is heretical and cannot be used to condemn the proper christian doctrine...you then quote a heretic as a way of somehow undermining my claim and so i must ask you how exactly this disproves my point?

** i could actually end here seeing as even your claim shows that "god is jesus" is not the same thing as "jesus is god" (in the same regard as "god is love" is not the same as "love is god"). this is precisely what i had argued in the first place. that is, if your claim is correct then following the logic you have shown us above, we could not say "jesus is god" (this once again is exactly what arians would believe) and as such cannot be used to condemn the actual christian claim. the more we look to these passages the more they cease to actually be talking about trinitarian (i.e. the biggest group of christians at all).



actually, you're making him say something he does not actually say. notice that the word attribute is in brackets. he is not using this in the very same sense as "love is an attribute of god" and you even get this understanding when he starts talking about the wisdom of god in old testament literature and how this was to be distinguished from how the attributes of god were commonly spoken of:



does goodness have an independent existence other than from god? or does omniscience, or does justice? i certainly don't know how muslims understand this but christians don't believe so. god is the very source of goodness and goodness could not exist independently of him. if christ were merely an attribute in the sense that you speak of then the writer could then not speak of christ as having an independent existence. you will note that if you were to claim, that for instance, justice or goodness etc. had an independent existence from god then we would be right back to euthyphro's dilemma and christians certainly don't agree with such an outcome. from the above, we can see that the author certainly does not mean to use the word in the manner that you try to use it but let us suppose that you were right. what would it prove? did the qur'an have this individual in mind when it revealed this verse? why is that you have been unable to back your points from trinitarian creeds but have consistently used words of heretics, and people who hold no position over other christians. can we find what you are arguing for within the christian creeds and more particularly, those around the time of muhammad? if these passages are not directed against what trinitarians believe then it does not change the fact that we have ourselves no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine for all your references turn out to be condemning something else and never a teaching of the christian church. if what you have presented above is a perfectly good argument then is it alright for me to go to a muslim website which believes that the bible teaches that the christian conception of sonship refers to god having intercourse with mary and bringing this as the position of the qur'an and/or islam? i would be doing the same thing that you have done and yet i doubt that you would agree with this. the fact of the matter is that you have yet to prove your point from the actual teachings of the church. no one denies that you will be able to find things by heretics and layman that might 'prove' your point but the question is whether this is actually taught by trinitarians. all you've shown so far is that we have yet to find an actual condemnation of the christian (and particularly trinitarian doctrine) within the qur'an.


this has already been refuted above. even if we say that this is predication, by the very logic that you've used, the qur'an would then be denying and another heresy; arianism. the matter has not changed, we are still unable to find a condemnation of the christian doctrine within the qur'an.


hamza, you've just changed my question. no one is asking for the qur'an to condemn all various heresies, rather we're simply asking for a passage where the qur'an actually condemns the trinity. it's a bit surprising that it would seem that the qur'an would go into such detailed condemnations--or rather it commits the same misformulations of the trinitarian doctrine as others have held in the past--and yet cannot mention that god is not existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. every single references to the three divine persons that christians supposedly worship is a reference that includes not the holy spirit but rather mary. if we let the qur'an interpret itself then we find that the only trinity detailed within it's pages is one that includes mary. if the qur'an is so busy giving detailed condemnations of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years earlier, then the only logical conclusion is to suppose that it has also condemned the trinity but when we look at what the qur'anic trinity actually is, we find that mary is always included in the list and the holy spirit is never there.

the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity. every christological doctrine turns out to be condemning heresies (rather these are misformulations but quite ironically, by condemning a misformulation of the christological doctrines, it actually succeeded in condemning heresies already condemned by the trinitarians themselves). that said, a major problem with your post is that you sources are inappropriate and if our situations were reversed, you would never accept the words of a heretic or of a layman (when they stand in contrast to what is taught by your religion). can you now try again but this time citing actually trinitarian sources when you wish to make claims which are so against the trinitarian creeds? the matter is quite simple, please simply shows us sources from the creeds of the early church and those people who "invented" the trinity when you make claims which are contrast with how the creeds are rendered. you would tell me the same thing if i were using, sufi, shia, or statements made by members of the nation of islam or even laymen when these are contrary to what is taught.

i'll be waiting for your post hamza.
Greetings Sol,

What is clearly established from my previous post is that the Qur'an has not made any errors at all simply because it does NOT stipulate or explain what the "three" consist of nor does it give any order of the "three" and nor does it need to in the very first place. If someone is accused of something they do not need to mention the whole concept but you would obviously understand what they are trying to say if they mention a word that indicates the very thing they are accused of in the first place.

In the same way when Allah mentions such a concept in order to condem it why would he need to mention what the three consist of and what order the three go into?

Therefore it is clear that is NO need to go into any detail of the concept of "three" simply because we all understand what is being implied so it is impossible for you or anyone else to falsely say that it has made a mistake simply because it has not go into depth regarding the mention of "three" so how can the verses have made a mistake in the first place when it has not actually said anything wrong at all. Again ithose verses simply stated "do not say that Allah is one of the three" without stipulating what the three consists of and what the order of the three is. So saying this you cannot possibly say that there is a mistake for implying such a thing is a gross error in itself.

Also when looking at the verse in context of the verse where the whole idea of ascribing partners to Allah then why does the Qur'an need to go into detail about the "three" when it is simply rejecting the principle of such a concept in the first place?

Surely if this verse is an error as you falsely state then Christians at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) would have attacked these verses but they never did and nor did any Christians in the past 1000 years or so except a few apologetics who like to imply that which is not there in the first place.

So let us put it this way: The Qur'an has not mentioned anything about the "three" to have made any errors in the first place so your criticism of such verses are nonsensical and do not make sense at all.

So for you to say that these verses are in error is very clearly a gross error in itself. For the only error is your misinterpretation of those verses and that you are trying to make the verses imply that which they do not imply in the first place which is the fact that it is not trying to explain the trinity or stipulate what it consists of or what the order is but it is simply condemning such a concept on a theological level.

Regarding another accusation you have made stating that the Qur'an refers to the fact that the trinity points to Mary being on the the three. Let us see the verse in question:

"And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." Surah Maidah 5:116:

When we look at this verse then it is clear that it is you who has committed the mistake not the Quran, since if anyone reads Surah Maidah 5:116 then it is clear as daylight that they will see that the verse says NOTHING about a Trinity.

So ask yourself Sol where does this verse or any other verse in the Qur'an imply the mention of Mary being part of the trinity? It is no-where here in the above verse, neither does it discuss a triune God. Again as before with the verse mentioning the "One of the three" you have once again misread and misinterpreted this verse. The following verse then goes onto mention the third of the three:

"Those who say, "Allah is the third of three" have most certainly committed a blasphemy. There is no god except the One true God _ Allah! A painful punishment will surely torment those disbelievers who do not quit making such (blasphemous) statements." Surah Maidah 5:73:

Also, let us read Surah Nisa 4:171:

"Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."

Here, there is nothing about Mary in a trinity. So already we can see a problem with your argument, the Quran when it attacks the concept of being "one of three" it implies the Trinity quite clearly, and when it does so it says nothing about Mary being involved within the Trinity. When Quran mentions Mary and Jesus, not a single place discusses a trinity or a 1 in 3 doctrine.

So it is clear that it is you and other Christian apologetics who have falsely implied that these verses refer to Mary being part of "the three" when it does not mention such a thing. So again we see a gross error in your misinterpretation of the verses of the Qur'an.


So the Quran attacks both the Trinity as blasphemy, as well as Christians who have wrongly increased the status of Mary to such a high level that she has become like a god. Here is the proof that some Christians have turned Mary into a godly figure:



"As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I was devoted to Mary. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by sincere people. I prayed the rosary, including rosary novenas. I wore a Brown Scapular and a Miraculous Medal. (You can read about these things in the Glossary, which is Appendix C.) I visited shrines that honor Mary. I had beautiful statues of Mary. I attended special services where we prayed to Mary and recited a litany of titles honoring her."



Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200712140...ryWorship.html


Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm



"It was at Ephesus, the city of the goddess, that the earliest proof is found of an established cult of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and in the council held at Ephesus in A.D. 431 this cult was definitely established as a feature of the orthodox ritual." (James Hastings - Encyclopedia Of Religion & Ethics Part 18 - Kessinger Publishing, 2003 - Page 908).



This sect is called "Mariamites" who believed that Mary is part of the trinity.


"Mariamites. Mariamites (4 syl.). Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. Source: Brewers." (Trinities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases - Inc Icon Group International 2008 - Page 119).


A non-Muslim explains further:

"Among the Arabs, it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and Nazaraens1, and also that of Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the later introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sects had it's name.2 This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were named Mariamites.3 Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran4 as idolatrous, and have a handle to Mohammed to attack the Trinity itself."



1. Epiphan de Haeresi. 1, 1; Haer 40.

2. Idem ibid. 1. 3; Haeres. 75, 79

3. Elmacin Eutych

4. Chap. 5

(George Sale - Koran - Lulu.com 2007 - Page 27).



Also, please refer to: (Tienne Ursin Bouzique - The History of Christianity - General Books LLC, 2009 - Page 29 - Source) and (William Cooke Taylor - Readings In Biography: A Selection Of The Lives Of Eminent Men Of All Nations - J.W. Parker, 1834 - Page 192 - Source).


So it is quite clear looking at these sources that many Christians did treat Mary as a divine godly being, hence the Quran condemned this blasphemous practice, as well as condemning the concept of the Trinity for the Quran condemns both. However, if we interpret it for arguments sake that the verses are referring to Mary being part of the trinity, this can be just one of the interpretations which refute the different concepts of the trinity. Let's not forget that during the revelation of the Holy Quran, the Protestant sect had not yet existed. Various other sects existed, which held different theological views which this Quranic verse in question refutes.



Let us look at Maulana Maududi's commentary on Surah Maidah verse 5:116:

"The Christians were not content merely with deifying Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They even turned Mary, the mother of Jesus, into a full-fledged object of worship. The Bible does not contain even the remotest suggestion that Mary was in any way either divine or superhuman. During the first three centuries after the Messiah, such a concept was totally alien to Christian thinking. Towards the end of the third century of the Christian era, however, some theologians of Alexandria employed, for the first time, the expression 'Mother of God' in connection with Mary. Subsequently, belief in Mary's divinity and the practice of Mariolatry began to spread among Christians. Even then, however, the Church was not prepared to accord official approval to this belief and denounced the Mariolaters as heretics. It was not until the Council of Ephesus in 431 that the Church officially used the expression 'Mother of God' for Mary. The result was that Mariolatry began to spread fast within the Church itself, so much so that, by the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, Mary had become so important a deity that she obscured even the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Statues of Mary adorned the cathedrals. She became the object of rites and worship. People addressed their prayers to her. She was regarded as the one who responded to people's supplications, who heeded people's grievances and complaints, who relieved them in distress, who provided support and succour to the helpless. For a devout Christian there could be no greater source of comfort and inner strength than the belief that he enjoyed the support and patronage of the 'Mother of God'. In the preamble of his code, Justinian had declared Mary to be the defender and supporter of his empire, and his general, Marses, sought Mary's guidance on the battlefield. Heraclius, a contemporary of the Prophet (peace be on him), had a picture of Mary on his standard and he was confident that by her grace the standard would never be lowered. Several centuries later the Protestants argued strongly against Mariolatry during the movement which led to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has, nevertheless, managed so far to cling to Mariolatry in one form or another."

We know the verse don't specifically refer to any trinity, but what it does do is condemn the worship of others besides the one true God. So you cannot limit the verse in question (Surah Maidah 5:116) to refer to only the Mariamite trinity, as it's condemnation against others besides God includes all concepts of the trinity.


"Those who say, "Allah is the third of three" have most certainly committed a blasphemy. There is no god except the One true God Allah! A painful punishment will surely torment those disbelievers who do not quit making such (blasphemous) statements.Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" Surah Maidah 5:73-75:


So some Christians may assert from this, where Mary is mentioned, that the Quran does believe that Mary was part of the Trinity. They attest that since the Quran makes the point that both Mary and Jesus ate food, the Quran here is trying to disprove divinity from both Jesus and Mary, and with the Trinity being mentioned in Surah Maidah 5:73, this must mean the author thought that Mary was in the Trinity.

Some Christians believe in Mary's Divine Motherhood that she was the mother of God. Hence the Quran here is trying to show the irrationality in such a belief, of a 3 in 1 God. Moreover, the Quran makes you think that: how can Mary have a divine motherhood due to giving birth to a birth of Jesus, when Mary was a normal lady like every other lady, eating food and so on. This can NOT be attributed to God. According to some Christians, Jesus' "so called" divinity and the Trinity itself is what makes Mary so special and given a divine status. Quran implies that such a thing is ludicrous.

It goes on to state the fact that Jesus was no more than an apostle and many went away before him, implying Jesus was ONLY A HUMAN like those who came before him. Though his mother gave birth to him even though she was a virgin, Quran implies Mary was not divine, and neither is Jesus.

So in conclusion you will not find a SINGLE verse which discusses the trinity of Mary in Quran. The only 2 verses which imply the"trinity" are in: Surah Nisa 4:171 and Surah Maidah 5:73, which rejects this trinitarian polytheistic doctrine, so there is no contradiction whatsoever but simply a gross error on your part.

So from our discussion the following can be concluded:

1. The Qur'an commits NO mistake or error whatsoever when it condems the concept of being one of the three on a theological level so clearly you have made a gross error in the intepretation of these verses just like you made a gross error in trying to imply that the arabic transliteration implied that the "third of the three" meant nthird in line when it clearly meant one of the three.

2. NOWHERE does the Qur'an mention or even imply that Mary is part of the trinity but again condems the concept of Mary being attributed to divinity so again this is a gross error on your part.


So in conclusion you have committed some very major errors in implying that these verses meant that which they do not mean so there is no doubt for all to see that these alleged errors that you accuse the verses of are actually gross errors of misinterpretation on your part. Hope that clarifies matters for you on the REAL meanings of the above verses.

So return to the worship of the one true God who is in no need of any partners, sons, daughters or mothers and worship ONLY him, and supplicate to him without ascribing partners to him for he is self sufficient and the creator and Master of the universe and everything it contains.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.



Thank you and may Allah guide all to the truth. Ameen
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-20-2011, 03:20 AM
greetings hamza, i will refrain from quoting the majority of your post and merely keep myself to the thrust of your argument. if you say that the verse does not talk about the trinity then you are still in trouble for the muslim position has now become that the verse should be read "god is not one of three" (surah 5:73). now look at the following surah:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist — it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. — Surah 4:171 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

what is it stating? clearly even the simple mention of three refers to the father, the mother, and the son instead of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. your main argument was that seeing as the word trinity isn't explicitly mentioned then we need not suppose that the qur'an is talking about the trinity (this logic is quite faulty by the way but let us ignore the problems with this at this time) but in the above we clearly have ourselves a definition of what exactly "three" refers to. if as muslims now will argue, the verse should be rendered one of three, then when we look at all the other passages, we can clearly see that every single reference of god being one of three has to do with mary. hamza, the very verses you cite all speak against three divine persons. your argument is that seeing as the word trinity is not there, we cannot say that the qur'an speaks of the trinity (sure, if you want to argue that way we can even do so if you'd like). yet the problem is that the very same language that is always used in regards to mary being one of the three divine persons whom christians worship is used in a single (vague, you would argue) surah and so what are we to do? are we supposed to go against the precedence that the author himself has set throughout the entire book and suddenly claim that the passage in question speaks against the proper trinity when throughout the entire islamic scripture any reference to three deities has always been in regards of a father, a mother, and a son or do we simply interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones?

it is more than obvious that the qur'an did understand the trinity to consist of the father, the son, and mary but we don't even necessarily have to admit this point in order for my argument to work (rather, we can simply go with the muslim position that the statement simply refers to three individuals). do you not wonder why it is that any way the matter is argued, the muslim argument still ends up being in a bind? the fact is that you're trying to justify a misformulation and short of changing the words (which is the only way you'll end up being correct) you'll always fall along the lines of another heresy and/or wrong point. once again your point is predicated on the fact that seeing as the exact language of the qur'an never speaks of the trinity in those passages then we shouldn't either. alright sure, but then this still would also mean that given that the exact language (i.e. that is, "three") is used in other passages to speak of the worship of the father, the son and mary then we should interpret any mention of three in light of what the qur'an has already said and when this is done; we once again find ourselves with another error in the qur'an. if you disagree with this then i must ask you, does the qur'an ever speak of the trinity as the father, the son, and the holy spirit? so if we are going to argue from what is actually present in the text (that is, the exact language) then you have just shot yourself in the foot. from the language that is actually present in the text, we find merely another instance of worship that includes mary as one of the divine persons. your point can only work if you can find a reference towards three deities that speaks of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. if this were the case, you could then say, "look, the exact language is used to speak of the proper trinity and so we should understand these other references as including a condemnation of the trinity" but of course the problem is that there is no such reference. so even when you try to argue from what is only exactly present in the qur'an, your point still fails. this is why al-manar made known that he will appeal to sources outside of the qur'an to prove his point on the trinity being condemned in the qur'an because he cannot do so from merely the exact language of the qur'an while i can indeed prove my position from that very language.

i see that you have brought in the issue of marian worship and i would direct you to my previous posts in this thread; i have already spoken on the matter and shown how even then your point could not work. if you do find something wrong with my words could you please quote teh appropriate section because as is, i fail to see how any of what you have said saves your position from my point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Some Christians believe in Mary's Divine Motherhood that she was the mother of God. Hence the Quran here is trying to show the irrationality in such a belief, of a 3 in 1 God. Moreover, the Quran makes you think that: how can Mary have a divine motherhood due to giving birth to a birth of Jesus, when Mary was a normal lady like every other lady, eating food and so on. This can NOT be attributed to God. According to some Christians, Jesus' "so called" divinity and the Trinity itself is what makes Mary so special and given a divine status. Quran implies that such a thing is ludicrous.
hamza, clearly you're talking about things that you don't really understand. almost all trinitarians believe that mary is the mother of god (the theotokos) but this doesn't mean divine motherhood. she is the mother of god in the respect that christ who is himself god, chose to enter his creation through the conduit of a human birth and as such she is his mother in his humanity (and therefore the mother of god in the respect that christ is god and she is his human mother). you take the title mother of god and then suppose that she must be divine while it is only a term that speaks of birthing the human christ. if the qur'an is actually condemning this along the lines of divine motherhood then it would be an error with the qur'an because christians don't say that the title, theotokos, invests mary with any divinity. you have managed to create another problem for yourself and the qur'an.

please read my other post concerning marian worship to see the full argument. actually, here it is:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i just noticed the above. first off, there is no proof that collyridians had an altered trinity which substituted mary for the holy spirit. where are you getting this? sure they worshiped mary as a goddess but this is not the same as adding her to the trinity. if anything they would now possess two gods, the one triune god and mary. the biggest source of information we have one this heresy comes from the panarion and nowhere does it say that mary became a member of the trinity. furthermore, this heresy was present in 375 AD, there is absolutely no evidence that it still existed in the time of muhammad. if it were the case that it existed, where are the christian texts which date to the time of the islamic prophet which speak concerning this heresy? this in itself is one of the most important points. there is absolutely no text which condemns the practices of christians who worship mary during the time of the prophet; if collyridianism still existed then it would have been condemned among the other heresies but it is not. so once again we have a claim that is completely unsupported. what is likely is that after this heresy died out, it was still within the "thought-world" of the arabs and because of these heretics, the arabs would have thought that the trinity consisted of a father, a mother and a son. this explains why, while there are condemnations of an improper trinity consisting of the father, mary and christ within the qur'an, there is absolutely no condemnation of the proper trinity (consisting of the father, the son, and the holy spirit). we cannot ignore this point. why would the muslim deity not mention that the holy spirit was only the angel gabriel and not divine? why is there no such condemnation within the qur'an? the simple answer is because the source of the qur'an simply did not possess accurate knowledge of the trinity and thought that the trinity included mary and not the holy spirit. if you don't believe this then simply read through the qur'an and tell us what is the only type of "trinity" which is condemned within the qur'an? it certainly isn't the proper trinity.
hamza, i had asked you if you could show us evidence for your position from the christian creeds etc. and so far you have failed to do so. you have quoted everything from heretics, to other common laymen in order to prove your position but where are the official doctrines of christianity? you try to use the concept of the theotokos but then only show that you have misunderstood it and if what you say is indeed true then you have created another problem for your qur'an (not to mention the other problems highlighted in my previous response to you. i still haven't gotten a response from you on the matter of the "god is jesus" problem in the qur'an etc.).
Reply

Woodrow
04-20-2011, 04:20 AM
One problem in comparing Christian beliefs as stated in the Qur'an is in trying to understand what is the doctrine of those who call themselves Christian. What is Christianity to one is heresy to another. Which of these is Christianity?

http://www.buildingcommunity.org/

http://lds.org/?lang=eng

http://www.watchtower.org/

http://www.nazarene.org/

http://www.goarch.org/

http://www.uua.org/

Now it is true that many of the Christians beliefs mentioned in the Quran are considered heretical. Yet at one time and even in some cases continuing to today they were actual beliefs by some who used the name of Christian. Keep in mind that to a heretic, the other person is the heretic.

In the past it was the discretion of the Popes to label any detractors from Catholicism as being heretical. To about 50% of today's Christians anybody who is not Roman Catholic is a heretic.

How does one define a Christian and what justification is there to say that any descriptions in the Quran, of the Trinity and/or of Christianity, do not apply to at least some who believed they were/are the true Christians?
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-20-2011, 05:19 AM
greetings woodrow, within this discussion we are speaking of the most prevalent beliefs of the religions of others. polytheism wasn't exactly uniform either but the qur'an and the bible do condemn the most prevalent form of polytheism. along the same token, one would expect the qur'an to condemn the most prevalent form of christianity and the teaching which is most associated with it (even the muslim members on this forum betray such an understanding seeing as topics within this subforum tend to degenerate into discussions of the trinity. as such, we all indeed recognize what the most prevalent christian belief is) yet when we turn to the muslim holy book, we find no such condemnation present. instead what we are met with are either complete misformulations of trinitarian doctrine or an agreement with the prior condemnations from trinitarians as it concerns various heresies. if i were to condemn islam, would i be busy condemning the faults with the nation of islam, with sufi muslims, with the ahmadiyyah sect etc.? no, i would first of all condemn sunni islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
In the past it was the discretion of the Popes to label any detractors from Catholicism as being heretical. To about 50% of today's Christians anybody who is not Roman Catholic is a heretic.
the vatican does not classify protestants as heretical. rather separated brethren.

but once again, we are not asking for the qur'an to denounce every doctrine held by various denominations but are simply talking about the matter of the trinity. it has been argued that the qur'an was condemning a type of marian trinity and that is all well and good, yet there is no proof that collyridians were around at the time of the islamic prophet and the evidence actually lends itself against such a notion. so if the muslim deity was so interested in a group that died out long before the arrival of the islamic prophet, if he is so interested in condemning heresies (sabellianism, arianism etc.) which were condemned long before the message of islam then why can we find no condemnation of the father, the son, and the holy spirit?

i'm perfectly fine with saying that the qur'an is condemning these other groups whom trinitarians condemned long before the message of islam (i did mention something to such an effect repeatedly in my posts), but i wager that as a muslim, you wouldn't want to stop there. if i am correct then you would like to say that the trinitarian doctrines themselves are condemned and as we have seen there is no such warrant within the qur'an. if we are to argue on the grounds of explicit condemnation (such as hamza seems to argue) then the qur'an does not contain any condemnation of the proper trinity. if we are to argue from implicit condemnation, then the qur'an has the wrong trinity. either way, we do not possess a condemnation of the proper trinity. i must once again repeat the fact that aside from this, we have other errors concerning the divinity of christ ("jesus is god/god is jesus") and the matter of divine motherhood (seeing as hamza claimed that the qur'an was attacking the supposed divinity of mary incorrectly along the lines of the theotokos title.) etc.

once again, i'm perfectly alright with saying that the qur'an joins trinitarians in condemning the very heresies that they condemned centuries before the islamic prophet began spreading his message, but i cannot agree that there is any condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine.
Reply

Woodrow
04-20-2011, 06:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings woodrow, within this discussion we are speaking of the most prevalent beliefs of the religions of others. polytheism wasn't exactly uniform either but the qur'an and the bible do condemn the most prevalent form of polytheism. along the same token, one would expect the qur'an to condemn the most prevalent form of christianity and the teaching which is most associated with it (even the muslim members on this forum betray such an understanding seeing as topics within this subforum tend to degenerate into discussions of the trinity. as such, we all indeed recognize what the most prevalent christian belief is) yet when we turn to the muslim holy book, we find no such condemnation present. instead what we are met with are either complete misformulations of trinitarian doctrine or an agreement with the prior condemnations from trinitarians as it concerns various heresies. if i were to condemn islam, would i be busy condemning the faults with the nation of islam, with sufi muslims, with the ahmadiyyah sect etc.? no, i would first of all condemn sunni islam.


the vatican does not classify protestants as heretical. rather separated brethren.

but once again, we are not asking for the qur'an to denounce every doctrine held by various denominations but are simply talking about the matter of the trinity. it has been argued that the qur'an was condemning a type of marian trinity and that is all well and good, yet there is no proof that collyridians were around at the time of the islamic prophet and the evidence actually lends itself against such a notion. so if the muslim deity was so interested in a group that died out long before the arrival of the islamic prophet, if he is so interested in condemning heresies (sabellianism, arianism etc.) which were condemned long before the message of islam then why can we find no condemnation of the father, the son, and the holy spirit?

i'm perfectly fine with saying that the qur'an is condemning these other groups whom trinitarians condemned long before the message of islam (i did mention something to such an effect repeatedly in my posts), but i wager that as a muslim, you wouldn't want to stop there. if i am correct then you would like to say that the trinitarian doctrines themselves are condemned and as we have seen there is no such warrant within the qur'an. if we are to argue on the grounds of explicit condemnation (such as hamza seems to argue) then the qur'an does not contain any condemnation of the proper trinity. if we are to argue from implicit condemnation, then the qur'an has the wrong trinity. either way, we do not possess a condemnation of the proper trinity. i must once again repeat the fact that aside from this, we have other errors concerning the divinity of christ ("jesus is god/god is jesus") and the matter of divine motherhood (seeing as hamza claimed that the qur'an was attacking the supposed divinity of mary incorrectly along the lines of the theotokos title.) etc.

once again, i'm perfectly alright with saying that the qur'an joins trinitarians in condemning the very heresies that they condemned centuries before the islamic prophet began spreading his message, but i cannot agree that there is any condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine.
I do thank you for the peaceful reply. I believe that we can now sum up our major disagreement into one easily understood
statement, based upon what you wrote:

but i cannot agree that there is any condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine.
I think it is safe to assume we both agree the Quran does condemn polytheism. So it seems our point of argument is over the nature of the Trinity. Is it or is it not polytheism?

You and probably most Christians contend it is not. Myself and probably most Muslims contend it is.

So we don't spin our wheels in the wrong direction I will list what I think you believe and I already agree you do believe these to be true.

1. Christians believe they worship only one God(swt)

2. Christians believe The Trinity is a single entity and only one uncreated, eternal being, with no beginning and no end.

What I see and contend the trinity to be, is based upon these statements I often hear from Christians.

a. None shall come to the father, except through the Son.

b. God(swt) sacrificed his only begotten son, so that sins may be forgiven.

c. and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus(as) in the form of a Dove.

d. None but the father, not even the son shall know the hour

e. And every knee shall bow before the son.

f. And I shall send another to comfort mankind

g. and Jesus(as) said “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me"

No matter what a Christians claims he is doing, the reality is he is worshiping three separate entities. Each is a separate entity, with different attributes and Characteristics. The Father is not and can not be the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be the Son nor the Father and the Son can not be the Father nor the Holy Spirit. For them to be the same being reduces the statements a-g as redundant at best, nonsensical at worse.

The Trinity is a singularity in concept, but polytheistic in practice.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-20-2011, 07:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings umm abdurrahman and thanks for the response. once again you are trying to change the discussion. the qur'an is trying to condemn a christian doctrine, everyone here is agreed that christians believe in the trinity and so the fact of whether the trinity is contained in the bible is irrelevant because either way, the qur'an should be able to condemn what christians believe. we do not even have to get into a discussion on whether or not the bible teaches the trinity because it is beside the point. even if we say that the trinity was only made up in 325 AD, the source of the qur'an would have had hundreds of years to know exactly what christians believe and so the fact that the qur'an contains such errors is the real problem. this then is why i do not feel like getting into such a discussion because whether we take the christian position (that the trinity is taught in the bible) or the muslim position (that it isn't taught in the bible), we still have clear errors in your holy book.
Greetings of Peace to you too.

