Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[MustafaMc]

As I've found many times on this forum, Christians and Muslims do not even agree on the nature of God. Christians have a somewhat different perspective on God than Muslims, and it makes it even more difficult to "explain" things from a Christians perspective.

Does ANYONE except a Christian understand and agree with the Christian concept of God? Neither of the other two Abrahamic faiths believe that Jesus (pbuh) was at the same time "Son of God" and God along with the "Father" and the "Holy Spirit". From what I can tell the Jew and Muslim have a very similar concept of God, but differ in their view of God's relationship with the Jew vs. the rest of humanity and their rejection or acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh).

As for the Qu'ran and Christians, I understand that Muslims do not believe in a Trinity, we've established that many moons ago.

As for explaining the Trinity, that is akin to explaining God, which is never an easy proposition. That is why most Christians are humble about the idea of "explaining" the Trinity or God, we don't pretend to understand God as He understands Himself. Christians have no choice but to refer to the Bible and the NT, just as Muslims have no choice but to refer to the Qu'ran.

Yes, the book that each of us accepts as the Word of God reveals what little we know about Him, respectively. It is odd that we differ SO much on such a fundamental principal as Who it is we worship.

The Bible, clearly to Christians, points to a triune manifestation of God's Will. It is our duty and calling to acknowledge this. I'm not going to repeat myself constantly attempting to shed light on the Christian perspective of the Trinity, as it has been done time and time again. All Christians can do is share out beliefs and our perspective, if you don't understand it or agree with it, that is unfortunate but not surprising because of your religious view.

I don't consider it unfortunate that Muslims do not refer to Jesus (pbuh) as God. We believe this is outright shirk (ascribing partners with the One God, Allah) that we consider to be the most serious sin of all.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, the book that each of us accepts as the Word of God reveals what little we know about Him, respectively. It is odd that we differ SO much on such a fundamental principal as Who it is we worship.

I can understand that view. On the other hand, what I find odd, is knowing how different we are, that we don't accept the same scriptures, just how much we still have basically in common.

Does ANYONE except a Christian understand and agree with the Christian concept of God? Neither of the other two Abrahamic faiths believe that Jesus (pbuh) was at the same time "Son of God" and God along with the "Father" and the "Holy Spirit". From what I can tell the Jew and Muslim have a very similar concept of God, but differ in their view of God's relationship with the Jew vs. the rest of humanity and their rejection or acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh).

I doubt it. If one did all o those things -- understood and agreed with Christian theology -- one would be a Christian. Heck, you don't even have to understand it, just accept it as true and seek to follow what it implies and we would consider you a Christian.

I don't consider it unfortunate that Muslims do not refer to Jesus (pbuh) as God. We believe this is outright shirk (ascribing partners with the One God, Allah) that we consider to be the most serious sin of all.

While I consider it unfortunate, and something I wish for you to come to the realization of, I understand that it is something that I can't force upon you or anyone. And given your views, I understand why you feel as you do.

 

[Muslim Knight]

While I consider it unfortunate, and something I wish for you to come to the realization of, I understand that it is something that I can't force upon you or anyone. And given your views, I understand why you feel as you do.

Consider it fortunate that we Muslims worship God and not man-made idols or false gods.

 

[Trumble]

Does ANYONE except a Christian understand and agree with the Christian concept of God? .

Yup. As I've said before I have no problem at all with the idea; three aspects or manifestations of the same thing. Not really a difficult concept.

I don't 'agree' with it, of course - I would be a Christian if I did!

 

[Woodrow]

Speaking for myself I really have no difficulty in the concept. I do believe Allah(swt) can do anything He wills to do.

I do not see any validation as that is what Allah(swt) did. I find it much more beautiful to understand that Allah(swt) is sufficiently powerful and caring enough to forgive mans sins without having to reduce Himself to man's wishes. I feel it is Man's desire to see himself as an equal to God(swt) that is what fostered Man's desire to see God(swt) reduced to the level of a man. this is a backwards way for man to see himself as Gods without blatantly saying that. Although as Christianity grows I believe we will see the concept of Man and God(swt) to become more like the Mormon concept and that Humans become Godlike after Death.

