The Trinity and Islam: What does Mohommed Say?

Peace be with you Zafran,

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

Salaam

Yes if you mean by direct revelation from God.

Do you believe that Allah spoke the Injeel and that it was then dictated to Isa via an angel, who then dictated it to his disciples verbatim?

About the NT no not exactly because most of these guys never met Jesus pbuh. If they had a chain going back to Christ directly then yes but they don't or do they? Instead they were inspired rather then transmitting what Christ said like student to teacher they instead write about what they think happened or what they have been "inspired" by.

Sts Matthew and John were both Apostles, so they knew Jesus directly. Sts Mark and Luke were disciples of apostles, so between them and Jesus was one person.

Inspiration doesn't negate historical experience in anyway, it's simply how we believe God produced the NT, as opposed to Him dictating what to write the evangelists the way the Quran was said to have been dictated to Muhammad.


Pax

Peace be with you Scimi,

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

Uh no... you're trying to say that matthew and john who were alive at the time of jesus pbuh were 2 of the authors of the bible, but this is contested amongst scholarly circles AND you know this, so please, don't try to spread a little "white lie" here, thank you.

There is a consensus of scholars in Iran that Ali was the first rightfully guided Khalif, but what value does this consensus have? If atheist and agnostic Biblical scholars are skeptical of the Bible it's because a priori they reject the miraculous. It's simply impossible that Jesus could have been of a Virgin Birth, as it is impossible that he miraculously cured the sick. Therefore these can't be eye-witness accounts and must be a later invention. This is the thought process of secular scholars, and I don't share their materialist worldview, nor do I discount the data of the early Church identifying four gospels and their authors. The earliest extant witness is that of Sts Papias and Polycarp, both of whom personally knew St John the Apostle and both affirmed that he wrote the fourth gospel. This was affirmed again by their disciple St Irenaeus, who although did not know the Apostles personally could vividly recall St Polycarp teachings of the Apostles. The witness of these early Bishops is first century evidence, it's unanimous, there has never been any doubt or disagreement about it until atheists started probing the Gospels. I will side with the holy men that knew the Apostles and their successors, the Salaf of the Christian faith, who had access to data and information that the modern scholars don't even have a single percentage of.

Pax et bonum

Peace be with you M.I.A.,

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

So given your view of modern historians, what will Christianity be like in 100 years.. Know of any churches in your area that have stood for the last hundred?

You'll have to forgive me as I don't quite understand your question. Many Churches in my area have stood for a hundred or more years. And regarding modern historians, not all approach the Gospels with extreme skepticism, naturally though, those with an atheistic background will find it hard to swallow it's presentation as eye witness testimony for supernatural events.

To be fair the Quranic viewpoint and I'm probably liberally paraphrasing here.. Is that the teachings of Jesus pbuh were a warning rather than a way of life.

I may be wrong but would have to read a lot just to find my mistake.

If I'm not mistaken Jesus is regarded as a high prophet in the Islam rather than a minor one. You're probably aware to some degree what we hold his mission to have been, but what do you believe his mission was?

I guess that is the difference here, the Quran is preserved in its entirety. Although 1400 years have lead to many interpretations on it STILL!

How do you know it's preserved in it's entirety? There are Western scholars that could challenge that.

To be fair I have already said that Islam faces the same problems as Christianity has done in general.. Its a shame you still argue on the differences.

The nature of god does not change really.. But now we are islamically servants.

Often preaching and working are very different

Many of the problems we face are the same, and there is much similarity between us. We ought to treat each other as friends rather than opponents.

Peace be with you

Sojourn

Peace be with you Insaanah,

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah

In Islam, God has no mother. Any "God" that has a mother, is not God. God is far exalted above having a mother, father, or begetting a son, or a daughter, or having siblings, cousins, grandparents, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts or relatives of any sort.

This is where we Christians can do a better job informing our Muslim friends exactly what it is we believe. The Son is eternally "begotten" of the Father the same way Allah's Speech is eternally generated from Allah. Because the Son took on human flesh and was born of a woman, he has a mother, her name is Mary. Obviously only the Son's assumed human nature is from Mary, and not his divine nature.