Look brother, you are stubborn on your claim of the Glorious Quran to be incorrect on the concept of Trinity. I do not want to ask you yet again, where in The Bible is the Trinity mentioned in clear expression.

Let's just set aside everything, and look at The Holy Bible and The Glorious Quran as Words of God Almighty.
What is the purpose of these Books? To Guide mankind. Because we were brought to life and before that we were nothing at all, The purpose of our life is to worship God Alone without ascribing partners to Him. We were born one fine day and we would die one fine day. Basically, we humans are nothing but mere mortal beings.
When there is only ONE GOD, Who Alone created us all, it is so "WRONG" on our part to argue about His divinity, to argue about His Books, to argue about how He exists, to interpret His Words that suits our position, and to interpolate His Words!!!
Lets just give an example, you created a laptop all alone, but people do not follow the manual that you gave along with it, they duplicated your product and gave the credit to others, Is it justifiable? NO!! Then how can we mere human beings ARGUE about issues related to His Divine Being??

Nobody said that The OT and The NT are totally interpolated. They are the Words of God, no doubt about it. Before the coming of the prophet Muhammad pbuh, our religion was that of Moses and that of Jesus peace be upon them. But, when The Quran was revealed, It guided us to believe in the last messenger, and The Final Revelation of Allah Glorified be He. The OT and NT also talk about Prophet Muhammad pbuh, we cannot deny it, the clear proofs prohibit us from denying the fact!!

The matter became complicated, when the people of The book refused to accept Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Why? Just because he is from Arabia? and they wanted someone from them?? How ironic it is, The Author of the Torah, The Injeel and The Quran is the same, and yet we humans make stuff complicated and accept only what suits us. We accept one Book and deny the other Books written by the same Author.


It is a really sad state of Affairs. I seek forgiveness and refuge in God Almighty.

I just pray to God to Guide us all to The Truth.
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-20-2011, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
So we don't spin our wheels in the wrong direction I will list what I think you believe and I already agree you do believe these to be true.
Okay. :D

1. Christians believe they worship only one God(swt)
Most certainly! :shade:

2. Christians believe The Trinity is a single entity and only one uncreated, eternal being, with no beginning and no end.
Yes.

No matter what a Christians claims he is doing, the reality is he is worshiping three separate entities. Each is a separate entity, with different attributes and Characteristics.
Incorrect: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not viewed as separate beings, but as one being which executes one divine operation as expressed through the three distinct persons.

For instance:
1. A single dancer performs a single dance involving feet, arms, and torso;
2. the feet are no less human than the arms or torso,
3. the arms are no less human than the torso or feet,
4. nor is the torso any less human than the feet or arms.

Clearly no analogy can match up to the great Diving Being who is God, but I tried.
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-20-2011, 04:24 PM
EDIT: scratch that analogy of mine altogether. The three persons are not merely 'parts' which make up a 'whole'.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-22-2011, 03:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I think it is safe to assume we both agree the Quran does condemn polytheism. So it seems our point of argument is over the nature of the Trinity. Is it or is it not polytheism?
greetings woodrow and it is always a pleasure. it would seem that our discussion has shifted rather slightly and moreover, it now deals with an implicit condemnation rather than an explicit one. i don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with this but given that the qur'an makes what are either clear errors or condemnations of non-trinitarian doctrines (which would themselves be polytheistic) makes one believe that even if we were to say that the trinity is condemned under the banner of polytheism; the fact that the source of the qur'an goes out of it's way to particularly mention various heresies even though these would have been included in the condemnation of polytheism does make one wonder why we should then be be unable to find a condemnation of the trinity even if it were to be claimed that it is condemned under the banner of polytheism. once again, simply from following the very precedent that the qur'an sets for itself, we find problems with the above argument. what you propose simply is not in keeping with the modus operandi of the qur'an while my claim certainly is.

furthermore, this shift in subject matter isn't particularly good for our discussion because of its imprecise nature. while the matter of whether we can find condemnations of the trinity itself within the qur'an is quite clear (the answer being that we can't), the answer concerning whether the trinity is polytheistic or not largely relies on our biases and we have already decided this for ourselves. as such, this is more a means a way of finding a way for the qur'an to condemn the trinity rather than anything else. but, such a discussion is indeed important seeing as whatever one might believe, if they cannot prove that the trinity is polytheistic, they would not be able to make such claims. now woodrow, i'm sure that you are aware of the examples that i will bring up concerning the coherence and the oneness that the trinity attests to so before i do so, i should say a word concerning your examples.

within the list you have brought forth, b, c, and e are the only things that i would see as somewhat and/or necessarily speaking of a triune god. all the other examples don't have to be interpreted in such a light and f in particular i do not believe is actually in the bible (you seem to be alluding to the paraclete in john's gospel but the paraclete was to be sent to the followers of christ and not mankind in general. in fact, 'mankind' would not be able to accept him, see him, nor hear him because they have not believed in the son). anyway, as far as examples for the trinity go, these are not particularly strong ones and certainly ignore any old testament references but anyway that is not important i suppose.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
No matter what a Christians claims he is doing, the reality is he is worshiping three separate entities. Each is a separate entity, with different attributes and Characteristics.
i have contested this point in another thread and if i remember correctly, you have not responded to this yet (i may be wrong, it's been a while). there is no warrant to say that each has different attributes or even characteristics. the bible does not say this and in fact anything that is true of the divine father is true of the divine son, and the spirit. all the prerogatives of god apply equally and fully to these three. neither does the bible call them separate, they are distinct and there is a world of difference between being separate and distinct. i feel that i should just reproduce my response to you in the other thread here seeing as i did go into the matter in a bit more detail. here it is again:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
( a ) yes, the christian conception is certainly not three attributes of a single entity for then we would have a disaster. the distinctions within the being of god are not to be mistaken for attributes. turning back to our example of space: length, width, and height are not attributes of space per se but rather distinctions within the one space. these distinctions possess in their being all the prerogatives of space (i.e. the attributes). they are the possessors of the attributes of space and not attributes themselves. the same is true of the members of the trinity. the attributes of god are omnipotence, aseity, omniscience, omnipresence (though you would disagree with this one), omni-benevolence, omnisapience et cetera. neither are these persons separate but rather distinct. since they all subsist within the single being of god neither can actually be separate from the other (for none can somehow divest himself of the divine essence which is what is needed for them to be separate). once again i bring up the example of space because when we keep these explanations 'concrete' we find that the doctrine is without reproach: length, width, height are not separate but rather distinct--these three exist within the being of space and can no more cease being the one true space than to cease being interrelated to one another.

( b ) no, the members of the trinity all have the same abilities (that is, they all possess the same attributes). what one member can do, the others can do as well seeing as they subsist in the same essence and comprise the single divine being (by this i mean to say that seeing as one's attributes are determined by one's essence, it is impossible to subsist within the single essence and not possess the same attributes). yet it is true that each member does indeed take on particular roles in salvation history (such that it is the son who was crucified etc.) but the matter of roles does not detract from the ontological equality possessed by these as it regards their nature. my very first job was working at a fast-food restaurant and there were three of us in the kitchen making the food (what a coincidence). each person had a specific role that they were assigned to do and while we worked as such, we each were fully capable of doing the job of the other. while we did have specific roles, it was not because we lacked the ability to perform any of the other roles.

( c ) it is true that each member of the trinity can function 'separately' from the other, yet given that there is only a single divine will, we must identify what exactly we mean by separate. each member of the trinity knows the others full well and there is a mutual indwelling between these (each exists within the other, hence why we cannot really speak of separate persons but rather distinct persons). given the single divine will, none can act in opposition to the others for they all comprise the single divine being who--while existent as 3 real persons--shares a single divine will between these.
i know see that you did respond but your response did not prove your point. anyway, if we are to say that the trinity is polytheistic then there should be a logical warrant for doing so and this is what has never been shown in any discussions on the matter that i have participated in.


format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Let's just set aside everything, and look at The Holy Bible and The Glorious Quran as Words of God Almighty. [...] The matter became complicated, when the people of The book refused to accept Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Why? Just because he is from Arabia? and they wanted someone from them?? How ironic it is, The Author of the Torah, The Injeel and The Quran is the same, and yet we humans make stuff complicated and accept only what suits us. We accept one Book and deny the other Books written by the same Author.
greetings umm abdurrahman (i wish that i could shorten this somehow). i cannot simply accept the qur'an as god's word seeing as i have never seen anything divine about it. it certainly is not in keeping with the bible and as such i cannot accept it. furthermore, though you claim that your position in the above is to accept the bible as god's word you are really saying not the bible that i hold in my hand but rather some other mythical bible. as such, you as well are not accepting my bible and as such the above is rather ambiguous if not deceiving (by this i certainly don't mean that you are being deceiving but merely that the above can quite easily lend itself to misinterpretation. i do not at all wish to call your character into question here and i'm sorry if it seems like i have). so on that note, neither of us have accepted each other's holy books as coming from god. your post seems to claim as fact that the qur'an is from god and while this may logically be so, you cannot simply claim this as a fact because within such a discussion, this is exactly part of what is being contested. so no, in my eyes the author of the qur'an is not the same as the author of the bible and as such your point simply cannot work as formulated in the above.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
I seek forgiveness and refuge in God Almighty. I just pray to God to Guide us all to The Truth.
once again, we can certainly agree on this and even come to a position of unity on this matter. i should say that i enjoy the way you have ended your post.
Reply

Woodrow
04-22-2011, 05:35 AM
Peace Sol,

I do acknowledge I have a bad habit of often shifting the direction of a discussion. for lack of any legitimate excuse I'll plead guilty as charged with the extenuating circumstance of having a short attention span.

At the moment because of time limitations in my daily life I'll try to tackle only one area at a time and Insha Allaah stay focused on the one subject. I am not trying to cover up or derail your other points and as time allows I will come back to them. but for the moment I would like to just address what may be the shortest.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus



i know see that you did respond but your response did not prove your point. anyway, if we are to say that the trinity is polytheistic then there should be a logical warrant for doing so and this is what has never been shown in any discussions on the matter that i have participated in.

The immediate obstacle to understanding each other is our individual concept as to what the trinity is. But we can try.

I see the Christian concept of Trinity to be identical with the Hindu concept of their Triune god. A Hindu see's himself as being monotheistic and the 3 gods of Brahm, Vishnu and Siva to be a single god. At the moment I would love to know the best argument a Christian would use to show that Hinduism is polytheistic as I believe that would be the best argument to show Christianity is polytheistic.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-22-2011, 06:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I see the Christian concept of Trinity to be identical with the Hindu concept of their Triune god. A Hindu see's himself as being monotheistic and the 3 gods of Brahm, Vishnu and Siva to be a single god. At the moment I would love to know the best argument a Christian would use to show that Hinduism is polytheistic as I believe that would be the best argument to show Christianity is polytheistic.
this is actually a really good point and i can see myself making an argument along these lines were i a muslim. before continuing i should mention that i know even less of hinduism then i do of islam. that said, hinduism cannot easily be reduced to polytheism seeing as that would wholly depend on which type of hinduism is being referred to but let us accept at this moment that what is being discussed is that strain which both you and i would commonly call polytheistic. to now speak of your brahm, vishnu, and siva example i will first say this: if it were indeed the case that these constituted a single god and as such monotheism, then it would not matter to me because it is not monotheism that saves an individual. according to the bible, the demons all believe in the one true god and yet they are still not saved. monotheism includes the concepts of pantheism in which everything is the one god (notice that this is distinct from everything is a god, but rather everything is god), panentheism (in which everything is indeed the one god yet this one god has elements of his being which are distinct from creation), monism (which is more commonly associated with hinduism) to only name a few. as such, to the christian one of the most important questions is not whether a religion is monotheistic but rather what type of monotheism is being adhered to. i believe that muslims are monotheists but i simply believe that this is the wrong kind of monotheism and as such could not subscribe to it.

i believe that where the christian and muslim differ on the matter is that even if the claim was made that a religion was monotheistic, the christian could believe this and still have faults with their belief because it is the type of monotheism that matters. the muslim on the other hand cannot accept that certain other beliefs are monotheistic because once they admit that the hindu trimurti is monotheistic then they have largely lost any grounds of criticising this particular notion. to the muslim the question is more directed towards oneness, to the christian it is a step further to the question of what type of oneness are we talking about. i believe that this is most evident in the fact that muslims in general will not admit that the trinity is an example of oneness because when such an admittance is acknowledged, they then can no longer criticize it for the qur'an mainly criticizes the lack of oneness and not what kind of oneness is being spoken of.

now, the above does rather little in answering your question and so i would like to give you a proper answer (i did feel that the above was necessary in order to show the different ways that christians and muslims approach such a topic). it is my belief that the hindu trimurti is indeed polytheistic because the members do not subsist within the other and neither do they share one divine will. the hindu gods fight amongst themselves and this clearly shows that there is no unity among them. simply because they have three chief gods does not in fact make this a trinity (in the full sense of the word). even if they did decide to work in harmony, this would still not be a trinity. the mormon conception of god is vastly different than the christian one in that they believe in a trinity of some sort but reject the notion that christ or the holy spirit are "as much god" as the father. they speak of one god in the sense that they all agree on doing a certain task---this is not what we christians believe in. simply because three people agree to take the bus home from work does not suddenly make these three people one being. but anyway, we are not speaking of mormonism but rather hinduism. once again, the first problem is that these individuals do not share the same will between them but do in fact contradict, fight, and go against each other. furthermore, they do not subsist within each other. unlike the father, the son, and the holy spirit, the hindu 'trinity' (if you will) is one in which brahma, vishnu and shiva do not exist within one another but are wholly separate. in christianity, the father exists in the son, the son exists in the father and the same is true for the holy spirit. they each subsist within the single essence and as such are not separate but rather distinct. furthermore, each one of these does different things. the brahma creates, vishnu preserves and shiva destroys. yet in the trinity, it is the son who creates, the father who creates, and the holy spirit who creates. creation was an act of god and the bible is clear that the act of this one god was fulfilled by the three persons of the trinity. the members of the christian trinity do not possess different powers or attributes, yet the members of the trimurti do. anyway i'll stop here and see what the response in this thread will be. though i should note that the trimurti is not exactly a doctrine of hinduism as the trinity is, but is simply one of the ways to explain the universe. as such, it is almost wrong to say that hinduism teaches this because it is not exactly a teaching of hinduism but rather a manner of understanding hindu teaching.

basically what i'm saying is that the hindu trinity is not the christian trinity, it is more along the lines of the mormon trinity (and they don't even believe in the trinity in the first place). it is three gods deciding on something and simply because three people decide to do something doesn't suddenly mean that they become a single being nor that they have somehow become triune. the trinity stipulates one god in being and not simply in purpose.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-22-2011, 08:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the trinity stipulates one god in being and not simply in purpose.
It may come as a surprise for you (or not) that there's a whole lot of similarities between christian trinity as one being with hindu trimurti as one being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti Maurice Winternitz notes that there are very few places in Indian literature where the Trimurti is mentioned.[10] The identification of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purana, where in 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme.[11]

Notice also the similarities that trimurti is mentioned few times in Indian literature, with christian trinity not mentioned at all in bible literature.

More, and this time let's see what hindus say about trimurti:

http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/index.htm The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.

Hindus also believe they are monotheistic:
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp The gods of Trinity are not different gods, but manifestations of the same Supreme Iswara, who is also known as the Saguna Brahman or the awakened or dynamic Brahman. Since ordinary human minds cannot comprehend the oneness of the universe, it becomes difficult for us to understand this concept clearly. To summarize the idea briefly let us take the analogy of a person performing different tasks. Just as a person becomes different persons while performing different roles or duties in the mental plane though not in the physical plane, God who exists in innumerable planes simultaneously appears as the Trinity in three different roles. The difference if any is in appearances which is part of the grand illusion that He weaves all around us.

The more I read about hindu and trimutri the more it looks the same as christian trinity in concepts.

So, are you still saying that hindu trimurti is polytheistic?
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-22-2011, 10:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The identification of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purana, where in 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme.
greetings naidamar i'm glad that you could join us. one thing that i do not want to happen is for this discussion to simply remain between woodrow and i (though god knows that woodrow is quite pleasing to talk to). now, i don't quite think that your point goes as far as you might wish. i would have to look at the reference to see how exactly the word 'being' is used (because it could also be used in the sense of only one person etc.). that said, this would still not explain the fact that these gods fight one another. if they do not share one divine will then this thoroughly brings into question their unity. furthermore, the article that you link to has interesting quotes such as:

Its most notable expression is to be found in the theological conception of the Trimūrti, i.e., the manifestation of the supreme God in three forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva.... But the attempt cannot be regarded as a great success, for Brahmā never gained an ascendancy comparable to that of Śiva or Viṣṇu, and the different sects often conceived the Trimūrti as really the three manifestations of their own sectarian god, whom they regarded as Brahman or Absolute.
so according to this, brahman is not the sum of the three members of the trimurti but rather only of a single member (who this member actually is depends wholly on the sect in question). so there is the question of whether or not the trimurti can be thought of as the three forms of god or merely the three forms of a particular god.

Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.
the above is rather self-explanatory in that it again presents the trimurti as merely the three forms of a particuar god and not god himself. so now we have a system of henotheism where we have a supreme deity who is worshiped and other lesser deities who are worshiped as well. that is merely a return to polytheism.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.
i do not at all mind if hindus see some form of similarity between the christian trinity and the hindu trimurti seeing as there is always some basic similarity with truth and heresy. the notion of similarity is not actually a problem for me seeing as the same could be said with muslims and the ritual performed at the kaaba. if similarity is all which should discredit a practise then islam itself is also discredited in this regard. and this does not only refer to the ritual which takes place at the kaaba but also as it regards the sacred months where fighting is not allowed etc. for the polytheists themselves held these to be sacred before muhammad and as such it would be quite easy to say that he merely placed his stamp of approval on what people had thought to be good in the first place. anyway, we're not talking about islam right now and as such i should end with this here. all i'm saying is that whether there is any similarity or not, i have no problem with it. in fact the concept of similarity (if it were indeed true) could actually strengthen the point of the truth of the trinity (in that originally, all people understood god to be triune yet this belief was subsequently lost or corrupted. as such, we may find shadows of this original faith here and there but the truth is to be found in christianity).

anyway, we have seen that the trimurti is not set in stone and that it could even refer to only one of these deities alone. you have still not explained the fact that these individuals fight against one another which seriously brings into question the matter of unity/oneness. i have heard muslim arguments along the lines that seeing as the world exists in such unity and the laws of nature are complementary to one another, this displays that there is only one divine source of creation and not multiple ones or else there would be a lot of conflict. from this argument we can see that even the muslim understands that conflict shows that there is no unity present (unless of course you do not agree with the argument in the first place). furthermore, these deities have separate powers. if they were indeed the same they would have the same powers and yet they do not. they each have different powers and different spheres of influences and this once again calls into question their unity.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
To summarize the idea briefly let us take the analogy of a person performing different tasks. Just as a person becomes different persons while performing different roles or duties in the mental plane though not in the physical plane, God who exists in innumerable planes simultaneously appears as the Trinity in three different roles. The difference if any is in appearances which is part of the grand illusion that He weaves all around us.
if the above is a summary of what indeed the trimurti can be reduced to, then that is not the trinity at all. that is sabellianism/modalism and sabellians were quite clear in the regard that they were not trinitarians (notice how many times this thread has come back to the heresy of sabellianism? notice how this was compared to the trinity? this once again shows how non-christians generally do not understand what the trinity teaches). if all these aspects are simply different modes that the one divine person assumes then we do not have a trinity but simply one god who at different times takes on different roles. in the same way that an individual might be a father to his children, a son to his parents, a brother to his siblings, a teacher to his students, an uncle to his nieces and nephews, a cousin to his cousins etc. etc. clearly we no longer even have three real distinct persons but merely different roles that one individual assumes. this is not a trinity in any regard. on this note, i am reminded of a video by ahmed deedat where he defines the trinity along sabellian terms and then goes on to attack this while his audience cheers and claps, too bad he wasn't actually attacking the trinity. one might make a link between the apparent sabellianism in the qur'an and ahmed deedat's thorough misunderstanding of the christian trinity but we need not speculate on this matter just yet.

note: the above is why i'm a bit suspicious about the initial comment that the members of the trimutri are one in being. i believe that in that instance, the word 'being' was used in the sense of the word 'person' (and that is not what the trinity claims). if that is indeed the case then it follows nicely (or rather wrongly) with what hindus themselves say (according to your quote). once again we find ourselves with sabellianism and not the trinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The more I read about hindu and trimutri the more it looks the same as christian trinity in concepts.
i'll be the first to say that at times there are some similarities but you and i both know that if similarity is the only thing by which to discredit a religion then islam would be discredited as well. muhammad was not the first person to claim to have received revelations from god by way of an angel in the middle east. nor was he the first to claim to be the paraclete spoken of in the gospel of john or even to be the seal of the prophets. individuals such as the manichean prophet mani claimed to the same things and if similarities is what we should look at, then we could simply say that muhammad had copied the claims of his predecessors and as such islam is discredited. but of course you wouldn't agree with this conclusion so we should stop pretending that similarity discredits a faith.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So, are you still saying that hindu trimurti is polytheistic?
well depending on which one of your quotes we examine, the trimurti is either polytheistic or not. sometimes the trimurti consists of only one of these gods, sometimes these gods are not even real beings but merely roles that another god assumes so it isn't easy to respond with either a yes or a no. but, if asked if the trimurti is the same as the trinity then the answer is an overwhelming no. we have great problems in the fact that there doesn't seem to be a single divine will among the members, also a problem in the fact that the members do get into conflicts with one another, the problem of the different powers and spheres of influence that the members possess, not to mention that at some point your quotes imply that these members don't really exist and are merely a role/function/mode that god assumes and if this is so then we have ceased talking about a trinity at all.

once again, if hinduism is polytheistic (i do believe that it is) or not is not a problem for the christian but rather for the muslim because the christian claim goes so far as to criticize what kind of oneness is being talked about while the muslim claim simply stops at whether something is teaching oneness or not.
Reply

Woodrow
04-22-2011, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
this is actually a really good point and i can see myself making an argument along these lines were i a muslim. before continuing i should mention that i know even less of hinduism then i do of islam. that said, hinduism cannot easily be reduced to polytheism seeing as that would wholly depend on which type of hinduism is being referred to but let us accept at this moment that what is being discussed is that strain which both you and i would commonly call polytheistic. to now speak of your brahm, vishnu, and siva example i will first say this: if it were indeed the case that these constituted a single god and as such monotheism, then it would not matter to me because it is not monotheism that saves an individual. according to the bible, the demons all believe in the one true god and yet they are still not saved. monotheism includes the concepts of pantheism in which everything is the one god (notice that this is distinct from everything is a god, but rather everything is god), panentheism (in which everything is indeed the one god yet this one god has elements of his being which are distinct from creation), monism (which is more commonly associated with hinduism) to only name a few. as such, to the christian one of the most important questions is not whether a religion is monotheistic but rather what type of monotheism is being adhered to. i believe that muslims are monotheists but i simply believe that this is the wrong kind of monotheism and as such could not subscribe to it.

i believe that where the christian and muslim differ on the matter is that even if the claim was made that a religion was monotheistic, the christian could believe this and still have faults with their belief because it is the type of monotheism that matters. the muslim on the other hand cannot accept that certain other beliefs are monotheistic because once they admit that the hindu trimurti is monotheistic then they have largely lost any grounds of criticising this particular notion. to the muslim the question is more directed towards oneness, to the christian it is a step further to the question of what type of oneness are we talking about. i believe that this is most evident in the fact that muslims in general will not admit that the trinity is an example of oneness because when such an admittance is acknowledged, they then can no longer criticize it for the qur'an mainly criticizes the lack of oneness and not what kind of oneness is being spoken of.

now, the above does rather little in answering your question and so i would like to give you a proper answer (i did feel that the above was necessary in order to show the different ways that christians and muslims approach such a topic). it is my belief that the hindu trimurti is indeed polytheistic because the members do not subsist within the other and neither do they share one divine will. the hindu gods fight amongst themselves and this clearly shows that there is no unity among them. simply because they have three chief gods does not in fact make this a trinity (in the full sense of the word). even if they did decide to work in harmony, this would still not be a trinity. the mormon conception of god is vastly different than the christian one in that they believe in a trinity of some sort but reject the notion that christ or the holy spirit are "as much god" as the father. they speak of one god in the sense that they all agree on doing a certain task---this is not what we christians believe in. simply because three people agree to take the bus home from work does not suddenly make these three people one being. but anyway, we are not speaking of mormonism but rather hinduism. once again, the first problem is that these individuals do not share the same will between them but do in fact contradict, fight, and go against each other. furthermore, they do not subsist within each other. unlike the father, the son, and the holy spirit, the hindu 'trinity' (if you will) is one in which brahma, vishnu and shiva do not exist within one another but are wholly separate. in christianity, the father exists in the son, the son exists in the father and the same is true for the holy spirit. they each subsist within the single essence and as such are not separate but rather distinct. furthermore, each one of these does different things. the brahma creates, vishnu preserves and shiva destroys. yet in the trinity, it is the son who creates, the father who creates, and the holy spirit who creates. creation was an act of god and the bible is clear that the act of this one god was fulfilled by the three persons of the trinity. the members of the christian trinity do not possess different powers or attributes, yet the members of the trimurti do. anyway i'll stop here and see what the response in this thread will be. though i should note that the trimurti is not exactly a doctrine of hinduism as the trinity is, but is simply one of the ways to explain the universe. as such, it is almost wrong to say that hinduism teaches this because it is not exactly a teaching of hinduism but rather a manner of understanding hindu teaching.

basically what i'm saying is that the hindu trinity is not the christian trinity, it is more along the lines of the mormon trinity (and they don't even believe in the trinity in the first place). it is three gods deciding on something and simply because three people decide to do something doesn't suddenly mean that they become a single being nor that they have somehow become triune. the trinity stipulates one god in being and not simply in purpose.
Peace Sol,

Did I ever fool myself when I said I would reply to what I saw as the shortest issue to address. It certainly turns out not to be the shortest nor easiest. I will do my best to stay on topic with this, which very well may turn into a very long discussion.

In simplicity I see the Christian Trinity and the Hindu Trimurti as being the same. I know you and probably all Christians will disagree with me.

In Looking for another Christians view of the differences between the Trinity and Trimurti I found this:

http://www.karma2grace.org/Webcompon...dex.asp?det=43

I do not believe any one Christian speaks for all Christians and you may either agree or dis agree with that Author. I found his summation to be a bit interesting.

It’s not what I want to believe that counts, but what God wants me to believe. For Christians, the reality of the trinity begins with the fact that God has shown himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ who demonstrated his deity in his death and resurrection.
I do not accept that as proof of Jesus(as) being part of the Trinity. If resurrection is proof, than why isn't Lazarus seen as being a Diety?

I contend that early Christianity was greatly influenced by Hindu beliefs and the concept of a Trinity came from early Christians in India. India was one of the earliest non-Jewish Nations to have a significant number of converts to Christianity.

World`s oldest church structure in India

The world`s oldest existing church structure, which was believed to be built by Thomas the Apostle in 57 CE [20], called Thiruvithamcode Arappally or Thomaiyar Kovil or Amalagiri church as named by then Chera king Udayancheral [21], is located at Thiruvithancode in Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu, India. It is now declared as an international St. Thomas pilgrim center. This oldest church is now looked after by Malankara Orthodox Syrian church headquartered in Kottayam, Kerala.
SOURCE

This was long before the Christian concept of Trinity was finalized by the Council of Nicea.

There does seem to have been much influence between the Jews and the Hindus of India. Affording much time for mutual adaptations of religious beliefs.

Tradition has it that the Apostle Thomas ordained two bishops, Kepha and Paul, respectively for Malabar ( presently known as Kerala ) and Coromandal (Mylapore). This is supposed to mark the beginnings of the first hierarchy in India. The Christians were called Thomas Christians. The Church of the Thomas Christians was one of the four great "Thomite Churches" of the East.
SOURCE

The St. Thomas Christians of India

Today is the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle. Here’s a story not many people know about him, especially outside the Catholic world, from my own experience:

One day, while still an Evangelical and before I had taken an interest in Catholicism, I went to my workplace cafeteria for lunch, and joined a few other co-workers around a table.

One of them was a woman from India whose last name was Thomas. I didn’t know her well, and I’d always assumed she’d married a westerner, to have a last name like that.

Over lunch we got to talking, and I asked her about her last name, if it was her husband’s name. She answered, to my amazement as I had never heard this before:

“Oh, no. That is my family name. We are named for the Apostle Thomas. My family is from southern India, and the Apostle Thomas went there and converted my ancestors. They so loved him and so identified with him, that they changed their name to his, and we have been Thomas’s ever since. Thomas died there; he was martyred in a cave while praying.”