It is very easy to understand how man could attribute Godlike characteristics to Isa(as) and it is a big ego booster for humanity to do that. But, ego boosters are often based upon a fallacy.

I really doubt if there is a single Christian church in the world today that believed what Isa(as)'s Apostles believed and followed.

 

[MustafaMc]

While I consider it unfortunate, and something I wish for you to come to the realization of, I understand that it is something that I can't force upon you or anyone. And given your views, I understand why you feel as you do.

Yes, I understand why you and Keltoi consider our beliefs regarding Jesus (pbuh) as "unfortunate", because according to your belief, that excludes us Muslims from God's supposed "plan of salvation". I respect the Christian desire to see non-believers saved from the torment of Hell. This is one point shared between Christians and Muslims as to my understandin a Jew feels no compulsion to share his "truth" with unbelievers in order to see them guided.


Although we each would like to see the other guided to the Light we follow, guidance comes only from Allah. However, both of us feel that we bear the tremendous responsibility of witnessing the Message to unbelievers.

Quran 28:56 O Prophet, you cannot give guidance to whom you wish, it is Allah Who gives guidance to whom He pleases, and He is quite aware of those who are guided.

Even Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could not guide his uncle, Abu Talib, as the commentary in Yusuf Ali translation explains the preceding Quranic verse:

"The immediate occasion for this was the death of Abu Talib, an uncle whom the holy Prophet loved dearly and who had befriended and protected him. The Prophet was naturally anxious that he should die in the profession of the true Faith, but the pagan Quraish leaders persuaded him to remain true to the faith of his fathers. This was an occasion of disappointment and grief to the Prophet. We are told that in such circumstances we should not grieve. All whom we love do not necessarily share our views or beliefs. We must not judge. Allah will guide whom He pleases. He alone knows the true inwardness of things.

 

[MustafaMc]

Yup. As I've said before I have no problem at all with the idea; three aspects or manifestations of the same thing. Not really a difficult concept.

I don't 'agree' with it, of course - I would be a Christian if I did!

Well, my hat's off to ya. Even when I was a Christian I could not fully understand or adequately explain the Trinity, but I accepted it strictly on faith. This is just as now there is so much about Allah that I don't understand, but I accept what I do know about Him from the Quran based on my faith that it is the literal Word of Allah. I feel now, as I did then, that it is a sign of disbelief to question things about God that are not clear and that I don't understand.


It seems that this website helps explain my point of view:

http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=381&main_cat_id=18

 

[snakelegs]

Does ANYONE except a Christian understand and agree with the Christian concept of God? Neither of the other two Abrahamic faiths believe that Jesus (pbuh) was at the same time "Son of God" and God along with the "Father" and the "Holy Spirit". From what I can tell the Jew and Muslim have a very similar concept of God, but differ in their view of God's relationship with the Jew vs. the rest of humanity and their rejection or acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh).

not me. one god in three persons.....:hmm:
and i can not wrap my mind around "original sin".

 

[vpb]

not me. one god in three persons.....

and i can not wrap my mind around "original sin".

cuz u'r a snakeleg with two legs. if you would have 3 legs, u would understand it.

 

[noodles]

My previous question had been answered, though I wasn't thoroughly satisfied with it since it aroused more question that I've been wanting to ask.

I cannot honestly say that I'm now somewhat able to grasp the Christian concept of "Three yet one" god. Though I've been trying and I hope, perhaps some individuals may help.

Now I've been wondering, what exactly would this(Father, Son & Holy Ghost) mean to a person prior to the birth of Christ? (i.e. To Noah's people or to Adam's progeny? or to the Jews of Egypt?)

Many Christians tend to say that no human is able to imagine how God is or would be like, and that is perhaps the basis of the mysteriousness surrounding this Trinity concept, as most Christians just 'accept' it and base it on belief.
(Don't misunderstand, I'm not proposing that the notion of 'belief in God' is not present in Islam. It is, though this belief is simple as it gets)

My observations may prove to be false, I cannot genuinely say.

Just hope someone answers.

 

[Keltoi]

My previous question had been answered, though I wasn't thoroughly satisfied with it since it aroused more question that I've been wanting to ask.

