All Trinity discussion goes here!

[Ramadhan]

Yes, we are indeed creations of God... and all are equal in the eyes of the Lord. This includes our spiritually annointed brothers like Jesus & Moses & Mohammed (Praise be to them all). Only God is Great!...Only God!

are you a unitarian christian?

 

[MustafaMc]

Holy Spirit is not the second aspect of God - it is God (as we can experiance his presence on earth)

Holy Spirit = God = Allah​

From your perspective, how is the Holy Spirit related to the Father that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane?​

 

[MustafaMc]

To me, as a Christian, the greatest heresy is to worship Jesus as a god. The bible plainly states that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". So Trinity is part of the process towards misleading Christians to worship Jesus as a god and is one step towards this.

I agree. From the Islamic perspective, to say that Jesus is the Son of God is ascribing partners to the One God and is a most monstrous sin.

It all began with the Gospel of John (that I am aware of):

Actually, the Gospel of John (~98 AD) was preceded by the letters by Paul and I believe that the Trinity originates there.

So, it begins with our spiritually anointed brother, Jesus being concidered the "Son of God". At this point Jesus is not quite a god in his own right, but it is the first sleezy manipulation of Christian dogma towards this.

Yes, saying Jesus was the 'Son of God' was the first step down that slippery sacrilegious slope. Don't you find it interesting how often Jesus referred to himself as the 'Son of Man' and only in the Gospel of John is he quoted as referring to himself as the 'Son of God'? It is further interesting that about the same number of times Jesus is referred to as the 'servant of God' in the Book of Acts.

So, in this last holy book called the Quran, Prophet Mohammed speaks out against the worship of Jesus and his Mother Mary.

That is correct.

As a metaphor, we are all sons and daughters of God. Not only humans but animals and inorganic elements are the sons and daughters of God (inorganic elements might not have male and female sex, but a metaphor is a metaphor and we shouldn't get carried away!). - Because all come from God and all return to God...

I beg to differ here as I see that we are created beings because 'son' and 'daughter' infer a certain level of equality as opposed to subservience.

The last thing I want to say at this point is that there is this interesting website that may encourage further discussion on this Trinity thing, except I'm not allowed to make any links until I get in my 50 post quota. (oh fiddlesticks!!)

Well, get to posting, then.

 

[Predator]

Uncreated baby gods???;D;D;D;D

Of course , God by definition is Uncreated without any beginning or end So how he create another uncreated . This is common sense, He cant create another God

Jesus was created 2011 years ago , so he cant be God . It as simple as that

 

[MustafaMc]

It isn't a question of agreement.. it is a question of logic.. you don't seem to employ it, yet expect people to simply accept it because of really long winded explanations, that say much ado about nothing!~

Ukhti, that is exactly what I was thinking and there is a relevant phrase that came to mind, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Meaning, "If something isn't very good to start with, you can't do much to improve it." You can use some mighty big words and flowery language to describe what one may scoop out of a horse stall, but it still stinks. There are not enough words in the English language to convince me that the concept of the Trinity is true and that God can be born of a woman and that one 'person' of His being can arise from being baptized, while another 'person' descends upon the 1st person in the form of a dove, and at the same time another says, "This is My son." And yet some will try to convince you that the 3 'persons' are one and the same being.

Which brings to mind something our respected Akhi Woodrow wrote:

It seems in my view there are several points being brought out in that paragraph. I do concede you have a very large vocabulary.

However, simple and concise language to show the reality of One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal is immensely more valuable than scholarly and extensive language to describe an absurdity - which again is "much ado about nothing".

 

[Sol Invictus]

while i would like to keep the conversation between woodrow and i (given that, from what i have seen, he is the only one that could grasp the argument and perceive that it was not mere semantics nor does he resort to ridicule because of an inability refute my points) the fact of the matter is that you have taken the time to make a post (and up until now i have not made clear that because of his understanding and civil nature, this conversation would be between woodrow and i) and as such i should have the decency to respond to you before making it clear that this discussion is (primarily) between woodrow and i. now, let's go about examining your rebuttal.

that is falwed simplification of the issue.....

the Quran attacks ALL the applecations of the term ...and ALL people who used to ,still held it...

- Criticising the metaphorical applecation used by Jews and christians

Holy Quran 5:18 And the Jews and the Christians say, "We are God's children, and His beloved ones." Say: "Why, then, does He cause you to suffer for your sins? Nay, you are but human beings of His creating. He forgives whom He wills, and He causes to suffer whom He wills

the fact that the qur'an also criticizes what jews and christians say about themselves in no way simplifies the issue when the matter is specifically concerning what it says about the god whom christians worship. as such, these are two separate cases and the above has no bearing at all on my argument. notice that the statement, "we are the children of god" is different then "jesus is the son of god". while when jews and christians say the first, they do in fact mean it in a metaphorical sense yet when christians say the latter, they mean to imply the divinity of christ. even you understand this because while you know that christians believe themselves to be the children of god, by this statement they don't believe themselves to be divine yet when they say that christ is the son of god, they mean him to be god. now you may have issues with these statements and that would be besides the point. the main thing is that you acknowledge a difference between what christians say about themselves and what they say about christ. given this fact, the above has at all no bearing on the trinity discussion.

- criticising the people (without specified who they are), who invented for him sons and daughters .....

the Quran - 6:100 And yet, some [people] have come to attribute to all manner of invisible beings a place side by side with God - although it is He who has created them ; and in their ignorance they have invented for Him sons and daughters! Limitless is He is His glory, and sublimely exalted above anything that men may devise by way of definition:Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

let's see, if i understood you correctly. you took issue with my statement that the qur'an misunderstood the birth of christ and that therefore it incorrectly believed that the term son of god pointed to a sexual union between the father and a woman. to this end you have cited the above and yet even in your very own example, the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no wife. the statement is very clear and if this verse is even in part speaking of christians then it is wrong. if the speaker did not have some sexual union in mind between god and a woman, why else would they mention a consort? the matter is quite plain and given that whenever the three gods whom Christians supposedly worship are enumerated, it is always god, mary, and jesus--a father, a mother, and a son. that is not the trinity nor at all what christians believe concerning the term "son of god". your very example contradicts your claims.

the following verse let's no doubt that the source of the Quran was criticising the term beyond the meaning of a sexual union between god and a woman ,offspring ...

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before


the source is criticising a metaphysical application of the term ,I don't think the source of the Quran believed that the Jews believed in Uzair as offspring of God neither christian do with Jesus .... but the Quran criticise the metaphysical application of the term , which was not restricted to the Jews and christians but those who disbelieved (pagans) before as well......

no, the above source does not remove any doubt concerning the matter. let us at present ignore that jews have never called uzair the son of god and simply grant this for the sake of the argument, it would still not follow that you are correct. jews use the term in a different sense then how christians use the term concerning christ and so even if the speaker were condemning the jewish usage and the christian usage, it doesn't change the fact that as we have seen from looking at every instance of the sort in the qur'an, the christian usage is condemned because the speaker misunderstood the term as implying a sexual union between god and a woman and so rather derisively asks "how can god have a son when he doesn't have a woman to have sex with?" once more, that is not at all what christians have meant by the term and the above is incorrect.

 

[جوري]

Ukhti, that is exactly what I was thinking and there is a relevant phrase that came to mind, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Meaning, "If something isn't very good to start with, you can't do much to improve it." You can use some mighty big words and flowery language to describe what one may scoop out of a horse stall, but it still stinks. There are not enough words in the English language to convince me that the concept of the Trinity is true and that God can be born of a woman and that one 'person' of His being can arise from being baptized, while another 'person' descends upon the 1st person in the form of a dove, and at the same time another says, "This is My son." And yet some will try to convince you that the 3 'persons' are one and the same being.
Reply With Quote
Which brings to mind something our respected Akhi Woodrow wrote:

However, simple and concise language to show the reality of One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal is immensely more valuable than scholarly and extensive language to describe an absurdity - which again is "much ado about nothing".

I agree with you full heatedly but I no longer care to ease these people out of their ignorance.. I rather celebrate us..

watch this and rejoice..

 

[Al-manar]

greetings

the main thing is that you acknowledge a difference between what christians say about themselves and what they say about christ.

the Quran aknowledges that too ....

god, mary, and jesus

that is a false claim ..... not only ,based on misunderstanding of the Quran but also I have authentic quotations from the time of the prophet ,proves that the christians around him believed in father,son,holy spirit formula ...but let's save that to be posted in my thread....

to this end you have cited the above and yet even in your very own example, the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no wife. .

the speaker says to those(no mention whom they are) who attributed for him sons and daughters ,if God got no consort ,so it is nonsensical to attribute so .....

-there is no mention of christians..
-there is no mention that those who attributed to him sons and daughters believed in the sonship as a sexual union between god and a woman .
- there is no mention that the consort refered to has to be a woman (human)...
the verse could be understood simply as (those people attributed the nonesense to me )....

If you could find in the verse a reference to those people believing in God had son(s) daughter(s) through sexual union with a human (you will never be able to) then ,you still have the difficulty proving that Jews and christians are included in that verse .

now the next stage and another verse:

Holy Quran 113 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten.

note the expression, HE begets not , it doesn't say his wife begets not ..... , it is most probable means, to be generated from God ......

God says plainly, He has no generated son.... no mention there of a consort ...

now the next stage and another verse:

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah.

that is the first time Jews and christian are specified while mentioning the un-metaphorical use of the word son of God ..... such verse should be crucial to the matter of discussion now....

1- the source of the Quran well aware of the metaphorical use of the word by Jews and christians in verse 5:18 , no sense of specifying Uzair in one verse alone ,if the criticism is leveled against the metaphorical use .....
the application of the term has to be metaphysical in that verse..

2- The source of the Quran believed that the Jews mistakenly applied for Ezra Metaphysical application of Sonship .....

3- whatever that Metaphysical meaning could have been ,the concept of human union with God to produce Ezra is to be doubted, as unlike Jesus born of virigin Ezra wasn't (till you prove otherwise)...

4- If Ezra was believed to have a Sonship in a Metaphysical sense doubted to be God-human sexual union , and the very next words of the verse mentions another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus ,then it is fair to doubt that this another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus has to be God-human sexual union ......

The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” .

I welcome your term , and that very same term is negated by the source of the Quran ..
Holy Quran 112 HE begets(aka generates) not.



peace

 

[Sol Invictus]

thank you for your reply.

greetings
that is a false claim ..... not only ,based on misunderstanding of the Quran but also I have authentic quotations from the time of the prophet ,proves that the christians around him believed in father,son,holy spirit formula ...but let's save that to be posted in my thread....

hmm, i believe i said that the only time the three gods whom christians worship are enumerated in the qur'an, this trinity consists of the father, the son, and mary. what about this is false? please, show me from the qur'an if this is not the case.

the speaker says to those(no mention whom they are) who attributed for him sons and daughters ,if God got no consort ,so it is nonsensical to attribute so .....

( a ) -there is no mention of christians..
-there is no mention that those who attributed to him sons and daughters believed in the sonship as a sexual union between god and a woman .
- ( b ) there is no mention that the consort refered to has to be a woman (human)...
the verse could be understood simply as (those people attributed the nonesense to me )....

( a ) if there is no mention of christians then i would not expect the verse to be used as a refutation of the trinity. i say this because while i had argued that the verse was speaking of christians, you claimed that seeing as it does not mention the word "christians", i cannot argue that it has to do with christians. i don't even have to challenge you on this point because either way, this still does not change the fact that there is no repudiation of the trinity within the qur'an. even you don't try to prove this claim of mine incorrect but at most wish to point me to various hadiths which are 200-300 years removed from your scripture.

( b ) did i argue that the consort had to be human? no. what i did say and demonstrated conclusively was that whatever the case, the speaker of the qur'an repudiated worship of mary as god (so implicit in this condemnation is the belief that christians believed that mary was a god) as such the verse in question would not need to argue that the consort had to be human because it speaks of and believes that christians themselves believed in a divine consort. it believes that christians worship a divine consort of the father and as such repudiates this idea of a divine consort and not a human one because it once more misunderstood christians as worshiping three gods whom the qur'an itself repeatedly enumerates as the father, the son, and mary (if i am wrong, find me a reference in the qur'an where the trinity is not defined as consisting of these three)! notice how many times the qur'an tries to prove that mary is not divine? it would not need to do so if it believed that christians themselves didn't think that mary was divine and as such your point fails.

If you could find in the verse a reference to those people believing in God had son(s) daughter(s) through sexual union with a human (you will never be able to) then ,you still have the difficulty proving that Jews and christians are included in that verse .

i never once argued that the consort had to be human. rather, i consistently said that the qur'an believed that trinitarians thought mary to be a god (as is easily shown from all the references i have posted) and therefore it would argue against a sexual union with a divine consort. hence why the speaker says that allah could not have a son because he does not have a consort. furthermore, hence why it consistently declares that mary is not a god (it would have no need to do so if it thought that trinitarians also believed that mary was merely a human). you seem to equate wife to human and that is incorrect and at least in the above, this is the critical mistake you make.

Holy Quran 113 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten.

note the expression, HE begets not , it doesn't say his wife begets not ..... when the word begets refers to masculine , it means, to be generated from God ......

God says plainly, He has no generated son from him .... no mention there of a human woman ...

it is generally understood that a woman gives birth and a man begets. as such i would not be surprised if the arabic word for beget is masculine because it is a term usually used of males. anyway, when a man begets it is always through a sexual union so your point is untenable at best. yet i suppose that it wouldn't do just to listen to me and as such i will simply present you with what your very own muslim commentators say on the matter of begetting.

Yusuf Ali writes:

It is derogation from the glory of God—in fact it is blasphemy—to say that God begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature and of the lower animal function of sex. (Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1989), 286.)

even your own commentators understood the term begetting as involving a sexual union. in light of what your own commentators have said, your point is shown to be incorrect.

now the next stage and another verse:

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before.

that is the first time Jews and christian are specified while mentioning the un-metaphorical use of the word son of God ..... such verse should be crucial to the matter of discussion now....

1- the source of the Quran well aware of the metaphorical use of the word by Jews and christians in verse 5:18 , no sense of specifying Uzair in one verse alone ,if the criticism is leveled against the metaphorical use .....
the application of the term has to be metaphysical in that verse..

2- The source of the Quran believed that the Jews mistakenly gave him mytaphisical application of Sonship .....

3- whatever that Metaphysical meaning may be ,the concept of human union with God to produce Ezra is to be doubted, as unlike Jesus born of virigin Ezra wasn't (till you prove otherwise)...

4- If Ezra was believed to have a Sonship in a Metaphysical sense doubted to be God-human sexual union , and the very next words of the verse mentions another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus ,then it is fair to doubt that this another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus has to be God-human sexual union ......

your points rely on the fact that the speaker did not condemn them for two different reasons. we know that jews do not use the phrase in the manner that christians use the phrase and as such the speaker would condemn jews because they should have instead said that they are the salves of allah and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort. i do not believe that the statement "we are the children of god" or "so and so is the son of god" is considered allowable in islam and as such the speaker would have every reason to condemn the jews for this, but furthermore, given that the qur'an itself highlights numerous times that god could not have "a son" because he has no wife nor consort, it is only reasonable to read the verse (when it comes to christians) in the light of a sexual union. this is once again reinforced by your own islamic commentators. once more you have yet to prove your point.

I welcome your term , and that very same term is negated by the source of the Quran ..
Holy Quran 112 HE begets(aka generates) not.

no, you simply assume that this is what it means. your own islamic commentators and the qur'an itself prove you false.

 

[Martinz]

Hello Naidamar

are you a unitarian christian?

I had to google 'Unitarian Christian' to find out who they were. Having read the wikipedia definition I guess to some degree I am. I have just found out that Unitarians believe in:

* One God and the oneness or unity of God.
* The life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life.
* Reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God.
* Humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion.
* Human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved (see original Sin), but capable of both good and evil, as God intended.
* No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.
* Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.
* Traditional doctrines that (they believe) malign God's character or veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ, such as the doctrines of predestination, eternal ****ation, and the vicarious sacrifice or satisfaction theory of the Atonement are rejected.

Actually, I honestly agree with each of these precepts. I especially like this one:

* No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.

Only God has absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit and all truth, because it eminates from him...which leads me to the next question about Holy Spirit:

Greetings MustafaMc

From your perspective, how is the Holy Spirit related to the Father that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane?

I think Holy Spirit has an interchangeable definition depending on how you look at it. Of course dogmatic people have a problem with this, because something can only be this way or something can only be that way; their ideology is very fixed.

It can be said that Holy Spirit is God. Yet, it can be said that Holy Spirit is the Light of God that can dwell inside of us - or that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of God that speaks directly in the core of our being.

When Jesus got baptised, the fact that the Holy Spirit entered unto him was symbolized by a dove. From that time onwards, everything Jesus said and did was inspired by the Holy Spirit that resided in him.

So, if Jesus wanted to speak to God, he would pray - like in the Garden of Gethsemane. But, when God wanted to speak with Jesus it would come directly through the Holy Spirit that resided in him. Probably both could be happening simultaneously at times.

On the other hand, when God wanted to speak to Prophet Mohammed, he spoke through Angel Gabriel in a series of visions. But, even here, the Holy Spirit would have to be present to some degree for that to happen. It is a prevasive Holy presence; it is like the smell of Jasmine on a warm summer night...

So, the question is: Why didn't God communicate with Prophet Mohammed directly through the Holy Spirit? Because it was the direct transmission of Holy Spirit in Jesus which caused the problem of Jesus' disciples being mislead to believe that Jesus was God himself - which lead Christians theologians to postulate the Trinity in the first place! When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." - it was the Holy Spirit in Jesus that spoke thus and not Jesus himself. When Jesus said "I am the alpha and omega", it wasn't Jesus who was the alpha and the omega but God - channelled directly by the Holy Spirit (so to speak).

So, when God spoke to Prophet Mohammed in a series of visions through Angel Gabriel, Angel Gabriel was a kind of safety-net which prevented Mohammed expressing Gods' truth in the first person. If that happened, Muslims would be worshipping Prophet Mohammed as a God! Thank God this never happened!!! I don't want to even imagine what would have happened in our history if this was the case!

Anyway, the Holy Spirit doesn't belong to Christianity, it belongs to God. In one sense it is God. Just because Prophet Mohammed didn't speak specifically about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean Muslims can't experiance the Holy Spirit. If you are a Muslim praying in the mosque and out of nowhere you feel this burst of total gratitude to God, with a sense of "I am totally yours Allah - lock, stock and barrel" - and tears of benediction are pouring down your face - how can it not be the Holy Spirit???

Another thing is that the Holy Spirit comes when it comes and not necessarily when you want it to come. You can't force it. It is given to you at Gods discretion. I've seen Christians with their faces straining as if they are constipated - trying to squeeze it into them ;D. If you happen to be blessed when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly bursts into you, make the most of it. Don't be afraid - just let go! It is a bit like death when it is time to go to the other side: don't be afraid - just let go - and keep focassed on the awesomeness of God.

:bism:
​

 

[M.I.A.]

just because you fit the definition in part does not mean that you are unitarian, it only means if you meet another unitarian you should have things in common.

but im sure christian is a broader term that encompasses more that unitarian,

the next generation of unitarians may not see the case so simply though.

 

[Al-manar]

( a ) if there is no mention of christians then i would not expect the verse to be used as a refutation of the trinity. i say this because while i had argued that the verse was speaking of christians

if the verse mentions daughters as well...then it is fair to assume it talking about the pre -Judaism ,christianity world of paganism ...., such Pagan methodologies regarding divine sonship were different,and vague....
If the christians and Jews included in the verse ..... again as I said before the verse doesn't say (those bad people believed that God had sex with woman and begat a son ) ...but simply (Those people attributed nonesensical attribute to me)

it is as like God saying (if I have once a consort then your attribute will make sense ,and I'm going to accept it) .....

what i did say and demonstrated conclusively was that whatever the case, the speaker of the qur'an repudiated worship of mary as god

In the Quran and Arabic language you can call those who venerate ,or give someone (even if you don't believe in him,her as the creator) any act that should be due to God,you make him,her god,then....

eg;

The Quran - 9:31 They take for gods Instead of Allah their rabbis and their monks, and the Messiah the son of Mary..


the Quran - 5:116 And as Allah said, "O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to mankind, "Take me and my mother (mary) to your selves as two gods, apart from Allah '?" He said, All Extolment be to You! In no way is it for me to say what I have no right to. In case I ever said it.

neither the rabbis nor Mary are believed to be the almighty,the creator but they had received treatment that is due to God alone ..... and that is, from a Quranic point of view is against pure monotheism .......

don't define for me what the Quran means by pure monotheism ,but you are welcome to criticise the definition .....

so implicit in this condemnation is the belief that christians believed that mary was a god

people venerated (and still) Mary ,and believe it or not ,according to the Quran ,by doing that,they made her god.....

notice how many times the qur'an tries to prove that mary is not divine?

how many times?

you seem to equate wife to human

the fact you tried to equate the Quranic treatment of Jesus with Mary ,the same faulty way if you equate the the Quranic treatment of Jesus with rabbies......and that is your mistake....

it is generally understood that a woman gives birth and a man begets. as such i would not be surprised if the arabic word for beget is masculine because it is a term usually used of males. anyway, when a man begets it is always through a sexual union so your point is untenable at best.

The Quranic God is not a man, or you believe otherwise?


for your benefit let's visit the Arabic language ....

the Arabic verse

لم يلد ولم يولد


the word يلد

could be used to mean to generate

examples:


العقل الذكى يلد فكراً ذكياً

The intellegent mind begets intellegent thoughts



العقل يلد فكراً له نفس جوهر

The mind begets thoughts than have the same nature


العقل يلد الفكر فى داخله دون أن ينفصل منه

the mind begets some thoughts inside ,that remains inside .

lots of other same examples ....

the sun begets light

etc..... etc....... etc.......



such verse was understood this way in lots of commentaries

eg;

Quranic commentaries:

معنى لم يلد و لم يولد نفي للمادية و الإنحلال و هو أن ينحل منه شىء أو أن يحل هو ‏في شىء


yaled (to beget) means he never generate a son etc.....


again in tafsir Alsafi

لم يلد لم يخرج منه شيء كثيف كالولد

he begets not,means he generates nothing eg; a Son


google the last arabic commentary to see how many links you will find.....

eg;
http://www.sunna.info/Lessons/islam_634.html

etc....etc....

yet i suppose that it wouldn't do just to listen to me .

I listened to you .... hope you listened to me too...

the speaker would condemn jews because they should have instead said that they are the salves of allah and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort.
.

not true ...it condemns BOTH for claiming to be be God's beloved and automatically acquire special advantages over other humans ......

[5:18] The Jews and the Christians said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills.

and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort..

I wish you provide support from the only verse mentions christians using the word Son in a Metaphysical sense....that they do that due to their believe of a sexual union between him and Mary...., quote the Quran instead of putting words between the lines and plz avoid the circular discussion which you have just started...

i do not believe that the statement "we are the children of god" or "so and so is the son of god" is considered allowable in islam and as such the speaker would have every reason to condemn the jews for this

and christians as well.....

but furthermore, given that the qur'an itself highlights numerous times that god could not have "a son" because he has no wife nor consort, it is only reasonable to read the verse (when it comes to christians) in the light of a sexual union.

And I see it reasonable to doubt the sexual union meaning , as (1) in the very same verse the mention of Jesus is preceded by the mention of Ezra with a metaphysical meaning of sonship highly doubted to be sexual union,(2) the case where the Quranic source using begets as generates ...(3)in the same verse the Quran describes such metaphysical application by jews and christians to jesus and ezra ,to be similar (not neccesarily typical) to other older pagans ,and we know that those pagans differed in using the application (4) In the other verse, the Quran criticises those pagans who attributed sons and daughtesr to him ,without defining what they mean by sonship ,God only tells ...they attributed a nonesensical attribute to the almighty .....

to sum up ,the christian criticism is mere guessing without solid substance.....
and Sol Invictus ,you shouldn't have thought me mocking at you when I told you ,that you simplified the issue,the issue is bigger than you may thought ....


peace

 

[Predator]

Hello Naidamar

I had to google 'Unitarian Christian' to find out who they were. Having read the wikipedia definition I guess to some degree I am. I have just found out that Unitarians believe in:

Actually, I honestly agree with each of these precepts. I especially like this one:

Only God has absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit and all truth, because it eminates from him...which leads me to the next question about Holy Spirit:

Greetings MustafaMc



I think Holy Spirit has an interchangeable definition depending on how you look at it. Of course dogmatic people have a problem with this, because something can only be this way or something can only be that way; their ideology is very fixed.

It can be said that Holy Spirit is God. Yet, it can be said that Holy Spirit is the Light of God that can dwell inside of us - or that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of God that speaks directly in the core of our being.

When Jesus got baptised, the fact that the Holy Spirit entered unto him was symbolized by a dove. From that time onwards, everything Jesus said and did was inspired by the Holy Spirit that resided in him.

So, if Jesus wanted to speak to God, he would pray - like in the Garden of Gethsemane. But, when God wanted to speak with Jesus it would come directly through the Holy Spirit that resided in him. Probably both could be happening simultaneously at times.

On the other hand, when God wanted to speak to Prophet Mohammed, he spoke through Angel Gabriel in a series of visions. But, even here, the Holy Spirit would have to be present to some degree for that to happen. It is a prevasive Holy presence; it is like the smell of Jasmine on a warm summer night...

So, the question is: Why didn't God communicate with Prophet Mohammed directly through the Holy Spirit? Because it was the direct transmission of Holy Spirit in Jesus which caused the problem of Jesus' disciples being mislead to believe that Jesus was God himself - which lead Christians theologians to postulate the Trinity in the first place! When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." - it was the Holy Spirit in Jesus that spoke thus and not Jesus himself. When Jesus said "I am the alpha and omega", it wasn't Jesus who was the alpha and the omega but God - channelled directly by the Holy Spirit (so to speak).

So, when God spoke to Prophet Mohammed in a series of visions through Angel Gabriel, Angel Gabriel was a kind of safety-net which prevented Mohammed expressing Gods' truth in the first person. If that happened, Muslims would be worshipping Prophet Mohammed as a God! Thank God this never happened!!! I don't want to even imagine what would have happened in our history if this was the case!

Anyway, the Holy Spirit doesn't belong to Christianity, it belongs to God. In one sense it is God. Just because Prophet Mohammed didn't speak specifically about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean Muslims can't experiance the Holy Spirit. If you are a Muslim praying in the mosque and out of nowhere you feel this burst of total gratitude to God, with a sense of "I am totally yours Allah - lock, stock and barrel" - and tears of benediction are pouring down your face - how can it not be the Holy Spirit???

Another thing is that the Holy Spirit comes when it comes and not necessarily when you want it to come. You can't force it. It is given to you at Gods discretion. I've seen Christians with their faces straining as if they are constipated - trying to squeeze it into them ;D. If you happen to be blessed when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly bursts into you, make the most of it. Don't be afraid - just let go! It is a bit like death when it is time to go to the other side: don't be afraid - just let go - and keep focassed on the awesomeness of God.

:bism:​

You deny Jesus as God and also deny him as offspring of God.

I see that you have posted an image of Bismillahi Rahman Rahim (In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious , the Most merciful)"" and an avatar with Allah's name.

So do you honestly beleive Allah is the one and only God ?. Then i dont see any reason why you would continue to reject Islam and I thus invite you to Islam.

 

[Sol Invictus]

hello al-manar, i must say that rather surprisingly, replying to your posts have been the most fun i have had yet but i firmly believe that you are mistaken in your argumentation. to this end i will lay out my argument once again, albeit more comprehensively this time.

( a )if the verse mentions daughters as well...then it is fair to assume it talking about the pre -Judaism ,christianity world of paganism ...., such Pagan methodologies regarding divine sonship were different,and vague....
If the christians and Jews included in the verse ..... again as I said before the verse doesn't say (those bad people believed that God had sex with woman and begat a son ) ...but simply (Those people attributed nonesensical attribute to me)

it is as like God saying (if I have once a consort then your attribute will make sense ,and I'm going to accept it) .....

( a ) now, if i have understood you correctly, you are saying that the verse in question primarily speaks of the polytheism of either pre-islamic arabia or of the pre-judeo-christian world. if this is the case then it has nothing to do with christians and as such i should not use it to claim that the qur'an misunderstands the sonship of christ as stemming from a sexual union (let us call this problem 1). next you argue that if it is the case that it is indeed speaking of christians then even then i could not say that the qur'an believes that christians believe in a sexual union between god and a consort which subsequently produced the christ seeing as the verse does not specifically say that "christians believe that god engaged in a sexual relationship with a consort and the offspring of this union is the christ" (let us call this problem 2).

problem 1: let us at this time suppose that the verse is in fact dealing not with christians but rather with the polytheism of its day and that which existed in the time prior to the abrahamic religions. let us then examine what these polytheists believed. now, it is an undeniable fact that the polytheists believed that their deities were capable of engaging in sexual relationships with heavenly consorts and thus give birth to other divine beings. on this point there should be no doubt. so if this is indeed the case then this surah by itself should pose no particular problem yet seeing as in order to understand what an author truly intends to say, one must examine the thoughts which run throughout the entire corpus of their work, this then becomes a major problem.

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? - S. 9:30

the above verse is quite explicit in saying that the jews and christians--by saying that so and so is the son of god--imitate the sayings of the polytheists. before these religions there was polytheism and the belief that a deity could father children through a sexual union is a staple of polytheism and so to say that the jews and christians are simply repeating what these individuals had said means to say that they believe the same thing as well. quite clearly the qur'an believes that the union is indeed a sexual one. that the speaker considers these two groups to be imitating polytheists is further reinforced by his wish for them to be destroyed (the islamic deity has been known to destroy peoples simply for believing in polytheism as he destroyed all of civilization in the time of noah).

problem 2: having seen that even if we were to suppose that S. 6:100 does not specifically speak of christians, we know that in the greater context it does indeed have christians in mind as is evident from the outworkings of S. 9:30. yet us delve even deeper into the matter and examine the language itself. we know that there are two terms for son, "ibn" and "walad". ibn has a rather broad meaning and can be used to speak metaphorically about a relationship between persons or things while "walad" has to do with one's biological offspring born through a sexual union. you will notice that whenever the matter of the sonship of christ is brought into question, the qur'an always uses the word walad to imply an offspring due to a sexual union instead of ibn, which can mean a metaphorical relationship. this is always the case except for surah 9:30 (yet seeing as ibn can also indeed refer to one's biological child, and the fact that every other instance is of the word walad, it is safe to conclude that the operating idea is indeed that of an offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort).

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. - S. 2:116

Waqaloo itakhatha Allahuwaladan subhanahu bal lahu ma fee assamawatiwal-ardi kullun lahu qanitoon

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is. - S. 19:35

Ma kana lillahi anyattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qadaamran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoon

notice that the above refer to the offspring of a sexual union. i would furthermore encourage you to look through every single reference concerning sonship and you will find that all, except for one (which in the context of things isn't a problem seeing as ibn can indeed refer to the product of a sexual union), clearly speak of the sonship of christ in terms of a sexual union. what you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails. now even further, if one were to compound this by the fact that the islamic trinity always consists of the father, mary (a mother), and christ (the son) and you can really see why the qur'an would use the term walad for christ almost every time and chastises both christians and polytheists by asking how in fact allah could have a son if he has no consort. if anytime the three gods whom the christians supposedly worship are always (and i mean always) enumerated as the father, mary and christ then it is only reasonable to say that this is the understanding of the qur'an yet if i am somehow mistaken, please dhow me from the qur'an where it is actually the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

before i conclude i must in fact say that almost all the discussions i have had have ignored all the other faults i had found in the qur'an's understanding of the trinity. i have claimed that there is no single accurate formulation of it within the entire qur'an and i would hope that if i have been incorrect that i would be taken to task about my statements instead of them being unchallenged. aside from this current point of contention (which i suppose no longer is a point of contention given that allah uses walad instead of ibn to describe the sonship of christ) the fact of the matter is that one can find no instance where the trinity is condemned and where the speaker actually has a proper understanding of the trinity. it always turns out that it is either adoptionism, sabellianism, tritheism etc. that are condemned but never actually the christian trinity.

the above are our points of contention and everything is secondary to this (as such we could not in fact move on without addressing these), hence why i solely focused on this. if you believe that in solely focusing on the primary points i have somehow been deceiving then i am more then willing to speak of secondary points in my next post but to be perfectly honest, i must once again reiterate that all secondary points flow from the above and as such these are the major conflicts.

 

[Al-manar]

problem 1: let us at this time suppose that the verse is in fact dealing not with christians but rather with the polytheism of its day and that which existed in the time prior to the abrahamic religions.

I said the verse has to include the pagans and not spicified to Jews and christians .......

let us then examine what these polytheists believed. now, it is an undeniable fact that the polytheists believed that their deities were capable of engaging in sexual relationships with heavenly consorts and thus give birth to other divine beings.

not only that, but also through other means(not only through intercourse) a man can be the son of God

Akhenton's hymns to the Aton:
Thy rays are upon thy beloved son. Thy hand has a myriad of jubilees for the King of Upper and Lower Egypt. Neferkheprurc-Wanre, thy child who came forth from thy rays. Thou assignest to him thy lifetime and thy years. Thou hear-est tor him that which is in his heart. He is thy beloved, thou makest him like Mon. When thou risest, eternity is given him: when thou settest. thou givest him everlastingness. Thou hegettest him in the morning like thine own forms: thou flintiest him as thy emanation, like Aton, nder
of truth, who came forth from eternity, son of Re, wearing his beauty...."

Here the imagery centers upon the rays of the sun rather than the human inter-course and birth.

I have other dozen of quotes(saved for future posts in my thread) proves The pagan concepts of sonship are varied and ALL are criticised in the Quran ......

.....

one must examine the thoughts which run throughout the entire corpus of their work

Exactly .... rather than narrowing the issue to only the christian sonship (as you did)... the criticism is varied and bigger than you thought...

to say that the jews and christians are simply repeating what these individuals had said means to say that they believe the same thing as well.
.

the pagans had varied concept regarding the Sonship ,also the Jews and christians concepts regarding the Sonship of Jesus and the sonship of Ezra.....

Ezra, was a descendant of Seraiah the high priest, and that makes it highly doubtfull ,that the source of the Quran criticised the metaphysical sonship on sexual intercourse basis ......

that the speaker considers these two groups to be imitating polytheists is further reinforced by his wish for them to be destroyed

yes ... If there is something gets the anger of the source of the Quran ,would be any act against true monotheism ( sonship,veneration etc....) and any thing against the law......

we know that there are two terms for son, "ibn" and "walad". ibn has a rather broad meaning and can be used to speak metaphorically about a relationship between persons or things while "walad" has to do with one's biological offspring born through a sexual union.

not always the case

eg;

ولد الصحراء
son of the desert

ولد النعمه
son of the bless


want more?

let's go to the Arabic bible

http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Such passage is believed by christians to be one of the top messianic prophecies ,the Son there is said to be a prophecy of Jesus ,isn't it?


yet he was called (walad) ,if you insist that the word (walad) neccesarily denotes sexual intercourse between God and consort then ,the Arabic version suggests Jesus as a son of sexual intercource....

another case on non-sexual Sonship:

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.