His tomb is in Mylapore. It can still be seen today.

I sat there staring at her, and it was as if the hairs were rising on my arms. It was almost like sitting in the presence of a direct descendant of one of the apostles.

Later, after my conversion to Catholicism, I was hired to work for a priest from India. I assumed he or someone in his family must have been converts to Catholicism, and asked him about it. He answered,

“Oh, no. My family has always been Catholic, ever since the Apostle Thomas came to India.” He was also from southern India, the state of Kerala.
SOURCE

. Many people in the West are misinformed that Christianity in India is a European contribution. However, in fact, Christianity in India is as old as Christianity itself, and it was brought to India by a disciple of Christ himself.
SOURCE

This next statement I put in only for reference. While I can see that Jesus(as) may have traveled to India, I doubt if He ever taught any belief in a Trinity. I put this in only to further show the early connections between Christianity and Hinduism.

It is noteworthy that the Bible makes no mention of Jesus Christ between the ages of 18 to 30 . Jesus Christ lived in India between the ages of 18 to 30 . After crucifixion , he returned back to India where he lived in Kashmir till his death . This has been said by the Indian spiritual masters Paramahamsa Yogananda , Satya Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Jesus's teaching of chastity, non-violence, and renunciation were derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga.
The proof for this can be obtained from the books 'Jesus lived in India' , written by a team of Western scholars and archaeologists and 'Hinduism and Christianity' by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar( the founder of the Art of Living Foundation).
SOURCE

To further add it should be noted that not all Christians in India believe Jesus(as) died on the Cross.

The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website
Welcome to The Tomb of Jesus Website PDF Print E-mail
This website presents evidence that Jesus Christ survived his crucifixion and travelled to Kashmir, India.

It presents evidence that he lived the rest of his life in Kashmir, and his tomb is located in the Kan Yar section of Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, India.
SOURCE

In later years it is evident that Christians often incorporated the beliefs of the people they converted into Christian practices. ie Dec 25, Changing the name of Paschal to Easter etc.

I contend that early Christian missionaries into India incorporated the belief of the Trimurti and sugar coated it so it had the outward appearance of being monotheistic and modifying it's polytheistic origin into agreement with what were eventually accepted as the books of the NT

The Trinity is the Trimurti, revised and edited to resemble Monotheism.
Reply

YieldedOne
04-22-2011, 06:13 PM
Woodrow:
I contend that early Christianity was greatly influenced by Hindu beliefs and the concept of a Trinity came from early Christians in India. India was one of the earliest non-Jewish Nations to have a significant number of converts to Christianity.

Ok. Let's have fun with this contention.

For this to be true, it would have to be shown that trinitarian thought ORIGINATED with Christians in India specificallly appropriating the Trimurty to it's own practices in the late 50s to early 60s AD and somehow made it's way BACK to modern day Turkey area, influencing ALL all of the Christian churches and leaders in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece into the same syncretism such that when 325 AD rolled around, the idea from India's Christianity permeated the WHOLE of Christianity at the First Council of Nicaea...with NO problems and leaving absolutely NO evidence of syncretism with Hinduism whatsoever. In other words, looking at the events of the Council itself, there seems to be NO INDICATION of such a move. Is that what you are really, truly suggesting? That all of the scholarship that has been done on the historical evolution of Christian doctrine to date has been WRONG to that DEEP a degree?

Dude, that's some heavily revisionistic historiography. Upon what POSSIBLE bases would you make such a claim. Please give me ALL the sources you got on that one. I'll take whatever bibliography you can give me. I gotta see this for myself. Wow! ^o)
Reply

YieldedOne
04-22-2011, 06:51 PM
And this is why Woodrow's contention COULDN'T be possible at all.

From wiki...

Historian A. L. Basham explains the background of the trimurti as follows, noting Western interest in the idea of trinity:

Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.

This is confirmed by Catholic missionary, J.P. Arendzen...

The Hindu Trimurti is a late speculation; it does not belong to the ancient Indian or Aryan religion. It came about this way. The worshipers of Vishnu and Siva formed two rival sects. In the original Aryan pantheon they were but two lesser deities, but they gradually gained great popularity. Vishnu was a kind, benevolent god, Siva a stormy and destructive god. Either sect would exalt the greatness of its own god to a sort of identification with absolute deity. This absolute deity was first considered as something impersonal, "Brahma," but in Vishnu "absolute thought and goodness" became more clearly personified and worshiped, not as a faint abstraction, but as an individual. Thus Vishnu gives to Brahma personality, and Brahma gives to Vishnu absoluteness and supremacy. In order to include all three names the following doctrine was started. Vishnu, i.e., Brahma as person, appears as Brahma in order to create the world, as Vishnu (a subordinate form of the original Vishnu) in order to preserve the world, and as Siva in order to destroy it. Thus the three principles governing this material universe are personified….

Let's keep going. According to the New World Encyclopedia...

It was not until the arrival of the Puranas, a large corpus of mythical and historical Hindu texts, that the Trimuti became a standard doctrine. The Padma-Purana, a Vaishnava text, explains the origin of the three modalities of the one supreme Vishnu: "In order to form this world, the supreme spirit produced from his right side Brahma. In order to maintain the world, he created from his left side Vishnu. To destroy it he gave rise to Shiva from his middle. Some men worship Brahma, others Vishnu, and yet others Shiva. Since these three are one, the devout should draw no distinction between them." This is the first explicit statement of the three gods' essential oneness as constituents of the supreme principle. However, it should be noted that at no time was the trinity itself actually worshiped.

Now guess when the Puranas were compiled? Between 300 and 500 CE.

This totally blows the idea--that the Christian Trinity was originated/influenced by the Indian Christianity syncretizing Hindu Trimurti into it's own practices and then brought it BACK to influence ALL Christianity in European area before Nicea---right out of the water!
Reply

YieldedOne
04-22-2011, 07:00 PM
Woodrow:
In simplicity I see the Christian Trinity and the Hindu Trimurti as being the same. I know you and probably all Christians will disagree with me.

Dude, not even the Hindus themselves would agree with you. THEY sure don't see it as the same.

Common Misunderstandings: The Trimurti is the Hindu Trinity
The implied comparison here with Christianity is potentially misleading, and hence the term "Hindu Trinity" is best avoided.

********************************************

Woodrow:
I contend that early Christian missionaries into India incorporated the belief of the Trimurti and sugar coated it so it had the outward appearance of being monotheistic and modifying it's polytheistic origin into agreement with what were eventually accepted as the books of the NT

The Trinity is the Trimurti, revised and edited to resemble Monotheism.

Uh...care to recant that statement, brother? I think it's pretty historically improbable...at best. I don't want to say what it is at worst. :skeleton:
Reply

Woodrow
04-22-2011, 09:25 PM
[QUOTE=YieldedOne;1430799]And this is why Woodrow's contention COULDN'T be possible at all.

From wiki...

Historian A. L. Basham explains the background of the trimurti as follows, noting Western interest in the idea of trinity:

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.

This is confirmed by Catholic missionary, J.P. Arendzen...
and it is the opinion of a Catholic Missionary. Could be true, could be in error. What is the opinion of the good Padre based upon?

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
The Hindu Trimurti is a late speculation; it does not belong to the ancient Indian or Aryan religion. It came about this way. The worshipers of Vishnu and Siva formed two rival sects. In the original Aryan pantheon they were but two lesser deities, but they gradually gained great popularity. Vishnu was a kind, benevolent god, Siva a stormy and destructive god. Either sect would exalt the greatness of its own god to a sort of identification with absolute deity. This absolute deity was first considered as something impersonal, "Brahma," but in Vishnu "absolute thought and goodness" became more clearly personified and worshiped, not as a faint abstraction, but as an individual. Thus Vishnu gives to Brahma personality, and Brahma gives to Vishnu absoluteness and supremacy. In order to include all three names the following doctrine was started. Vishnu, i.e., Brahma as person, appears as Brahma in order to create the world, as Vishnu (a subordinate form of the original Vishnu) in order to preserve the world, and as Siva in order to destroy it. Thus the three principles governing this material universe are personified….

Let's keep going. According to the New World Encyclopedia...

It was not until the arrival of the Puranas, a large corpus of mythical and historical Hindu texts, that the Trimuti became a standard doctrine. The Padma-Purana, a Vaishnava text, explains the origin of the three modalities of the one supreme Vishnu: "In order to form this world, the supreme spirit produced from his right side Brahma. In order to maintain the world, he created from his left side Vishnu. To destroy it he gave rise to Shiva from his middle. Some men worship Brahma, others Vishnu, and yet others Shiva. Since these three are one, the devout should draw no distinction between them." This is the first explicit statement of the three gods' essential oneness as constituents of the supreme principle. However, it should be noted that at no time was the trinity itself actually worshiped.

Now guess when the Puranas were compiled? Between 300 and 500 CE.

This totally blows the idea--that the Christian Trinity was originated/influenced by the Indian Christianity syncretizing Hindu Trimurti into it's own practices and then brought it BACK to influence ALL Christianity in European area before Nicea---right out of the water!
It seems that at least some people contend the trimurti is a bit older than what what you are suggesting.

The Trimurti or "three form" trinity is, as has been intimated, a later adaptation of Vedic gods of a popular sort to a priestly conception of a creator; primarily it is two thirds phenomenal, one third philosophical. But Vishnu and Shiva, the two chief gods, had long since ceased to be phenomena; they were no more the sun and lightning than Zeus to the Greeks was sky or Thor to the Teutons thunder. Each of the three was a god with a long mythology behind him; stories of personal exploits exalted each; each had his own ardent worshippers. They first began to be grouped together, just as Zeus and his brothers were grouped, because they stood out prominently as superior gods in their several environments, not because they represented in the slightest degree a unified god or trinity. It was a group not even wholly triadic, for other great gods were often made members of the whole group. Negligently triadic, not at all trinitarian, it appears first in the sub-Vedic period of the philosophical tracts called Upanishads. Their authors conceived the idea of One Supreme Spirit and they say of it that it is One and that "this One is called Brahman, Shiva, Indra, Eternal Lord," by way of illustration of what the One is; but a later redaction of this passage- inserts Vishnu (Hari) between Shiva and Indra, thus leading off with the three of the Trimurti, albeit not in their later order, as if an early Christian, seeing the statement that God was Father and Son, had inserted Holy Spirit between the two. In another tract, the All-Soul is depicted as active in the form of the triad, fire, wind, sun, and again in that of Brahman, Rudra [Shiva], and Vishnu.
SOURCE: http://urantiabook.org/sources/hopkins_oer_xviii.htm

Now notice when the Upanishads were written:

Upanishads

Vedic texts, circa seventh-fifth century B.C.
SOURCE; http://www.enotes.com/classical-medi...ism/upanishads

I do agree it was not always a triune as the number of gods did vary any where from 2 to 3 and more. But, the concept existed in Hinduism for a long time before the birth of Isa(as)
Reply

YieldedOne
04-22-2011, 10:00 PM
Woodrow:
It seems that at least some people contend the trimurti is a bit older than what what you are suggesting.

and...

I do agree it was not always a triune as the number of gods did vary any where from 2 to 3 and more. But, the concept existed in Hinduism for a long time before the birth of Isa(as)

Looking at what you quote, it says...

Negligently triadic, not at all trinitarian, it appears first in the sub-Vedic period of the philosophical tracts called Upanishads.

What this tells me is that the Upanishads did NOT have the requisite level of conception for Trimurti to even be called tritheism, let along triunity. That's what it says. The main assertion that you were making was that the Christian Trinity was essentially based off of the Hindu Trimurti. (Actually, you said you thought they were the same thing). Vaguely proto-trimurti material in the Upanishads that is "negligently triadic" does not lend itself to the level of syncretism and assimilation of Indian Christianity and then transmission of that to Europe as your assertion assumed.

The main thing is that the idea that you proposed--that the Christian Trinity was originated/influenced by the Indian Christianity syncretizing Hindu Trimurti into it's own practices and then brought it BACK to influence ALL Christianity into European area before Nicea--doesn't seem to be tenable. Not taking everything into account.

You'd agree with this, right?
Reply

Woodrow
04-22-2011, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Woodrow:
It seems that at least some people contend the trimurti is a bit older than what what you are suggesting.

and...

I do agree it was not always a triune as the number of gods did vary any where from 2 to 3 and more. But, the concept existed in Hinduism for a long time before the birth of Isa(as)

Looking at what you quote, it says...

Negligently triadic, not at all trinitarian, it appears first in the sub-Vedic period of the philosophical tracts called Upanishads.

What this tells me is that the Upanishads did NOT have the requisite level of conception for Trimurti to even be called tritheism, let along triunity. That's what it says. The main assertion that you were making was that the Christian Trinity was essentially based off of the Hindu Trimurti. (Actually, you said you thought they were the same thing). Vaguely proto-trimurti material in the Upanishads that is "negligently triadic" does not lend itself to the level of syncretism and assimilation of Indian Christianity and then transmission of that to Europe as your assertion assumed.

The main thing is that the idea that you proposed--that the Christian Trinity was originated/influenced by the Indian Christianity syncretizing Hindu Trimurti into it's own practices and then brought it BACK to influence ALL Christianity into European area before Nicea--doesn't seem to be tenable. Not taking everything into account.

You'd agree with this, right?
I think it makes more sense than what I was taught when I was a Christian. Seems to be more honest than what I used to preach during my evangelical era. May Allaah(swt) forgive me for once worshiping the Trinity.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-23-2011, 03:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza, i will refrain from quoting the majority of your post and merely keep myself to the thrust of your argument. if you say that the verse does not talk about the trinity then you are still in trouble for the muslim position has now become that the verse should be read "god is not one of three" (surah 5:73). now look at the following surah:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist — it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. — Surah 4:171 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

what is it stating? clearly even the simple mention of three refers to the father, the mother, and the son instead of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. your main argument was that seeing as the word trinity isn't explicitly mentioned then we need not suppose that the qur'an is talking about the trinity (this logic is quite faulty by the way but let us ignore the problems with this at this time) but in the above we clearly have ourselves a definition of what exactly "three" refers to. if as muslims now will argue, the verse should be rendered one of three, then when we look at all the other passages, we can clearly see that every single reference of god being one of three has to do with mary. hamza, the very verses you cite all speak against three divine persons. your argument is that seeing as the word trinity is not there, we cannot say that the qur'an speaks of the trinity (sure, if you want to argue that way we can even do so if you'd like). yet the problem is that the very same language that is always used in regards to mary being one of the three divine persons whom christians worship is used in a single (vague, you would argue) surah and so what are we to do? are we supposed to go against the precedence that the author himself has set throughout the entire book and suddenly claim that the passage in question speaks against the proper trinity when throughout the entire islamic scripture any reference to three deities has always been in regards of a father, a mother, and a son or do we simply interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones?

it is more than obvious that the qur'an did understand the trinity to consist of the father, the son, and mary but we don't even necessarily have to admit this point in order for my argument to work (rather, we can simply go with the muslim position that the statement simply refers to three individuals). do you not wonder why it is that any way the matter is argued, the muslim argument still ends up being in a bind? the fact is that you're trying to justify a misformulation and short of changing the words (which is the only way you'll end up being correct) you'll always fall along the lines of another heresy and/or wrong point. once again your point is predicated on the fact that seeing as the exact language of the qur'an never speaks of the trinity in those passages then we shouldn't either. alright sure, but then this still would also mean that given that the exact language (i.e. that is, "three") is used in other passages to speak of the worship of the father, the son and mary then we should interpret any mention of three in light of what the qur'an has already said and when this is done; we once again find ourselves with another error in the qur'an. if you disagree with this then i must ask you, does the qur'an ever speak of the trinity as the father, the son, and the holy spirit? so if we are going to argue from what is actually present in the text (that is, the exact language) then you have just shot yourself in the foot. from the language that is actually present in the text, we find merely another instance of worship that includes mary as one of the divine persons. your point can only work if you can find a reference towards three deities that speaks of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. if this were the case, you could then say, "look, the exact language is used to speak of the proper trinity and so we should understand these other references as including a condemnation of the trinity" but of course the problem is that there is no such reference. so even when you try to argue from what is only exactly present in the qur'an, your point still fails. this is why al-manar made known that he will appeal to sources outside of the qur'an to prove his point on the trinity being condemned in the qur'an because he cannot do so from merely the exact language of the qur'an while i can indeed prove my position from that very language.

i see that you have brought in the issue of marian worship and i would direct you to my previous posts in this thread; i have already spoken on the matter and shown how even then your point could not work. if you do find something wrong with my words could you please quote teh appropriate section because as is, i fail to see how any of what you have said saves your position from my point.


hamza, clearly you're talking about things that you don't really understand. almost all trinitarians believe that mary is the mother of god (the theotokos) but this doesn't mean divine motherhood. she is the mother of god in the respect that christ who is himself god, chose to enter his creation through the conduit of a human birth and as such she is his mother in his humanity (and therefore the mother of god in the respect that christ is god and she is his human mother). you take the title mother of god and then suppose that she must be divine while it is only a term that speaks of birthing the human christ. if the qur'an is actually condemning this along the lines of divine motherhood then it would be an error with the qur'an because christians don't say that the title, theotokos, invests mary with any divinity. you have managed to create another problem for yourself and the qur'an.

please read my other post concerning marian worship to see the full argument. actually, here it is:



hamza, i had asked you if you could show us evidence for your position from the christian creeds etc. and so far you have failed to do so. you have quoted everything from heretics, to other common laymen in order to prove your position but where are the official doctrines of christianity? you try to use the concept of the theotokos but then only show that you have misunderstood it and if what you say is indeed true then you have created another problem for your qur'an (not to mention the other problems highlighted in my previous response to you. i still haven't gotten a response from you on the matter of the "god is jesus" problem in the qur'an etc.).
Greetings Sol,

Firstly it is Clear that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches can be found filled with carved or molten images and statues of Jesus Mary, in various sizes and shapes. Most of these statues or images are placed in the prominent places of the prayer halls of Churches for venerating and worshipping of these entities. One would also notice that the majority of the attending congregates would kneel, worship, venerate and pray before these images as their reverent rituals and inherited traditions. Many devoted believers would place lighted candles in front of these statues or images before worshipping or paying their homage.

Catholic congregates who venerate Lord Jesus as their God and call Virgin Mary as the “Mother of God”, do form the bulk of the Christian community of today. It has been so since the inception of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants, who separated from the Roman Catholics, nearly ten centuries after the advent of Islam, do not have the statues of Mother Mary in their Churches, although at one time Mary did play a pivotal role.

As for the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Holy Trinity, no Christian Church has so far instituted its venerating representation, image or semblance for their Churchgoers.

Clearly Mary was a virtuous woman, no more, no less. However as the centuries passed biblical scholars would go to great lengths to magnify her role to be nothing short of divine.

It is also clear that when looking at the issue is of worshipping, venerating, deifying and idolizing is concerned, it is Mary the theotokos and not the Holy Ghost, which has that kind of rank and status. So in terms of veneration, the idols of Jesus and Mary are treated as deities and the Holy Ghost is not venerated as a deity in the manner that Jesus’ and Mary’s idols were treated. The quoted verse from the Holy Qur'an questions such Divine Rank and Status that have been assigned by the followers of Jesus to him and his mother.


Let us look at Mary's "divinity" according to Christianity:


Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son. The Mother of God title was applied early in church history, based on the notion that Jesus was fully God as well as human. This was established as a doctrine in the 4th century. In the Eastern churches this doctrine played a major devotional role and became a favorite subject for icon painters. During the Reformation era it was accepted by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, though Mary’s role in Protestant theology has declined markedly since then. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995), under the heading “Mary”

Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Here Pope John Paul the second says:

Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

Mary "is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.


Read more about Marys "special" relationship with the "divine" trinity by Pope John Paul II:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm11.htm


So clearly the Qur'an condems these terribly blasphemous beliefs of those who ascribe partners to him calling him "one in three" and raising the status of Jesus to that of God himself and elevating the status of Mary to "the mother of God".

It is you who is trying to imply that the verses are including Mary in the trinity but it is clear for all to see you are in gross error everytime simply because you provide not a shred of evidence using the verses to prove your flawed argument.

Until now it is a fact that the mentioning of the “Trinity” which appears in the Holy Qur’an in two verses: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”.

No matter what you say you simply cannot provide ANY link between Mary being mentioned as raised to the level of "Mother of God" and her being part of the trinity which is not at all mentioned or implied in the verses and for you to be able to prove your position you would need to do so using the original language of the Qur'an which will mean in depth analysis of those verses in arabic. But to save you time that has already been done for the past 1500 years and that is why Mufasireen (Those who intepret the meanings of the verses of the Qur'an) have concluded that Mary was not mentioned as being part of the trinity for surely if she was they would have mentioned it as they know the language inside out as well as the verses in context. So you have been very clearly proven wrong in all of your false assertions.

You also mention the belief of "Christians". But there is no such thing as one set of belief for all Christians from the advent of Christianity until now. But for Islam it can be said that we have the same set of fundamental beliefs from the Prophet Muhammad until now.

Can you firstly tell me which one of thousands of denominations you follow? Are you going to call your denomination "true Christianity" and others false?

So is it possible to sum up Christian beliefs from the end of Jesus until now? IMPOSSIBLE simply because there has been a significant evolution in Christian beliefs since Jesus left this earth until this very day where there are ammendments, deletions and additions happening everyday some of which include core beliefs. Even the Trinity doctrine has changed and developed into the mind boggling concept we see it as today.

It is an accepted fact that the doctrine of Trinity evolved and took its final shape nearly 350 years after Christ.

Bart D. Ehrman observes that:

Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years – whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies – have never been replicated.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others claimed that he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ’s death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had never even died. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament, 1993, Oxford University Press, London & New York, p. 3



Until now we have concluded the following:


1. There are clearly NO errors whatsoever in the verses of the Qur'an which condem the blasphemous beliefs of those who believe that God is"one in three" and those who raise the status of Mary to "the mother of God" and Jesus to "the son of God", ascribing partners to the one true God.

You have committed very gross errors by continuously assuming that the verses speak of Mary as part of the trinity which you have absolutely no evidence of except that is what you want to believe but we are yet to be shown a shred of evidence that prove your assertions. The only way you will prove them is to know the original language of the Qur'an inside out and to know the verses in context but as already mentioned that work has already been done and those who intepret the Qur'an have not connected Mary as being part of the trinity nor have they said that the Qur'an implies what constitutes the trinity or what order God is in the trinity. So clearly all of your arguments are false and have been disaproved.

2. Now we both agree those verses and many others in the Qur'an condem polytheism on a theological level.

Now knowing these facts that the Qur'an very clearly condems polytheism we now come to a fact which you refuse to believe which is that of God being one of 3 in a trinity as being polytheistic in nature.

This is where this discussion has now lead upto so if you want to discuss the polytheistic nature of the trinity then we can do so. Again Sol i humbly invite you to worship one lord and know that he has NO partners and nor is he in need of any. Surely before him was 0 and after him there will only ever be 1 without a son or a daughter, a mother or a sister.

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-23-2011, 01:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings umm abdurrahman (i wish that i could shorten this somehow)
LOL !! thatz not my real name, it's a kunya(kind of a nickname). maybe u could say UA. :)

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i cannot simply accept the qur'an as god's word seeing as i have never seen anything divine about it. it certainly is not in keeping with the bible and as such i cannot accept it. furthermore, though you claim that your position in the above is to accept the bible as god's word you are really saying not the bible that i hold in my hand but rather some other mythical bible. as such, you as well are not accepting my bible and as such the above is rather ambiguous if not deceiving (by this i certainly don't mean that you are being deceiving but merely that the above can quite easily lend itself to misinterpretation. i do not at all wish to call your character into question here and i'm sorry if it seems like i have). so on that note, neither of us have accepted each other's holy books as coming from god. your post seems to claim as fact that the qur'an is from god and while this may logically be so, you cannot simply claim this as a fact because within such a discussion, this is exactly part of what is being contested. so no, in my eyes the author of the qur'an is not the same as the author of the bible and as such your point simply cannot work as formulated in the above.

The Author of The Glorious Quran is indeed the same as that of the Holy Bible. The only problem is that, the Bible was not preserved in it's original form. So, thatz where we differ. You accept the entire of the Bible, but i do not. Because i believe that it has been interpolated.

i think it would be best for me to start a new thread, wherein i shall show u the concept of God in Islam in very simple words.God Willing. :)
Reply

Ramadhan
04-24-2011, 02:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
The Author of The Glorious Quran is indeed the same as that of the Holy Bible. The only problem is that, the Bible was not preserved in it's original form. So, thatz where we differ. You accept the entire of the Bible, but i do not. Because i believe that it has been interpolated.