I cannot honestly say that I'm now somewhat able to grasp the Christian concept of "Three yet one" god. Though I've been trying and I hope, perhaps some individuals may help.

Now I've been wondering, what exactly would this(Father, Son & Holy Ghost) mean to a person prior to the birth of Christ? (i.e. To Noah's people or to Adam's progeny? or to the Jews of Egypt?)

Many Christians tend to say that no human is able to imagine how God is or would be like, and that is perhaps the basis of the mysteriousness surrounding this Trinity concept, as most Christians just 'accept' it and base it on belief.
(Don't misunderstand, I'm not proposing that the notion of 'belief in God' is not present in Islam. It is, though this belief is simple as it gets)

My observations may prove to be false, I cannot genuinely say.

Just hope someone answers.[/QUOTE

The time of Noah, Adam, or the Jews of Egypt were before the coming of Jesus Christ, so that aspect of the Trinity hadn't come into play as of yet. As for the other two elements, God and the Holy Spirit, they make numerous appearances in the OT.

 

[MustafaMc]

The time of Noah, Adam, or the Jews of Egypt were before the coming of Jesus Christ, so that aspect of the Trinity hadn't come into play as of yet. As for the other two elements, God and the Holy Spirit, they make numerous appearances in the OT.

So, did they have an incomplete concept of the God that they were worshipping in the years B.C.? Is this "incomplete" OT concept of God significantly different from what is currently believed by Muslims and portrayed in the Quran?

Where was Jesus before he was born? In what shape/form did he take then? Was it the same or different from his appearance presently at the right hand of the Father? Does God change and evolve over time?

In what sense did the Holy Spirit manifest itself/himself in the OT? I thought Jesus (pbuh) said that he must go in order to send the Comforter - Holy Spirit - that apparently made its/his grand debut on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[Keltoi]

So, did they have an incomplete concept of the God that they were worshipping in the years B.C.? Is this "incomplete" OT concept of God significantly different from what is currently believed by Muslims and portrayed in the Quran?

Where was Jesus before he was born? In what shape/form did he take then? Was it the same or different from his appearance presently at the right hand of the Father? Does God change and evolve over time?

In what sense did the Holy Spirit manifest itself/himself in the OT? I thought Jesus (pbuh) said that he must go in order to send the Comforter - Holy Spirit - that apparently made its/his grand debut on the Day of Pentecost.

Perhaps I should have given a more "complete" explanation of what I meant, no pun intended.

I would say there are clues and hints, so to speak, of the different manifestations of God in the OT. One of the major clues is found in Numbers 12:6-8, "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the Lord.” Jacob also is said to have seen the form of the Lord in Genesis 32-30.

This is in direct contrast to the Lord's words in Exodus 33:19-23, where it states, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” So What or Who was this "face of the Lord" that Moses and Jacob were said to have seen? Many Christians believe this to be the Son, or a manifestation of God observable by mankind. No Biblical scholar is absolutely certain what element of the Trinity is being displayed in many OT verses, but to many it is apparent that God manifests Himself in various ways all through the OT.

As for the Holy Spirit in the OT, there are many verses that mention it plainly.

Where is He who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand, who divided the waters before them, to gain for himself an everlasting renown, who led them through the depths?" (Isaiah 63:11-12) "

You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. (Nehemiah 9:20)

"Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me." (Psalm 51:10-11)

'Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them.'" (Numbers 11:29)

They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry." (Zechariah7:12)

 

[Phil12123]

So, did they have an incomplete concept of the God that they were worshipping in the years B.C.? Is this "incomplete" OT concept of God significantly different from what is currently believed by Muslims and portrayed in the Quran?

We (or anyone from the past) have only as complete a concept of God as God Himself reveals to us (or them). Obviously those living in the distant past, B.C., did not have as much revealed to them as we have today. Consider, for example, Hebrews 1:

1. God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets.
2. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
3. who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

There were exceptions, as Keltoi has aptly pointed out, but by and large, God spoke in the OT through the prophets, and often even that was for a particular people at a particular time concerning a particular situation. For example, it might be the Word of the Lord coming to a prophet calling the southern kingdom to repent, such as before God permitted their defeat and destruction at the hand of a Babylonian king. In such cases God spoke through His prophet to the people, but there was never really a discourse given that expounded on His nature, such as you might be thinking about. This is especially true of the minor prophets, some quite short and to the point.

