is not a partner to God. I am a woman. I am also a daughter, sister, wife and mother. That doesn't mean that I am 5 different people.
I saw this article, what do you think?
Sukainah is the Spirit of Tranquility, or Peace of Reassurance. It is also a shortened form of the original word "Sakinah" which is mentioned in the Qur’an as having descended upon the Islamic Nabi (Arabic: نَـبِي, Prophet) Muhammad and the believers as they made an unarmed pilgrimage to Mecca, and were faced with an opposing military force of the Quraysh, with whom Muhammad struck the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. "He it is Who sent down the sakinah into the hearts of the believers that they might add faith unto their faith" (48:4).[2]
Another Qur’anic association with the concord of dwellings in peace coincides with the attribution of the Shekhinah to matrimonial concord under the tent of Sarah: "And God gave you your houses as a quiescent place (Arabic: سَـكَـنًـا, sakanan) (16:80).[1] Sakinah is further mentioned in the following verse: "While the Unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant - the heat and cant of ignorance,- Allah sent down Sakīnaṫahu (Arabic: سـكـيـنـتـه, His Tranquility) to his Messenger and to the Believers, and made them stick close to the command of self-restraint; and well were they entitled to it and worthy of it. And Allah has full knowledge of all things" (48:26).[2] Sakinah and Shekhinah
Karen Armstrong notes: "The sakinah it will also be recalled, seems to be related to the Hebrew Shekhinah (Biblical Hebrew: שכינה), the term for God's presence in the world."[3]
Another Qur’anic verse portrays sakinah as reassurance: "Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Sakina - tranquillity (alssakeenata) to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory" (48:18).[2]
The root of the word is sa-ka-nah which means "dwelled" or "remained in place". This further supports the association with the Shekhinah as "indwelling". The fact that the word is preceded by "al" (the) shows that it does not denote a name, but has an abstract meaning. Sufi writings,[4] in expounding the inner peace of Sufi contemplation, which dwells in a sanctuary or in the heart, confirm the association with both Sakinah and the Shekhinah. Sufi reference to sa-ka-na as meaning both stillness and habitation adds to the identity with Shekhinah's indwelling nature.
Although the diction is different from what I would naturally use that is exactly how I would describe the Holy Spirit. It's just the name for the part of one God that we can experience while we live in exile in the dunya.
Comments, thoughts? Let's keep it friendly please, and try to see what's in common.
These verses from the Qur'an have nothing to do with any 'spirit of god' or 'holy spirit'. And there is no such concept (holy spirit) in Islam, and nothing even remotely similar.. at all.
the holy spirit as being part of the trinity with Jesus pbuh and the father is very different to Sakina which literally means tranquility that God bestows on people. I'm sure the Jews have a similar definition.
You have to remember that according to Christians Jesus is not the father or the holy spirit and the same applies to the other persons within the trinity. Yet all of them are God. They are also co eternal and co equal.
Last edited by Zafran; 11-07-2016 at 04:17 AM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
is not a partner to God. I am a woman. I am also a daughter, sister, wife and mother. That doesn't mean that I am 5 different people.
This is an argument I have heard often times from Christians. Rather than being a theological argument, it is one of logic, which I enjoy.
You are claiming you have different roles in life, mother, sister etc. However, even with those different roles, you are the same person. That quite logical argument is than extrapolated to mean that although Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all of which are separate, he is also all of them at once the same way as you are all your separate roles.
However, this does not stand up to factual scrutiny and thus fails as a so called logical argument. As Jesus says in Mark 13:32:
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Jesus is explicitly saying that only God, the true God, not angels or himself, know when the last day is.
Now take in your 5 roles, if your husband tells you a secret, you the sister, the mother etc would also know that secret. You are not a different being. You are the same person, that's why.
Yet if the Father who you are claiming is one with the Son, just separate in their roles, than why does he not know when the last day is?
That quite logical argument is than extrapolated to mean that although Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all of which are separate, he is also all of them at once the same way as you are all your separate roles.
The teaching that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, acting out different roles as in a play, is an ancient heresy known variously as sabellianism, modalistic monarchianism, and patripassianism. This view of the Holy Trinity was rejected by the Church long ago, even well before the coming of Muhammad.
The Holy Spirit....is not a partner to God. I am a woman. I am also a daughter, sister, wife and mother. That doesn't mean that I am 5 different people.