And we invite you, to come to that belief in the oneness of God. No sons, no 3-in-1s, no mothers, no persons, no trinities, just unadulterated belief in, and worship of, the One True God. While loving and honouring both Jesus and Mary (peace be on them both) as the noblest and purest of human beings that they were, but not ascribing any type of divinity to them, nor did they claim it, a right which belongs to God alone. Indeed, the Qur'an goes so far as to have an entire chapter called Mary, and she is honoured in the Qur'an and there are hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace, blessings, grace, mercy and salutations of Allah be upon him) honouring the noble virgin Mary (peace be on her).

We thank you for the invitation, and we know you ask us to do only that which you sincerely believe is good for us. But we would be dishonoring Jesus if we sough to alter what he revealed to us. It is He who revealed himself to be the eternal and uncreated Word of God that assumed flesh. He likewise taught us that He will be the judge at the end of the world.

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." John 5:21-23

However, worshipping, or praying to or through someone, be that anyone, is not a way of honouring, but of the gravest sin of all, associating others in God's exclusive divinity. Indeed, that is how polytheism and idolatry started, by good intentions to honour righteous people. Intentions, which were against God's law that prayer and worship be directed directly to Him, not through anyone, and not to anyone else.

God honors his Saints in heaven, and we honor them on earth because they reflect an aspect of Jesus in one way or another. We ask our heavenly brothers and sisters reigning with God and the angels to pray for us, just as we ask devout souls on earth to intercede for us. God is pleased by our humility and fraternal love, and this is proven by the fact that millions of miracles have been granted by God through the intercession of a saint.

If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they could not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters]. (35:13-14)

Clearly God makes his saints aware of our petitions and their prayers on our behalf are answered because they work. Other than lives of heroic virtue and faithfulness to God, the Church recognizes a soul is in heaven when at least three miracles are attest to their intercession.

Asking the living to pray for you is not like asking the dead. If I was to ask a person near me, to pass me a glass of water, that is perfectly acceptable and normal. If I was to ask a dead person in their grave to pass me a glass of water, that is not normal and would be viewed as losing the plot, which it is. Same goes for making any request of a dead person.

The Saints are not dead, they are alive with God.

You can ask a living person, to pray for you, because it is something they can do. A dead person cannot. In Islam, we believe that martyrs are alive in their graves, in a manner God chooses. But we are still not allowed to ask from or through people who have passed on, whatever the situation in their graves. That is the root of diverting worship away from God, a right which belongs exclusively to Him.

We have millions upon millions of cases proving that intercession is something Saints in heaven can do for us.

All the Prophets of God came to warn against such behaviour.

I understand this is believed from an Islamic point of view, but the inspired books of prophets don't support this.


Peace and blessings

format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn

Peace be with you Futuwwa,

But do you believe that Allah has declared our actions as idolatrous? I take this to be more of Muslim private interpretation than anything else.

Pax

Well, in the Quran, God accuses you of having raised Jesus and Mary to be worshiped alongside God. It should be said though that Islamic standards for what constitutes idolatry are far stricter than Christian standards. The proper Islamic word for it is shirq, and it covers anything that compromises absolute monotheism, or gives any other entity that which is due to God alone.

Peace be with you Muhammad,

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Greetings Sojourn,

There is no need to clutch at straws by distorting the teachings of other religions to justify your own deviation. Where do you find Muslims claiming that God came to earth in any form to redeem our sins, or making statues in our places of worship, or deifying the creation of God or believing in a trinity? The Qur'an is regarded as the Speech of Allaah , sent down as a mercy and guidance for those who believe. Prophet Isa was one of His noblest Messengers and servants. There can be no similarity between this pure belief and the false ascriptions to Allaah having a 'son' and claims He was humiliated amongst His own creation. Christians like to create confusion by playing on the statement that Jesus is 'God's Word'. In reality, they are themselves confused as regards the truth:

I see a great deal of similarity in you believing that a book is uncreated and eternal, these are qualities that can only be applied to God. The only difference is that we believe the Word became flesh whereas you believe it became kitab.

You also said earlier:

We are not talking about heretical groups or non-Christians here. We are talking about Bible scholars themselves of the highest eminence, backed by numerous cooperating denominations, who cannot agree with regards to the contents of the Bible and admit the Bible has 'grave defects'. You have different versions of the Bible, and you also have verses being thrown out and then re-inserted to suit the needs of the people, done by Christian scholars themselves:

The New Testament is the most studied book in the world, a variety of scholars from different backgrounds have approached it, and this includes atheists, agnostics, and liberal 'Christians.' It's very convenient simply labelling them non-Christian and disregarding their opinions, but I have actually studied some of their positions and I don't find them convincing. Have you ever wondered how these scholars are able to date the gospels before or after 70AD? I think you as a Muslim who believes in God and the supernatural will find there line of thinking rather amusing.

The problem from a Muslim perspective is that textual scholarship of the Bible undermines the Quran as well. One of the clearest examples of this is the crucifixion, which even the most skeptical scholars agree is historically certain. J.P. Sanders who rejects great portions of the NT admits that this one (among other) issues that scholars are certain about, yet the Quran says that the crucifixion did not occur and that there is debate among us. This is the one time that I refer to a consensus among scholars to show Muslims that there is no debate about this issue.

Secondly, sometimes these scholars vehemently reject portions of the bible that even you as a Muslim would have to agree is true, such as the virgin birth. The Quaranic passage on the angelic visition to John the Baptist's father and Mary has remarkable similarities to Luke's account. The structure of the events, there connection with one another, it's just amazing that such a passage is even found int he Quran. And yet, many secular scholars as well as liberal Christian scholars believe this is a fabricated story! Obviously though, from a Muslim perspective it must be accurate, and this is why I can't take Muslim appeals to textual scholarship as serious. You're not looking at the data, you're simply appealing to one authority or another that suits you in that particular situation. I don't see you quoting Bart Ehrman on either the crucifixion or virgin birth, because he doesn't support your position.

And lastly, the Quran has many strange stories, of tables descending from heaven for the apostles, of Jesus turning clay birds into living ones, what is the source for these? Do you suppose the scholars find these narrations in the Quran as historical? Can any Muslim find evidence outside of the Quran to support them? The answer is no.

The Salaf of Christianity got it right, their isnad is sound, four gospels were made and the names attached to them are the same ones we have today. You can said with the atheists and liberals, I'll side with the saints.

Pax et bonu,=m

From the very first post in this thread, I've smelled a rat.

Traditio is incapable of properly spelling Prophet Muhammad's name, but he is aware of the hadiths, and to spell that word? But by Post #7, Traditio is already identifying the years of the Prophet's birth and death. Curious, isn't it?

Traditio, your very first sentence, in Post #1 misses the mark. Muslims do not have a prejudice about the Constantine concept of a trinity, as prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason. Muslims have a perfectly acceptable reason for rejecting the concept of trinity - the Holy Qur'an.

And your support for the existence of a triune godhead would be...?

And whilst I recognize Sojourn is at least putting a good foot forward, I see the small things that he slips into his posts, things that are going overlooked. Let's look at some examples (and I am perfectly willing to hear your explanations, Sojourn) -

And what is that doctrine? Well, it's surprisingly straightforward: three Persons in one Divine Being.

Ahh, but is it really so straightforward? As the concept of trinity is also explained as God being three persons, which I prefer to identify as God being three entities. God is not a 'person', nor is a spirit a 'person'. So which shall it be, three entities in one god, or God being three entities? Oh, wait, it works both ways, doesn't it? Hmmm, wasn't 'straightforward' the word you used?

Scimitar, the concept doesn't make sense to anyone. As a United Methodist minister, I regularly asked my mentors for clarification on the concept of trinity, and the most common explanation was that "it is a mystery." The mystery deepens, when we realize the only passages in the entire Bible that ever suggested a trinity (1 John 5:7-8) have been edited to say something completely different in subsequent versions.

Who amongst us genuinely believes God would have shrouded what ends up being a major tenet of Christianity in mists of mystery? What, no takers on that one?

The trinity is expressed in the New Testament and was expounded by many early Christians...

Actually, it would be more accurate to say the trinity is expressed in some versions of the New Testament, but not in all. As for the concept being expounded by many early Christians, might I trouble you to cite your sources?

Also, Sojourn, you suggest the concept of trinity is generally agreed upon by all Christian sects, but if this is the case, why is it that Roman Catholics believe the spirit proceeds from the father and the son, whereas Eastern Orthodox churches believe the spirit proceeds from just the father?

You yourself accused us Christians of believing that the Father is the Son, and went on further to attack his belief.

I make no accusations, but there are Christians who believe Jesus was God stepped down from Heaven. If you do not believe that, I applaud you, but let's not pretend that are not those who do believe it.

The Persons of the Trinity possess the same Divine Intellect, Will, and Nature.

So let's be very clear about this. You are saying Jesus possesses the same intellect as God? If that is what you suggest, then you are in error.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36 KJV

If Jesus possesses the intellect of God, then why would Jesus say only God possessed this knowledge?

The earliest extant witness is that of Sts Papias and Polycarp, both of whom personally knew St John the Apostle and both affirmed that he wrote the fourth gospel.

Once again, I wonder if I might trouble you to explain John 21:24, which clearly shows 'the disciple' was not the sole author of the Gospel According to John.

I admire the faith you demonstrate that the disciples known as Matthew and John were the actual authors of the gospel accounts bearing their names, but the facts are still the facts. The preponderance of Biblical scholars simply do not agree with you. Saying that is what happened does not make it so.

My apologies to all for not posting more frequently. I've been rather busy.

format_quote Originally Posted by Daris

From the very first post in this thread, I've smelled a rat.

Traditio is incapable of properly spelling Prophet Muhammad's name

A genuine spelling mistake. If I've caused any offense by it, I do hope that you all will pardon the error. "Mohommad," at least when spoken and heard by my English-speaking ears, sounds like "Mohommed." Thus the error.

but he is aware of the hadiths

I've seen Muslim posters on this and another forum talking about them.

Traditio is already identifying the years of the Prophet's birth and death. Curious, isn't it?

I looked it up on wikipedia.

Traditio, your very first sentence, in Post #1 misses the mark. Muslims do not have a prejudice about the Constantine concept of a trinity, as prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason. Muslims have a perfectly acceptable reason for rejecting the concept of trinity - the Holy Qur'an.

Two points:

1. In the OP, I made it quite clear that I was using "prejudice" in an extended use of the term. I didn't mean it to have any negative connotations. I meant it merely in the sense of "forming an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching." For example, I'll freely admit that I have a prejudice about pagan religions even prior to researching their teachings: they worship devils, as per the teachings of St. Paul, whether or not they realize that they're doing it.

2. My question is not whether there is a Trinity or not. My question is what Mohommed (or Allah, if, per impossibile, the Quran actually were from a deity) says about the Trinity. According to the Quran, what do Christians believe?

And your support for the existence of a triune godhead would be...?

It is a mystery of faith which cannot be proven, although, of course, I can give credible, probable reasons why it is fitting that God be, at least in some way, triune. St. Augustine does this in De Trinitate (On the Trinity), St. Anselm in the Monologium, St. Bonaventure in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum (Journey of the Mind into God), etc.

But that's not my question. My question is: "What does the Quran, Mohommad, etc" say about what Christians believe? That is, how does they understand our doctrine? One way to "smell a rat," so to speak, when it comes to these things, is by recognizing that they are mis-reporting the facts. For example, there was an alleged apparition of the Blessed Mother, and it was claimed that she protested vehemently against communion being received from the hands of anyone else other than a "lawfully ordained priest." How can we be sure that the Blessed Mother didn't appear and say such things? That's not the way that the Church talks. "Validly ordained," not "lawfully ordained." Surely, the Blessed Mother would have known that.

If the Quran ascribes to Christians views that we don't hold, then the Quran is not revelation from God. If the Quran actually was divinely revealed, surely, God would have known what Christians believe, and he would have been able to make even subtler distinctions about it than the Church's most learned doctors. But this appears not to be the case, doesn't it?

Ahh, but is it really so straightforward? As the concept of trinity is also explained as God being three persons, which I prefer to identify as God being three entities.

We don't assert that there are three entities (beings) in God. The persons of the Trinity are subsisting relations.

God is not a 'person', nor is a spirit a 'person'. So which shall it be, three entities in one god, or God being three entities?

Neither. There is a single God in whom we can distinguish, somehow, three different subsisting real relationships, which, nonetheless, do not divide the divine unity/being.

So let's be very clear about this. You are saying Jesus possesses the same intellect as God? If that is what you suggest, then you are in error.

Jesus had two wills and two intellects (one divine, one human). St. Augustine explains these sorts of passages in De Trinitate. We must constantly ask ourselves: "Is Jesus speaking as God, or as man? He was both, after all."

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

Uh no... you're trying to say that matthew and john who were alive at the time of jesus pbuh were 2 of the authors of the bible, but this is contested amongst scholarly circles AND you know this, so please, don't try to spread a little "white lie" here, thank you.

Scimi

The mode of argumentation that seeks to discredit the authorship of the gospels only works against protestants. [Let us pass over the fact, I suppose, that Mohommad was far more removed from the time, place and life of Jesus than you would ever claim about any of the evangelists.] The Bible did not fall out of the sky. The books of the New Testament were not chosen at random.

Ultimately, our faith both in Jesus Christ and in the Bible as inerrant must rest on the authority of the Catholic Church and her unbroken succession of biships, which stretches from the present day even to the very life of Christ Himself. It is on this basis (namely, the authority of the bishops) that we rightfully believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is, as I said, an unbroken succession from Christ's apostles and their successors (to whom they passed on their doctrines) to the bishops of the Catholic Church today.

You can claim nothing of the sort about Mohommad.

So, what's my point? You can attack the authorship of the gospels, if you want, but that's not particularly persuasive. Why do I believe in those particular texts? Because the bishops of the Catholic Church, in virtue of their teaching authority, command me to believe them. Why do I believe in Jesus? Because the bishops of the Catholic Church, in virtue of their teaching authority, command me to believe in Him.

St. Augustine makes this point in De Utilitate Credendi (On the Usefulness of Belief).

Traditional wrote...

I looked it up on wikipedia


...I think taking that into the context of the thread and the situation regarding the prophets birthday pbuh.

You have literally thrown all out the window. End of thread for most people.

I rest me case me lord. 1400 years is a long time, 2000 years is even longer

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

Traditional wrote...

I looked it up on wikipedia


...I think taking that into the context of the thread and the situation regarding the prophets birthday pbuh.

You have literally thrown all out the window. End of thread for most people.

I rest me case me lord. 1400 years is a long time, 2000 years is even longer

What's wrong with using wikipedia as a quick and easy reference for birth and death dates? Do you dispute the dates that I gave? The only point that I wanted to make was that Mohommed was alive and died: 1. after St. Augustine flourished and 2. prior to the East-West Schism.

I just realized I mispelled "Mohommad" again. Mea culpa.

format_quote Originally Posted by Traditio

My apologies to all for not posting more frequently. I've been rather busy.

No apologies necessary, as we all have our own lives to live.

A genuine spelling mistake. If I've caused any offense by it, I do hope that you all will pardon the error. "Mohommad," at least when spoken and heard by my English-speaking ears, sounds like "Mohommed." Thus the error.

A mistake, you say? Really? So you move from your earlier misspelling (Mohommed) to an entirely different one (Mohommad)? After myself and several others have provided you with the proper spelling, which is Muhammad?

I've seen Muslim posters on this and another forum talking about them.

Oh, I see, But you've never "seen Muslim posters on this and another forum" using the name Muhammad?

I looked it up on wikipedia.

You did? Well, let's take a closer look at that explanation, shall we?

I just visited Wikipedia and performed a search for the word you were initially using, "Mohommed". And Wikipedia says that page does not exist. It does show some alternative pages, but none for the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

So then, I tried looking up "Mohommad", also on Wikipedia. And you know, Traditio, I got the same results.

So I am left thinking if you did look this information up on Wikipedia, you must have used the correct spelling, which is (again, for your personal edification) Muhammad. M-u-h-a-m-m-a-d.

1. In the OP, I made it quite clear that I was using "prejudice" in an extended use of the term. I didn't mean it to have any negative connotations. I meant it merely in the sense of "forming an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching."

1. At no point did I suggest you were making negative connotations, so why mention it?

2. Assuming anyone here has formed an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching is making a really huge assumption, yes? Speaking entirely for myself, I am a former United Methodist minister, so I have made more than just a cursory investigation into Christian teachings. Why would you assume others here have not done the same? Speaking from my personal experiences, I have found that the percentage of Muslims with more than a passing knowledge of Christianity far outweighs the percentage of Christians with any knowledge of Islam. As an example, take a look around - do you see Muslim members of this forum misspelling the name Jesus?

2. My question is not whether there is a Trinity or not.

Sorry, to laugh, but that response is downright silly, and everyone knows it. I understand you to be a member of the Romish Church, yet you are asking this question of Muslims who do not believe in the existence of trinity? Seriously?

My question is what Mohommed (or Allah, if, per impossibile, the Quran actually were from a deity) says about the Trinity. According to the Quran, what do Christians believe?

According to the Bible, what do Hindus believe? According to the Vedas, what do Buddhists believe? According to the Tipitaka, what does anyone believe?

According to the Holy Qur'an, Muslims believe Sura 112 -

"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."

Muslims study the Holy Qur'an to understand the blueprint for their own lives, not to understand that of other faiths.

It is a mystery of faith which cannot be proven, although, of course, I can give credible, probable reasons why it is fitting that God be, at least in some way, triune.

I think you are ladling into questions I was putting to Sojourn, but let's examine what you have said, here.

Why do Christians believe that God would allow them to live within a mystery?

And pardon my splitting of the hair here, but you offering 'probable reason' is a far, far cry from presenting reasonable proof. I can give credible, probable reasons that you are here to pick a fight, but I have no proof, so why mention it?

St. Augustine does this in De Trinitate (On the Trinity),

OK, let's do this the hard way. Council of Nicaea, 20 May through 19 June 325 C.E. Augustine of Hippo, born 13 November 354, died 28 August 430. (I looked it up on Wikipedia) The point of my questioning Sojourn to please name early Christians who taught the concept of trinity was to show where this concept pre-existed the First Council of Nicaea. Augustine of Hippo was born 29 years after the First Council. Strike One.

St. Anselm in the Monologium,

]
Born c. 1033, died 21 April 1109. Strike Two.

St. Bonaventure in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum (Journey of the Mind into God), etc.

Born c. 1221, died c. 1274. Strike 3. And you're out.

Show me Biblical evidence and Biblical teaching to support the existence of trinity. Don't quote the First Council of Nicaea, because Sojourn would have me believe Christians accepted trinity prior to 325 C.E. Show me, in the pages of the Holy Bible, where God taught man the concept of trinity. Show me where Jesus (pbuh) taught trinity. Biblical proof, man, that is what I demand. Show me Biblical proof showing the trinity is divine and not a man-made innovation and I will go on national television with you, to state how wrong my reverting to Islam was.

Of course, we both know that will never happen, will it? Because you have no proof. You talk a good talk, but what you fail to realize is you are not saying anything new. We Muslims have all heard this same-old dog and pony show, time and again, from Christians who are bent over backwards trying to prove us wrong. And this I know for certain - you will fail, just as those who came before you have failed. Because my roots were within Christianity, yet I still found my way to the truth of Islam. I was baptized in a United Methodist church, 18 September 1954, and I reverted to Islam in late 2006, so including the years I preached from a UMC pulpit, I have 50+ years of Christian doctrine under my belt. If you have anything new under the sun, then bring it. If you are just another Christian teakettle that is boiling over and making noise, please do not waste my time, which is all you have accomplished to date.

But that's not my question. My question is: "What does the Quran, Mohommad, etc" say about what Christians believe? That is, how does they understand our doctrine?

Ooops, I bet this misspelling of the Prophet's name was just another minor error, yes?

If you truly seek an answer to this question, my suggestion to you is to obtain a copy of the Holy Qur'an, and to read it. You can read it online, you can listen to it online, you can request a free copy of it online, you can borrow a copy from a student, or you could <horror or horrors> visit a local book store and purchase a copy. Stop asking members of this Islamic forum to do your research for you, because as you noted earlier, all of us have lives to live.

I'm sorry, to sound short, or curt with you, Traditio, but your agenda is plain to see. Your insistence upon demeaning the Prophet Muhammad (saw), by continuing to misspell his name, even after being corrected on it is evidence of what you are really here to do. Maybe I am giving you far too much credit for your capacity to learn?

Bring us Biblical proof of your trinity, Traditio, and we'll talk.