On the other hand, the NT is when "God...has in these last days spoken to us by His Son." So, we have much more information and a better concept of God than those who heard only the prophets. I hesitate to say we have a "complete concept" even now, but obviously it is much more complete than what they had in OT times.

Jesus often taught with parables and, to my knowledge, never spoke to the religious leaders in such a way as to plainly tell them Who He was or what God is, like you seem to be wondering about. He revealed things to His disciples but even they who had been with Him for some three years did not understand His mission at that time. It was only after His crucifixion and resurrection that He "opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem'" (Luke 24:45-47).

Consider this: If Jesus was/is God in the flesh, what would have happened if He plainly told the Jewish leaders that information straight out and right up front? They would have stoned Him on the spot for blasphemy. So, instead, He gave little hints and tidbits of information that, for the people who were able to hear and receive it, they learned little by little of His real nature and Person. For example, it was to an immoral woman at the well that He revealed He was the Messiah (John 4) and to a blind man whom the religious leaders cast out of the synagogue that He revealed He was the Son of God (John 9). Except for exceptions like Matt. 16:16 and John 20:28, it was only AFTER His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, that the fullness of WHO HE IS could be revealed and shared with the world, and that is what He did through the Holy Spirit guiding "into all truth" His servants, the writers of the various NT books, letters, etc. THAT is why we have such passages as John 1:1+ and Phil. 2:5-11. Rather than saying those writings are corrupt, etc., they should be received as divine TRUTH if you have ears to hear and hearts to receive. Much of what Paul wrote was from "the abundance of the revelations" (2 Cor. 12:7) that he received from the Lord, so many that he had to be kept humble with a thorn in his flesh. All that could only be given to Him, and then to the church and the world, in God's timing, not before it was the proper time. Thus it was given, but then 600 years later you have the Quran saying the opposite, denying those very truths, contrary to the Word of God as given to God's earlier servants as the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.

On the other hand, if Jesus was just a prophet and nothing more than a man and messenger with a message from God, as portrayed in the Quran, He would have certainly spoken that very clearly and plainly to everyone, including the Jewish leaders, and there would NEVER have been any reason to pick up stones and stone Him as in fact occurred on a number of occasions. So WHY did those occasions happen? BECAUSE HE WAS MORE THAN JUST A MAN! No mere man would have said and claimed all He said and claimed. Even as incomplete as that was, it was enough for them to try to stone Him (which, btw, could not occur if He was to be crucified in fulfillment of the many OT prophecies that foretold that event).

So, when you consider the alternatives, Jesus being God in the flesh or just a man, the former is the only scenario that makes any sense in view of the events that occurred, including His crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension, followed by the immediate formation of the church to which thousands were added and which preached the Gospel that He died for our sins and rose again, as He commanded them to preach.

Where was Jesus before he was born? In what shape/form did he take then?

He was "with God [the Father] (John 1:1b). He was "in the form of God" and "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6). I would guess that was pure Spirit, in "form," but that is just a guess. He said, in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.'' So, before the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, I would guess that He was Spirit in "form."

Was it the same or different from his appearance presently at the right hand of the Father?

Most of these questions call for speculation, that's why I say, "I would guess..." So, again, I would guess, He is presently in the same "form" or appearance as when He ascended to Heaven, although we have another description in Rev. 1:10-19, which is undoubtedly better than my guesses ---

10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,
11. saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,'' and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.''
12. Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13. and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.
14. His head and His hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire;
15. His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;
16. He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.
17. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.
18. "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
19. "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

Does God change and evolve over time?

No, God is not like the Mormon god who once was a man and evolved into the god he is today. But He can take on flesh or "the form of a servant," as He did 2000 years ago, to die on a cross for our sins.

In what sense did the Holy Spirit manifest itself/himself in the OT? I thought Jesus (pbuh) said that he must go in order to send the Comforter - Holy Spirit - that apparently made its/his grand debut on the Day of Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit did not make His "grand debut" on the Day of Pentecost, except in one sense in relation to the church, the body of believers who were gathered in the upper room in obedience to Jesus' command, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high'' (Luke 24:49). That was a special Work of the Holy Spirit when the believers were all filled with the Holy Spirit to empower them to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). That event is also sometimes described as the birthday of the church. I think it was also the time when the Spirit, Who was WITH them also became IN them, as Jesus spoke of in John 14:17.