If you aren't familiar with their work yet, I'd like to introduce you to a YouTube channel called Lutheran Satire. In this particular video, St. Patrick uses bad analogies to explain the Trinity to a couple of hilarious Irishmen and they outline various heresies.
What you're describing is one of many variations on a heresy known as Modalism. Water in three different forms is another form of this. It espouses that God is not three distinct persons, but that He merely reveals Himself in three different forms. This heresy was clearly condemned in canon 1 of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and those who confess it cannot be rightly considered a part of the Church catholic. (To quote Donall, from the video). If I were to put it in my own words though, I would say that those who confess it cannot rightly be considered aligned with Christian orthodoxy where the nature of God is concerned.
I'm sure that Muslims would be much more favorable to Christianity if Christian orthodoxy did confess some form of modalism, but it does not. So although it is commendable to try and find common ground where you can, this particular conversation ought to begin with something more like "Although Christian orthodoxy does not confess modalism, or any of a half-dozen other major heresies that could allow us to have more in common with Islam's understanding of the nature of God, what can we come up with that allows for common ground and some understanding based on what is believed in each religion?"
In my personal opinion however, just about any one of those heresies would most likely put the two religions on better footing for that sort of thing. You went for one of them in the process of seeking common ground, and that makes sense. Christian heresies regarding the nature of God do pretty reliably have more common ground with Islam than actual Christian orthodoxy does.
What I take away from this is as follows- this sort of thing could be easier, but it's not.
I saw this article, what do you think?
I'm interpreting this as something that's directed primarily at the Muslims who'd like to answer, I think I did my part.
Comments, thoughts? Let's keep it friendly please, and try to see what's in common.
I will add just one thing- a good deal of what's handled there has to do with Hebrew terms couched within a more primarily Jewish context, which is in this example something that Christians have essentially received from them. So in a sense, a good deal of this is a comparison of the monotheism expressed in Islam and Judaism, as interpreted by a Christian. It's being done in a way that's looking hard for similarities that link all of them, but there are understandable limitations to what can be done with that and of course there are differences and distinctions that are important and should be acknowledged along with that. Taken together, all of that could lead to something very interesting even if it does have to be a bit dense in order to be truly comprehensive....and maybe you can put some more of those pieces together.
Last edited by cooterhein; 11-15-2016 at 11:32 PM.
The teaching that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, acting out different roles as in a play, is an ancient heresy known variously as sabellianism, modalistic monarchianism, and patripassianism. This view of the Holy Trinity was rejected by the Church long ago, even well before the coming of Muhammad.
Why does it make up the majority of Christianity today?
Why does it make up the majority of Christianity today?
Sweeping generalizations are questionable. It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians who are educated regarding the Trinity are not Sabellian. But while deficient analogies seem common, as in the video that cooterhein recommended above, AFAIK only the relatively recent and small Oneness Pentecostal sect is officially Sabellian.
Why does it make up the majority of Christianity today?
I don't think that specific analogy is all that popular taken by itself- and it's worth noting that the beliefs, habits, and explanations of different Christians from different places varies a lot. You've got different types of Catholics, then there's all sorts of different Protestants, some have a background in early church history and others tend to have none. Then there's different types of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and they all have their different types of emphasis on church history and picking out who the important figures have been to them.
Analogies in general though, are a simple way of trying to understand something about God but they just about always tend to wind up explaining some sort of heresy. Actual Christian orthodoxy is rather complex and not easily reducible, but people have to start somewhere.
When it came to the Irish, and St. Patrick, and their conversion to Christianity, the analogy he's most famous for is the three leaf clover. It was a representation of the Trinity that helped it become somewhat more understandable to them- but of course that's partialism, and that's a heresy.
These types of analogies, in more general terms, tend to stick around and continue being used to one extent or another (varying from place to place) because it's a place to start at, and some people don't get very far beyond that in their understanding of Christian teaching. Others do get quite a bit further beyond that, but then they find themselves explaining complicated concepts to people that aren't all that familiar with it to start with, and they return to these sorts of analogies. These are some of the reasons why they may continue to come up.
Like goodwill said though, Christians don't actually believe in the heretical implications of these analogies- not in all of them, or in any particular one. The key beliefs of Christianity are safeguarded within some carefully worded (and rather complicated) statements of faith, creeds and the like, which don't lend themselves to a simple explanation, and on top of that there's a lot of Christians (and entire swaths of Protestant Christianity) that don't even care much for getting into the exact details of those things to start with, even if they are otherwise very well versed in their form of Christianity.
