How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

[Sol Invictus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Woodrow]

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/Webcomponents/FAQ/index.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.

 

[YieldedOne]

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)

 

[YieldedOne]

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!

 

[YieldedOne]

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:

 

[Woodrow]

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...

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?

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-medieval-criticism/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)

 

[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?

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

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."

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

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.

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.

 

[Ramadhan]

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).

 

[Woodrow]

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).

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.

 

[Sol Invictus]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

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]).

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....

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.

 

[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!

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:

"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.

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.

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:

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).

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).

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?

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

Greetings everyone,

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 ???

 

[M.I.A.]

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.