The Holy Spirit, Who is God, always existed, including, of course, throughout the OT and NT. His work, however, was not always the same during the various periods of human history. In the OT, He would "come upon" or "fall upon" various prophets, moving them to prophesy, or upon others who were thereby empowered to do some mighty feat for God. Then He might leave them, so it was not an indwelling or at least not a permanent indwelling, until the Day of Pentecost. There are exceptional cases where a few people are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, such as John the Baptist, Elizabeth, and Zacharias (Luke 1:15, 41, 67). They, of course, were not part of the church, having died, I think, before its formation.

I believe what Jesus was referring to was an order of events. He had to first return to the Father before the Holy Spirit would fall upon and indwell the believers to mark that birth of the church and its empowerment to spread the Gospel to all the world.

 

[Grace Seeker]

My previous question had been answered, though I wasn't thoroughly satisfied with it since it aroused more question that I've been wanting to ask.

I cannot honestly say that I'm now somewhat able to grasp the Christian concept of "Three yet one" god. Though I've been trying and I hope, perhaps some individuals may help.

Now I've been wondering, what exactly would this(Father, Son & Holy Ghost) mean to a person prior to the birth of Christ? (i.e. To Noah's people or to Adam's progeny? or to the Jews of Egypt?)

Many Christians tend to say that no human is able to imagine how God is or would be like, and that is perhaps the basis of the mysteriousness surrounding this Trinity concept, as most Christians just 'accept' it and base it on belief.
(Don't misunderstand, I'm not proposing that the notion of 'belief in God' is not present in Islam. It is, though this belief is simple as it gets)

My observations may prove to be false, I cannot genuinely say.

Just hope someone answers.

I would say that since we are dealing with the same God, that God did indeed even at that time exist in Trinity. (Just because it is before Jesus, doesn't meant that God the Son did not eternally exist, see John 1:1 and Colossian 1:17.) But of course, people like Noah and other would not have been aware of the full nature of God. They would have only known of God as God and nothing more. They might have what I call "hints" (though there has to be a better word) as to his three personas--for instance see Psalm 139:7 which speaks of God's Spirit as an omnipresent persona--, but these personas would not have been clearly manifested to them.

To the extent that Jesus Christ is a more complete revelation of God's self to us, then I guess it would be appropriate to say that the ancient Jews (and for that matter the present-day Jews) have an incomplete knowledge of God. I don't think they worship an incomplete God. Surely you get the distinction.

You ask about the Muslim concept of God. Does it differ significantly from what the ancient Jews were worshipping? Well, not being either Jew nor Muslim, I can hardly address that. But I will go so far as to say that from what I understand of the Muslim worship of Allah and the Jewish worship of Yahweh, I do believe there are a great many similarities there, and more so between the two of them than between Christianity and either of them. Our emphasis on God becoming incarnate and dwelling among us humans being a stumbling block to both groups.

I don't think this makes Christianity like Mormonism in having an always evolving God. We don't think that God has changed, we just think that we have received more revelation. (Muslims think that also.) We that revelation reached its fullness in the person of Christ, and that it no longer needs to be added to. Though if you speak with Catholics you will find a larger emphasis on the importance of the Church itself as a source of knowledge about God than I am quite willing to give. I do believe that the Holy Spirit still makes God known to us today, but I don't think that this continues to take the form of new revelation, as much as an awareness of the presence of God and a conviction of my need to follow his will.


Well, I'm sure I missed some of your questions, but Keltoi and Phil are also giving you good answers. So, hopefully somewhere in that mix you are getting the information you seek, and not finding too much confusion.

 

[MustafaMc]

I would say that since we are dealing with the same God, that God did indeed even at that time exist in Trinity. (Just because it is before Jesus, doesn't meant that God the Son did not eternally exist, see John 1:1 and Colossian 1:17.) But of course, people like Noah and other would not have been aware of the full nature of God. They would have only known of God as God and nothing more. They might have what I call "hints" (though there has to be a better word) as to his three personas--for instance see Psalm 139:7 which speaks of God's Spirit as an omnipresent persona--, but these personas would not have been clearly manifested to them.

Though I don't agree with the Trinity concept, I would have to agree about now having a better description of Allah through His revealed attributes and names - albeit still we have an incomplete concept of the Divine.

To the extent that Jesus Christ is a more complete revelation of God's self to us, then I guess it would be appropriate to say that the ancient Jews (and for that matter the present-day Jews) have an incomplete knowledge of God. I don't think they worship an incomplete God. Surely you get the distinction.

Kinda sorta, but doesn't denying the divinity of Jesus mean denying God in His "fullness".

You ask about the Muslim concept of God. Does it differ significantly from what the ancient Jews were worshipping? Well, not being either Jew nor Muslim, I can hardly address that. But I will go so far as to say that from what I understand of the Muslim worship of Allah and the Jewish worship of Yahweh, I do believe there are a great many similarities there, and more so between the two of them than between Christianity and either of them. Our emphasis on God becoming incarnate and dwelling among us humans being a stumbling block to both groups.

Yes, belief about Jesus is a major issue. An analogy for the relative view of Jesus using capital letters: Jew > jesus, Christian > JESUS, Muslim > Jesus.

I don't think this makes Christianity like Mormonism in having an always evolving God. We don't think that God has changed, we just think that we have received more revelation. (Muslims think that also.) We that revelation reached its fullness in the person of Christ, and that it no longer needs to be added to. Though if you speak with Catholics you will find a larger emphasis on the importance of the Church itself as a source of knowledge about God than I am quite willing to give. I do believe that the Holy Spirit still makes God known to us today, but I don't think that this continues to take the form of new revelation, as much as an awareness of the presence of God and a conviction of my need to follow his will.

What are your thoughts on the Quranic story of Jesus miraculously speaking as an infant?

Quran 19:27 Carrying the baby, she came back to her people. They said: "O Maryam! You have brought something hard to believe! O sister (a woman from the noble family) of Haroon! Your father was not a bad man nor your mother an unchaste woman". In response she merely pointed towards the baby. They said: "How can we talk to a babe in the cradle?" Whereupon the baby spoke out: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and made me a Prophet. His blessing is with me wherever I go. He has commanded me to establish Salah and give Zakah as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has not made me domineering, hard to deal with. Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I shall die and the Day I shall be raised to life again".

Well, I'm sure I missed some of your questions, but Keltoi and Phil are also giving you good answers. So, hopefully somewhere in that mix you are getting the information you seek, and not finding too much confusion.

You are very adept at presenting the Christian belief. Thank you for your input.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Kinda sorta, but doesn't denying the divinity of Jesus mean denying God in His "fullness".

Sure. But then, before us Christians get too smug about knowing it all, we have remind ourselves: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (I Corinthians 13:12) There is much about God that has been revealed to us, all that I expect will be made known to us on this earth has been made known, but still there is much that we are not even capable of understanding, not as long as we are limited by our finite, physical human minds. But one day, in heaven, then it shall be fully revealed to us, the depth of these mysteries we only scratch at the surface of right now. So, if we ourselves only scratch at the surface and peer dimly into the fullness of God, how can we put down others who are doing the best they can with the revealtion they have.

If you are truly doing the best you can with the revelation you have, I have great hope for you. If you are knowingly turning your back on that which you know is from God, that would be a different story. Given how much the cultures we are raised in effect what we are capable of even giving a reasonable hearing, I doubt that any truth seeker is that far from God, once God's graciousness is taken into consideration.

What are your thoughts on the Quranic story of Jesus miraculously speaking as an infant?

Quran 19:27 Carrying the baby, she came back to her people. They said: "O Maryam! You have brought something hard to believe! O sister (a woman from the noble family) of Haroon! Your father was not a bad man nor your mother an unchaste woman". In response she merely pointed towards the baby. They said: "How can we talk to a babe in the cradle?" Whereupon the baby spoke out: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and made me a Prophet. His blessing is with me wherever I go. He has commanded me to establish Salah and give Zakah as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has not made me domineering, hard to deal with. Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I shall die and the Day I shall be raised to life again".