There are certain confessions of faith that all Christians do believe in, and they will tell you about them. Jesus is God. God is triune, and consists of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. All persons of the Trinity existed from eternity past, and were not created because they were always there. And there might be a couple more similar things that are espoused and believed in. And all of us really do believe in those things. How that all works, and how it's explained in detail, is precisely stated in official documents that some people are reasonably familiar with, but most people don't understand the full explanation in the best detail. And even if they do, it can be a bit of a struggle to explain all of it to someone who hardly understands any part of it.
The average Christian, for example, really does believe in these basic things that are safeguarded by the essential creeds of Christianity. They might even memorize one or two of those creeds and recite it on occasion or on a regular basis, but if you ask them to explain what the authors of these creeds mean by "same substance" when it comes to God, or even the essential distinctions of personhood where it is relevant to these matters, most people just don't know all of the specifics- maybe some of it, maybe kind of, but the average person can't explain all the reasoning that hundreds of scholars poured into this thing that they carefully hammered out over the course of months or years. And a whole lot of people don't have much interest in knowing about all of that, since it doesn't seem to help them out personally, nor does it tend to be something that they would tell a non-Christian about in the course of explaining Christianity to them.
Keep an eye on what LaSorcia has to say when she responds back, though. I think her beliefs are as orthodox as anyone else's, and I might have an idea of why she chose that analogy as a starting point....I'd like to see what she has to say though. None of the other things I mentioned necessarily reflect her reasoning in this particular situation (and I don't really think they do), but they do reflect some things that are fairly common among different types of Christians to varying degrees, in response to your question.
Last edited by cooterhein; 11-17-2016 at 04:05 AM.
Sweeping generalizations are questionable. It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians who are educated regarding the Trinity are not Sabellian. But while deficient analogies seem common, as in the video that cooterhein recommended above, AFAIK only the relatively recent and small Oneness Pentecostal sect is officially Sabellian.
This is what I replied to:
The teaching that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, acting out different roles as in a play, is an ancient heresy known variously as sabellianism, modalistic monarchianism, and patripassianism. This view of the Holy Trinity was rejected by the Church long ago, even well before the coming of Muhammad.
You say it was rejected by the church and yet almost every Christian church, especially in the west, still follows this ideology. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Why do you follow something you believe was already rejected as a theological idea?
Let me try to explain the concept. It's hard to understand, even for one brought up in the Roman Catholic church. I am not claiming this is absolute truth, but a perception to explain the nature of God. Muslims get bent out of shape, so to speak, at this analogy, but here we go:
1. There is ONE God. One!
2. Jesus was his "son". Now, "son" is a concept I, too, struggle with. Aren't you, too, Allah's son/daughter? His Creation? I prefer to say Jesus was created by God's will.
3. The Holy Spirit. This is the essence created by Our one God that we can perceive. It is the force that moves gravity on earth at a rate of 9.81 m/s/s. It makes electrons revolve around nucleus of an atom, and allows the nuclear fission in our sun that lights our realm, moves that energy to introduce glucose into the environment, and allows our bodies the miraculous ability to heal.
I've ALWAYS been taught there was ONE God. The trinity thing was there to help our feeble human minds grasp a small glimpse of His complexity. ONE God.
Let me try to explain the concept. It's hard to understand, even for one brought up in the Roman Catholic church. I am not claiming this is absolute truth, but a perception to explain the nature of God. Muslims get bent out of shape, so to speak, at this analogy, but here we go:
1. There is ONE God. One!
2. Jesus was his "son". Now, "son" is a concept I, too, struggle with. Aren't you, too, Allah's son/daughter? His Creation? I prefer to say Jesus was created by God's will.
3. The Holy Spirit. This is the essence created by Our one God that we can perceive. It is the force that moves gravity on earth at a rate of 9.81 m/s/s. It makes electrons revolve around nucleus of an atom, and allows the nuclear fission in our sun that lights our realm, moves that energy to introduce glucose into the environment, and allows our bodies the miraculous ability to heal.
I've ALWAYS been taught there was ONE God. The trinity thing was there to help our feeble human minds grasp a small glimpse of His complexity. ONE God.
So Jesus is the "son of God" in the same was as other Prophets and pious people have been described as "children of God" in the Bible. So in essence, are you agreeing that Jesus was a Prophet and Messenger of God?
If that is what you are claiming then I agree with you fully.