Just want to clarify one thing: Allah revealed torah and injeel, but the bible is NOT torah and injeel. You need to differentiate between torah, injeel and bible.
The bible is a collection of books, in catholics it is 73 books, in protestant it is 66 books.
Bible contains old testament (which may contain some torah, albeit in corrupted forms) and new testament (which contain the four gospels -may contain some form of corrupted injeel-, the letters of paul, acts of apostles, etc)
Therefore, it is obvious the author of bible is not God. Even christians do not believe the author of bible is God, they believe it is inspired by God (although christians themselves cannot explain how God inspired confusions, errors and contradictions).
Reply

Woodrow
04-24-2011, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Just want to clarify one thing: Allah revealed torah and injeel, but the bible is NOT torah and injeel. You need to differentiate between torah, injeel and bible.
The bible is a collection of books, in catholics it is 73 books, in protestant it is 66 books.
Bible contains old testament (which may contain some torah, albeit in corrupted forms) and new testament (which contain the four gospels -may contain some form of corrupted injeel-, the letters of paul, acts of apostles, etc)
Therefore, it is obvious the author of bible is not God. Even Christians do not believe the author of bible is God, they believe it is inspired by God (although christians themselves cannot explain how God inspired confusions, errors and contradictions).
:sl: Akhi,

I do agree with you. However I do want to clarify one point--
Even Christians do not believe the author of bible is God,
While that is true of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants,There are some Christians who do believe the Bible is the actual word of God(swt). These are primarily the churches that formed in the USA in the bible belt of the USA, beginning in the mid 1800s. Many of them actually believe the bible came from heaven directly, printed on paper, in Elizabethan English, bound in hard cover and ready for distribution.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-27-2011, 10:10 AM
greetings everyone, i'm sorry to have been so absent from this thread but easter and everything around it kept me quite busy these past few days. anyway, to get back to the discussion (and i sincerely hope that i haven't resurrected a thread no one has interest in anymore). first off, woodrow, i read your response and i must say that the only real facts contained therein were that thomas travelled to india, and that there is a real indian minority who have been christians since the gospel was first preached therein. for that i praise god but as it comes to this being of any proof to your point that the indian trimurti influenced the 'creation' of the trinity i would have to disagree. it is highly unlikely that jewish individuals who had come to believe that the very god of the universe had brought them into "all truth", had assigned them to "make of all nations his disciples" (and not, "become disciples to all nations"), and believed to be filled with the holy spirit, would then feel that the hindu religion would have anything to teach them as it concerns their own god (and not to mention that the idol worship and the general polytheism would have been repulsive to them). this premise in itself doesn't hold much weight but to then claim that it was from india and not jerusalem that one of the most fundamental doctrines of christianity was to be 'created', that is even more unlikely. in fact, a church father once put the matter quite succinctly when he argued against the merging of greek philosophy with christianity, "what does athens have to do with jerusalem?" if then athens, the city where it was common to assume housed the wisest of all men during that time, was to be subservient to jerusalem, then what chance would india have? i must say that your argument simply is untenable.

yet, it would seem that you and yielded have come to an impasse (though i do believe that yielded really made the better argument though whether this will be believed varies on our biases) and as such perhaps it would be more favourable to set aside the matter of whether or not the indian trimurti could sweep across all of christianity (without its indian origin being trumpeted by anti-trinitarians whatsoever!) and return to our comparison of the two. from my reply to you and naidamar, we have seen that the trimurti is not the trinity. the members do not possess a single divine will, they fight against one another, they possess different attributes, powers, spheres of influences and (according to naidamar's quote) indian's themselves define their trimurti in terms identical to sabellianism! sabellianism is not the trinity and sabellians were adament that they weren't trinitarian at all. so no, there is no connection between the trinity and the trimurti and it cannot be attacked on the grounds of teaching polytheism.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Catholic congregates who venerate Lord Jesus as their God and call Virgin Mary as the “Mother of God”, do form the bulk of the Christian community of today. It has been so since the inception of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants, who separated from the Roman Catholics, nearly ten centuries after the advent of Islam, do not have the statues of Mother Mary in their Churches, although at one time Mary did play a pivotal role.
greetings hamza, hope that this post finds you well. myself being a protestant, i can say quite clearly that we do consider mary to be the mother of god. the title does not however invest her with any divinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Let us look at Mary's "divinity" according to Christianity:
Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son. The Mother of God title was applied early in church history, based on the notion that Jesus was fully God as well as human. This was established as a doctrine in the 4th century. In the Eastern churches this doctrine played a major devotional role and became a favorite subject for icon painters. During the Reformation era it was accepted by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, though Mary’s role in Protestant theology has declined markedly since then. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995), under the heading “Mary”
where in the above does it claim that mary is divine? once again you merely cite the title "mother of god" and then you insinuate that this vests her with deity when the very title speaks of her humanity! can you bring us evidence from the christian creed which say that the title is speaking of her divinity?
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).
once again what you cite does not prove your point. where in the above is mary called divine? once again protestants can agree with most of the above and still not find her divine. none of the above calls her divine. even the fact that she surpasses all of the other creatures would not mean that she is divine because she is still included in the category of creatures--hence a creation of god and not divine herself.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

Mary "is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).
where is mary called divine in the above? once again protestants can wholeheartedly agree with this. furthermore, nothing stated in the above actually claims that she is divine. your argument is that seeing as mary is "special", this must mean that she is considered divine when no one actually claims this. of course mary is special, she was the woman chosen to be the mother of christ who himself is the one true god, yet no one is saying that this position invests her with divinity. hamza, why is it that you have been unable to bring even a single citation which proves your point. you had claimed that the qur'an repudiated the divinity of mary exemplified in her being called the "mother of god" and yet this title has nothing to do with divinity at all. all the creeds have been clear concerning the matter and it is only individuals such as yourself (and your sources) who fail to understand that. let's make this very simple for you hamza, please cite for us passages from official church creeds which claim that the title, "theotokos" implies divinity on the part of mary. all that you have shown so far is that you have not understood it and that the qur'an has not understood this title either so now in order to vindicate both you and the qur'an, please cite for us passages from church creeds which make this claim. if you cannot produce such a statement for us then clearly the qur'an is in error.


format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
You have committed very gross errors by continuously assuming that the verses speak of Mary as part of the trinity which you have absolutely no evidence of except that is what you want to believe but we are yet to be shown a shred of evidence that prove your assertions. The only way you will prove them is to know the original language of the Qur'an inside out and to know the verses in context but as already mentioned that work has already been done and those who intepret the Qur'an have not connected Mary as being part of the trinity nor have they said that the Qur'an implies what constitutes the trinity or what order God is in the trinity. So clearly all of your arguments are false and have been disaproved.
hamza, have you even been reading what i have written? the only gross error is that of your own because i repeatedly made statements such as this:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
you wished to say that the reference was vague, fine, we can agree to this. you wished to say that even though the passage misformulated the trinity that it had no intention of speaking of the trinity, fine we could even allow this as well but even taking all of your points at face value we still have ourselves clear errors (as an aside, notice the number of concessions i've let myself make within this thread and yet the very passages we are discussing are still clear errors. misformulations of the trinity tend to remain misformulations no matter how one tries to interpret them). all you have been doing so far is reinterpreting the words to evade one condemnation but then you lend yourself and the muslim deity to a different condemnation. the words were formulated incorrectly and as such no matter how you'll try to argue your case you'll still end up with an erroneous articulation of the christian doctrine.

that said, can any muslim who is keeping up with this discussion show that the trinitarian doctrine (either as it relates to individual members of the trinity or the trinity as a whole) is being condemned in the qur'an? of course i understand that the qur'an speaks against a trinity but can anyone here show that it is speaking against the proper trinity?
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
what is it stating? clearly even the simple mention of three refers to the father, the mother, and the son instead of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. your main argument was that seeing as the word trinity isn't explicitly mentioned then we need not suppose that the qur'an is talking about the trinity (this logic is quite faulty by the way but let us ignore the problems with this at this time) but in the above we clearly have ourselves a definition of what exactly "three" refers to. if as muslims now will argue, the verse should be rendered one of three, then when we look at all the other passages, we can clearly see that every single reference of god being one of three has to do with mary. hamza, the very verses you cite all speak against three divine persons. your argument is that seeing as the word trinity is not there, we cannot say that the qur'an speaks of the trinity (sure, if you want to argue that way we can even do so if you'd like). yet the problem is that the very same language that is always used in regards to mary being one of the three divine persons whom christians worship is used in a single (vague, you would argue) surah and so what are we to do? are we supposed to go against the precedence that the author himself has set throughout the entire book and suddenly claim that the passage in question speaks against the proper trinity when throughout the entire islamic scripture any reference to three deities has always been in regards of a father, a mother, and a son or do we simply interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones?
hamza, even if you were to claim that the verses in question do not speak of the trinity, it would still not change the fact that nowhere in the qur'an do you find an actual condemnation of the trinity. as such, why do you then condemn it when the very speech of the muslim deity agrees with trinitarians in condemning almost all other christian heresies but never condemning the christian trinity. furthermore, you ignore the errors in the formulation of christ's divinity (i.e. "god is jesus"). i still haven't gotten a reply on that matter. please do touch upon this in your next post. can you also begin quoting the relevant sections of my post that you are trying to refute because this would make responding easier for the both of us. furthermore, you have not refuted my last post towards you. in fact you have clearly misunderstood it and as such i would very much like it if you could now actual deal with it given that i have now shown you that it still refutes everything that you have claimed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Now knowing these facts that the Qur'an very clearly condems polytheism we now come to a fact which you refuse to believe which is that of God being one of 3 in a trinity as being polytheistic in nature.
where is the basis for such a claim? i have shown you that every single reference which deals with the three individuals who christians worship has to do with mary being worshiped as one of these three and given that nowhere in the entire qur'an does the muslim deity take it upon himself to actually speak one word against the most widespread christian belief both in the time of muhammad and in our modern age (while he did take time to condemn most other christian heresies), it would only be logical to conclude that the trinity is not included in the condemnation against polytheism in the qur'an. please read my last post again and please start quoting from the material that you wish to specifically refute because as is, my post still has refuted everything that you have brought up.

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
The Author of The Glorious Quran is indeed the same as that of the Holy Bible. The only problem is that, the Bible was not preserved in it's original form. So, thatz where we differ. You accept the entire of the Bible, but i do not. Because i believe that it has been interpolated.

i think it would be best for me to start a new thread, wherein i shall show u the concept of God in Islam in very simple words.God Willing.
greetings ua! well the above is a matter of personal opinion and therefore all i can say is that i disagree with it. i will be looking forward to this new thread whenever you have the time to start it. and god bless.
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-27-2011, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings ua! well the above is a matter of personal opinion and therefore all i can say is that i disagree with it. i will be looking forward to this new thread whenever you have the time to start it. and god bless.
greetings

Personal opinion?? perhaps u think so....but den itz d truth.

ya...i did start the new thread, "Concept of God in Islam in Simple Words - Surah Al Ikhlaas :)" ...have a look at it...it wil help u...God Willing :)
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-27-2011, 07:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
greetings

Personal opinion?? perhaps u think so....but den itz d truth.

ya...i did start the new thread, "Concept of God in Islam in Simple Words - Surah Al Ikhlaas " ...have a look at it...it wil help u...God Willing
hmm, once again i will have to say that the above is merely a personal opinion. i could very well say the same concerning christianity and yet you wouldn't believe me. it may very well be the truth, it may very well not be, but our measurement for gauging truth is certainly a subjective one.

alright, will take a look at the thread when i have the time (probably tomorrow). and god might actually be helping me already by keeping me a christian? impossible? i think not :)
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
04-29-2011, 02:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

greetings hamza, hope that this post finds you well. myself being a protestant, i can say quite clearly that we do consider mary to be the mother of god. the title does not however invest her with any divinity.
Greetings Sol hope all is well,

Clearly Catholics would disagree with you as well as other denominations. Over the past few centurys there have been very bitter fueds between catholic and Protestants on this matter as well as other fundamental matters pertaining to Christian beliefs.

Protestants have tried to play down the divinity of Mary somewhat but there is still a long way to go until the status of Mary and Jesus retuens to that which it has always been and that is of being normal human beings. Protestants believe that Mary is the mother of the human aspects of Christ only. But Roman Catholics accuse Protestants of the heresy of Nestorianism. Clearly Catholics believe protestants to be of the "fundamental reformers" and heretics and Protestants also believe Catholics to be the same because they believe Mary to be the mother of God in a literal sense.

So we have clear conflicts of fundamental beliefs here where most Christian denominations differ in the fundamentals of their faith.

The Qur'an does not need to name each heresy and blasphemy and go into detail about each one but it does a perfect job in refuting and condemming such absurd concepts at a theological level.

Catholics believe that Mary gave birth to God but you as a Protestant believes that

So clearly Catholics do see her as "divine" and it is you as a Protestant who disagrees with such beliefs. Since a lot of your post is regarding Marys divinity and the fact that you had asked me to provide for you statements from your early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary then here they are:


Irenaeus


"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).


Hippolytus


"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).


Gregory the Wonderworker


"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).


Peter of Alexandria


"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).


Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).


Ephraim the Syrian


"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).


Athanasius


"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).


Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).


Council of Ephesus


"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).




format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

hamza, even if you were to claim that the verses in question do not speak of the trinity, it would still not change the fact that nowhere in the qur'an do you find an actual condemnation of the trinity. as such, why do you then condemn it when the very speech of the muslim deity agrees with trinitarians in condemning almost all other christian heresies but never condemning the christian trinity. furthermore, you ignore the errors in the formulation of christ's divinity (i.e. "god is jesus"). i still haven't gotten a reply on that matter. please do touch upon this in your next post. can you also begin quoting the relevant sections of my post that you are trying to refute because this would make responding easier for the both of us. furthermore, you have not refuted my last post towards you. in fact you have clearly misunderstood it and as such i would very much like it if you could now actual deal with it given that i have now shown you that it still refutes everything that you have claimed.
Can you quote my post regarding the formulation of christ's divinity (i.e. "god is jesus") that you are referring to and can you also state your position regarding this as i have concentrated on the main topic in hand.


I have already disaproved your gross errors in misinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an by stating the following:

1. The verses clearly refer to the trinity to that of God being "One in 3" which is sufficient enough to refute such a concept on a theological level without having to name it as "the trinity".

There is no possibility that these verses can be in error because God does not name himself in any order in the 3 and does not refer to what the 3 consist of. So your gross errors have been disaproved everytime.

2. The two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. So again it is impossible that these verses can be in error for it is you who is trying to imply that the verses are including Mary in the trinity but it is clear for all to see you are in gross error everytime.

I can say with confidence that the Qur'an does a much better job referring to the trinity than the Bible. Can you please provide which passages from the Bible refer to the trinity that Christians worship today?

Is the word "trinity" actually stated in the Bible?

Thus far your gross errors and misinterpretations have not been exposed and disaproved everytime but if you want to prove your position then you will have to do so using the original language of the Qur'an. I did ask you to do so in my previous post but you chose to ignore it. I await your answer on this....
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-29-2011, 03:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
So clearly Catholics do see her [Mary] as "divine" and it is you as a Protestant who disagrees with such beliefs. Since a lot of your post is regarding Marys divinity and the fact that you had asked me to provide for you statements from your early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary then here they are....
I have read your entire list. They all speak of Mary as the "Mother of God." A title she is given just as the quotations themselves explain because she gave birth to one whom we Christians recognize as himself God. But not one of these quotes claims divine status for Mary. The only thing that is clear from reading them is that you have conflated the title "Mother of God" with a claim for her divinity. However much (and I believe wrongly) the Catholic Church shows Mary special devotion, they do (at least in their own minds, even if not in yours) stop short of considering her divine:
The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."

source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

The next part of what you have written has problems associated with it as well:
I have already disaproved your gross errors in misinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an by stating the following:


1. The verses clearly refer to the trinity to that of God being "One in 3" which is sufficient enough to refute such a concept on a theological level without having to name it as "the trinity".

There is no possibility that these verses can be in error because God does not name himself in any order in the 3 and does not refer to what the 3 consist of. So your gross errors have been disaproved everytime.


2. The two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. So again it is impossible that these verses can be in error for it is you who is trying to imply that the verses are including Mary in the trinity but it is clear for all to see you are in gross error everytime.

I can say with confidence that the Qur'an does a much better job referring to the trinity than the Bible. Can you please provide which passages from the Bible refer to the trinity that Christians worship today?

Is the word "trinity" actually stated in the Bible?
No. The word "Trinity" is not actually found in the Bible. Why? Because as I have explained countless times, it is a term coined by Christians to describe what we observe to be true with regard to the God who discloses himself to us in the text of the Bible. So, unless you use it to refer to the same thing that we mean by the term, then this discussion is pointless. What we mean by Trinity is that we observe that there is just one God who exists in three persons. We do NOT mean by the term "Trinity" that of God being "One of 3." So, I don't know what you are referencing above, but it isn't the Christian Trinity.
Reply

Sol Invictus
04-29-2011, 12:29 PM
Hamza, the problem here lies in the fact that none of your above sources prove what you are actually saying. protestants and catholics both believe that mary is the mother of god yet the title does not invest her with any divinity. in none of your sources is she actually called divine. hamza, can you please show us where the christian creeds explain mother of god to mean that mary is divine? you have consistently been unable to show this and have misunderstood all the above references as having to do with mary's divinity when they all speak of her humanity!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Can you quote my post regarding the formulation of christ's divinity (i.e. "god is jesus") that you are referring to and can you also state your position regarding this as i have concentrated on the main topic in hand.
alright, here it is:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
"The final revelation of Christianity", observes William Blake, "is, therefore, not that Jesus is God, but that "God is Jesus." (Northrop Frye, "The Religious Vision of William Blake", in Toward a New Christianity, edited by Thomas J. J. Altizer, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, 1967, page 40)
hamza, do you know who william blake is? or did you just use the quote because he formulated the christian creed as erroneously as the qur'an? for one thing, william blake was opposed to christianity as it was in his day. furthermore and more importantly, he believed that everyone was god. god is you, god is me, and yes, god is jesus. now let me make one more comment on the matter of sources before we continue: why is it that you brought a heretic* (one that lived a little over a thousand years after muhammad) in order to prove a point as it concerns christianity. did the muslim deity have william blake in mind when it revealed that verse? did it have a sort of new age pantheism in mind? would it be perfectly alright for me to quote from members of the nation of islam to prove a point against sunni muslims? would it be alright for me to quote from shia hadith collections in order to prove a point against sunni muslims? william blake didn't even belief in the trinity and so we must really ask ourselves why you have no qualms with quoting an individual who does not even believe this at all when you would be against the same practise if i did this in respect to sunni muslims and members of the nation of islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Let us look at a Christian apologetic James Patrick Holding in his article Jesus As God's Wisdom, and the Trinity Doctrine:

Jesus, as God's Word and Wisdom, was and is eternally an attribute of God the Father.

Holding also states:

It is not sufficient to object that because Jesus is a person, he cannot be an "attribute" of the Father. Personhood is not incompatible with being an attribute of another person. Moreover, we should not presume that our inability as humans to have a personal attribute also means that God cannot have one.
this is actually where things get good. would it be alright to assume that william craig has not said that "god is jesus"? i'm sure he hasn't and from your post it doesn't look like it and so we must actually look at the meaning contained in the example you have brought forth. you have correctly said that the claim "god is love" does not mean "love is god"** and so we must ask ourselves, what does the former actually mean? "god is love" means that god possesses love, while the statement "god is jesus" means that jesus possesses divinity (this is true only if we follow the grammatical rule of "god is love" because if we don't then it merely means what i said in the first place, i.e. that this refers to the sabellian heresy. i'm only following the example of "god is love" because this statement was brought up by yourself). you'll note that you did say that it is not a statement of identity and as such is therefore a statement of possession (the matter becomes a bit complex because possession and identity could go hand in hand but if we are to follow the very example that you yourself have given then my point is on the right course) and if this is the case then once again we do not have the trinitarian christian understanding that jesus is himself god but merely that jesus was divine (more specifically, jesus is divine though he is himself not god a la "god is love/love is god" or rather "god is love/love is not god"). this leads us to arianism which once again was condemned by the early church. the above was very messy and while no matter how you argue it, the saying still leads to a condemnation of a heresy, i believe that the real condemnation is that of sabellianism simply for the fact that if the source of the qur'an wanted to condemn arianism and more importantly, if his words were not concerning identity but predication along the lines of god is love, then he really could have done so in a much easier manner. your point failed when you brought up the matter of god is love because when this logic is used we end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian doctrine (i wasn't kidding when i said that there are numerous ways to formulate the christian doctrine incorrectly and you have once again simply proved my point).

* ironically, i was the first to say that this passage did not condemn the christian claim but the heresy of sabellianism and as such it could not be used against trinitarians. you now quote a heretic in order to prove (what exactly is your position here. if the passage truly is directed at a heresy then why do you seem to be arguing against my point) that my position is wrong and i'm certainly at a loss here. i've claimed that the formulation is heretical and cannot be used to condemn the proper christian doctrine...you then quote a heretic as a way of somehow undermining my claim and so i must ask you how exactly this disproves my point?

** i could actually end here seeing as even your claim shows that "god is jesus" is not the same thing as "jesus is god" (in the same regard as "god is love" is not the same as "love is god"). this is precisely what i had argued in the first place. that is, if your claim is correct then following the logic you have shown us above, we could not say "jesus is god" (this once again is exactly what arians would believe) and as such cannot be used to condemn the actual christian claim. the more we look to these passages the more they cease to actually be talking about trinitarian (i.e. the biggest group of christians at all).
anyway, i'll let you think over the above.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I have already disaproved your gross errors in misinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an by stating the following:

1. The verses clearly refer to the trinity to that of God being "One in 3" which is sufficient enough to refute such a concept on a theological level without having to name it as "the trinity".

2. The two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. So again it is impossible that these verses can be in error for it is you who is trying to imply that the verses are including Mary in the trinity but it is clear for all to see you are in gross error everytime.
you have not refuted but rather ignored my argument, refused to quote the section you supposedly were referring to and now simply claim that you have refuted it. as such, here is my post again:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hamza, you've just changed my question. no one is asking for the qur'an to condemn all various heresies, rather we're simply asking for a passage where the qur'an actually condemns the trinity. it's a bit surprising that it would seem that the qur'an would go into such detailed condemnations--or rather it commits the same misformulations of the trinitarian doctrine as others have held in the past--and yet cannot mention that god is not existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. every single references to the three divine persons that christians supposedly worship is a reference that includes not the holy spirit but rather mary. if we let the qur'an interpret itself then we find that the only trinity detailed within it's pages is one that includes mary. if the qur'an is so busy giving detailed condemnations of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years earlier, then the only logical conclusion is to suppose that it has also condemned the trinity but when we look at what the qur'anic trinity actually is, we find that mary is always included in the list and the holy spirit is never there.

the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity. every christological doctrine turns out to be condemning heresies (rather these are misformulations but quite ironically, by condemning a misformulation of the christological doctrines, it actually succeeded in condemning heresies already condemned by the trinitarians themselves).
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hamza, you've just changed my question. no one is asking for the qur'an to condemn all various heresies, rather we're simply asking for a passage where the qur'an actually condemns the trinity. it's a bit surprising that it would seem that the qur'an would go into such detailed condemnations--or rather it commits the same misformulations of the trinitarian doctrine as others have held in the past--and yet cannot mention that god is not existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. every single references to the three divine persons that christians supposedly worship is a reference that includes not the holy spirit but rather mary. if we let the qur'an interpret itself then we find that the only trinity detailed within it's pages is one that includes mary. if the qur'an is so busy giving detailed condemnations of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years earlier, then the only logical conclusion is to suppose that it has also condemned the trinity but when we look at what the qur'anic trinity actually is, we find that mary is always included in the list and the holy spirit is never there.

the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity. every christological doctrine turns out to be condemning heresies (rather these are misformulations but quite ironically, by condemning a misformulation of the christological doctrines, it actually succeeded in condemning heresies already condemned by the trinitarians themselves).
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
in the above you seem to be talking about the proper trinity and so i have to ask you how you can even say what you're saying when never in the qur'an is the proper trinity highlighted. i have shown you repeated passages where the three deities that christians supposedly worship always refers to the father, the son, and mary. never does the qur'an speak of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. now which one of us is being improper in his argument here, the person who is sticking specifically to allah's perfect book or the one who needs to go outside of it (to what i'm assuming are quotations 200-300 years removed from the event) in order to try and make the qur'an say something it does not. here is an example of what i'm talking about:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist — it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. — Surah 4:171 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah — Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. — Surah 5:72-75 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me — to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. — Surah 5:116-117 Sahih International (emphasis mine)

"god is not one of three".

my position: given that every reference which details who exactly these three persons are who christians supposedly worship deals with the father, the son, and mary; it follows the rules of grammar and logic to interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones and where the author has remained vague (for we cannot expect him to be detailed at every single time he speaks of the same thing), it is proper to understand his vagueness in light of what has already been shown to be certain.

your position: clearly when the muslim deity is speaking of god not being one of three this is actually directed at the concept of the proper trinity (i.e. of the father, the son, and the holy spirit).

al-manar, one need not be a christian to see that your position is utterly against the position of the qur'an and that you ignore both the context in which every other mention of three deities is presented in and the very precedent that the qur'an sets up for itself. my position is perfectly in keeping with the other statements in the qur'an while yours is not.

let us remember that in all other matters, the qur'an is quite specific (such as the worship of idols; it even gives us the names of these idols in more than one occasion) so are we really supposed to belief that while the general principle of the qur'an has been to be detailed in what it says of the most prevalent beliefs of other religions, when it comes to the trinity it should be all but silent? of course not. if we allow the qur'an to be consistent then we'd see that it did detail the trinity--the only problem is that it got it wrong. this is why you are proposing using outside sources to try to improve on the qur'an seeing as you cannot show from your holy book that it was actually talking about the proper trinity while i, simply from following the very precedent set by the qur'an, can show that it was in error when it spoke of the trinity. the words of an author are understood from the context that he himself has set, we know the context in which every single reference to three deities that christians supposedly worship is directed at and this always is towards a trinity which involves mary. if in the above passage the author was not speaking of the marian trinity then would you not expect the author to have made this clear given that every reference to three persons so far has been one in which mary is included? was the source of the qur'an incapable of such a simple thing?

i must repeat this because we certainly can't get past this fact. from the qur'an you can't find a condemnation of the trinity but instead if you allow the qur'an to be consistent and speak for itself, you invariably end up with a mistake. this is why you try to bring in outside sources because you and i both know that when we examine all passages within the qur'an that deal with the three persons whom christians supposedly worship, they all have to do with a father, a mother and a son. there is exactly no other manner in which the qur'an represents this whenever it speaks of three gods. now instead of following what the qur'an has done in every single passage, you wish to turn around the subject to the matter of things outside the qur'an. can we not let the qur'an speak for itself given that it is a clear book? once again, if you can show from the qur'an that the passage refers to the proper trinity then this is all well and good but if your only option is to ignore everything in the qur'an and then try to make your case using everything but the qur'an then you have just proved my argument. al-manar, with all respect appropriate to such a discussion, please stop running away from the question. if you cannot prove your point from the qur'an than you have proved nothing. the overwhelming evidence is actually in support of my position and this is exactly why you do not even try to prove your point from the qur'an but appeal to outside sources. the question in this thread is simple, how does the qur'an represent the christian belief and the fact that if we look to the qur'an we are met with clear errors is obvious and even implicitly admitted by yourself by the fact that you wish to make your case not from the qur'an but from outside sources when i simply make my case from the qur'an.

you wished to say that the reference was vague, fine, we can agree to this. you wished to say that even though the passage misformulated the trinity that it had no intention of speaking of the trinity, fine we could even allow this as well but even taking all of your points at face value we still have ourselves clear errors (as an aside, notice the number of concessions i've let myself make within this thread and yet the very passages we are discussing are still clear errors. misformulations of the trinity tend to remain misformulations no matter how one tries to interpret them). all you have been doing so far is reinterpreting the words to evade one condemnation but then you lend yourself and the muslim deity to a different condemnation. the words were formulated incorrectly and as such no matter how you'll try to argue your case you'll still end up with an erroneous articulation of the christian doctrine.

that said, can any muslim who is keeping up with this discussion show that the trinitarian doctrine (either as it relates to individual members of the trinity or the trinity as a whole) is being condemned in the qur'an? of course i understand that the qur'an speaks against a trinity but can anyone here show that it is speaking against the proper trinity?
although, the above is also a response to al-manar, it still refutes what you have said. now, can you please quote from the above and try to prove your case?
Reply

Umm AbdurRahman
04-29-2011, 07:12 PM
Greetings everyone,

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No. The word "Trinity" is not actually found in the Bible. Why? Because as I have explained countless times, it is a term coined by Christians to describe what we observe to be true with regard to the God who discloses himself to us in the text of the Bible.
There you go!! The word "Trinity" is not there in The Bible. Neither is it clearly stated.

It is a term coined by Christians to describe what you "observe" to be true !! Not that it is the Truth!! God never stated the Trinity in lucid expression in The BIble!!

Now, how can we trust human observations and interpretations regarding the fundamentals of faith in God ???
Reply

M.I.A.
04-29-2011, 07:23 PM
i agree that the quran is a book of guidance and as such, it should be easy for christians to see as the truth.
we can understand that all the major scripture and religions are open to conflict between themselves... but they all represent a never changing god so it should be easy to acknowledge there is truth in them all.
any conflict is from people who have misguided themselves or follow misguidance.

the whole point is made irrelevant as ultimately conflict is the only rout left to ascertain truth.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm AbdurRahman
Now, how can we trust human observations and interpretations regarding the fundamentals of faith in God ???
With respect, that seems to be a much bigger problem for you than I find it to be. For me, the problem is how to trust as an infallible revelation a book that claims to be from an all knowing God and yet denies as true an event that is attested to by contemperaneous authors of widely differing backgrounds and interests (even conflicting agendas) and that is recognized as fact by historians of every religious persuasion including some Muslims.

However, the disagreement in our source of authority not withstanding, the question of How the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs remains. Whether you accept our beliefs as true, I continue to assert that to reject them you must first actually express what they are rather than some fictious strawman that does not accurately portray what we believe and then believe that in rejecting the strawman you have reason to reject Christianity. Thus far in this thread, no Muslim has yet to speak of the Trinity with an understanding of it that fits the Christian understanding of it. Certainly the Qur'an does NOT. As I've said before:
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, unless you use it to refer to the same thing that we mean by the term, then this discussion is pointless. What we mean by Trinity is that we observe that there is just one God who exists in three persons. We do NOT mean by the term "Trinity" that of God being "One of 3." So, I don't know what you are referencing above, but it isn't the Christian Trinity.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 02:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
the whole point is made irrelevant as ultimately conflict is the only rout left to ascertain truth.
I hope that this is not what you truly believe. Surely there are better ways to ascertain truth than by conflict. One might inevitably face conflict because of one's belief in a particular truth and commitment to follow it, but truth seekers should not be conflict seekers.
Reply

M.I.A.
04-30-2011, 03:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I hope that this is not what you truly believe. Surely there are better ways to ascertain truth than by conflict. One might inevitably face conflict because of one's belief in a particular truth and commitment to follow it, but truth seekers should not be conflict seekers.
lol, from all i know that is what i believe.
conflict is every part of society, from use of language to mannerisms to character. by the time you learn to control these parts of yourself you realize the benefit and disadvantages of being on autopilot.

my twisted world view
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Summary of our discussion here, there is no middle way between Muslims and Christians on Trinity of Trinity plus Mother of Son subject

5-116. And when Allah will say, 'O Issa son of Maryam! Did you tell to people, 'make me and my mother two gods besides Allah’? He will submit 'bellowed be You, it is not justified for me that I should tell the thing to which I have no reach. 'If I had said that You would surely have known it You know what is in my heart and I do not know what is in Your knowledge. Undoubtedly, it is You only, Knower of, all hidden things.
Before I respond, I seek clarification.

1) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Mary is a God.

2) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Jesus is an additional God?

3) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that either of those beliefs is an actual teaching of the Christian Church, or might it be referring to just a small isolated group of people perhaps known to Muhammad, but forgotten to history?
Reply

Chavundur
04-30-2011, 08:01 PM
As You and I know,Most of Christians seek help from Mary ( You can say that they are not aware what Hypostatic Union is), I watched a lot of movies, saw a lot of Christians, entered a lot of Church ,I saw Mary statutes, a men or woman before her and praying Oh Holy Mary .. I am not sure what He or She imply in his or her hearth but I also listened a lot of sentences what they mean. Dear Woodrow answered this question asked by Sol Invictus in that topic you quoted my message from. (page 4 or 5 )

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
However some early Christians did see Mary as part of the Trinity. Although in time they did get labelled heretics by the Catholic Church.



SOURCE


Mary was worshipped by at least some early Christians. There have also been occasional revivals of this belief.



SOURCE



SOURCE


Those movements show the validity of the Surah mentioned above.



The simple fact is There have been and still are some who call themselves Christian that worship Mary as a god. I do acknowledge that this view is not held by most modern Christians. But it was a belief in the past, even though it was eventually condemned as heresy.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 08:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
As You and I know,Most of Christians seek help from Mary ( You can say that they are not aware what Hypostatic Union is), I watched a lot of movies, saw a lot of Christians, entered a lot of Church ,I saw Mary statutes, a men or woman before her and praying Oh Holy Mary .. I am not sure what He or She imply in his or her hearth but I also listened a lot of sentences what they mean. Dear Woodrow answered this question asked by Sol Invictus in that topic you quoted my message from. (page 4 or 5 )

But this doesn't answer my questions.
Reply

Chavundur
04-30-2011, 08:27 PM
Grace Seeker, If You seek answer, you can check page four , I think that answer will be better than my observations.

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...4305666&page=4
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 08:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Grace Seeker, If You seek answer, you can check page four , I think that answer will be better than my observations.

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...4305666&page=4

I've read page four. I appreciate Woodrow's comments there. And while they relate, they don't actually answer my questions. So, thank-you for referencing them, but I'm still waiting for them to be specifically addessed.
Reply

M.I.A.
04-30-2011, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Before I respond, I seek clarification.

1) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Mary is a God.

2) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Jesus is an additional God?

3) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that either of those beliefs is an actual teaching of the Christian Church, or might it be referring to just a small isolated group of people perhaps known to Muhammad, but forgotten to history?


on the day of judgement when questions are asked, that is the question asked.

why it is asked?
it is asked because people will have set the prophet and his mother peace and blessings be upon them as partners to god.
it doesn't matter if it is any group of people in particular or organization, every individual will have his/her own questions.

anybody pointing fingers at others as the source of there misguidance will be fairly dealt with.

the cause of religion was to worship allah swt alone and all guidance was sent to bring people closer to that true path of worship and belief in that god, the acknowledgement of prophets, there teachings, there lives and relationships is not the same between prophets... the message they brought forward with them was.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-30-2011, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
on the day of judgement when questions are asked, that is the question asked.
What is the question that will be asked? Surely Allah will not ask me: "O Issa son of Maryam! Did you tell to people, 'make me and my mother two gods besides Allah’?" for my name is not Issa.

But your response does not address my questions either, for I am not asking what Allah will do on the day of judgment, I am seeking to understand to whom this verse is referring. Is it saying that this is what is taught by Christianity (as a whole, not just a small subset who are themselves divergent from the norm)? Is the Qur'an to be understood as representing Christian beliefs by this passage?

I'm asking 3 simple and direct "Yes" or "No" questions and getting anything but simple and direct answers.
Reply

M.I.A.
04-30-2011, 09:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What is the question that will be asked? Surely Allah will not ask me: "O Issa son of Maryam! Did you tell to people, 'make me and my mother two gods besides Allah’?" for my name is not Issa.

But your response does not address my questions either, for I am not asking what Allah will do on the day of judgment, I am seeking to understand to whom this verse is referring. Is it saying that this is what is taught by Christianity (as a whole, not just a small subset who are themselves divergent from the norm)? Is the Qur'an to be understood as representing Christian beliefs by this passage?

I'm asking 3 simple and direct "Yes" or "No" questions and getting anything but simple and direct answers.
it is referring to you and me.

i cannot imagine what the question was.
i know my answer already..

all praise is due to allah alone
i believe in his books
his angels
his messengers
the day of ressurection
the day of judgement

heaven and hell.

i have accepted islam as the religion for me and have taken the quran as my criterion for judgement.

for me to answer all your questions, you must first define "christians" as used in your sentences.
Reply

Chavundur
04-30-2011, 10:34 PM
I see a clarification in that verse, Its luminous light illuminates minds of believers and says Allah's knowledge is free from time, He has already known all answers also He knows all questions to be asked, one of them should be that one, " Oh Jesus , I created you , Would It be possible to let you make such big claim when all your particles and cells in my sovereignty, when your tongue is working in my power " No , thousands of times no, So Why He asks this question, there are thousands of mysteries and answers of course, showing his mercy and judging his servants with his mercy, saying them What was your source, Would there be some deceitful intentions, If there were, Who was the leader, Answer now, first one - did you do, No My Lord , You are away from this, second one, then third one, and one answer starts with alas, forgive me.
Reply

Woodrow
04-30-2011, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Before I respond, I seek clarification.
Fair enough.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
1) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Mary is a God.
That is one thought that can be gleaned form it. But, it may not be all that is contained in it. It can also be an affirmation that any human, no matter how good is not God(swt) and could never honestly claim to be.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
2) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Jesus is an additional God?
It does seem to be that

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
3) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that either of those beliefs is an actual teaching of the Christian Church, or might it be referring to just a small isolated group of people perhaps known to Muhammad, but forgotten to history?
Since those do not represent the beliefs of all who call themselves Christian, my conclusion is it refers to Christians of the era and region as those would have been the representation of what was considered Christian in at least one time and area.

Now to say who were/are Christians could easily come into a long drawn out debate and could derail this thread even faster than I usually go off topic.
Reply

siam
05-01-2011, 04:14 AM
For Muslims---

Christian history is complicated and while many of todays Christians might believe their (Trinitarian) doctrines comes straight from heaven :D---this may perhaps not be historically valid.
Trinitarian Christianity developed among many powerfully competing Christian and Non-Christian doctrines and it was only politics that resulted in one set of doctrines becomming more "mainstream" than others.
The "nature of Christ" is a subject that has been hotly disputed (as well as the position of Mary(pbuh))
Todays Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ(pbuh) is a result of Calcedon--and the theory is apparently called dyophysitism---but there were comepting theories to this namely monophysites, and miaphysites. ---so whats the difference between all of these?----As a Muslim, I find it hard to figure out---but to the Christians of the time---these were serious differences---and they fought over them.
dyophysitism---Jesus Christ(pbuh) has 2 natures and 2 wills (Divine and Human)
monophysites---Jesus Christs (pbuh) has 1 nature and 1 will ((Divine in human form)

The Chalcedonians won out in the end---but there was a time around the 7th century when Pope Honorius I tried to compromise by adopting a new theory called monothelitism---which posits that Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) has 2 natures but 1 will.
This compromise would have brought both the Eastern and Western Churches together into one church---but it was not to be---The Pope was condemned after his death and the Western Church went back to Chalcedonian theory.
Today there are apparently 2 theories---the Chalcedonian type and the miaphysites---which some feel is the same as Chalcedon, and others feel it is a version of monophysites:D---quite a mess........

Christian doctrines have not followed a clear, straight path in their development and any Christian who says otherwise does not know their own history.....


By the way---feel free to make corrections as this is not an area I am familiar with..............
Reply

siam
05-01-2011, 04:18 AM
Lest anyone is under the impression that Christians themselves fully understand their own doctrines, here is something from wikipedia----

"Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, 'substance'), physis (φύσις, 'nature'), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, 'person'). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis was qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue further. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts."

Even today different Christians have different understanding of many aspects of their doctrines.....
Reply

YieldedOne
05-01-2011, 06:19 AM
Lemme ask this to you, Woodrow.

Do you feel that there is any MISrepresentation of the Christian faith AT ALL in the Qur'an? In other words, do you believe that there is any representation of Christianity in the Qur'an that does NOT conform to a historical perspective of core doctrines of the Christian faith?

I've gotta see this answer.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-01-2011, 06:23 AM
GS: Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that either of those beliefs is an actual teaching of the Christian Church, or might it be referring to just a small isolated group of people perhaps known to Muhammad, but forgotten to history?

Woodrow: Since those do not represent the beliefs of all who call themselves Christian, my conclusion is it refers to Christians of the era and region as those would have been the representation of what was considered Christian in at least one time and area.


YO: If what you say is the case, Woodrow, then doesn't this mean that, with respect to this particular Quranic verse and teaching, it's formally IRRELEVANT to genuine criticism of modern, orthodox Christianity by and large? Basically, if this teaching is not seen as misrepresentative (which I think could be said), it's at best outdated and irrelevant. What say you?
Reply

Al-manar
05-01-2011, 11:06 AM
Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I seek clarification.

1) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Mary is a God.?

this passage represent the people that give to Mary (worship , veneration anytime,anywhere) that is due to Allah alone ..

2) Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that Christians believe Jesus is an additional God?

this passage represent the people that worship Jesus(anytime, anywhere) ,a worship that is due to Allah alone....

3) Is this passage representing the Collyridianism trinity ?

No, it doesn't.

4) Is this passage representing the orthodox trinity ?

No it doesn't ,neither is there intention ,in the verse ,to formulate any ...

the answers to those Questions need more elaboration ,and detailed analysis of :

1- What is (to take god ) means ,what would constitutes a false god ,according to the Quran ?

2- linguestic reasons the verse is not formulatimng trinity; what is the word mentioned in the verse (men doon aka instead )with respect to shirk, would convey , and what the word (Maa aka with) with respect to shirk would convey?

3- what the contemporary christians to the prophet around and in Mecca would say about the trinity?

for the narrow time ,such elaborations will be given insha,Allah in details ...either here in the thread or in my thread in future posts inshaAllah ....
Reply

Woodrow
05-01-2011, 12:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Lemme ask this to you, Woodrow.

Do you feel that there is any MISrepresentation of the Christian faith AT ALL in the Qur'an? In other words, do you believe that there is any representation of Christianity in the Qur'an that does NOT conform to a historical perspective of core doctrines of the Christian faith?

I've gotta see this answer.
The Quran does have a very accurate representation and historical perspective of Early Christianity and to some extent the Catholicism and Greek Orthodox of today.

Let us look at the many sects of Christianity that existed between the years 100-600 each of them was considered by the adherents as being the true Christianity.

Catholicism which was the dominate belief and followed by the most if not all Christian and dominated the Greeks and Romans. It lasted until the great schism of 1054 When it divided into Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Mary veneration was a very large part of it and continues to be until today even to many non-Catholic's of today it appears that both do worship Mary. As veneration of Mary was/is one of the most visible practices of both churches.

Christian devotion to Mary goes back to the 2nd century and predates the emergence of a specific Marian liturgical system in the 5th century, following the First Council of Ephesus in 431. The Council itself was held at a church in Ephesus which had been dedicated to Mary about a hundred years before.[35][36][37] In Egypt the veneration of Mary had started in the 3rd century and the term Theotokos was used by Origen, the Alexandrian Father of the Church.[38]

The earliest known Marian prayer (the Sub tuum praesidium, or Beneath Thy Protection) is from the 3rd century (perhaps 270), and its text was rediscovered in 1917 on a papyrus in Egypt.[39][40] Following the Edict of Milan in 313, by the 5th century artistic images of Mary began to appear in public and larger churches were being dedicated to Mary, e.g. S. Maria Maggiore in Rome.[41][42][43]

Over the centuries, devotion and veneration to Mary has varied greatly among Christian traditions. For instance, while Protestants show scant attention to Marian prayers or devotions, of all the saints whom the Orthodox venerate, the most honored is Mary, who is considered "more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim."[44]

Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov wrote: "Love and veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the soul of Orthodox piety. A faith in Christ which does not include his mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox church."[45]
source

Now add to that:

In 300 A.D., the Blessed Virgin Mary was worshipped as a Mother Goddess in the Christian sect Collyridianism, which was found throughout Saudi Arabia. Collyridianism was made up mostly of women followers and female priests. Followers of Collyridianism were known to make bread and wheat offerings to the Virgin Mary, along with other sacrificial practices. The cult was heavily condemned as heretical and schismatic by the Roman Catholic Church and was preached against by Epiphanius of Salamis, who exposed the group in his recollective writings titled Panarion.
SOURCE

While that particular sect did get condemned as being heretical that does not mean all of it was considered to be in error

The Bible refers to the personified Heavenly Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) in feminine terms. Sophia is venerated as the Virgin Sophia in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as in Christian Mysticism. Most Christians who are Catholics believe that "God the Father" is masculine and that Jesus was a man; and further, that "the Church" is the female counterpart of God and is the Bride of Jesus.

Some Christians do not agree on this teaching and assert that God subsumes and transcends both masculinity and femininity. From their point of view the grammatical gender used to address the deity is a mere convention, and the masculine designations for the persons of the Trinity characterize a relationship and not gender, per se. However, this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and as such, might have constituted heresy for most of the early history of Christianity.[citation needed]

In many languages, such as Syriac, the word translated "spirit" takes the feminine gender. In early Christian literature in these languages, the Holy Spirit is therefore discussed in feminine terms, especially before c. A.D. 400.[23]
SOURCE

The role of Mary shifted to the early concept of "The Holy Spirit" which in early Christianity was feminine. In a very real sense some perhaps even many Early Christians did worship Mary or a personification similar to Mary. although they do claim it is veneration and not worship. It does seem that the concept of the "Holy Spirit" did/does carry a strong resemblance to the early worship of Mary.

The veneration/worship of Mary has very early roots.


In Rome, with massive solemnity, the canons of Santa Maria Maggiore took down from the altar the painting of Mary and Child known as Salus Populi Romani (Safety of the Roman people). Holding high the holy, red-brown painting, done on wood and attributed by Catholics to St. Luke,

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1L6TYDSXX


By this action at the end of the Marian Year, Pius XII strengthened the ancient Marian movement, which is spreading with new vigor among Catholics. The theological foundations of Mary-veneration were laid in the first century A.D. In the Catacombs, Rome's persecuted Christians painted pictures of the Virgin, emphasizing her sanctity. Thereafter, a long line of saints—among them Irenaeus, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine—laid stress on her sinlessness. In a poem, St. Ephrem (300-379) had Mary addressing God: "Let Heaven uphold me in its embrace, because I am more honored than it. Heaven is only your throne, it isn't your mother. How much more a mother of a king is to be honored than a king's throne."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1L6Sx1iVd
SOURCE

There is very little if any difference between veneration and worship. To a non adherent the difference is not there. Veneration=Worship. Veneration of Mary goes back to the first Century and continues to today.

Mary in Early Christian Theology

In the writings of the early church fathers, Mary is mentioned only occasionally and primarily in contrast to Eve. Justin Martyr (d. c.165) and Irenaeus (d. c.202) contrasted Mary's obedience with Eve's disobedience.

The apocryphal Gospel of James (as seen above), Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and especially Athanasius affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity. This doctrine was accepted by both Western and Eastern Churches from the fifth century onwards.

The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer) arose in Alexandria and was probably first used by Origen. It became common in the fourth century, was opposed by Nestorius, and accepted at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Mary played a lesser role in the West than in the East at this time. Western theologians like St. Ambrose primarily spoke of Mary as a "type" or symbol of the Church.

The doctrine of the bodily Assumption of Mary was formally developed by St. Gregory of Tours (d. 594), although it had been present in apocryphal tests since the late fourth century. The Feast of the Assumption became widespread in the sixth century, and sermons on that occasion tended to emphasize Mary's power in heaven.
source

As an after thought, I am not the only one who believes Mariology is ancient:

Welcome to the world of Byzantine Iconography !


Byzantine Iconography – is the oldest and only Christian art form survived unchanged for the past 2000 years.

The term 'icon' - icona, ikona, икона (Russian) comes from the Greek word eikona (εἰκών, eikōn, ) which simply means image. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the first icons of Christ and the Virgin Mary were painted by St. Luke the Evangelist.
source

Also Remember that Catholicism/Orthodoxy are the oldest forms of Christianities and about 1/2 of today's Christians are of them.
Reply

Woodrow
05-01-2011, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
GS: Is this passage from the Qur'an representing that either of those beliefs is an actual teaching of the Christian Church, or might it be referring to just a small isolated group of people perhaps known to Muhammad, but forgotten to history?

Woodrow: Since those do not represent the beliefs of all who call themselves Christian, my conclusion is it refers to Christians of the era and region as those would have been the representation of what was considered Christian in at least one time and area.


YO: If what you say is the case, Woodrow, then doesn't this mean that, with respect to this particular Quranic verse and teaching, it's formally IRRELEVANT to genuine criticism of modern, orthodox Christianity by and large? Basically, if this teaching is not seen as misrepresentative (which I think could be said), it's at best outdated and irrelevant. What say you?
The Christianity most prevalent at that time was: Catholicism, Marianites and Collyridians, ... Catholocism still exists, The Marianites were absorbed by Catholicism and became the "Marianites of the Holy Cross order" which still exists as an Order of Catholic Nuns, Collyridians were judged to be heretical, although the teaching of them was/is almost indistinguishable from the Marianites and Catholics.

So it is neither irrelevant nor Outdated. It was and continues to be the belief and teaching of the Largest Christian denomination but not all denominations. Although officially they call it veneration, what many put into practice is Worship of Mary.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-01-2011, 10:01 PM
sorry if i have missed anything that may have been directed towards me (if that is the case, a post directing me to the appropriate post would be appreciated).

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
Christian doctrines have not followed a clear, straight path in their development and any Christian who says otherwise does not know their own history.....
i thank god that most of these heresies had happened early in church history. imagine if arianism, sabellianism etc. and the condemnations thereof had post-dated islam? if that were the case then any condemnation of these doctrines would mean nothing in light of the islamic argument for it would very well (and perhaps appropriately enough) have been said that christians had only condemned these because the qur'an had condemned these first. yet given that all these doctrines were condemned before the advent of islam, the trinitarian christian position is at a considerable advantage for anything that the qur'an seems to say concerning these heresies, the church has said first and as such the qur'an adds largely nothing to the discussion other than to confirm the word of the church for muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
Trinitarian Christianity developed among many powerfully competing Christian and Non-Christian doctrines and it was only politics that resulted in one set of doctrines becomming more "mainstream" than others.
siam, the same could be said concerning the battle of siffin and the like. if the outcome of the battle had ended differently than the majority of muslims would be shiites instead. more than any christian council, the battle of siffin was certainly a case of politics deciding doctrine seeing as individuals actually went to war and the winning side cemented its monopoly on the practise of islam. so no, your point is actually far more damaging towards islam than anything else.

that said, this still does not change the fact that there is no condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an. the question we ought to ask ourselves is why in fact the muslim deity would have such a predilection for condemning the very heresies that christians had condemned centuries before the advent of islam and yet not say a single word against the proper trinity. it is either that he mistakenly condemned the trinity as the marian trinity or felt that he shouldn't speak against the correct trinity.

anyway, to echo the words of gene:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
However, the disagreement in our source of authority not withstanding, the question of How the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs remains. Whether you accept our beliefs as true, I continue to assert that to reject them you must first actually express what they are rather than some fictious strawman that does not accurately portray what we believe and then believe that in rejecting the strawman you have reason to reject Christianity. Thus far in this thread, no Muslim has yet to speak of the Trinity with an understanding of it that fits the Christian understanding of it. Certainly the Qur'an does NOT.
Reply

Chavundur
05-01-2011, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
ingle word against the proper trinity. it is either that he mistakenly condemned the trinity as the marian trinity or felt that he shouldn't speak against the correct trinity.

Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-01-2011, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.
i certainly do agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that there is no condemnation of the proper trinity within the qur'an. it wouldn't have been hard for the source of the qu'ran speak but one word against the trinity and yet it didn't. if the qur'an is a book which is meant to distinguish truth from falsehood then the fact that the muslim deity does not speak against the proper trinity speaks volumes.
Reply

Chavundur
05-01-2011, 11:02 PM
Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-02-2011, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
Hamza, the problem here lies in the fact that none of your above sources prove what you are actually saying. protestants and catholics both believe that mary is the mother of god yet the title does not invest her with any divinity. in none of your sources is she actually called divine. hamza, can you please show us where the christian creeds explain mother of god to mean that mary is divine? you have consistently been unable to show this and have misunderstood all the above references as having to do with mary's divinity when they all speak of her humanity!
Greetings Sol,

All of the statements i pasted above from the early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary clearly prove that Mary was not seen as just human but she was seen as divine and venerated like a divine being which Woodrow also proved with sources in his post above. There you have failed to refute a single statement pointing to the divinity of Mary and yet again your points have been disaproven.

Even if the above statements never existed no true Muslim or monotheist would be in disagreement in the fact that calling Mary the "mother of God" is without doubt utterly blasphemous and ascribing partners to God as well as pure shirk.

If you don't believe that calling Jesus the son of God is shirk then why would you believe calling that Mary the "Mother of God" as shirk?

You also believe that a 3 in 1 God is not shirk then i can never expect you to believe that calling Mary the "Mother of God! as shirk.

Regarding the statement i pasted of William Blake then that is irrelevent to our main discussion.

Your previous quotes in your last post in which you tried to prove that Mary constituted the third in the trinity have already been refuted and you ignored the challenge i set you regarding using the original language of the Qur'an to prove your position.

I have already stated that the two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. If the Qur'an had mentioned what contistuted the trinity and what order God was in the trinity then you would have a point but the fact is he clearly DID NOT mention the order or the trinity nor did he mention Mary to be a part of the trinity but he clearly condemmed the trinity on a theological level and also refuted the idea of ascribing partners to God by raising the status of Mary to that of God and that is clearly the case today where she is called "the mother of God"!

Therefore all we have is your false assumptions of what you THINK the Qur'an implied in that Mary constituted the third person in the trinity when that is clearly NOT the case.

Surely the Qur'an far exceeds the Bible when referring to the trinity when it states that God is not "one in 3" but how does the Bible describe the trinity? Oh it doesnt! The trinity is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible! So therefore it was clearly the creation of heretics well after the Bible coming from pagan influences just like the Bible is full of Pagan influences.

Holy trinities are found in many of the cults of the time among the Babylonians, Hindus, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Chaldeans. At the end of the second century, the word “trinity” begins to appear in Christian writings. The trinity as approved by the council of churches in 431 AD included Mary, the mother of Jesus, but she was later replaced with the Holy Spirit because some theologians were having trouble with the concept of “mother of God.”

You think God would not mention something as important as the trinity in the Bibel and keep it secretly coded in the words of the Bible? Be serious Sol.

So as you have clearly ignored my question in my previous post i ask you again Sol to provide proof and evidence of the trinity in the Bible itself which refers to the trinity that Christians worship today...

Also for the third time if you want to prove your position with regards to implying that Mary was the third in the trinity then you will have to do so using the original language of the Qur'an.

You keep ignoring this and instead pasting your vast quotes from previous posts which have already been refuted so are now irrelevant to the discussion. I still await this challenge to be fulfilled....
Reply

siam
05-02-2011, 02:04 AM
Perhaps this thread shows the extreme Christo-Centric perspective of some Christians?

The Quran is Guidance for all mankind---why should the Quran go about spending time only on addressing Christian concerns?

I once discussed Surah Al-Ikhlas (112) with someone who thought it was addressed specifically to Christians. This is a Meccan Surah and the listeners would have been Meccan polytheists. The Quran is Guidance to all mankind---including Christians---if they so choose----It is NOT a "textbook" sent for the purpose of debunking the variety of Christianities piece by piece.

In the general scheme of humanity---Christians are not that important or special...............
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-02-2011, 02:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i certainly do agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that there is no condemnation of the proper trinity within the qur'an. it wouldn't have been hard for the source of the qu'ran speak but one word against the trinity and yet it didn't. if the qur'an is a book which is meant to distinguish truth from falsehood then the fact that the muslim deity does not speak against the proper trinity speaks volumes.
Why would the Christian deity fail to mention the most fundamental belief of Christianity today in the Bible?

So the fact that the Qur'an actually refers to the trinity and teaches it to Christians better than the Bible does speaks volumes in itself!

It clearly condems and refutes such an illogical and absurd concept on a theological level yet the Christian deity fails to mention the most fundamental belief of Christianity ANYWHERE in the Bible!

There is absolutley NO basis for the trinity in the Bible nor is there ANY proof that Jesus or any other Prophet taught the trinity so it can ONLY be concluded that the trinity is NOT a teaching of the Bible and nor was it a teaching by Jesus or any other Prophet. of God!
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-02-2011, 11:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
All of the statements i pasted above from the early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary clearly prove that Mary was not seen as just human but she was seen as divine and venerated like a divine being which Woodrow also proved with sources in his post above. There you have failed to refute a single statement pointing to the divinity of Mary and yet again your points have been disaproven.
greetings hamza. can you tell us how exactly your statements prove that she was divine? all that those statements basically said was that she was the mother of god. that very title speaks of her humanity! simply because the title may sound to you like one which invests the holder with divinity does not make it so and certainly not when no christian creed explains the title as having to do with divinity. alright, given that you have brought woodrow into this discussion, then can either of you show us that the title, theotokos, means that mary is divine? this is a very simple question. anyway, once again this is how catholics explain the title:

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.
Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.
Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.
notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not with mary. she is called the theotokos because christ is god and not because she herself is divine. the title in fact has more to do with the divinity of christ than with anything else. now, i have shown you how christians explain this title and what they believe concerning it, can either you or woodrow cite for us christian creeds which assert that the theotokos renders mary divinity? i have consistently asked you for this simple thing and you have consistently been unable to present such a quotation. instead, you merely quote church fathers who assert that mary is theotokos and yet what does this prove? if theotokos merely means that she is the human mother of christ then what have you proved?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Even if the above statements never existed no true Muslim or monotheist would be in disagreement in the fact that calling Mary the "mother of God" is without doubt utterly blasphemous and ascribing partners to God as well as pure shirk.
you had claimed that the title invested her with divinity, it does not and yet this is our point of contention. we are not arguing about whether or not muslims think that such and such a thing qualifies as shirk but whether the title theotokos implies mary to be divine. once again it does not and you have failed to prove your position.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I have already stated that the two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. If the Qur'an had mentioned what contistuted the trinity and what order God was in the trinity then you would have a point but the fact is he clearly DID NOT mention the order or the trinity nor did he mention Mary to be a part of the trinity but he clearly condemmed the trinity on a theological level and also refuted the idea of ascribing partners to God by raising the status of Mary to that of God and that is clearly the case today where she is called "the mother of God"!
let us first display the verses again:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. --- Surah 4:171

what do we have in the above? the quote quite clearly tells us that the reference to three refers to a divine family of a father, mother, and son. notice that in surah 4:171 the characters involved are allah, mary, and christ? we have three individuals and after these persons havebeen enumerated we then have the muslim deity saying that we shouldn't say three. so after he has given an explanation of who these three individuals are, he then goes on to define that the mention of three has to do with these three and these three only. in fact, in every passage where we have the worship of three individuals by christians, it concerns allah, christ and mary.

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three [one of three]." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. --- Surah 5:73

now you argue that the above has to do with an explicit condemnation of the trinity. but let me ask you, according to the qur'an, what does 'three' refer to? in every single passage where we find an interplay of three divine persons worshipped by christians, what do these individuals consists of. it is always, a father, a son, and a mother. as such, according to the qur'an, you cannot use the above as an attack on the proper trinity because never in the entire qur'an does one find the concept of "three" as relating to the father, son, and holy spirit. my argument specifically follows what the qur'an has said while yours requires us to ignore how the qur'an defines 'three' in every single passage.
can you show us from the qur'an where the muslim deity defines "three" as the father, son and holy spiriit? if you cannot then why are trying to say that surah 5:73 is a condemnation of the proper trinity when the very language used in this passage is language which the source of the qur'an uses in every single passage as a reference to a divne family consisting of a father, mother, and son. you simply do not follow the precedent set forth by your own qur'an while i in fact do. notice that simply cannot make your case from the qur'an? there is no single passage that you can show us to make us believe that "do not say (one of) three" refers to the proper trinity while i can in fact show that do not say three refers to the improper trinity. this is because in surah 4:171 the muslim deity specifically says that what he means by "do not say three" is actually a trinity in which mary is involved.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Your previous quotes in your last post in which you tried to prove that Mary constituted the third in the trinity have already been refuted and you ignored the challenge i set you regarding using the original language of the Qur'an to prove your position.
my argument was that the only trinity found within the qur'an is one in which mary is a member of. will you disagree with this? i believe you will but let me show you how you have just contradicted yourself. in your post you claim that because the qur'an does not define the trinity and doesn't name mary as part of the trinity, then we cannot say that the qur'an believes mary to be in the trinity. yet later on within your post you go on to say the following:

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Holy trinities are found in many of the cults of the time among the Babylonians, Hindus, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Chaldeans.
now let me ask you, did any of these groups specifically name their three chief gods as members of a "holy trinity". did they ever use such a word or even mode of speaking? if not then why are you even able to call them holy trinities when you had claimed on the same principle that we could not do the same with what is contained in the qur'an. this is evidence of the fact that your point is baseless even to yourself or else you would not have contradicted yourself in the very same post. as such, my position remains above reproach.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Surely the Qur'an far exceeds the Bible when referring to the trinity when it states that God is not "one in 3" but how does the Bible describe the trinity? Oh it doesnt! The trinity is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible! So therefore it was clearly the creation of heretics well after the Bible coming from pagan influences just like the Bible is full of Pagan influences.
where does the qur'an actually state that god is not one in three? give us the passage for i don't recall ever finding this in my translation (and i do use this word on purpose). that said, what warrant do you have for saying that the mention of three refers to the proper trinity given the fact that every single mention of three refers to a trinity in which mary is a member. once again, from the qur'an you cannot prove your position.

the question isn't one about whether the trinity is mentioned in the bible, but rather how it is represented in the qur'an and if there is a condemnation of it therein. as such, i do not have to argue the above matter with you and as i said to ua:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings umm abdurrahman and thanks for the response. once again you are trying to change the discussion. the qur'an is trying to condemn a christian doctrine, everyone here is agreed that christians believe in the trinity and so the fact of whether the trinity is contained in the bible is irrelevant because either way, the qur'an should be able to condemn what christians believe. we do not even have to get into a discussion on whether or not the bible teaches the trinity because it is beside the point. even if we say that the trinity was only made up in 325 AD, the source of the qur'an would have had hundreds of years to know exactly what christians believe and so the fact that the qur'an contains such errors is the real problem. this then is why i do not feel like getting into such a discussion because whether we take the christian position (that the trinity is taught in the bible) or the muslim position (that it isn't taught in the bible), we still have clear errors in your holy book.
now, let us please keep to the actual discussion hamza. before i forget, we can't forget about the repeated misformulation of the divinity of christ within the qur'an either.

format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.
greetings chavunder, i have read your post and i think that this is one of the best muslim points within this thread. that said, i would first have to ask you what warrant you have to suppose that any of the above was directed towards the trinitarian understanding of christ's divinity (and could you please give me the passages you are paraphrasing from, that would certainly be helpful). the best way to understand what i'm saying is to read my above response to hamza seeing as it should equally apply to what you have said concerning christ and the holy spirit. if you feel that i haven't adequately responded to your post then i will be more than willing to try again should you think this to be necessary.
Reply

Chavundur
05-02-2011, 02:44 PM
Similarly, the word-order between words encompasses a broad sphere and has many aspects. And between phrases. For example, Say: He is God, the One (Qur'an, 112:1) contains six sentences. Three of them are positive and three negative. It proves six degrees of Divine unity and at the same time refutes six ways of associating partners with God. Each sentence is both the proof of the other sentences and the result. For each sentence has two meanings. Through one meaning it is the result, and through the other the proof. That is to say, within Surah Al-Ikhlas are thirty suras composed of proofs that demonstrate each another to be as well-ordered as the Surah itself. For example:

Say, He is God, because He is One, because He is the Eternally Besought, because He begets not, because He is not begotten, because there is none that is equal to Him.

And:

And there is none that is equal to Him, because He is not begotten, because He begets not, because He is Eternally Besought, because He is One, because He is God.

And:

He is God, so He is One, so He is the Eternally Besought, so He begets not, so He is not begotten, so there is none that is equal to Him.

You can continue in the same way.

A further example: ......
The Words ( 382 )
Reply

Chavundur
05-02-2011, 03:27 PM
Dear Sol Invıctus , Here I paste a part of my reading about miraculousness of The Qur'an, You can find some addressed groups of human beings.

Or do they say: A poet - let us wait and see what time will do! (Qur'an, 52:30)

Do they call you a poet, like the unreasoning, common infidels? Are they waiting for you to perish? You say to them: "Wait! I shall wait with you!" Your vast and brilliant truths are free of the imaginings of poetry and independent of their fancies.
Or is it that their faculties of understanding urge them to this? Qur'an, 52:32
Or like unreasoning philosophers who rely on their reasons, do they hold back from following you, saying: "Our faculties of reason are sufficient." But reason commands that you are followed, because everything you say is reasonable. But again the reason on its own cannot reach it.
Or are they but a people transgressing all bounds?Qur'an, 52:32.
Or is the reason for their denial their not submitting to Almighty God like wicked tyrants? But the ends of the Pharaohs and Nimrods, who were the leaders of arrogant oppressors, are known.
Or do they say: He fabricated this [Message]? Nay, they do not believe.Qur'an, 52:33.
Or like lying dissemblers without conscience do they accuse you saying: "You have made up the Qur'an!"? But up to this time they have known you to be the most truthful among them and have called you Muhammad the Trustworthy. It means that they have no intention to believe. Otherwise let them find the like of the Qur'an among the works of men.
Or were they created of nothing?Qur'an, 52:35.
Or like the absurd philosophers who believed the universe to be without purpose and in vain, do they suppose themselves to be aimless and without wisdom, purpose, duty, or Creator? Have they become blind that they do not see that the universe is adorned from top to bottom with instances of wisdom and bears the fruit of aims, and that beings from particles to the suns are charged with duties and are subjugated to the Divine commands?
Or were they themselves the creators?Qur'an, 52:35.
Or do they imagine like the pharaoh-like Materialists that "They came into being by themselves, feed themselves, and themselves create everything they need," so that they hold back from believing and worship? That means they all suppose themselves to be the Creator. Whereas the Creator of one thing has to be the Creator of everything. That is to say, their pride and conceit have made them so utterly stupid they imagine to be a Possessor of Absolute Power one who is absolutely impotent and may be defeated by a fly or a microbe. Since they have abdicated their reason and humanity to this degree and have fallen lower than the animals and even inanimate beings, do not be saddened at their denial. Consider them to be a variety of harmful animal and filthy matter! Ignore them and give them no importance!
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief!Qur'an, 52:36.
Or, like the mindless, confused Mu'attila, who denied God all attributes and denied the Creator, do they deny God so that they do not heed the Qur'an? In which case, let them deny the existence of the heavens and the earth, or let them say: "We created them!" Let them lose their minds altogether and begin uttering the frenzied ravings of lunacy. For in the heavens as many proofs of Divine unity are apparent and are recited as the stars, and on the earth as many as the flowers. That means they have no intention of acquiring certain knowledge and finding the truth. Otherwise how do they suppose to be without inscriber the book of the universe, in one word of which is written a whole book, although they know that a letter cannot exist without the one who wrote it.
Or are the treasuries of your Sustainer with them?Qur'an, 52:37
Or, like one group of misguided philosophers who denied Almighty God the power of choice, or like the Brahmans, do they deny the source of prophethood so that they do not believe in you? In which case, let them deny all the traces of wisdom and purpose, all the order and fruits which are apparent in all beings and demonstrate will and choice, let them deny all the works of mercy and grace, and all the miracles of all the prophets! Or let them say: "All the treasuries of the bounties given to creatures are with us and under our control." Let them prove they are not fit to be addressed! Do not be grieved at their denial, say: "God's unreasoning animals are many!"
Or are they the managers [of affairs]?Qur'an, 52:37.
Or, like the arrogant Mu'tazilites, who made the reason dominant, do they imagine themselves to be rivals to and inspectors of the Creator's works, and want to hold the All-Glorious Creator responsible? Beware, do not lose heart! Nothing can come of the denials of self-centred people like that! You do not be deceived either!
Or have they a ladder by which they can [climb up to heaven and] listen [to its secrets]? Then let [such a] listener of theirs produce a manifest proof!Qur'an, 52:38.
Or, like the spiritualists and phony soothsayers, do they follow Satan and the jinn and suppose they have found another way to the World of the Unseen? In which case, have they a ladder by which to ascend to the heavens which are closed to the satans? Do they imagine that they can give the lie to your news from the heavens? The denials of such charlatans are worth nothing!
Or has He only daughters and you have sons?Qur'an, 52:39.
Or, like the polytheist philosophers who ascribed partners to God under the name of 'the ten intellects' and 'the masters of the species,' and the Sabeans, who attributed a sort of godhead to the stars and the angels, do they ascribe offspring to Almighty God? Like the heretics and misguided, do they ascribe a son to Him, which is contrary to the necessary existence, unity, eternity, and absolute self-sufficiency of the Single and Eternally Besought One? Do they ascribe femininity to that offspring, which is opposed to the angels' worship, purity, and kind? Do they suppose it to be an intercessor for them, so that they do not follow you? Generation is the means of multiplying, mutual assistance, perpetuation, and life for creatures like man, who is contingent, transitory, and in need of perpetuating the species, is corporeal and divisible, capable of multiplying, impotent and needy for an heir to help him. So to ascribe offspring -and a sort of offspring that those impotent, contingent, wretched men did not themselves like and could not equate with their arrogant pride, that is, female offspring- to the All-Glorious One, Whose existence is necessary and perpetual, Who endures from pre-eternity to post-eternity, Whose essence is utterly remote from and exalted above corporality, Whose being is free of and exempt from division and multiplication, and Whose Power is far above and beyond all impotence, is indeed such a delirium, such a lunatic raving that the lies and denials of those wretches who subscribe to such an idea are worth nothing. You must not be deceived. The scatter-brained nonsense, the delirious ravings of every crazy lunatic, should not be heeded!
Or is it that you ask for a reward, so that they are burdened with a load of debt?Qur'an, 52:40.
Or, like the rebellious, overweening worshippers of this world, who have made a habit of greed and miserliness, do they find what you propose burdensome, so that they flee from you? Do they not know that you seek your wage and recompense from God alone? Is it a burden to give to their own poor one fortieth of the property given to them by God Almighty, or a part of it, and as a consequence both receive plenty, and be saved from the envy and curses of the poor? Do they consider the command to give zakat burdensome and therefore hold back from Islam? Their denials have no importance, and what they deserve is a slap, not an answer...
Or is it that the Unseen is in their hands, and they write it down?Qur'an, 52:41.
Or, like Buddhists, who claim to be familiar with the Unseen, or the pseudo-intellectuals, who imagine their conjectures about its affairs to be certain, does what you said about the Unseen not appeal to them? That means they imagine that the World of the Unseen, which is disclosed to no one apart from the Divine Messengers, who receive revelation, and which no one has the ability to enter, is present and laid open before them, and that they obtain information from it and write it down. So do not be disheartened by the lies of these arrogant braggarts who have overstepped their mark to an infinite degree! For in a short while your truths will completely overturn their imaginings!
Or do they intend a plot [against you]? But those who defy God are themselves involved in a plot!Qur'an, 52:42.
Or, like two-faced dissemblers and cunning atheists whose natures are corrupted and consciences rotted, do they want to deceive the people and turn them away from the guidance which they cannot obtain, to trick them, and so call you either a soothsayer, or possessed, or a sorcerer? Do they want to make others believe what they do not believe themselves? Don't think of these insidious charlatans as human beings, don't be saddened at their wiles and denials, and lose heart. Rather, increase your efforts! For they only deceive their own souls and harm themselves. And their successes in evil are temporary; it is a Divine stratagem, drawing them to perdition by degrees.
Or have they a god other than God? Exalted is God far above the things they associate with Him!Qur'an, 52:43
Or, like the Magians, who imagined two separate gods called the Creator of Good and the Creator of Evil, or like the idolators and worshippers of causes, who attribute a sort of godhead to different causes and imagine each of them to be a source of support for them, do they rely on other gods and contest you? Do they consider themselves free of any need of you? That means they have become blind and do not see the perfect order and flawless harmony throughout the universe, which is as clear as day. For in accordance with the decree,
Were there gods other than God in the heavens and the earth, there surely would have been confusion in both,Qur'an, 21:22
if there are two headmen in a village, or two governors in a town, or two kings in a country, order is turned upside down and harmony spoilt. But from a fly's wing to the lamps in the heavens, such a fine order has been observed that it leaves not so much space as a fly's wing for partners to be associated with God. Since the above act in a manner so opposed to reason, wisdom, feeling, and what is obvious, don't let their lies put you off proclaiming the Message! The Twenty-Fifth Word, The Miraculousness of the Qur'an
Reply

Fivesolas
05-02-2011, 03:58 PM
Well, if I go away for a few days, I come back with 10 pages of replies. lol I do appreciate those who have replied, I have read most of the replies. It appears to me that whatever the Qur'an is trying to condemn concerning the Trinity, it is not historic Christianity. The response with regard to heretical sects in the early century seem to me a grasp at trying to justify the Qur'an.

One doctrine with regard to the Qur'an's representation of Jesus remains unclear to me. What does the Muslim think the Qur'an is condeming when it is condemning Jesus as being the only begotten Son of God? Does the Qur'an (Allah) think that the Christians mean that Jesus is the product of God the Father having intercourse?
Reply

Woodrow
05-02-2011, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas

One doctrine with regard to the Qur'an's representation of Jesus remains unclear to me. What does the Muslim think the Qur'an is condeming when it is condemning Jesus as being the only begotten Son of God? Does the Qur'an (Allah) think that the Christians mean that Jesus is the product of God the Father having intercourse?

The condemnation is the worshiping of a god in addition to Allaah(swt).
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-02-2011, 05:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The condemnation is the worshiping of a god in addition to Allaah(swt).
greetings woodrow. while the above does not necessarily answer fivesolas' question it is an important point to bring into the discussion all the same. to get right to the point, it should be said that there is no warrant to suppose that the source of the qur'an had an accurate understanding of christian doctrine (in this case as it relates to the sonship of christ) at all. there is absolutely nothing which can be produced from the qur'an that could pass as an actual condemnation of trinitarian doctrine. every articulation of christ's divinity or whatever else is either completely wrong or a condemnation of a heresy which trinitarians condemned long before the source of the qur'an spoke a word on the matter. as such, we cannot suppose that the author of the qur'an had an accurate portrayal of the christian doctrine. there simply isn't anything in the qur'an which can be held up as a proper condemnation of christ's divinity, sonship or whatever else.

@ Chavundur: i haven't read your entire post as of yet but i somewhat fail to see the relevance that it has with the matter at hand. if however, you simply meant to give the islamic position then i suppose that i appreciate it.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-02-2011, 07:42 PM
In Christianity mercy is highly recommended both by The Lord Jesus Christ and by his Apostles. Is mercy also preached in the Koran?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 12:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.

And that "type of trinity" also does NOT represent Christian thinking with regard to THE Trinity as espoused by the Church. If and whenever some Christian(s) may have misconstrued such an idea to speak of THE Trinity, the church immediately took steps to correct that misunderstanding and has universally and continuously condemned any such views which might be understood to imply that Mary was the wife of God as being heretical. In other words, Christians reject such nonsense as much as do Muslims. Perhaps even more so, for it not only misrepresents the Trinity, it also show an improperly formed view of the incarnation and the personhood of the Father.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 12:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chavundur
Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.

I know that the odds of you understanding, or even appreciate this next statement are exceedingly small, but just on the off chance that someone get it, I still have to say it:


Should a person ever actually understand the concept of the Trinity as historically orthodox trinitarian Christians understand it, then you would know that it is meant to convey, not deny, the very idea of Oneness that you seek to stress in your concept of Tawheed. To challenge and correct those who were speaking against the oneness of God and suggesting that Jesus was somehow a different, lesser God than the Father or someone a secondary divine being who was in partnership with God was the whole reason the Nicene Creed was written in the first place. And specifically because some of our practices might indicate to the unitiated beliefs to the contrary, the whole idea of trinitas was to reaffirm that even as Christians spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in divine terminology that we Christians were still first and foremost committed to saying "One, not Three."

Obviously we have not done a very good job of conveying that message as so many here, on having read the Qur'am, seem convinced that we hold differing beliefs with regard to the Trinity than we actually do.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-03-2011, 12:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
there is absolutely nothing which can be produced from the qur'an that could pass as an actual condemnation of trinitarian doctrine. .
There is absolutley NOTHING which can be produced from the Bible that could pass as even referring to the trinity in the first place let alone explaining it.

At least the Qur'an refers to it and condems such an absurd concept at a theological level but the Author of the Bible somehow forget to put it in, or is it that the trinity never existed in the first place and was just taken from greek mythology as was many of the pagan beliefs which permeated into Christianity at the time.

How could the Christian deity be so forgetful in mentioning the most fundamental concept in Christianity?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 12:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
There is absolutley NOTHING which can be produced from the Bible that could pass as even referring to the trinity in the first place let alone explaining it.

At least the Qur'an refers to it and condems such an absurd concept at a theological level but the Author of the Bible somehow forget to put it in, or is it that the trinity never existed in the first place and was just taken from greek mythology as was many of the pagan beliefs which permeated into Christianity at the time.

How could the Christian deity be so forgetful in mentioning the most fundamental concept in Christianity?

The Qur'an condemns AN abusrd theological concept. However, based on what I have read in this thread, it does not condemn ANY theological concept that is actually held within Christianity.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
Well, if I go away for a few days, I come back with 10 pages of replies. lol I do appreciate those who have replied, I have read most of the replies. It appears to me that whatever the Qur'an is trying to condemn concerning the Trinity, it is not historic Christianity. The response with regard to heretical sects in the early century seem to me a grasp at trying to justify the Qur'an.
Did you not read a single post by muslims in this thread?

Please show me one single Qur'an ayat that condemn trinity.

I get that you christians LOVE to twist the meaning of scriptural verses, but please, not everyone is as blind you are.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-03-2011, 02:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza. can you tell us how exactly your statements prove that she was divine? all that those statements basically said was that she was the mother of god. that very title speaks of her humanity! simply because the title may sound to you like one which invests the holder with divinity does not make it so and certainly not when no christian creed explains the title as having to do with divinity. alright, given that you have brought woodrow into this discussion, then can either of you show us that the title, theotokos, means that mary is divine? this is a very simple question. anyway, once again this is how catholics explain the title

Greetings Sol,

I have palready pasted statement after statement from early church fathers PROVING to you that Mary was seen as NOTHING short of divine as she was called the "mother of God" not speaking merely of her humanity but for the reason that it is believed she BORE GOD and so the title vested to her was of "THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF!

This has been proven by the words of the church fathers who confirm that if she bore God then no doubt she is not just mother of his humanity but mother of GOD HIMSELF.

Surely this is nothing short of pure and utter blasphemy, ascribing partners to God implying that he was born of a human woman for God is beyond having any partners especially a mother to whom he was born of and suckled from.

Let us look at the statements from the early church fathers confirming their belief in the "divine" status of Mary as the mother of GOD himself:

Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).



Gregory the Wonderworker


"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).




Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).


Ephraim the Syrian


"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).


Athanasius


"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).


Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).


Council of Ephesus


"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).


Let us look further into Mary's "divinity" according to Christianity:


Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son. The Mother of God title was applied early in church history, based on the notion that Jesus was fully God as well as human. This was established as a doctrine in the 4th century. In the Eastern churches this doctrine played a major devotional role and became a favorite subject for icon painters. During the Reformation era it was accepted by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, though Mary’s role in Protestant theology has declined markedly since then. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995), under the heading “Mary”

Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Here Pope John Paul the second says:

Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

Mary "is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.


Read more about Marys "special" relationship with the "divine" trinity by Pope John Paul II:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm11.htm


You as a Protestant are trying to play down Marys divinity as oppose to Catholics as they see you as a "fundamentalist reformer". But you have clearly been proven wrong again and again and there is no doubt that the early church fathers as well as the statements above invest in the divinity of Mary and see her as BEARING GOD HIMSELF and therefore not just being the mother of the humanity of Jesus but being THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF.



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus


let us first display the verses again:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. --- Surah 4:171

what do we have in the above? the quote quite clearly tells us that the reference to three refers to a divine family of a father, mother, and son. notice that in surah 4:171 the characters involved are allah, mary, and christ? we have three individuals and after these persons havebeen enumerated we then have the muslim deity saying that we shouldn't say three. so after he has given an explanation of who these three individuals are, he then goes on to define that the mention of three has to do with these three and these three only. in fact, in every passage where we have the worship of three individuals by christians, it concerns allah, christ and mary.


They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three [one of three]." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. --- Surah 5:73

now you argue that the above has to do with an explicit condemnation of the trinity. but let me ask you, according to the qur'an, what does 'three' refer to? in every single passage where we find an interplay of three divine persons worshipped by christians, what do these individuals consists of. it is always, a father, a son, and a mother. as such, according to the qur'an, you cannot use the above as an attack on the proper trinity because never in the entire qur'an does one find the concept of "three" as relating to the father, son, and holy spirit. my argument specifically follows what the qur'an has said while yours requires us to ignore how the qur'an defines 'three' in every single passage.

can you show us from the qur'an where the muslim deity defines "three" as the father, son and holy spiriit? if you cannot then why are trying to say that surah 5:73 is a condemnation of the proper trinity when the very language used in this passage is language which the source of the qur'an uses in every single passage as a reference to a divne family consisting of a father, mother, and son. you simply do not follow the precedent set forth by your own qur'an while i in fact do. notice that simply cannot make your case from the qur'an? there is no single passage that you can show us to make us believe that "do not say (one of) three" refers to the proper trinity while i can in fact show that do not say three refers to the improper trinity. this is because in surah 4:171 the muslim deity specifically says that what he means by "do not say three" is actually a trinity in which mary is involved.
Once again for the fourth time you have ignored the challenge i have set you and that is to PROVE your position using the ORIGINAL language of the Qur'an. Why do you keep ignoring me request Sol? Why do i have to keep repeating myself?

As Chavunder explained to you earlier you CANNOT interpret and make commentaries on verses of the Qur'an which are already TRANSLATED into another language but you can ONLY make interpretations and commentaries on verses of the Qur'an using it's ORIGINAL language which is classical Arabic.

Therefore you are only exposing yourself as purposely misinterpreting and mistranslating verses of the Qur'an which have already been translated into another language when you cannot possibly do so because of the fact that the original language of the Qur'an is SO meaningful and deep that it can only be translated from its original language and in context.

The only way to do that is to have a very deep understanding of the original language of the Qur'an as well as vast knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam. So clearly you are now at a road block unless you can translate and interpret the original language in a deep and meaningful way and show us your intepretation in context.

As i have already mentioned to you in a previous post this has already been done by comentators of the Qur'an for the past 1400 years who have concluded that the verses refer to the father, son and holy spirit. Read the most famous commentaries of the Qur'an by Ibn Kathir and you will see for yourself. But me and Chavunder have not made you aware of your flaws and gross errors in trying to interpret and teanslate already translated verses of the Qur'an with which it is impossible to make commentaries on without using the original language of the Qur'an. NO comentator comments on or inteprets verses of the Qur'an which have already been translated but they do so using the original language so i hope this clarifies this matter to you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
now let me ask you, did any of these groups specifically name their three chief gods as members of a "holy trinity". did they ever use such a word or even mode of speaking? if not then why are you even able to call them holy trinities when you had claimed on the same principle that we could not do the same with what is contained in the qur'an. this is evidence of the fact that your point is baseless even to yourself or else you would not have contradicted yourself in the very same post. as such, my position remains above reproach.
There is no contradiction at all in my saying that trinities existed in other pagan religions because the concept itself is pagan and therefore can only come from pagan origins as does many of the beliefs and practices of Christianity which were unfortunatley heavily influenced by greek mythology and you know Sol what a huge influence greek mythology played in shaping Christian beliefs and practices that we see even today.

Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.

The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that it is impossible to explain and also impossible to understand because it does not make philosophical sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
The question isn't one about whether the trinity is mentioned in the bible, but rather how it is represented in the qur'an and if there is a condemnation of it therein. as such, i do not have to argue the above matter with you and as i said to ua:
There is NO question that the trinity is NOT mentioned in the Bible at all nor is it even referred to or mentioned ANYWHERE in any biblical referance.

It is a concept that was NOT taught by any of the Prophets including Jesus and nor was it taught by God and God would NEVER forget to mention a "fundamental concept central to christianity".

So the only conclusion is that it was created from pagan influences with which it originated from because there is NO doubt that it is NOT compatible with monotheism not does it make ANY philosophical sense.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 02:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The Qur'an condemns AN abusrd theological concept. However, based on what I have read in this thread, it does not condemn ANY theological concept that is actually held within Christianity.

Can you please tell us oh dear pastor, what do you mean by christianity and which christianity should we refer to?

Last month I met a canadian christian who believed that Jesus (pbuh) is a messenger. Granted, his church is quite small in canada, but he considers himself a christian and follow christianity.

How about coptic christians who believe in monophysitism, they are certainly different in their belief from your methodist church?

Also, you may not believe that Mary (pbuh) is the mother of God and the veneration of Mary, but your belief is at the opposite from the catholics (constitute half the number of all christians) who believe Mary is the mother of God and the veneration of her.

so Dear Pastor, not all of us here is ignorant of the history of the church and the state of chrsitianity, so please make some better informed posts befitting a pastor next time, so as not to elicit mass eye-rolling. Thank you.
Reply

Chavundur
05-03-2011, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I have already stated that the two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. If the Qur'an had mentioned what contistuted the trinity and what order God was in the trinity then you would have a point but the fact is he clearly DID NOT mention the order or the trinity nor did he mention Mary to be a part of the trinity but he clearly condemmed the trinity on a theological level and also refuted the idea of ascribing partners to God by raising the status of Mary to that of God and that is clearly the case today where she is called "the mother of God"! Therefore all we have is your false assumptions of what you THINK the Qur'an implied in that Mary constituted the third person in the trinity when that is clearly NOT the case.
5-73 Undoubtedly, those are infidels who say, 'Allah is third of the three Gods, and there is no God but the one God. And if they desist not from what they say, then a painful torment shall surely befall to those who will die as infidels.

In original sentence ," one of third " has more complex meaning than English one " I looked at that commentary and two word has been explained according to Nahv in five pages. ( I read Turkish commentary Elmalili). And I also realized that everything about hypostasis unity has been explained in two words. I don't need further explanation as a Muslim. I think You say that, There are almost one billion christian and there have to be clear explanation connected to our conception in Qur'an if it is God's word. I can say, There is no need for further explanation If You consider the minority of Christians who understands clearly what hypostasis union is , in other words how majority of people understands, in that way explanation had been put forth. You know better than me in details.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-03-2011, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I know that the odds of you understanding, or even appreciate this next statement are exceedingly small, but just on the off chance that someone get it, I still have to say it:


Should a person ever actually understand the concept of the Trinity as historically orthodox trinitarian Christians understand it, then you would know that it is meant to convey, not deny, the very idea of Oneness that you seek to stress in your concept of Tawheed. To challenge and correct those who were speaking against the oneness of God and suggesting that Jesus was somehow a different, lesser God than the Father or someone a secondary divine being who was in partnership with God was the whole reason the Nicene Creed was written in the first place. And specifically because some of our practices might indicate to the unitiated beliefs to the contrary, the whole idea of trinitas was to reaffirm that even as Christians spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in divine terminology that we Christians were still first and foremost committed to saying "One, not Three."

Obviously we have not done a very good job of conveying that message as so many here, on having read the Qur'am, seem convinced that we hold differing beliefs with regard to the Trinity than we actually do.
Greetings Grace Seeker. There is no doubt that the trinity itself is NOT taught even mentioned anywhere in the Bible and nor is it taught by Jesus or the Christian deity in the Bible.

It is a concept that is impossible to explain and understand because it does not make any philosophical sense nor is it compatible with true monothiesm.

Robert Ingersoll has a go at explaining the trinity:

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67)

The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more illogical than the dogma of the Trinity.

I ask Christians to contemplate over this and think why would God leave such a fundamental concept as the trinity out of the Bible not even mentioning or referring to it even once? Why would he keep it such a mystery and cause so many to leave Christianity because of it?

Why would there have been so much political turmoil and confusion because of it for so many centuries? Clearly because it was NOT taught by Jesus and it was NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible nor was it referred to even once by the Christian deity but it was manmade hundreds of years after Jesus not having any back up by the scriptures but was a pure creation of man heavily influenced by pagan greek mythological beliefs which at the time were VERY popular.

In fact the Bible PROVES in the worship of ONLY one god for even Jesus worshipped ONE God and called others towards ONE God but after him his message was changed and twisted by those who were influenced by satan and he became the very object of worship when in fact he ONLY called for others to worship God and NO ONE ELSE but God!

So turn to ONE GOD who does NOT have any partners and nor is he in need of any. He is NOT part of 3 nor is he one in 3. Before him is NONE and he is and always be ONE without the need for ANYONE.

Have they chosen other gods besides Him? Say: “Bring forth your proof. This is the Message (the Quran) of those with me, and the Message (the previous Scriptures) of those before me.” But, most of them do not know the truth, and so they turn away. And We did not send any Messenger before you without inspiration to him: “There is no god but I; so worship Me (alone).” And yet they say, “The Compassionate God has begotten offspring.” Exalted is He! No, those (whom they so designate) are only His honoured servants. They do not speak before He speaks, and they only perform His commands. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede for none, except for those whom He approves, and they tremble in awe of Him. And if any of them declares: “I am a god beside Him,” We shall requite such a one with Hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 21:19-29]
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-03-2011, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
In Christianity mercy is highly recommended both by The Lord Jesus Christ and by his Apostles. Is mercy also preached in the Koran?
Greetings Gmcbroom,

With Islam, mercy was given a deeper meaning that created a vital aspect in the life of every Muslim, which he is rewarded by God for showing.

God’s mercy, which is bestowed on all His creatures, is seen in everything we lay eyes on: in the sun that provides light and heat, and in the air and water that are essential for all the living.

An entire chapter in the Quran is named after God’s divine attribute Ar-Rahman or “The Most Gracious.” Also two of God’s attributes are derived from the word for mercy. They are Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim, which mean “The Most Gracious” and “The Most Merciful.” These two attributes are mentioned in the phrase recited at the beginning of 113 chapters of the Quran: “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.” This phrase is a continuous reminder for the reader of God’s endless mercy and great bounties.

God assures us that whoever commits a sin will be forgiven if he repents and ceases this act, where He says:

“Your Lord hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: verily, if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and amend (his conduct), lo! He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Quran 6:54)

This verse is affirmed by the narration of Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh), in which he said that God said:

“My mercy prevails over My wrath.”

Reward for kindness and compassion was also assured by the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh):

“The merciful are shown mercy by the All-Merciful. Show mercy to those on earth, and He Who is in heaven will show mercy unto you” (As-Suyuti).

Let us look at the Prophet’s Mercy:

Concerning Prophet Muhammad’s (Pbuh) mercy, it is best to mention first what God Himself has said about him:

“We have not sent thee save as a mercy to the worlds.” (Quran 21:107)

…which assures that Islam is founded on mercy, and that God sent Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as mercy to all creatures with no exception.

God also says in the Quran:

“Now hath come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should receive any injury or difficulty: ardently anxious is he over you: to the believers is he most kind and merciful” (Quran 9:128)

These verses were clearly manifested in the Prophet’s manners and dealings, for he bore many hardships for the sake of conveying God’s message. The Prophet was also most gentle in guiding his people, and whenever they used to harm him he always asked God to pardon them for their ignorance and cruelty.

Read more on the Mercy of God in Islam here:

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1183/
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 03:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more illogical than the dogma of the Trinity.
What Trinity is that? The one mentioned in the Qur'an or the one that Christians actually believe in?


I ask Christians to contemplate over this and think why would God leave such a fundamental concept as the trinity out of the Bible not even mentioning or referring to it even once?
Asked and answered multiple times already.


In fact the Bible PROVES in the worship of ONLY one god for even Jesus worshipped ONE God and called others towards ONE God but after him his message was changed and twisted by those who were influenced by satan and he became the very object of worship when in fact he ONLY called for others to worship God and NO ONE ELSE but God!

So turn to ONE GOD who does NOT have any partners and nor is he in need of any. He is NOT part of 3 nor is he one in 3. Before him is NONE and he is and always be ONE without the need for ANYONE.
Are you even reading this thread? You're ignoring the very post you are commenting on.
You say: "the Bible PROVES in the worship of ONLY one god"
I have said: "the concept of the Trinity as historically orthodox trinitarian Christians understand it...convey, not deny, the very idea of Oneness.

You say: "turn to ONE GOD who does NOT have any partners and nor is he in need of any."
I have said: "To challenge and correct those who were suggesting ... a secondary divine being who was in partnership with God was the whole reason the Nicene Creed was written in the first place."

You say: "He is NOT part of 3 nor is he one in 3."
I have said: "we Christians were still first and foremost committed to saying 'One, not Three'."


Have they chosen other gods besides Him? Say: “Bring forth your proof. This is the Message (the Quran) of those with me, and the Message (the previous Scriptures) of those before me.” But, most of them do not know the truth, and so they turn away. And We did not send any Messenger before you without inspiration to him: “There is no god but I; so worship Me (alone).” And yet they say, “The Compassionate God has begotten offspring.” Exalted is He! No, those (whom they so designate) are only His honoured servants. They do not speak before He speaks, and they only perform His commands. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede for none, except for those whom He approves, and they tremble in awe of Him. And if any of them declares: “I am a god beside Him,” We shall requite such a one with Hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 21:19-29]
Who is the "they" (the second word in this passage) referring to?
Reply

siam
05-03-2011, 03:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I know that the odds of you understanding, or even appreciate this next statement are exceedingly small, but just on the off chance that someone get it, I still have to say it:


Should a person ever actually understand the concept of the Trinity as historically orthodox trinitarian Christians understand it, then you would know that it is meant to convey, not deny, the very idea of Oneness that you seek to stress in your concept of Tawheed. To challenge and correct those who were speaking against the oneness of God and suggesting that Jesus was somehow a different, lesser God than the Father or someone a secondary divine being who was in partnership with God was the whole reason the Nicene Creed was written in the first place. And specifically because some of our practices might indicate to the unitiated beliefs to the contrary, the whole idea of trinitas was to reaffirm that even as Christians spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in divine terminology that we Christians were still first and foremost committed to saying "One, not Three."

Obviously we have not done a very good job of conveying that message as so many here, on having read the Qur'am, seem convinced that we hold differing beliefs with regard to the Trinity than we actually do.

It is great that there are Christians who are particular about monotheism. It is also great that for 2,000 years so many Christians have struggled to keep the monotheistic nature of their religion from falling into tri-theism/polytheism. I had not thought of looking at Christian history from this perspective......

For most Muslims and Jews who have a different approach/concept of monotheism---how a trinity can be considered monotheism is going to be difficult to understand---one might as well consider it a lost cause.....

However, I do want to point out to my Muslim brothers and sisters that the Quran does recognize the efforts/struggles of some Christians to adhere to monotheism---and this recognition might be one reason why they are referred to as "people of the book" and spoken of kindly. I think we should remember that we as human beings are intolerant and judgemental but God is Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.....
..............IMO, in general, the Quranic perspectives tend to be far more balanced than what I find myself capable of sometimes.....

attacking others beliefs may be fun---I know:D---but I wonder if perhaps, there may be times when it might be more beneficial if we Muslims concentrated on explaining why we believe the way we do?


IMO, within the framework of Tawheed---incarnation---(Divine decending into created form for worship) is not workable. The Division of One God into a Godhead with 3 (or more) parts is not workable. Any idea that a creation, be it a stone, or a human, has Divinity is not workable.....etc......These are general frameworks that can apply to all types of religious concepts such as Hinduism. Christianity, Pantheism, Shamanism.....etc. Some aspects of Jewish monotheism held by some Jews, would also not be workable within the framework of Tawheed, such as any idea that G-D is both male and female (God/Goddess) or is anthropomorphic in any way, or that God chose one nation out of all the tribes and nations of humanity for a particular exclusive favor.....
The framework of Tawheed/Shirk is meant as a Guidance.........IMO the verses of the Quran sometimes try to create a shift in perspective so that the listeners reflect on what their beliefs are and how it effects their behavior, their society, and their relationships...............
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 04:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What Trinity is that? The one mentioned in the Qur'an or the one that Christians actually believe in?

Again, dear Pastor,
Can you please tell us where in the Qur'an the mentioned "trinity"?

You know, unlike bibles, there is only one Qur'an, so it should not be difficult to find out which ayat that mentions "trinity"
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 04:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Can you please tell us oh dear pastor, what do you mean by christianity and which christianity should we refer to?

Last month I met a canadian christian who believed that Jesus (pbuh) is a messenger. Granted, his church is quite small in canada, but he considers himself a christian and follow christianity.
You have spoken so often against Christianity, and yet now you act as if you do not even know what it is which you speak against.

Either the Qur'an speaks against Chrsitian beliefs or it does not. I had thought that Muslims held that the Qur'an spoke against my beliefs. But thus far in this thread, not one Muslims, including you Naidamar, has actually identified a single verse from the Qur'an that speaks against a belief that I actually hold. You project your own strawmen with regard to Christian beliefs, but you've yet to actually present a strawman with whom I didn't disagree as well. So, please, go ahead and attack all the strawmen you want. But know that you are not attacking Christianity.

Also, you may not believe that Mary (pbuh) is the mother of God and the veneration of Mary, but your belief is at the opposite from the catholics (constitute half the number of all christians) who believe Mary is the mother of God and the veneration of her.
Again you ignore what has been posted. I have quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show that even as they speak of Mary as the Mother of God that they do not mean anything by the turn of a phrase that would be understood to diefy her. I have also shared in the past that while I don't choose to use the term "Mother of God" as describing Mary because of how it is so easy to misunderstand what Catholics mean by the phrase, that I actually do agree with what it that they do mean, namely that since a mother is one who gives birth and Mary gave birth to Jesus who is God incarnate, then Mary can be called the Theotokos, or God-bearer (in the vernacular, "Mother of God"), but this is not to be understood as if she is a progenitor of God


And as for other of my own beliefs with regard to Mary, Jesus, God, the Trinity, etc., I've shared plenty of my beliefs on plenty of other threads; if you don't remember them you're free to search for them. Or, are you actually soliciting for me to expound a compendium or treatise of my beliefs on this forum, non-Islamic though they be? If so, with the permission of the mods I will be happy to open up a thread to present them.

so please make some better informed posts befitting a pastor next time, so as not to elicit mass eye-rolling. Thank you.
I encourage the eye-rolling. Your vision could obviously use some improvement as you seem to be having trouble seeing the answers we have already provided in the past to these very same comments time and again. You may not agree that our answers are satisfactory from your point of view, but answers have been provided. And you still continue to present as facts things that are not and beliefs which we do not hold -- not me, not Methodist, not Catholics, not Coptics, not any group that I can think of that is representative of historical and orthodox Christianity. Now, if you are going to let just any old Joe who, as with the person you met from Canada, claims to be a Christian be considered representative of Christianity, will you afford me the same latitude with regard to Islam? For there are many people whom I know that claim to be Muslims that hold beliefs very different from yours.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 04:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
However, I do want to point out to my Muslim brothers and sisters that the Quran does recognize the efforts/struggles of some Christians to adhere to monotheism---and this recognition might be one reason why they are referred to as "people of the book" and spoken of kindly. I think we should remember that we as human beings are intolerant and judgemental but God is Most Compassionate, Most Merciful..... ..............IMO, in general, the Quranic perspectives tend to be far more balanced than what I find myself capable of sometimes.....

It is true that there are christians who actually adhere to monotheism. Just last month I met (in real life) a canadian who is from a small church in Canada who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus (pbuh) and believes he is a messenger. And no, he is not Jehovah witness
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
It is great that there are Christians who are particular about monotheism. It is also great that for 2,000 years so many Christians have struggled to keep the monotheistic nature of their religion from falling into tri-theism/polytheism. I had not thought of looking at Christian history from this perspective......

For most Muslims and Jews who have a different approach/concept of monotheism---how a trinity can be considered monotheism is going to be difficult to understand---one might as well consider it a lost cause.....

However, I do want to point out to my Muslim brothers and sisters that the Quran does recognize the efforts/struggles of some Christians to adhere to monotheism---and this recognition might be one reason why they are referred to as "people of the book" and spoken of kindly. I think we should remember that we as human beings are intolerant and judgemental but God is Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.....
..............IMO, in general, the Quranic perspectives tend to be far more balanced than what I find myself capable of sometimes.....

attacking others beliefs may be fun---I know:D---but I wonder if perhaps, there may be times when it might be more beneficial if we Muslims concentrated on explaining why we believe the way we do?


IMO, within the framework of Tawheed---incarnation---(Divine decending into created form for worship) is not workable. The Division of One God into a Godhead with 3 (or more) parts is not workable. Any idea that a creation, be it a stone, or a human, has Divinity is not workable.....etc......These are general frameworks that can apply to all types of religious concepts such as Hinduism. Christianity, Pantheism, Shamanism.....etc. Some aspects of Jewish monotheism held by some Jews, would also not be workable within the framework of Tawheed, such as any idea that G-D is both male and female (God/Goddess) or is anthropomorphic in any way, or that God chose one nation out of all the tribes and nations of humanity for a particular exclusive favor.....
The framework of Tawheed/Shirk is meant as a Guidance.........IMO the verses of the Quran sometimes try to create a shift in perspective so that the listeners reflect on what their beliefs are and how it effects their behavior, their society, and their relationships...............

Thank-you for making the effort to actually listen, rather than just reacting.

I can respect that you do not think the Christian answer is workable. As long as you hear the genuine Christian answer to how we wrestle with the problem of maintaining a belief in just one God in the light of what we also consider to be revelation regarding the divine nature of Jesus and the very real presence of the Holy Spirit as a divine person, then reject our beliefs as ill-formed or poorly founded. But, please, reject our actual beliefs, not the strawmen of some anti-Christian apologists creation.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 04:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You have spoken so often against Christianity, and yet now you act as if you do not even know what it is which you speak against. Either the Qur'an speaks against Chrsitian beliefs or it does not. I had thought that Muslims held that the Qur'an spoke against my beliefs. But thus far in this thread, not one Muslims, including you Naidamar, has actually identified a single verse from the Qur'an that speaks against a belief that I actually hold. You project your own strawmen with regard to Christian beliefs, but you've yet to actually present a strawman with whom I didn't disagree as well. So, please, go ahead and attack all the strawmen you want. But know that you are not attacking Christianity.

It is your blindness that you refuse to read the qur'an verses previously presented by many members here which condemn the people who take up Jesus (pbuh) as God. You take up Jesus as God, right?

Whether you claim that those verses do not attack your belief is a matter of your delusion, and we need not entertain your delusion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And as for other of my own beliefs with regard to Mary, Jesus, God, the Trinity, etc., I've shared plenty of my beliefs on plenty of other threads; if you don't remember them you're free to search for them. Or, are you actually soliciting for me to expound a compendium or treatise of my beliefs on this forum, non-Islamic though they be? If so, with the permission of the mods I will be happy to open up a thread to present them.
In Roman Catholic teachings, the veneration of Mary is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology: Jesus and Mary are son and mother, redeemer and redeemed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed...an_Catholic%29

I didnt know that you, a pastor of a methodist church, also venerate Mary (pbuh) and believe she was redeemer.
Well, well, that increases the number of people who venerate Mary (pbuh) as now I know that methodists also worship Mary (pbuh) as the catholics do.

Or are you that willing to misrepresent your actual belief just to win an argument?
And I thought christians claim that they prefer to die than change their belief?
Or is it one of those empty words?

How many Gods do you actually worship?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 04:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
the very real presence of the Holy Spirit as a divine person

Do words actually mean something for you? Or is this just one of your empty meaningless words again?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 04:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Again, dear Pastor,
Can you please tell us where in the Qur'an the mentioned "trinity"?

You know, unlike bibles, there is only one Qur'an, so it should not be difficult to find out which ayat that mentions "trinity"
You'll have to ask Hamza81. He is the one who claims that he cannot believe in the dogma of the Trinity, but no Trinity he has rejected bears any resemblence to any understanding of the Trinity which I know any Christian to actually believe. So, since he is not rejecting any known Christian dogma, I'm wondering what is the source of his understanding of the Trinity. If it isn't Christianity and it isn't the Qur'an, exactly what it is, and what relevance does it even have to this thread?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 04:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


It is your blindness that you refuse to read the qur'an verses previously presented by many members here which condemn the people who take up Jesus (pbuh) as God.
Chapter and verse please. The ones that I have read don't actually speak against the Christian understanding of who Jesus is. They only speak against your misunderstanding of Christian teaching.



In Roman Catholic teachings, the veneration of Mary is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology: Jesus and Mary are son and mother, redeemer and redeemed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed...an_Catholic%29
You need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not wikipedia if you want an accurate soure on Catholic beliefs. Catholics specifically clarify that they do not mean to imply worship by any of the actions they make take with regard to Mary. Either you believe them or you don't, or you may even think that their actions don't match up with their words, but that is what they actually teach and you should quit saying otherwise.


I didnt know that you, a pastor of a methodist church, also venerate Mary (pbuh) and believe she was redeemer.
Well, well, that increases the number of people who venerate Mary (pbuh) as now I know that methodists also worship Mary (pbuh) as the catholics do.
Again, you jump to too hasty of a conclusion. No where did I say what you have said with regard to my beliefs. I do not worship Mary. I do not see her as a redeemer or a redemtrix or in anyway personally involved in our salvation. You read far too much into things. I only said that I understand why Catholics call her the Mother of God and agree that she did bear (i.e. give birth to) Jesus, who I believe is God incarnate among us. Bearing children is what mothers do.


But to help you think through this a bit more let me share with you the true story of one child. It begins with a couple that are having trouble having a baby. She is able to get pregnant, but not carry to term. In time they learn that the reason is because of some abnormality in her womb. So, they decide to find a woman who is willing to be the surogate mother and "loan" them the use of her womb for 9 months. However, by the time they have reached this point in their story, the woman is herself past 40 and the infertility clinic recommends using her own eggs. So, they ask her younger sister if she would mind donating eggs for the purpose of helping them conceive a child. In the end the child is conceived in a testtube using the sperm of the husband and the eggs of the sister and then implanted in womb of an unrelated third party. When he is born he is then given to the couple who had wanted him to be raise. Now, who is this child's mother? I submit that each of the women could make that claim in a since.

Mary, the mother of Jesus could make that claim on two different levels. She carried him in her womb and gave birth to him. And she also raised him. And since, from a Christian perspective he is God incarnate, it is understandable that some Christians might refer to her as the Mother of God. That in no way implies that Mary is divine or that she should be worshipped. And as far as the Catholic Church goes, they have vigorously fought against any such teaching. That you continue to falsely project such ideas on to them just proves that either you don't listen. Or, perhaps you do know better, but despite knowing better you still don't care to speak the truth with regard to Catholic teachings.


How many Gods do you actually worship?
Exactly 1.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-03-2011, 05:06 AM
I don’t know why we carry on ad naseum, but:

How does the Qur’an represent Christian beliefs?

Easy, as LIES! IT'S OH SO SIMPLE!

From the very 1st Surah, Al Fatihah, we see Christians charges as those “who have gone astray”

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)
You (Alone) we worship, and you (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).
Guide us to the Straight Way
The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Jumping to Al Kahf, we see Christians spoken of again, 18:15:

"These our people have taken for worship aliha (gods) other than Him (Allah). Why do they not bring for them a clear authority? And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah.
This is THE central charge against Christians: they have taken for worship “other than Allah,” NOT based upon “clear authority” and that in doing so, they have “invented a lie against Allah!”

Who have the taken for worship? It varies; Trinitarians have made Allah, one of three. Catholics have a pantheon of “saints” that they pray to, and praying to someone is worshipping them. Some Christians include Mary as co-redeemer with Jesus, this along with praying to her makes her an “associate God.”

We also see lies against Allah, in addition to the lies of the trinity, further exposed in 18:4-5:

And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.
And with the crusaders here, we see another charge, 18:54-58:

And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in this Quran, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything.
And nothing prevents men from believing, now when the guidance (the Quran) has come to them, and from asking Forgiveness of their Lord, except that the ways of the ancients be repeated with them (i.e. their destruction decreed by Allah), or the torment be brought to them face to face?
And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!
And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, but turns away from them forgetting what (deeds) his hands have sent forth. Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this (the Quran), and in their ears, deafness. And if you (O Muhammad SAW) call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.
And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy. Were He to call them to account for what they have earned, then surely, He would have hastened their punishment. But they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no escape.
We know that Allah will call them to account as stated in 18:47-49:

And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.
And they will be set before your Lord in (lines as) rows, (and Allah will say): "Now indeed, you have come to Us as We created you the first time. Nay, but you thought that We had appointed no meeting for you (with Us).
And the Book (one's Record) will be placed (in the right hand for a believer in the Oneness of Allah, and in the left hand for a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah), and you will see the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists, sinners, etc.), fearful of that which is (recorded) therein. They will say: "Woe to us! What sort of Book is this that leaves neither a small thing nor a big thing, but has recorded it with numbers!" And they will find all that they did, placed before them, and your Lord treats no one with injustice.
And of those the feign friendship so they can preach their lies 18:100-106:

And on that Day [Qiyama] We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,
(To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Quran), and who could not bear to hear (it).
Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allah's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliya' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism).
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?
"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!
"They are those who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.
"That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.
We see all of the charges against the Christians included in Al Kahf. There is no need to get into the minutiae of the different schemes Christians use to spread their lies. They already stand accused and unless they repent, judged. It is already written IN THE QUR’AN!

asked and answered
Reply

Tyrion
05-03-2011, 05:24 AM
Hmm... I've been thinking... What's with all this talk of "Christianity" as if there's one, unified religion under that name whose followers all believe the SAME thing.. I was under the impression that there were thousands of denominations, each with their own beliefs... There is no single Christian belief system... and there never has been. Even you Christians on this board should know that, so I don't see why some of you insist on saying "Well, CHRISTIANS believe so and so" when you're really only representing your own denomination (and even then, I've noticed that each individual Christian has his or her own version of that denominations beliefs)

It's just kind of a mess... Imo anyway.
Reply

Aprender
05-03-2011, 05:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Hmm... I've been thinking... What's with all this talk of "Christianity" as if there's one, unified religion under that name whose followers all believe the SAME thing.. I was under the impression that there were thousands of denominations, each with their own beliefs... There is no single Christian belief system... and there never has been. Even you Christians on this board should know that, so I don't see why some of you insist on saying "Well, CHRISTIANS believe so and so" when you're really only representing your own denomination (and even then, I've noticed that each individual Christian has his or her own version of that denominations beliefs)

It's just kind of a mess... Imo anyway.
Truth.

That's why I don't bother getting deep into these debates. I'm just here to learn about Islam from my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-03-2011, 06:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
Truth.

That's why I don't bother getting deep into these debates. I'm just here to learn about Islam from my Muslim brothers and sisters.

You are perhaps wiser than the rest of us. For Islam does seem to be something that people here know about and understand. But I don't think Christianity is.

Curiously I too came here originally to learn about Islam. But I found so many fallacies about Christianity constantly presented that I've stayed to challenge those who publish such falsehoods. I'm not even trying to be an apologist for Christianity and saying that Muslims should leave Islam for Christianity (though of course you might guess that I may think that), but I just want to be sure that those who reject it, do so for things that are true about it and not these crazy misconceptions I continue to see promoted.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 09:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Exactly 1.

This is priceless.

exactly 1 for you means the father, the son, and holy spirit.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Again, you jump to too hasty of a conclusion. No where did I say what you have said with regard to my beliefs. I do not worship Mary. I do not see her as a redeemer or a redemtrix or in anyway personally involved in our salvation. You read far too much into things. I only said that I understand why Catholics call her the Mother of God and agree that she did bear (i.e. give birth to) Jesus, who I believe is God incarnate among us. Bearing children is what mothers do.
You dont worship mary (pbuh), but the catholics worship mary (pbuh) and their total number is more than half the number of people who call themselves christians, so your own view as a methodist does not represent christianity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Chapter and verse please. The ones that I have read don't actually speak against the Christian understanding of who Jesus is. They only speak against your misunderstanding of Christian teaching.
As I said, go back to the previous pages and read them yourselves. I don't need to entertain some people who claim blindness while in fact they are delusional stemming from following their twisted logic that says 3=1.
But since I'm in a good mood, here's few sample:

"Verily ye, (unbelievers), and the (false) gods that ye worship besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell ! To it will ye (surely) come !" (QS 21:98)

Yes, maybe to much your dismay, when christian worship Jesus (pbuh), they worship false god.

"They do commit kufr who say: "(God) is Christ the son of Mary." But Christ himself said: "O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with (the one true) God, God has forbidden him the jannah (paradise), and the fire will be his abode. For these wrong-doers there will be no one to help." (QS. 5:72)

"They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." (QS. 5:17)

Now, do you or do you not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God?

Please, no more twisting words, this is a straightforward question.


Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 10:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But I found so many fallacies about Christianity constantly presented that I've stayed to challenge those who publish such falsehoods.

Again, you are only representing your united methodist church.
What you say here is certainly something that a catholic would reject, a coptic would reject, a mormon or a jehovah witness would reject.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-03-2011, 10:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You are perhaps wiser than the rest of us. For Islam does seem to be something that people here know about and understand. But I don't think Christianity is.

Curiously I too came here originally to learn about Islam. But I found so many fallacies about Christianity constantly presented that I've stayed to challenge those who publish such falsehoods. I'm not even trying to be an apologist for Christianity and saying that Muslims should leave Islam for Christianity (though of course you might guess that I may think that), but I just want to be sure that those who reject it, do so for things that are true about it and not these crazy misconceptions I continue to see promoted.
i dont get this at all, from my understanding of islam i have not rejected jesus pbuh.

although i dont understand what he (pbuh) taught, this may be an easy question but did he say that he came to reinforce what had been sent before him?

did he want people to believe in him or his message?

Islam means 'submission to god' and im sure it is the same message as those that went before it.

if you want to think about how Christianity may have changed from the original concept then take a look at islam and how it changes with innovation in technology, media and cultural trends.. new things become acceptable because we have no reason not to accept them.
i understand that you were not alive 2000 years ago but think back to the last decade or the one before that..im sure you will realize how things change. unless your a Quaker or something this world has a huge effect.

tyrion's post was spot on, even if we live in little pockets of similarity on the whole, each person holds onto there own religion and values.. and unfortunately with each passing year we get further away from those that could unite the world, not closer.

no real point to the post but it was made as eric would say, in the spirit of understanding.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-03-2011, 10:49 AM
What trinity do you speak of oh Grace Seeker?

The trinity that is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible?

The trinity that was NOT taught by ANY Prophet nor was it EVER taught by Jesus?

The trinity that the Christian deity FORGOT to mention when it became the most fundamental concept in Christianity hundreds of years after Jesus.

The trinity that was first mentioned by Tertullian its creator HUNDREDS of years aftr Jesus. The concept that is SO illogical that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand and completely mind boggling.

The concept that is interpreted in SO many different ways that every definition of it is different from the last.

The concept which teaches of 3 seperate Gods with distinct natures?

The concept which has NO backing at all from biblical referances but was only created to try and prove the divinity of Christ.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-03-2011, 11:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I have palready pasted statement after statement from early church fathers PROVING to you that Mary was seen as NOTHING short of divine as she was called the "mother of God" not speaking merely of her humanity but for the reason that it is believed she BORE GOD and so the title vested to her was of "THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF!

This has been proven by the words of the church fathers who confirm that if she bore God then no doubt she is not just mother of his humanity but mother of GOD HIMSELF. [...] Let us look at the statements from the early church fathers confirming their belief in the "divine" status of Mary as the mother of GOD himself:
greetings hamza. the problem with this discussion is that you are unwilling to actually learn the truth about the title, theotokos for in so doing you would realize that you have no point. your whole argument centers on the fact that mary must be divine because she birthed god. you then try to prove your claim by citing quote after quote of church fathers calling mary the mother of god. this does not prove your point at all. in this discussion we are trying to find out out what mother of god means and simply showing that mary is considered the mother of god does not make your case. for instance, if i wanted to know the definition of a word, it wouldn't do to simply state the word over and over again but rather we would need to define it. i have repeatedly asked you to show us where the christian creeds state that mother of god means that mary is divine and you have been unable to show us any proof of this. i have shown you repeatedly where the christian creeds explain that mother of god simply means that mary is human while christ is god. once again:

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord". In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos). --- Catechism of the Catholic Church
notice that it speaks of christ's humanity and not divinity. she did not birth the divine nature but rather only his humanity. as such, she herself is not divine but is only called the mother of god because christ is god, and she is the human mother whom he saw fit to enter the world through. how could christians consider mary to be divine when they believe that she is created by jesus himself? look at these quotations again:

Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.

Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not mary. now, instead of simply showing us passages in which church fathers call mary the mother of god, can you actually give us citations from christian creeds in which the title theotokos is explained as mary being divine? simply having individuals call her mother of god is not enough seeing as we want to know what the title means.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Once again for the fourth time you have ignored the challenge i have set you and that is to PROVE your position using the ORIGINAL language of the Qur'an. Why do you keep ignoring me request Sol? Why do i have to keep repeating myself? [...] So clearly you are now at a road block unless you can translate and interpret the original language in a deep and meaningful way and show us your intepretation in context.
so having seen that you can't actually deal with my points, you know bring up the "original language" excuse, well let me tell you that this simply won't work. if it were the case that the original language somehow exonerated the muslim deity then you would have countless muslims posting this vindication of the muslim god within this thread. the fact that there is none actually only strengthens my point. the defense of the original language is actually a ruse and you only fall back on it once you have no other way of defending your point. but let me ask you, if in fact this is an adequate point, do you understand greek or latin? if not, then on what basis do you feel comfortable to pontificate on the matter of the title, theotokos? if your argument is that seeing as i do not possess a mastery of the original language of the qur'an, then i am unable to speak concerning it then the same would apply to you with regards to the bible, and the works of the church fathers. yet once again you show your inconsistency by not practising what you preach. so no, the above is not a defense at all and is only a means of trying to save face.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
There is no contradiction at all in my saying that trinities existed in other pagan religions because the concept itself is pagan and therefore can only come from pagan origins as does many of the beliefs and practices of Christianity which were unfortunatley heavily influenced by greek mythology and you know Sol what a huge influence greek mythology played in shaping Christian beliefs and practices that we see even today.
where is the logic in this? you had claimed that seeing as the qur'an doesn't specifically use the word trinity, then we need not suppose that the marian trinity was supposed to be the proper trinity but then you turn around and call all these other pagan triads trinities as well. can we have some level of consistency here? the fact that these are pagan have nothing to do with this seeing as we're simply following logic here. anyway, you once more show your lack of understanding a sit concerns the trinity by pointing to triads and claiming that these are examples of the trinity. do you even know the difference between a triad and a trinity?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.
your first mistake is in claiming that hinduism has embraced the trimurti, that is false. it is not even an official doctrine and is only one of the many ways that the hindu could explain the divine order that they believe in. furthermore, in my prior posts i showed how the trimurti was not the trinity and if you are going to be making such statements i'd much like it if you could prove these by contesting my claims instead of taking care to ignore them and simply repeating the very position that i have already shown to be incorrect.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
This is priceless.

exactly 1 for you means the father, the son, and holy spirit. [...] As I said, go back to the previous pages and read them yourselves. I don't need to entertain some people who claim blindness while in fact they are delusional stemming from following their twisted logic that says 3=1.
no, what is priceless is that i have repeatedly presented the argument for e oneness of the trinity and no muslim on this board has been able to refute it. yet then here we have individuals making light of the oneness of the trinity as if they were ever able to present an actual rebuttal to my argument. if you are so sure of your position naidamar, might you be willing to take another shot at a discussion concerning the oneness that the trinity espouses or are you perhaps more comfortable with making points that neither you nor anyone else on this board is able to prove?

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
"They do commit kufr who say: "(God) is Christ the son of Mary." But Christ himself said: "O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with (the one true) God, God has forbidden him the jannah (paradise), and the fire will be his abode. For these wrong-doers there will be no one to help." (QS. 5:72)
it would seem that we can expect some honesty from you yet, naidamar. seeing as you claim that the above is actually directed at the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ then we can quite easily say that the above is completely wrong. once again the source of the qur'an misformulates what trinitarians believe in and ends up condemning another heresy instead of the trinitarian understanding. if you disagree with this you are more than welcome to try to debate this matter because as is, we are still waiting for the muslim response on as to why the above (and various other passages contained in your holy book) are so blatantly incorrect. it's good that at the very least you are willing to admit that the above is directed at the proper understanding of christ's divinity, this only makes it easier to show how incorrect your holy book really is. please do get back to me on this because it wouldn't do to simply reiterate a position that neither you nor any muslim on this board has been able to prove.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
"They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." (QS. 5:17)
and there we have it again. why is it that there is never a correct formulation of christian doctrine within the qur'an (and i half-expect you to act ignorant and claim what exactly i mean by christian doctrine. please do, i would welcome responding on this matter)? seriously, let's discuss this because you claim that these errors are directed at our understanding of the divinity of christ so you better explain to us how these clear mis-articulations could at all square up with what we say. i'll be waiting naidamar.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-03-2011, 11:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
What trinity do you speak of oh Grace Seeker?

The trinity that is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible?

The trinity that was NOT taught by ANY Prophet nor was it EVER taught by Jesus?

The trinity that the Christian deity FORGOT to mention when it became the most fundamental concept in Christianity hundreds of years after Jesus.

The trinity that was first mentioned by Tertullian its creator HUNDREDS of years aftr Jesus. The concept that is SO illogical that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand and completely mind boggling.

The concept that is interpreted in SO many different ways that every definition of it is different from the last.

The concept which teaches of 3 seperate Gods with distinct natures?

The concept which has NO backing at all from biblical referances but was only created to try and prove the divinity of Christ.
asking where the trinity is found in the bible is not appropriate to this thread. we can however make a thread concerning the matter and within such a thread, we would be more than happy to expound the christian logic to you. the fact that this question is off-topic should be understood best by you given that you are a mod. this discussion is focused on how the qur'an represents the christian doctrine and not where in fact the trinity is contained in the bible. if you want to argue the latter so badly, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the matter but within this thread, such a discussion is off-topic and more of a way to detract attention away from the errors within the qur'an.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-03-2011, 11:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
no, what is priceless is that i have repeatedly presented the argument for e oneness of the trinity
no, what is priceless is that we have repeatedly presented the argument that the concept trinity as one is -------s.
It's not our fault that you have not been able to refute it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
it would seem that we can expect some honesty from you yet, naidamar. seeing as you claim that the above is actually directed at the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ
It does not say anywhere in the Qur'an and neither in the verse that it is directed at "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ". Maybe you need to check your eyes or your ability to read.

My question: Do you or do you not say that Christ is God?

This is a simple question that require no 4 pages worth of long winded re-interpretations of words.

The verse clearly condemns those who believe that Christ is God.

If you dont believe that christ is God, then the verse is not addressing you, but it certainly addresses many other people who believe that Christ is God.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-03-2011, 11:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
o, what is priceless is that we have repeatedly presented the argument that the concept trinity as one is -------s.
It's not our fault that you have not been able to refute it.
really? in which thread? for the sake of honesty i'd quite like it if you could post for us the link of the thread in which i and any other muslim were engaged in a discussion on the oneness of the trinity and your co-religionist actually refuted the concept of three in one being an example of oneness. if you could even provide for us the post number then that wold be perfect. anyway, i'll be waiting for this link.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It does not say anywhere in the Qur'an and neither in the verse that it is directed at "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ". Maybe you need to check your eyes or your ability to read.
was your post not addressed to graceseeker? if you have qualms with the words "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ" then maybe "the conception of christ as espoused by the official church councils" might be better (seeing as graceseeker agrees with the orthodox formulation of christ's divinity as represented by the church councils)?

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
My question: Do you or do you not say that Christ is God? This is a simple question that require no 4 pages worth of long winded re-interpretations of words. The verse clearly condemns those who believe that Christ is God.
no need to invert what the source of the qur'an actually says. these verses condemn those who say that god is christ and not that christ is god. knowing next to nothing concerning church history, you may have never been aware of the difference until now but these do not mean the same thing. the funny thing here is that you realize that the muslim deity formulated his condemnation incorrectly and so you have to change what he actually said.

do i believe that god is christ? no i don't. such a formulation was condemned by trinitarians hundreds of years before the muslim deity agreed with such a condemnation. now, can we stick to discussing what the muslim deity actually said instead of what naidamar is making him say?
Reply

Woodrow
05-03-2011, 12:59 PM
Just my opinion here. It seems we have some misunderstandings/misconceptions going on.

Some members seem to be under the impression that the Quran is attempting to describe and condemn only Christianity, specifically the "Official" Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

To compound this, throughout the centuries there have been various groups who professed to be Christian but who's views were heretical to Christianity, Instead of looking at the condemnations as applicable to all people who call themselves Christians one may be better off in looking a bit more simple, look for what specific acts and beliefs are condemned. Look at the acts that are condemned and not worry about if they are Christian Doctrine or the doctrine of other faiths.

The worship of Mary

The worship of Jesus(as)

The concept of a Multiple god.

The list can be made longer, but I think that is sufficient to point out what I am trying to say.

We are making things too complex. look at the individual acts that are being condemned and remove the idea that all of them are the beliefs of any single group. They may or may not have been general beliefs but should not be considered a blanket description of Christianity. Some could also have been practiced by people who did not refer to themselves as Christian. The purpose of the Qur'an is not to describe what Christianity is or is not. The purpose is to condemn specific practices. It is an error to assume that all these acts together are a description of Christianity although they have at various times been practiced by some people wearing the name of Christian, We Muslims err when we put them all together and call them Christian doctrine. Non-Muslims err when they do the same and see it as an invalid description of Christianity.

Some but not all things condemned in the Qur'an are Christian beliefs, but all put together are not a representation of Christianity.

To further simplify things and to attempt to answer the original Question: "How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?" We need to look at the most simple view and that being. "Christians are people of the Book who erred when they took on the worshiping of Jesus(as)."
Reply

Fivesolas
05-03-2011, 02:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Did you not read a single post by muslims in this thread?

Please show me one single Qur'an ayat that condemn trinity.

I get that you christians LOVE to twist the meaning of scriptural verses, but please, not everyone is as blind you are.
naidamar,

Do you really think this kind of rhetoric is pleasing to God? Of all that is presented as Islam in a positive light, your type of speaking is not befitting a Muslim.

You asked that I show you a Quranic verse that condemns the doctrine of the Trinity. Since I am the author of this thread, I would encourage you to go back and read the OP. I have asked Muslims to clarify their own sacred text as to how it represents Christian doctrine, be it the Trinity, the Sonship of Jesus, et. So far, it is evident from the Muslims on this board that there isn't a uniform belief or agreement on what the Qur'an is actualy teaching or saying.

In fact, my reading of the Qur'an has given me the impression that it is not condemning the doctrine of the Trinity at all. Rather, it is condemning Tritheism. This, as we know, is something the followers of Jesus have not taught. If the Qur'an is the word of God, I am not sure why God would be interested in condeming beliefs generally not held by Christians. Our conclusion is that Mohammed simply had a misunderstanding of Christianity based on his experience of it. Since he could not read, I cannot suppose that he actually read either the Old or New Testaments (which he would have had access to at St. Catherine's Monestary).

To the Muslims, I would exhort, based on the replies here, that what true Christianity is must be derived from the Scriptures. The local Muslim community in my area was interviewed by our local news expressing their relief and abhorance to Osama Bin Laden, stating that he did not represent Islam at all. Al Queda and Osama, according to the local Muslims here, was/is an embarrasment to Islam.

We both hold that the texts we hold as Scripture and the founder or author of our faith is what defines our beliefs. For the Muslim, this is the Qur'an and Mohammed. For the Christians, this is the Bible and Jesus. The Bible alone is the plumbline and standard by which all which is called Christianity must be judged. To the Word of God we stand or fall.

Lastly, Woodrow has said that the Qur'an meaning with regard to Jesus being the only begotton Son of God is meant to condemn the worship of Jesus as God. It is claimed that it is the Christians who went too far in their devotion to Christ and that Jesus would condemn the worship of Himself as much as any Muslim today.

This belief can only be maintained by supposing that this excess was present among the disciples within 30 years of His death and resurrection. For the Muslim, to suppose that Jesus is who the Bible depicts Him to be cannot be accepted because it contradicts the Qur'an. There are many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible. What this thread was about is trying to understand, from Muslims, what they believe the Qur'an is teaching with regard to Christian belief. Most of those you are interacting with here are not those who hold to a higher authority than the Word of God. Therefore, all the talk you see with regard to the varied beliefs of Christians, or those who called themselves Christians, is simply a matter of history to us. They do not define Christianity. The Bible does.

Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet. Yet Jesus prophesied of His death and resurrection. O Muslim, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have Jesus as a great prophet, yet giving a false prophecy of His own death and resurrection. The Bible teaches that the Father has appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead. Yet, you believe that you will be judged by Allah. What is the truth here? These things are contradictory. All that is left for the Muslim to do then is to attempt to discredit the New Testament claiming it has been corrupted. And I have shown before that the Qur'an knows of no such corruption of either the Old or New Testaments.

Naidamar, it is precisely for NOT misunderstanding or twisting what the Qur'an is teaching that I started this thread. So, I maintain: That the Qur'an is either not condemning true Christianity, or else it is betraying itself as greatly misunderstanding it and has knowledge of only a skewed idea of Christianity. Since Muslims regard the Qur'an as the Word of God, I understand that this latter view is rejected because it concludes that Muhammed did not hear from Allah. Because of this, it makes sense that Muslims seek to reason from the former, suggesting that the Qur'an is condemning something else, and not condemning biblical Christianity at all.

But this is also a problem isn't it? Because the Bible does reveal the Trinity of God. The Bible does reveal the Divine nature of Jesus. The Bible does reveal that Jesus was crucified, buried, and risen from the dead. The Bible does reveal that there is salvation in none other but the Lord Jesus and forgiveness of sins only through His blood.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-04-2011, 12:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza. the problem with this discussion is that you are unwilling to actually learn the truth about the title, theotokos for in so doing you would realize that you have no point. your whole argument centers on the fact that mary must be divine because she birthed god. you then try to prove your claim by citing quote after quote of church fathers calling mary the mother of god. this does not prove your point at all. in this discussion we are trying to find out out what mother of god means and simply showing that mary is considered the mother of god does not make your case. for instance, if i wanted to know the definition of a word, it wouldn't do to simply state the word over and over again but rather we would need to define it. i have repeatedly asked you to show us where the christian creeds state that mother of god means that mary is divine and you have been unable to show us any proof of this. i have shown you repeatedly where the christian creeds explain that mother of god simply means that mary is human while christ is god. once again:
Greeting Sol

It is clear that our definitions of shirk are very different indeed. In Islam shirk is that of ascribing partners to God and venerating and worshiping those other than God himself who is the only one worthy of worship. He has no equals and a normal human CANNOT possibly be ascribed to him for he is God he has NO mother and is not in need of one.

If Jesus has a mother then who is the mother of the father and the Holy spirit? If one of the trinity had a mother then the other 2 in the trinity must surely have a mother to.

Even the title itself "Mother of God" is ascribing partners to God and giving a human godly status. There is no way around it Sol. Protestants like yourself did try and downplay the veneration and the raising of the status of Mary like the Catholics but there is still much to do in order for Mary NOT to be connected to God in the first place.

Can you give me one place in the Bible where Mary is called the "mother of God"? Can you give me one place in the Bible where Theotokas is mentioned? Why is it that the Theotokas and the trinity were both created and formulated hundreds of years after Jesus but are not mentiion ANYWHERE in the Bible nor are they taught by Jesus or ANY prophet?

Sol the fundamentals of Islam are backed up by the Qur'an and Sunnah but why is it that the fundamentals of Christianity ie the trinity and the theotokos is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible nor is it taught by Jesus?

Did the Christian deity and Jesus forget to mention such a fundamental concept as the trinity? Would they leave their people confused? Did Jesus forget to mention the Theotokos seeing as he was bore by his mother?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is not the author of confusion ...”

So why would the most fundamental concepts in Christianity be shrouded in confusion and mystery and not actually be taught by Jesus, any prophet or the Bible?

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
notice that it speaks of christ's humanity and not divinity. she did not birth the divine nature but rather only his humanity. as such, she herself is not divine but is only called the mother of god because christ is god, and she is the human mother whom he saw fit to enter the world through. how could christians consider mary to be divine when they believe that she is created by jesus himself? look at these quotations again:

Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.

Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not mary. now, instead of simply showing us passages in which church fathers call mary the mother of god, can you actually give us citations from christian creeds in which the title theotokos is explained as mary being divine? simply having individuals call her mother of god is not enough seeing as we want to know what the title means.
Which denomination would i have to refer to Sol as your understanding of Mary as a Protestant is different to a Catholics understanding. According to Catholics you are a fundamentalist reformer and Protestants like yourself have tried to downplay Marys divinity and quite rightly so but the Catholics are still trying to hold onto Marys divinity with dear life and until this day they openly venerate and worship Mary as "The mother of God".

"As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I was devoted to Mary. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by sincere people. I prayed the rosary, including rosary novenas. I wore a Brown Scapular and a Miraculous Medal. (You can read about these things in the Glossary, which is Appendix C.) I visited shrines that honor Mary. I had beautiful statues of Mary. I attended special services where we prayed to Mary and recited a litany of titles honoring her."


Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200712140...ryWorship.html

Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm



"It was at Ephesus, the city of the goddess, that the earliest proof is found of an established cult of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and in the council held at Ephesus in A.D. 431 this cult was definitely established as a feature of the orthodox ritual." (James Hastings - Encyclopedia Of Religion & Ethics Part 18 - Kessinger Publishing, 2003 - Page 908).



This sect is called "Mariamites" who believed that Mary is part of the trinity.


"Mariamites. Mariamites (4 syl.). Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. Source: Brewers." (Trinities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases - Inc Icon Group International 2008 - Page 119).


A non-Muslim explains further:

"Among the Arabs, it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and Nazaraens1, and also that of Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the later introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sects had it's name.2 This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were named Mariamites.3 Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran4 as idolatrous, and have a handle to Mohammed to attack the Trinity itself."



1. Epiphan de Haeresi. 1, 1; Haer 40.

2. Idem ibid. 1. 3; Haeres. 75, 79

3. Elmacin Eutych

4. Chap. 5

(George Sale - Koran - Lulu.com 2007 - Page 27).


Also, please refer to: (Tienne Ursin Bouzique - The History of Christianity - General Books LLC, 2009 - Page 29 - Source) and (William Cooke Taylor - Readings In Biography: A Selection Of The Lives Of Eminent Men Of All Nations - J.W. Parker, 1834 - Page 192 - Source).


Here we will analyse the sayings of the early church fathers in more detail:



Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).


Jerome


"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


A human women bearing God himself? NO normal human can bear the creator of the universe GOD and just be seen as a normal human.


Gregory the Wonderworker


"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

Gregory refers to Mary as the "Holy mother of God". If this is not referring to her divinity then what is?


Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Here we can see that Methodius and Gregory both referring to Mary as "The HOLY Mother of God" and Methodius is even supplicating to MARY like she is God herself for Who would supplicate to a human if that human is not seen as divine? She is seen as so divine that she is worthy of supplication as is God and Jesus.


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Here we can clearly see that Cyril is giving mary divine status like the three entities of the trinity and the arc angel Gabriel. The father bearing witness from heaven to his son. The holy spirit bearing witness coming down in the form of a dove. The arch angel Gabriel bearing witness and the VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD bearing witness. She is bearing witness just like the other divine beings!


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Ambrose of Milan saying that What is greater than the MOTHER OF GOD? Such a powerful word so much so that she is referred to as GREAT and not just great but WHAT CAN BE GREATER THAN HER THE MOTHER OF GOD?

Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

This statement by Theodore clearly states that Mary is NOT just the mother of the humanity of God but the mother of the divinity of GOD himself!

Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

Cyril is clearly stating here that if Jesus is God then how can Mary his mother not be the mother of God himself? Again this does not just refer to Mary being being the mother of his humanity but the mother of his divine being as well.


....This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

Need i say more?


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).

John Cassian is again confirming that if Jesis is God then Mary is NOT just the mother of his humanity but the mother of his divinity aswell so she is the mother of the divine God and not just the humanity of God. Again this further refutes your false arguments.


Council of Ephesus


we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very
conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).


Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995) under the heading of Mary:


Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son.

Clearly here we can see that she is seen as responsible for the redemption of mankind. What "normal" human be given such a high status to be able to be responsibile not only for BEARING the divnity of God but also being partly responsible for the redemption of mankind itself!


Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

She is being called HIS FAITHFUL SPOUSE. Connecting her to the holy spirit. NOTHING short of divine!


The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Here again we see her being connected and linked to the 3 divine persons in the trinity.

She is also being called THE DAUGHTER OF GOD AND THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! What normal human could ever be given such a high divine status as she is being given by the early church fathers and the Christian creed?


Here Pope John Paul the second says:

Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

The early church fathers and the Christian creed is clear on this matter that Mary is NOTHING short of being the mother of not only the humanity of God but of the divine nature of God himself so she is the mother of God. She is clearly being connected to the trinity in a divine way and she has been described as the spouse of the holy spirit as well as the daughter of God.

The evidence is over whelming Sol and this you cannot deny now after seeing the proof with your very eyes. All can read the above and conclude that Mary is seen as NOTHING short of divine!

When the issue is of Worshipping, Venerating, Deifying and Idolizing, it is Mary - the "Mother of God" and not the Holy Ghost has that kind of rank and status. Clearly as can be seen from above the historical figures of Jesus and Mary are venerated as Deities. The Holy Ghost is not venerated as a Deity.

During his ministry, Jesus Christ had taught in very explicit language to worship the “Father in Heaven” (see Matthew 6:5-13). Jesus NEVER ever taught his followers to make images of him or his mother and then venerate either of them.

The Bible NEVER mentions nor talks about Mary as being "the Mother of God" nor does it mention the word trinity or Theotokas nor does it teach the trinity or Theotokas and nor did any Prophet or Jesus ever teach the trinity or Theotokas which were created hundreds of years after Jesus.

How can the most fundamental concepts of Christianity be left out of the Bible and not even mentioned nor taught by Jesus or the Christian deity in the Bible?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is not the author of confusion ...”

This verse from the Bible further contradicts the fact that the two most fundamental concepts of Christianity could have been shrouded in so much confusion and mystery that until this day there is NO mention of it in the Bible or from the teachings of Jesus.
Reply

Tyrion
05-04-2011, 12:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Just my opinion here. It seems we have some misunderstandings/misconceptions going on.

Some members seem to be under the impression that the Quran is attempting to describe and condemn only Christianity, specifically the "Official" Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

To compound this, throughout the centuries there have been various groups who professed to be Christian but who's views were heretical to Christianity, Instead of looking at the condemnations as applicable to all people who call themselves Christians one may be better off in looking a bit more simple, look for what specific acts and beliefs are condemned. Look at the acts that are condemned and not worry about if they are Christian Doctrine or the doctrine of other faiths.

The worship of Mary

The worship of Jesus(as)

The concept of a Multiple god.

The list can be made longer, but I think that is sufficient to point out what I am trying to say.

We are making things too complex. look at the individual acts that are being condemned and remove the idea that all of them are the beliefs of any single group. They may or may not have been general beliefs but should not be considered a blanket description of Christianity. Some could also have been practiced by people who did not refer to themselves as Christian. The purpose of the Qur'an is not to describe what Christianity is or is not. The purpose is to condemn specific practices. It is an error to assume that all these acts together are a description of Christianity although they have at various times been practiced by some people wearing the name of Christian, We Muslims err when we put them all together and call them Christian doctrine. Non-Muslims err when they do the same and see it as an invalid description of Christianity.

Some but not all things condemned in the Qur'an are Christian beliefs, but all put together are not a representation of Christianity.

To further simplify things and to attempt to answer the original Question: "How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?" We need to look at the most simple view and that being. "Christians are people of the Book who erred when they took on the worshiping of Jesus(as)."
I feel like Woodrow has addressed the original question, and I really don't think anyone else can give a better answer than this.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-04-2011, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

so having seen that you can't actually deal with my points, you know bring up the "original language" excuse, well let me tell you that this simply won't work. if it were the case that the original language somehow exonerated the muslim deity then you would have countless muslims posting this vindication of the muslim god within this thread. the fact that there is none actually only strengthens my point. the defense of the original language is actually a ruse and you only fall back on it once you have no other way of defending your point. but let me ask you, if in fact this is an adequate point, do you understand greek or latin? if not, then on what basis do you feel comfortable to pontificate on the matter of the title, theotokos? if your argument is that seeing as i do not possess a mastery of the original language of the qur'an, then i am unable to speak concerning it then the same would apply to you with regards to the bible, and the works of the church fathers. yet once again you show your inconsistency by not practising what you preach. so no, the above is not a defense at all and is only a means of trying to save face.
It is clear that it is you are trying to decievingly find ways of misinterpreting verses of the Qur'an and implying they mean that which they do not.

Your gross errors in trying to intepretate verses referring to the trinity and Mary have been refuted time and time again yet you keep repeating the same mistakes that you have repeated throughout this thread.

It has already been established that the verses referring to the trinity do NOT stipulate what order God is in the 3 nor does it stipulate what the trinity consists of but condems it on a theological level yet you keep repeating the same gross errors in implying that the verses can only be referring to Mary as part of the trinity when the verses clearly do not imply anything of the sort.

The two verses referring to the trinity DO NOT imply Mary to be part of the trinity as both are SEPERATE condemnations. One of the trinity itself and the absurdity of a 3 in one triune godhead and the other the absurdity of raising the status of Mary to that of God in referring to her as the mother of God as she is seen as today.

Clearly they are two seperate condemnations and if we look at commentators of the Qur'an for the past 1500 years then they also mention the same fact that the three refers to the father, son and holy spirit. Surely you know nothing compared to the commentators of the Qur'an for the past 1500 years so how can you continuously reject what they say and instead try to misinterpret already translated verses of the Qur'an and try to use "english grammer" to try and prove your point which in itself exposed your grammatical errors . It is IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone to interpret and make commentaries on already translated verses of the Qur'an.

The language of the Qur'an is SO deep and meaningful that it can ONLY be translated by having superiour knolwedge of the language aswell as vast knowledge of Islam and the Qur'an. So the ONLY way for you to prove your point is to use the original language. of the Qur'an. That is not an excuse but that is a fact and the ONLY way you can prove your point

The Qur'an is not translated, interpreted and commented on like the Bible is where translated verses are translated again and again and then commented on until you have lost the true meaning of the verse and therefore have a flawed understanding of the verses. That is why the Bible has been proven to be so erronious in its translations but the Qur'an is still in its original form from revelation until now. The verses of the Qur'an can ONLY be interpreted and commented on by translating the original language. You will NEVER see ANY commentator of the Qur'an commenting on and intepreting verses of the Qur'an that have already been translated into another language but they translate the verses of the Qur'an using its original language.

The language of the Qur'an has such deep meanings that one CANNOT interpret or make commentaries on verses which have already been translated into other languages.

Therefore i have now corrected your misconception and misunderstandings regarding this matter and if you persist in denying this fact then it is clear your reasons for being on this forum is not to clarify your knowledge and misconceptions regading the Qur'an and Islam but to propogate your false beliefs regarding it.
Reply

Chavundur
05-04-2011, 01:54 AM
As far as I understood, Christians produced such a complex theory without taking any help from divine books, especially from old testament, They can not give up supporting or believing so easily.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-04-2011, 05:06 AM
Five Solas,

I think its safe to say from what I've read from our muslim friends here that they condemn the Trinity as to them it ascribes partners to God which is of course forbidden in Islam as it is also forbidden in Christianity and Judaism. Where we say God is Triune; 3 persons, one essence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They simply see three persons and think we mean Father, Mary, Son which of course is forbidden. They can't change that belief because it written in the Koran so to muslims its true, and no amount of lecturing and bible thumping will ever change that.

That is why Christianity and Islam are 2 totally different faiths. All we can do is agree to disagree concerning our views of God, for both hold doctrines that are fundamentally different. Christianity sees itself as an Abrahamic religion, and Islam sees itself as an Abrahamic religion. Catholism acknowledges that Islam says its an Abrahamic religion.

Peace be with you
Reply

Tyrion
05-04-2011, 05:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Five Solas,

I think its safe to say from what I've read from our muslim friends here that they condemn the Trinity as to them it ascribes partners to God which is of course forbidden in Islam as it is also forbidden in Christianity and Judaism. Where we say God is Triune; 3 persons, one essence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They simply see three persons and think we mean Father, Mary, Son which of course is forbidden. They can't change that belief because it written in the Koran so to muslims its true, and no amount of lecturing and bible thumping will ever change that.

That is why Christianity and Islam are 2 totally different faiths. All we can do is agree to disagree concerning our views of God, for both hold doctrines that are fundamentally different. Christianity sees itself as an Abrahamic religion, and Islam sees itself as an Abrahamic religion. Catholism acknowledges that Islam says its an Abrahamic religion.

Peace be with you
Have you not read the last few posts? Woodrows in particular might help you out... And like I said before, I think people need to stop talking about a "Christianity", as if a single, unified religion by that name exists...
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-04-2011, 10:31 AM
What is clear to all is that the Qur'an condems the trinity at a theological level without stipulating what order or what constitutes the trinity and what is also clear is that the Quran does NOT imply Mary to be part of the trinity but also condems those who raise her status to divinity as a SEPERATE condemnation.

There is NO doubt that the most fudamental beliefs of Christianty that of the Theotakas and the trinity ate mentioned KNOWHERE in the Bible nor wete they ever taught by Jesus and are creations of theologans hundreds of years after Jesus and the Quran is perfect in the wsy it condems such polytheistic and blasphemous beliefs.

So i ask Christians to please think about this and contemplate why such fundamental beliefs are not mentioned or taught ANYWHERE by Jesus or the bible and how then can such false beleifs be attributed to Jesus and the Bible.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!