"My thoughts."
Not beyond the realm of possibility, but highly improbable that if true it was not recorded any place else. I also would find it very strange for any person, let alone a Jewish infant in the first century to even use the name "Allah" to refer to God. If Jesus had done so then, why did he not do so throughout the rest of his life? (Perhaps this is a translation issue.) Still, I take it as nothing more than myth, legend and fable, on par with stories of a toddler Jesus making clay pigeons and then turning them into live birds that flew away.

 

[MuhammadRizan]

if this event never happen, why the Jews didn't stone Mary to death?

 

[Grace Seeker]

if this event never happen, why the Jews didn't stone Mary to death?

Getting off topic, but why should they?

True, many might have not accepted a story of the virgin birth, but it would have been Joseph's place to say that she should have been put to death, no one else had that right. Also, if others were going to usurp Jospeh's right and act anyway, they would have done so long before Jesus was born. His speaking as an infant would not have helped Mary avoid being stoned to death during her pregnancy.

 

[Woodrow]

Sure. But then, before us Christians get too smug about knowing it all, we have remind ourselves: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (I Corinthians 13:12) There is much about God that has been revealed to us, all that I expect will be made known to us on this earth has been made known, but still there is much that we are not even capable of understanding, not as long as we are limited by our finite, physical human minds. But one day, in heaven, then it shall be fully revealed to us, the depth of these mysteries we only scratch at the surface of right now. So, if we ourselves only scratch at the surface and peer dimly into the fullness of God, how can we put down others who are doing the best they can with the revealtion they have.

If you are truly doing the best you can with the revelation you have, I have great hope for you. If you are knowingly turning your back on that which you know is from God, that would be a different story. Given how much the cultures we are raised in effect what we are capable of even giving a reasonable hearing, I doubt that any truth seeker is that far from God, once God's graciousness is taken into consideration.



"My thoughts."
Not beyond the realm of possibility, but highly improbable that if true it was not recorded any place else. I also would find it very strange for any person, let alone a Jewish infant in the first century to even use the name "Allah" to refer to God. If Jesus had done so then, why did he not do so throughout the rest of his life? (Perhaps this is a translation issue.) Still, I take it as nothing more than myth, legend and fable, on par with stories of a toddler Jesus making clay pigeons and then turning them into live birds that flew away.

Peace Gene,

I'm not going to be a nit picker for a change. "Allah"(swt) actually is/was commonly in use in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. The problem comes in the transliterations of trying to duplicate the sounds of the words using English letters.

You will find that the actual pronunciation by all three is languages is very similar if you hear it orally. However, if you read translations or read attempted transliterations it does look quite a bit different.

This guy says it better than me.

Clarifying the linguistic connections between the Names Allah and Elohim.

First we see the identical prononciation in Scripture:

The word for God in Genesis 1:1 is elohim, which is essentially a plural form of a more basic root-Hebrew word for God, (eloh).

Furthermore, the Arabic translation of the Jewish Bible uses the name "Allah" to refer to God in Genesis 1:1

" Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu as-Samaawaat wa al-Ard . . ."

Genesis 1:1 - in Arabic

In addition to the etymological connection based on sound, we also discover the connections of the two Names based on roots, spelling, meaning, and geography.

If one were to find the word (eloh) (alef-lamed-heh) in an inscription written in paleo-hebrew, aramaic, or some sort of Nabatean script, it could be pronounced numerous ways without the diacritical marks to guide the reader.

When treated as a verb root, this letter combination (proncounced alah) is the root for the verb "to swear" or "to take an oath," as well as the verb "to deify" or "to worship"

[look up alef-lamed-heh (ALH) in Milon Ben-Y'hudaah, Ivri-Angli (Ben Yehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary)]. The root itself finds its origin with an older root, el, which means God, deity, power, strength..

So, one of the basic Hebrew words for God, (eloh), can easily be pronounced alah without the diacritical marks. Not surprisingly, the Aramaic word for God, according to the Lexicon offered at http://pe****ta.org, is (alah).

Source: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Why-Believe-in-Allah/Allah-inthe-Jewish-Bible.htm