ان الله قد اكمل هذا لنا نحن اولادهم اذ اقام يسوع كما هو مكتوب ايضا في المزمور الثاني انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.



Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; todayTODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?


Hebrews 1:5 لانه لمن من الملائكة قال قط انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.وايضا انا اكون له ابا وهو يكون لي ابنا.


more and more use of the word with meanings other than sexual intercourse


John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

الريح تهب حيث تشاء وتسمع صوتها لكنك لا تعلم من اين تأتي ولا الى اين تذهب.هكذا كل من ولد من الروح

there are other dozen instances of the same word but I think the previous instances are enough ...

arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah

and the Quran says they call him (ibnu’llah)....

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah (ibnu’llah) , and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah (ibnu’llah) . That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30] .....

yet as I mentioned before, no problem at all using(walad) with jesus ,without forcing the meaning into sexual intercourse , go ask the translators of the Bible into Arabic if you don't trust me....

and no where in the Quran it says ;they said God had intercourse with Mary ... it is merely assumption ,which I countered by some clues denotes otherwise....

now even further, if one were to compound this by the fact that the islamic trinity always consists of the father, mary (a mother), and christ .

The burden of proof lies on him who alledges...

 

[Sol Invictus]

once more thank you for the reply.

not only that, but also through other means(not only through intercourse) a man can be the son of God

huh? did i say that polytheists only believed in birth through intercourse? or rather that they believed that their gods could be born from intercourse. if it follows that i said the latter (as i indeed did) then your point is moot. not to mention that the deity who is being praised is aten (a sun god) who egyptians worshiped as an aspect of ra, and ra hismelf is an aspect of aum-ra. amun-ra is the primary egyptian deity and he himself fathered children through sexual intercourse and so the very deity you appeal to has offspring gained through a sexual union (several actually. he was involved in at least 3 marriages).

Ezra, was a descendant of Seraiah the high priest, and that makes it highly doubtfull ,that the source of the Quran criticised the metaphysical sonship on sexual intercourse basis ......

the jews never called ezra the son of god and hence that makes it doubtful if to what jewish tenet this verse in teh qur'an is referring to.

not always the case

eg;

ولد الصحراء
son of the desert

ولد النعمه
son of the bless


want more?

you have not proved your point. i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present. please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union. i do not even have to disagree with walad being used metaphorically when speaking of a person and the desert but that does not prove your point. show me where walad is used in a metaphorical sense concerning the result of a sexual union between and individual and a consort. you can't because when indidviduals are involved walad always refers to a sexual union. which is why arabic christians never use the term waladu’llah in describing the sonship of jesus. the fact that the qur'an uses this term, not once but repeatedly and claims that this is what christians say (not only is this linguistically wrong, but also theologically wrong) is more than enough to prove it wrong because christians simply don't say this. given that you understand arabic it would be fairly simple for you to open up a christian bible and look to see if you can even find the term waladu’llah in regards to jesus. i'll seriously wait for you to do so seeing as it should be fairly simple to do.

and the Quran says they call him (ibnu’llah)....

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah (ibnu’llah) , and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah (ibnu’llah) . That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

i'm pretty sure i had said the following: so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

look, the qur'an repeatedly uses the term walad in reference to the sonship of christ. we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex (the fact that you have not denied this further reinforces this point) and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ. now we also know that ibn has a broader usage and it can be used to describe the intimacy between people without necessarily pointing to sexual intercourse. the problem is that ibn can also be used of a physical offspring. so now the only way to tell what exactly is meant is to look at the descriptions throughout the qur'an.

BadeeAAu assamawatiwal-ardi anna yakoonu lahu waladun walamtakun lahu sahibatun wakhalaqa kulla shay-in wahuwabikulli shay-in AAaleem

Muhsin Khan: He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.

notice that the qur'an once again ties walad to sexual intercourse by also positing a wife. so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship and that the product (the walad) is the result of this union. once more this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ and the speaker of the qur'an, if he indeed is who he claims to be, should have known this fact. now we have seen that even the speaker himself in the qur'an ties walad to a sexual union (by bringing up the lack of a sahiba) and so should we be surprised that he uses uses ibn (only once, mind you) when ibn can also mean the product of a sexual union? i ahve given you overwhelming evidence that the qur'an understands walad as the product of a sexual union when speaking of individuals and you have done nothing to refute this claim. we both acknowledge that ibn can be used of one's biological child and so given that the qur'an only uses ibn once in regards to jesus and every other time it uses walad, can we then say that this is proof that the qur'an actually possessed a metaphorical understanding of the phrase, "the son of god"?

now you bring up the fact of the jews and in this way try to tie this with christ but you forget that you have already poisoned the well, so to speak. you would like me to believe that in the context, the jews would not use this to mean the offspring of a sexual union yet if we are supposed to believe the jews (and i think that we should) then we should believe the jews when they say that they never even called ezra the son of god. your points rest on me believing a source you yourself claim can't be believed. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of jews calling ezra the son of god and jews themselves don't believe this, furthermore christians don't believe this either and yet you would have us believe that the jews can't be believed on this matter. yet somehow they should now be believed in the matter that they would not have meant the saying in a sexual way? you see, you've already poisoned your source and now to argue from that very source only makes your points weak and your argument inconsistent.

and no where it says ;they said God had intercourse with Mary ... it is merely assumption

alright so the above claims that seeing as the qur'an does not contain the explicit phrase "christians believe that god had sex with mary" we should then not make this inference after the numerous evidence (both linguistical and contextual) that has been provided on this matter. not only is this wrong but you are being inconsistent. to illustrate your inconsistency, let me give you an example as it regards the trinity. the fact is that nowhere in the bible is there a statement that says that christians worship 3 gods. neither have trinitarians ever claimed this either. yet muslims hold it as a fact that christians do worship 3 gods and you yourself believe that i worship 3 gods. so you feel that you are perfectly capable of saying and believing something that you can find no explicit statement for, yet in the above you say that i cannot do so even granted that i have more than enough evidence which would warrant my conclusion. that my friend is the very definition of inconsistency.

The burden of proof lies on him who alledges...

i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! how about the fact that nowhere else in the qur'an does one find a different list of the three people who christians supposedly worship. it is always allah, mary and christ. what about this does not constitute proof. you would claim that the qur'an actually does understand the trinity but you do nothing to prove this. if you are so confident then show us a reference where the qur'an clearly designates the trinity to be the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the simple fact is that there is no such reference in the entire qur'an. i have made this claim repeatedly in my posts and repeatedly the readers of my post have done nothing to challenge this opinion of mine. if i am wrong then simply produce the evidence.

Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Such passage is believed by christians to be one of the top messianic prophecies ,the Son there is said to be a prophecy of Jesus ,isn't it?


yet he was called (walad) ,if you insist that the word (walad) neccesarily denotes sexual intercourse between God and consort then ,the Arabic version suggests Jesus as a son of sexual intercource....

another case on non-sexual Sonship:

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.

ان الله قد اكمل هذا لنا نحن اولادهم اذ اقام يسوع كما هو مكتوب ايضا في المزمور الثاني انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.



Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?


Hebrews 1:5 لانه لمن من الملائكة قال قط انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.وايضا انا اكون له ابا وهو يكون لي ابنا.

i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you but as you will soon see, you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ. in the initial reference, the walad refers to hezekiah yet the prophecy finds its true meaning and fulfillment in christ. given that it was spoken to refer both to hezekiah and the messiah, it therefore follows that some allowances would have to be made. as far as walad is concerned in the other verses, it refers to the spiritual anointing. you will note that the person spoken of (once again these are prophecies with double fulfillments--the first of which is david and the second and greater fulfillment is christ) in the prophecies is king david and this prophecy came to him when he was already a grown man and ruling over israel. if the word did not refer to the anointing which he received then it would be quite the revelation indeed. either way this does not change what i had mentioned earlier:

you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails.

 

[Sol Invictus]

i just noticed that you had edited your post again and as such (i believe that) i failed to quote one reference in your post.

 

[M.I.A.]

once more thank you for the reply.


huh? did i say that polytheists only believed in birth through intercourse? or rather that they believed that their gods could be born from intercourse. if it follows that i said the latter (as i indeed did) then your point is moot. not to mention that the deity who is being praised is aten (a sun god) who egyptians worshiped as an aspect of ra, and ra hismelf is an aspect of aum-ra. amun-ra is the primary egyptian deity and he himself fathered children through sexual intercourse and so the very deity you appeal to has offspring gained through a sexual union (several actually. he was involved in at least 3 marriages).


the jews never called ezra the son of god and hence that makes it doubtful if to what jewish tenet this verse in teh qur'an is referring to.


you have not proved your point. i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present. please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union. i do not even have to disagree with walad being used metaphorically when speaking of a person and the desert but that does not prove your point. show me where walad is used in a metaphorical sense concerning the result of a sexual union between and individual and a consort. you can't because when indidviduals are involved walad always refers to a sexual union. which is why arabic christians never use the term waladu’llah in describing the sonship of jesus. the fact that the qur'an uses this term, not once but repeatedly and claims that this is what christians say (not only is this linguistically wrong, but also theologically wrong) is more than enough to prove it wrong because christians simply don't say this. given that you understand arabic it would be fairly simple for you to open up a christian bible and look to see if you can even find the term waladu’llah in regards to jesus. i'll seriously wait for you to do so seeing as it should be fairly simple to do.



i'm pretty sure i had said the following: so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

look, the qur'an repeatedly uses the term walad in reference to the sonship of christ. we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex (the fact that you have not denied this further reinforces this point) and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ. now we also know that ibn has a broader usage and it can be used to describe the intimacy between people without necessarily pointing to sexual intercourse. the problem is that ibn can also be used of a physical offspring. so now the only way to tell what exactly is meant is to look at the descriptions throughout the qur'an.

BadeeAAu assamawatiwal-ardi anna yakoonu lahu waladun walamtakun lahu sahibatun wakhalaqa kulla shay-in wahuwabikulli shay-in AAaleem

Muhsin Khan: He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.

notice that the qur'an once again ties walad to sexual intercourse by also positing a wife. so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship and that the product (the walad) is the result of this union. once more this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ and the speaker of the qur'an, if he indeed is who he claims to be, should have known this fact. now we have seen that even the speaker himself in the qur'an ties walad to a sexual union (by bringing up the lack of a sahiba) and so should we be surprised that he uses uses ibn (only once, mind you) when ibn can also mean the product of a sexual union? i ahve given you overwhelming evidence that the qur'an understands walad as the product of a sexual union when speaking of individuals and you have done nothing to refute this claim. we both acknowledge that ibn can be used of one's biological child and so given that the qur'an only uses ibn once in regards to jesus and every other time it uses walad, can we then say that this is proof that the qur'an actually possessed a metaphorical understanding of the phrase, "the son of god"?

now you bring up the fact of the jews and in this way try to tie this with christ but you forget that you have already poisoned the well, so to speak. you would like me to believe that in the context, the jews would not use this to mean the offspring of a sexual union yet if we are supposed to believe the jews (and i think that we should) then we should believe the jews when they say that they never even called ezra the son of god. your points rest on me believing a source you yourself claim can't be believed. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of jews calling ezra the son of god and jews themselves don't believe this, furthermore christians don't believe this either and yet you would have us believe that the jews can't be believed on this matter. yet somehow they should now be believed in the matter that they would not have meant the saying in a sexual way? you see, you've already poisoned your source and now to argue from that very source only makes your points weak and your argument inconsistent.


alright so the above claims that seeing as the qur'an does not contain the explicit phrase "christians believe that god had sex with mary" we should then not make this inference after the numerous evidence (both linguistical and contextual) that has been provided on this matter. not only is this wrong but you are being inconsistent. to illustrate your inconsistency, let me give you an example as it regards the trinity. the fact is that nowhere in the bible is there a statement that says that christians worship 3 gods. neither have trinitarians ever claimed this either. yet muslims hold it as a fact that christians do worship 3 gods and you yourself believe that i worship 3 gods. so you feel that you are perfectly capable of saying and believing something that you can find no explicit statement for, yet in the above you say that i cannot do so even granted that i have more than enough evidence which would warrant my conclusion. that my friend is the very definition of inconsistency.


i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! how about the fact that nowhere else in the qur'an does one find a different list of the three people who christians supposedly worship. it is always allah, mary and christ. what about this does not constitute proof. you would claim that the qur'an actually does understand the trinity but you do nothing to prove this. if you are so confident then show us a reference where the qur'an clearly designates the trinity to be the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the simple fact is that there is no such reference in the entire qur'an. i have made this claim repeatedly in my posts and repeatedly the readers of my post have done nothing to challenge this opinion of mine. if i am wrong then simply produce the evidence.


i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you but as you will soon see, you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ. in the initial reference, the walad refers to hezekiah yet the prophecy finds its true meaning and fulfillment in christ. given that it was spoken to refer both to hezekiah and the messiah, it therefore follows that some allowances would have to be made. as far as walad is concerned in the other verses, it refers to the spiritual anointing. you will note that the person spoken of (once again these are prophecies with double fulfillments--the first of which is david and the second and greater fulfillment is christ) in the prophecies is king david and this prophecy came to him when he was already a grown man and ruling over israel. if the word did not refer to the anointing which he received then it would be quite the revelation indeed. either way this does not change what i had mentioned earlier:

no the spirit is briefly mentioned, couldnt tell you exactly where but it is in the quran.
anyway like i said in my other post niether you or i can ascribe with any certanty as to what was the spirit..in name anyway.

anyway i like your argument over history and passages of all books but the fact remains.. jesus was the prophet, mary was the mother and god is the creator.. not really anything in it when you look at your argument so simply.. whats to deny?


if its grammer and context that youre argument hinges on then you are a little behind the times.

concept of trinity,

two are of god, but there is only one god.. nothing hard to comprehend there.
to say jesus is all three is to say flawless victory.. it aint ever happened like that, not in any context of victory you are familiar with.. but it has happened with all the prophets.


im not ascribing partners with god, the nature of god and his power is what is more often reiterated in the quran..and all power is with him.
how can a god external to the system arrive into the system without boundaries being broken?
like god says, what will make you believe? if he turns up with angels? if he does.. you know its too late.

..so with that rational and sane train of thought i think i can assume jesus was a prophet and not god other than the embodyment of gods will at certain times... sounds very familiar although try explaining how

jesus being the embodyment of gods will does not equate to jesus being god, similarly as saying angels are the embodyment of gods will is not the same as saying angels are god.. but if i asked you who the angels work for?

what is the answer?

is quite an easy concept to grasp.

 

[Martinz]

:bism:
​

You deny Jesus as God and also deny him as offspring of God. I see that you have posted an image of Bismillahi Rahman Rahim (In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious , the Most merciful)"" and an avatar with Allah's name. So do you honestly beleive Allah is the one and only God ?. Then i dont see any reason why you would continue to reject Islam and I thus invite you to Islam.

I don't reject Islam, I embrace it!

From what I understand, Islam means "-to submit to God". This happened when I became a Christian and was overwhelmed by the joy of the Holy Spirit. To me, the fact that I submitted to God at that time is unmistakable and is such a great blessing to me. But, if I was to convert to Islam now then to say that I was 'submitting to God' would be a lie; it would be a sham because it has already happened. And I know that God wants me to be entirely truthful from my heart.

Do you want to know a secret. 7 years ago I did convert to Islam in the local mosque in Christchurch. But, a couple of weeks afterwards, I felt ashamed and guilty, because I felt like I was insulting God by not acknowledging the first time that I submitted to God. I felt pretentious and a liar. There are enough hypercrites in the world!

On the other hand, since I converted to Islam at the local mosque, I feel such a strong bond of love to all Muslims that I meet. We have many Somalian & Afghan Muslims, as well as from other countries. They are such beautiful gentle souls - totally different from the western perception that most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers.

I have prayed to God and I asked him what I should call myself. In my heart I know that he wants me to call myself a Christian, but to embrace Islam too.

And I embrace other religions besides Christianity and Islam, because it is time for some unity in our diversity. And we should focus on what we agree with rather than what we disagree with.

But, unless Christians renounce the 'Trinity', they're gonna miss the party!

So, Prophet Mohammed is my spiritual role-model, too, :saws:!

​

 

[Al-manar]

i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present.

You are at it again!

I have provided you with examples where the word not only applied in a metaphorical sense away from the sexual intercourse,but also applied to God in Isaiah ,without denoting sexual acrivities......

please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union.
:

I have just shown you ,how can Jehovah begets a son (walad) not through sexual union , so your question is irrelevant.....

our question was, Can we say in Arabic ,Jehovah has a son (walad ) without having sexual intercourse? My answer was direct , yes.


If you insist on dealing with Jehovah ,the same way you deal with a man,then it is your problem...

we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex

but when spoken of in reference to un-individuals eg; God , mind etc... ,the meaning would be otherwise...

and regarding Ezra ,there is nothing about him as being born without father , In order for the source of the Quran to misunderstand that (as it was suggested by the christian original argument) and claim him to be believed as the metaphysical son of God who similary to Jesus came due to sexual intercourse ...

though no written document of Jews believing in Ezra as the metaphysical son of God ,but

1- the absence of proof is not a proof of the absence.

2- I don't wonder the Jews calling Ezra the metaphysical son of God ,if the discoveries time after time shows how among them who were not true monotheists, as even before Jesus they though of human figures could be divine eg;the son of man in enoch etc...

3- the christian argument works on the idea that the source of the Quran misunderstood the title , and that he was reading the bible, or read for him and he misunderstood the sonship of Jesus due to getting the information of virgin Mary and her son who is called son of God ,so he assumed that christians thought of him as offspring of God , while we don't have a clue what kind of metaphysical sonship of Ezra the Quran refers to,yet it is highly doubtful to think of it as a sexual issue.... , there is no way to say he misunderstood the story of Ezra .... as no mention of Ezra without father etc.....

in sum, I find it fair to highly doubt that the source of the Quran was thinking od the sexual theme while dealing with Ezra.... If you find my arguments as guessing without a crucial proof....... well ok ,I don't find yours is better in terms of guessing than mine either ....

and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ.

the bible calls christ (walad) besides (ibn) ,and the Quran says christians calls christ (walad) besides (ibn) ...

and every time The Arab christians, Quote Isaiah: 9 they call Jesus (walad),Just why don't you believe them!? .....



Jesus as Ibn ابن (son) ?

In bible

MAtthew 3:4

فَتَقَدَّمَ إِلَيْهِ الْمُجَرِّبُ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «إِنْ كُنْتَ ابن الله فَقُلْ أَنْ تَصِيرَ هذِهِ الْحِجَارَةُ خُبْزًا»

[/SIZE]

In Quran:

وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصارى المسيح ابن الله





Jesus as Walad ولد (son) ?

In Quran


( إنما الله إله واحد سبحانه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا )

In Bible


Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah 9:6


If only you believe your eyes ?!

anyway, that was the last nail in the Coffin of your linguestic argument.

you insistence on forcing the word (walad) when related to God , to mean nothing but a fruit of sexual activities have poisoned the well (Isaiah 9) ,and gave a golden chance to those who would argue that christ was the offspring of God as long as he was prophecised in Isaiah 9 ,to be a (walad) to be born .....

I could have been the bad guy ,and use that as irrefutable proof of God predicting his offspring ,as long as he used the word (walad) ,but my honesty and objectivity ,won't allow me to do so ..... as I don't think christians at least understand that Jesus to be offspring of God.....

so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship

and from Arabic ,we can understand that when (walad) is spoken of in regards to God it could be in other context apart from sexual relationship


http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


though I taught you where you erred,you have no courage to admit you were mistaken....

i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! :

where is that in the Quran?

i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

:

I believe in another proverb says ,A person with half knowledge is more dangerous than an ignorant.

I hope neither of us would be that dangerous to our readers....

given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you :

I disagree with the idea that a person has to be christian to understand the bible... I'm not christian nor Jew, yet I think some muslims study the bible more seriously,objectively than some christians...

you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ.
:

that is a false claim ..... not only dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture and common sense ,but also it has never been fulfilled by neither hezekiah nor Jesus .....


I won't expose such fallacy right here (will do it in my thread)... I would like to respect the topic of the thread...... enough being offtopic.....

and I apologize for Bro Yahya Sulaiman for interrupting the topic .... that was my last post in the thread


thank you Sol Invictus for the discussion ,and waiting for you to join the discussion in my thread regarding the messianic prophecies ,If you would like to join answering my criticism ,and my claim that Jesus never fulfilled the messianic prophecies, I will be glad ,then.

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ghly-comparative-study-arranged-items-52.html

peace for all