However, I have never heard a Catholic propose that is the teaching of their church, in fact, their entire ideology would fall apart if it was, considering their whole school of thought is based on the idea that God sent his only son to be crucified for our sins, thus saving us through his sacrifice.
Also, are you claiming the Catholic church does not believe in a share of divinity between the Father and the son?
The teaching that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, acting out different roles as in a play, is an ancient heresy known variously as sabellianism, modalistic monarchianism, and patripassianism. This view of the Holy Trinity was rejected by the Church long ago, even well before the coming of Muhammad.
You say it was rejected by the church and yet almost every Christian church, especially in the west, still follows this ideology. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Why do you follow something you believe was already rejected as a theological idea?
In saying “this view of the Holy Trinity was rejected,” I was referring to the Sabellian view only, that is, the view where the one God is considered to be one Person who merely acts out different roles—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is this Sabellian view that was rejected as a heresy. (There have been other heresies too, likewise rejected during the first millennium of the Church.) But what the Church, both East and West, has historically affirmed is another view of the Holy Trinity, namely, one God in three distinct Persons. So while we believe that Jesus is God, we reject the notion that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Spirit.
I am, by no means, claiming the Catholic church does not believe in a share of divinity between the father and son. I've left organized religion long ago.
My point wasn't exactly even an argument, but stating we were always taught there is ONE God...that Jesus and God were actually One. Now, I by no means am stating this is true and I have no idea how this works.
I see your argument as a devote monotheist. I can't explain the argument from a Christian perspective, just relating what was pounded into us year after year.
Peace
These verses from the Qur'an have nothing to do with any 'spirit of god' or 'holy spirit'. And there is no such concept (holy spirit) in Islam, and nothing even remotely similar.. at all.
Assalam alaikum
We read in the Qur’an that the Holy Spirit was sent down to strengthen Jesus and assist him in his work: “We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…” (Al-Baqarah: 253)
The “Holy Spirit” (Rooh al-Qudus) is Jibreel (peace be upon him). Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said: “The words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning), ‘and [We] supported him with Rooh al-Qudus’ [al-Baqarah 2:87] refer to Jibreel according to the most sound view. This is indicated by the words (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Which the trustworthy Rooh has brought down’ [al-Shu’ara’ 26:193] and ‘then We sent to her our Rooh’ [Maryam 19:17].”
Allaah says in al-Nahl (interpretation of the meaning): “Say (O Muhammad) Rooh ul Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)] has brought it (the Qur’aan) down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the Faith of) those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allaah as Muslims)”
Assalam alaikum
We read in the Qur’an that the Holy Spirit was sent down to strengthen Jesus and assist him in his work: “We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…” (Al-Baqarah: 253)
The “Holy Spirit” (Rooh al-Qudus) is Jibreel (peace be upon him). Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said: “The words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning), ‘and [We] supported him with Rooh al-Qudus’ [al-Baqarah 2:87] refer to Jibreel according to the most sound view. This is indicated by the words (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Which the trustworthy Rooh has brought down’ [al-Shu’ara’ 26:193] and ‘then We sent to her our Rooh’ [Maryam 19:17].”
Allaah says in al-Nahl (interpretation of the meaning): “Say (O Muhammad) Rooh ul Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)] has brought it (the Qur’aan) down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the Faith of) those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allaah as Muslims)”
Wa alaykum a'salam. I should have clarified my statement.
Allah, Himself, has no attribute of 'holy spirit' NauzubiLlah. This is what (I think) the OP was saying. Rooh ul Qudus refers to Jibreel alayhi salam and no concept of the trinity exists in Islam.
In saying “this view of the Holy Trinity was rejected,” I was referring to the Sabellian view only, that is, the view where the one God is considered to be one Person who merely acts out different roles—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is this Sabellian view that was rejected as a heresy. (There have been other heresies too, likewise rejected during the first millennium of the Church.) But what the Church, both East and West, has historically affirmed is another view of the Holy Trinity, namely, one God in three distinct Persons. So while we believe that Jesus is God, we reject the notion that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Spirit.
I hope LaSorcia gets back to this thread at some point, it's been a couple of weeks. Maybe she'll have some free time over Thanksgiving weekend. It's not that often that I get to explore any kind of Trinitarian clarification in this sort of context, and I'm quite curious to know what that looks like. It certainly pertains to any discussion that a Christian might have with a Muslim concerning the nature of God.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
goodwill liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks