How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

[Ramadhan]

But I found so many fallacies about Christianity constantly presented that I've stayed to challenge those who publish such falsehoods.

Again, you are only representing your united methodist church.
What you say here is certainly something that a catholic would reject, a coptic would reject, a mormon or a jehovah witness would reject.

 

[M.I.A.]

You are perhaps wiser than the rest of us. For Islam does seem to be something that people here know about and understand. But I don't think Christianity is.

Curiously I too came here originally to learn about Islam. But I found so many fallacies about Christianity constantly presented that I've stayed to challenge those who publish such falsehoods. I'm not even trying to be an apologist for Christianity and saying that Muslims should leave Islam for Christianity (though of course you might guess that I may think that), but I just want to be sure that those who reject it, do so for things that are true about it and not these crazy misconceptions I continue to see promoted.

i dont get this at all, from my understanding of islam i have not rejected jesus pbuh.

although i dont understand what he (pbuh) taught, this may be an easy question but did he say that he came to reinforce what had been sent before him?

did he want people to believe in him or his message?

Islam means 'submission to god' and im sure it is the same message as those that went before it.

if you want to think about how Christianity may have changed from the original concept then take a look at islam and how it changes with innovation in technology, media and cultural trends.. new things become acceptable because we have no reason not to accept them.
i understand that you were not alive 2000 years ago but think back to the last decade or the one before that..im sure you will realize how things change. unless your a Quaker or something this world has a huge effect.

tyrion's post was spot on, even if we live in little pockets of similarity on the whole, each person holds onto there own religion and values.. and unfortunately with each passing year we get further away from those that could unite the world, not closer.

no real point to the post but it was made as eric would say, in the spirit of understanding.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

What trinity do you speak of oh Grace Seeker?

The trinity that is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible?

The trinity that was NOT taught by ANY Prophet nor was it EVER taught by Jesus?

The trinity that the Christian deity FORGOT to mention when it became the most fundamental concept in Christianity hundreds of years after Jesus.

The trinity that was first mentioned by Tertullian its creator HUNDREDS of years aftr Jesus. The concept that is SO illogical that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand and completely mind boggling.

The concept that is interpreted in SO many different ways that every definition of it is different from the last.

The concept which teaches of 3 seperate Gods with distinct natures?

The concept which has NO backing at all from biblical referances but was only created to try and prove the divinity of Christ.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I have palready pasted statement after statement from early church fathers PROVING to you that Mary was seen as NOTHING short of divine as she was called the "mother of God" not speaking merely of her humanity but for the reason that it is believed she BORE GOD and so the title vested to her was of "THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF!

This has been proven by the words of the church fathers who confirm that if she bore God then no doubt she is not just mother of his humanity but mother of GOD HIMSELF. [...] Let us look at the statements from the early church fathers confirming their belief in the "divine" status of Mary as the mother of GOD himself:

greetings hamza. the problem with this discussion is that you are unwilling to actually learn the truth about the title, theotokos for in so doing you would realize that you have no point. your whole argument centers on the fact that mary must be divine because she birthed god. you then try to prove your claim by citing quote after quote of church fathers calling mary the mother of god. this does not prove your point at all. in this discussion we are trying to find out out what mother of god means and simply showing that mary is considered the mother of god does not make your case. for instance, if i wanted to know the definition of a word, it wouldn't do to simply state the word over and over again but rather we would need to define it. i have repeatedly asked you to show us where the christian creeds state that mother of god means that mary is divine and you have been unable to show us any proof of this. i have shown you repeatedly where the christian creeds explain that mother of god simply means that mary is human while christ is god. once again:

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord". In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos). --- Catechism of the Catholic Church

notice that it speaks of christ's humanity and not divinity. she did not birth the divine nature but rather only his humanity. as such, she herself is not divine but is only called the mother of god because christ is god, and she is the human mother whom he saw fit to enter the world through. how could christians consider mary to be divine when they believe that she is created by jesus himself? look at these quotations again:

Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.

Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not mary. now, instead of simply showing us passages in which church fathers call mary the mother of god, can you actually give us citations from christian creeds in which the title theotokos is explained as mary being divine? simply having individuals call her mother of god is not enough seeing as we want to know what the title means.

Once again for the fourth time you have ignored the challenge i have set you and that is to PROVE your position using the ORIGINAL language of the Qur'an. Why do you keep ignoring me request Sol? Why do i have to keep repeating myself? [...] So clearly you are now at a road block unless you can translate and interpret the original language in a deep and meaningful way and show us your intepretation in context.

so having seen that you can't actually deal with my points, you know bring up the "original language" excuse, well let me tell you that this simply won't work. if it were the case that the original language somehow exonerated the muslim deity then you would have countless muslims posting this vindication of the muslim god within this thread. the fact that there is none actually only strengthens my point. the defense of the original language is actually a ruse and you only fall back on it once you have no other way of defending your point. but let me ask you, if in fact this is an adequate point, do you understand greek or latin? if not, then on what basis do you feel comfortable to pontificate on the matter of the title, theotokos? if your argument is that seeing as i do not possess a mastery of the original language of the qur'an, then i am unable to speak concerning it then the same would apply to you with regards to the bible, and the works of the church fathers. yet once again you show your inconsistency by not practising what you preach. so no, the above is not a defense at all and is only a means of trying to save face.

There is no contradiction at all in my saying that trinities existed in other pagan religions because the concept itself is pagan and therefore can only come from pagan origins as does many of the beliefs and practices of Christianity which were unfortunatley heavily influenced by greek mythology and you know Sol what a huge influence greek mythology played in shaping Christian beliefs and practices that we see even today.

where is the logic in this? you had claimed that seeing as the qur'an doesn't specifically use the word trinity, then we need not suppose that the marian trinity was supposed to be the proper trinity but then you turn around and call all these other pagan triads trinities as well. can we have some level of consistency here? the fact that these are pagan have nothing to do with this seeing as we're simply following logic here. anyway, you once more show your lack of understanding a sit concerns the trinity by pointing to triads and claiming that these are examples of the trinity. do you even know the difference between a triad and a trinity?

Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.

your first mistake is in claiming that hinduism has embraced the trimurti, that is false. it is not even an official doctrine and is only one of the many ways that the hindu could explain the divine order that they believe in. furthermore, in my prior posts i showed how the trimurti was not the trinity and if you are going to be making such statements i'd much like it if you could prove these by contesting my claims instead of taking care to ignore them and simply repeating the very position that i have already shown to be incorrect.

This is priceless.

exactly 1 for you means the father, the son, and holy spirit. [...] As I said, go back to the previous pages and read them yourselves. I don't need to entertain some people who claim blindness while in fact they are delusional stemming from following their twisted logic that says 3=1.

no, what is priceless is that i have repeatedly presented the argument for e oneness of the trinity and no muslim on this board has been able to refute it. yet then here we have individuals making light of the oneness of the trinity as if they were ever able to present an actual rebuttal to my argument. if you are so sure of your position naidamar, might you be willing to take another shot at a discussion concerning the oneness that the trinity espouses or are you perhaps more comfortable with making points that neither you nor anyone else on this board is able to prove?

"They do commit kufr who say: "(God) is Christ the son of Mary." But Christ himself said: "O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with (the one true) God, God has forbidden him the jannah (paradise), and the fire will be his abode. For these wrong-doers there will be no one to help." (QS. 5:72)

it would seem that we can expect some honesty from you yet, naidamar. seeing as you claim that the above is actually directed at the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ then we can quite easily say that the above is completely wrong. once again the source of the qur'an misformulates what trinitarians believe in and ends up condemning another heresy instead of the trinitarian understanding. if you disagree with this you are more than welcome to try to debate this matter because as is, we are still waiting for the muslim response on as to why the above (and various other passages contained in your holy book) are so blatantly incorrect. it's good that at the very least you are willing to admit that the above is directed at the proper understanding of christ's divinity, this only makes it easier to show how incorrect your holy book really is. please do get back to me on this because it wouldn't do to simply reiterate a position that neither you nor any muslim on this board has been able to prove.

"They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." (QS. 5:17)

and there we have it again. why is it that there is never a correct formulation of christian doctrine within the qur'an (and i half-expect you to act ignorant and claim what exactly i mean by christian doctrine. please do, i would welcome responding on this matter)? seriously, let's discuss this because you claim that these errors are directed at our understanding of the divinity of christ so you better explain to us how these clear mis-articulations could at all square up with what we say. i'll be waiting naidamar.

 

[Sol Invictus]

What trinity do you speak of oh Grace Seeker?

The trinity that is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible?

The trinity that was NOT taught by ANY Prophet nor was it EVER taught by Jesus?

The trinity that the Christian deity FORGOT to mention when it became the most fundamental concept in Christianity hundreds of years after Jesus.

The trinity that was first mentioned by Tertullian its creator HUNDREDS of years aftr Jesus. The concept that is SO illogical that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand and completely mind boggling.

The concept that is interpreted in SO many different ways that every definition of it is different from the last.

The concept which teaches of 3 seperate Gods with distinct natures?

The concept which has NO backing at all from biblical referances but was only created to try and prove the divinity of Christ.

asking where the trinity is found in the bible is not appropriate to this thread. we can however make a thread concerning the matter and within such a thread, we would be more than happy to expound the christian logic to you. the fact that this question is off-topic should be understood best by you given that you are a mod. this discussion is focused on how the qur'an represents the christian doctrine and not where in fact the trinity is contained in the bible. if you want to argue the latter so badly, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the matter but within this thread, such a discussion is off-topic and more of a way to detract attention away from the errors within the qur'an.

 

[Ramadhan]

no, what is priceless is that i have repeatedly presented the argument for e oneness of the trinity

no, what is priceless is that we have repeatedly presented the argument that the concept trinity as one is bollocks.
It's not our fault that you have not been able to refute it.

it would seem that we can expect some honesty from you yet, naidamar. seeing as you claim that the above is actually directed at the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ

It does not say anywhere in the Qur'an and neither in the verse that it is directed at "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ". Maybe you need to check your eyes or your ability to read.

My question: Do you or do you not say that Christ is God?

This is a simple question that require no 4 pages worth of long winded re-interpretations of words.

The verse clearly condemns those who believe that Christ is God.

If you dont believe that christ is God, then the verse is not addressing you, but it certainly addresses many other people who believe that Christ is God.

 

[Sol Invictus]

o, what is priceless is that we have repeatedly presented the argument that the concept trinity as one is bollocks.
It's not our fault that you have not been able to refute it.

really? in which thread? for the sake of honesty i'd quite like it if you could post for us the link of the thread in which i and any other muslim were engaged in a discussion on the oneness of the trinity and your co-religionist actually refuted the concept of three in one being an example of oneness. if you could even provide for us the post number then that wold be perfect. anyway, i'll be waiting for this link.

It does not say anywhere in the Qur'an and neither in the verse that it is directed at "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ". Maybe you need to check your eyes or your ability to read.

was your post not addressed to graceseeker? if you have qualms with the words "the orthodox christological doctrine of the divinity of christ" then maybe "the conception of christ as espoused by the official church councils" might be better (seeing as graceseeker agrees with the orthodox formulation of christ's divinity as represented by the church councils)?

My question: Do you or do you not say that Christ is God? This is a simple question that require no 4 pages worth of long winded re-interpretations of words. The verse clearly condemns those who believe that Christ is God.

no need to invert what the source of the qur'an actually says. these verses condemn those who say that god is christ and not that christ is god. knowing next to nothing concerning church history, you may have never been aware of the difference until now but these do not mean the same thing. the funny thing here is that you realize that the muslim deity formulated his condemnation incorrectly and so you have to change what he actually said.

do i believe that god is christ? no i don't. such a formulation was condemned by trinitarians hundreds of years before the muslim deity agreed with such a condemnation. now, can we stick to discussing what the muslim deity actually said instead of what naidamar is making him say?

 

[Woodrow]

Just my opinion here. It seems we have some misunderstandings/misconceptions going on.

Some members seem to be under the impression that the Quran is attempting to describe and condemn only Christianity, specifically the "Official" Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

To compound this, throughout the centuries there have been various groups who professed to be Christian but who's views were heretical to Christianity, Instead of looking at the condemnations as applicable to all people who call themselves Christians one may be better off in looking a bit more simple, look for what specific acts and beliefs are condemned. Look at the acts that are condemned and not worry about if they are Christian Doctrine or the doctrine of other faiths.

The worship of Mary

The worship of Jesus(as)

The concept of a Multiple god.

The list can be made longer, but I think that is sufficient to point out what I am trying to say.

We are making things too complex. look at the individual acts that are being condemned and remove the idea that all of them are the beliefs of any single group. They may or may not have been general beliefs but should not be considered a blanket description of Christianity. Some could also have been practiced by people who did not refer to themselves as Christian. The purpose of the Qur'an is not to describe what Christianity is or is not. The purpose is to condemn specific practices. It is an error to assume that all these acts together are a description of Christianity although they have at various times been practiced by some people wearing the name of Christian, We Muslims err when we put them all together and call them Christian doctrine. Non-Muslims err when they do the same and see it as an invalid description of Christianity.

Some but not all things condemned in the Qur'an are Christian beliefs, but all put together are not a representation of Christianity.

To further simplify things and to attempt to answer the original Question: "How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?" We need to look at the most simple view and that being. "Christians are people of the Book who erred when they took on the worshiping of Jesus(as)."

 

[Fivesolas]

Did you not read a single post by muslims in this thread?

Please show me one single Qur'an ayat that condemn trinity.

I get that you christians LOVE to twist the meaning of scriptural verses, but please, not everyone is as blind you are.

naidamar,

Do you really think this kind of rhetoric is pleasing to God? Of all that is presented as Islam in a positive light, your type of speaking is not befitting a Muslim.

You asked that I show you a Quranic verse that condemns the doctrine of the Trinity. Since I am the author of this thread, I would encourage you to go back and read the OP. I have asked Muslims to clarify their own sacred text as to how it represents Christian doctrine, be it the Trinity, the Sonship of Jesus, et. So far, it is evident from the Muslims on this board that there isn't a uniform belief or agreement on what the Qur'an is actualy teaching or saying.

In fact, my reading of the Qur'an has given me the impression that it is not condemning the doctrine of the Trinity at all. Rather, it is condemning Tritheism. This, as we know, is something the followers of Jesus have not taught. If the Qur'an is the word of God, I am not sure why God would be interested in condeming beliefs generally not held by Christians. Our conclusion is that Mohammed simply had a misunderstanding of Christianity based on his experience of it. Since he could not read, I cannot suppose that he actually read either the Old or New Testaments (which he would have had access to at St. Catherine's Monestary).

To the Muslims, I would exhort, based on the replies here, that what true Christianity is must be derived from the Scriptures. The local Muslim community in my area was interviewed by our local news expressing their relief and abhorance to Osama Bin Laden, stating that he did not represent Islam at all. Al Queda and Osama, according to the local Muslims here, was/is an embarrasment to Islam.

We both hold that the texts we hold as Scripture and the founder or author of our faith is what defines our beliefs. For the Muslim, this is the Qur'an and Mohammed. For the Christians, this is the Bible and Jesus. The Bible alone is the plumbline and standard by which all which is called Christianity must be judged. To the Word of God we stand or fall.

Lastly, Woodrow has said that the Qur'an meaning with regard to Jesus being the only begotton Son of God is meant to condemn the worship of Jesus as God. It is claimed that it is the Christians who went too far in their devotion to Christ and that Jesus would condemn the worship of Himself as much as any Muslim today.

This belief can only be maintained by supposing that this excess was present among the disciples within 30 years of His death and resurrection. For the Muslim, to suppose that Jesus is who the Bible depicts Him to be cannot be accepted because it contradicts the Qur'an. There are many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible. What this thread was about is trying to understand, from Muslims, what they believe the Qur'an is teaching with regard to Christian belief. Most of those you are interacting with here are not those who hold to a higher authority than the Word of God. Therefore, all the talk you see with regard to the varied beliefs of Christians, or those who called themselves Christians, is simply a matter of history to us. They do not define Christianity. The Bible does.

Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet. Yet Jesus prophesied of His death and resurrection. O Muslim, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have Jesus as a great prophet, yet giving a false prophecy of His own death and resurrection. The Bible teaches that the Father has appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead. Yet, you believe that you will be judged by Allah. What is the truth here? These things are contradictory. All that is left for the Muslim to do then is to attempt to discredit the New Testament claiming it has been corrupted. And I have shown before that the Qur'an knows of no such corruption of either the Old or New Testaments.

Naidamar, it is precisely for NOT misunderstanding or twisting what the Qur'an is teaching that I started this thread. So, I maintain: That the Qur'an is either not condemning true Christianity, or else it is betraying itself as greatly misunderstanding it and has knowledge of only a skewed idea of Christianity. Since Muslims regard the Qur'an as the Word of God, I understand that this latter view is rejected because it concludes that Muhammed did not hear from Allah. Because of this, it makes sense that Muslims seek to reason from the former, suggesting that the Qur'an is condemning something else, and not condemning biblical Christianity at all.

But this is also a problem isn't it? Because the Bible does reveal the Trinity of God. The Bible does reveal the Divine nature of Jesus. The Bible does reveal that Jesus was crucified, buried, and risen from the dead. The Bible does reveal that there is salvation in none other but the Lord Jesus and forgiveness of sins only through His blood.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza. the problem with this discussion is that you are unwilling to actually learn the truth about the title, theotokos for in so doing you would realize that you have no point. your whole argument centers on the fact that mary must be divine because she birthed god. you then try to prove your claim by citing quote after quote of church fathers calling mary the mother of god. this does not prove your point at all. in this discussion we are trying to find out out what mother of god means and simply showing that mary is considered the mother of god does not make your case. for instance, if i wanted to know the definition of a word, it wouldn't do to simply state the word over and over again but rather we would need to define it. i have repeatedly asked you to show us where the christian creeds state that mother of god means that mary is divine and you have been unable to show us any proof of this. i have shown you repeatedly where the christian creeds explain that mother of god simply means that mary is human while christ is god. once again:

Greeting Sol

It is clear that our definitions of shirk are very different indeed. In Islam shirk is that of ascribing partners to God and venerating and worshiping those other than God himself who is the only one worthy of worship. He has no equals and a normal human CANNOT possibly be ascribed to him for he is God he has NO mother and is not in need of one.

If Jesus has a mother then who is the mother of the father and the Holy spirit? If one of the trinity had a mother then the other 2 in the trinity must surely have a mother to.

Even the title itself "Mother of God" is ascribing partners to God and giving a human godly status. There is no way around it Sol. Protestants like yourself did try and downplay the veneration and the raising of the status of Mary like the Catholics but there is still much to do in order for Mary NOT to be connected to God in the first place.

Can you give me one place in the Bible where Mary is called the "mother of God"? Can you give me one place in the Bible where Theotokas is mentioned? Why is it that the Theotokas and the trinity were both created and formulated hundreds of years after Jesus but are not mentiion ANYWHERE in the Bible nor are they taught by Jesus or ANY prophet?

Sol the fundamentals of Islam are backed up by the Qur'an and Sunnah but why is it that the fundamentals of Christianity ie the trinity and the theotokos is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible nor is it taught by Jesus?

Did the Christian deity and Jesus forget to mention such a fundamental concept as the trinity? Would they leave their people confused? Did Jesus forget to mention the Theotokos seeing as he was bore by his mother?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is not the author of confusion ...”

So why would the most fundamental concepts in Christianity be shrouded in confusion and mystery and not actually be taught by Jesus, any prophet or the Bible?

notice that it speaks of christ's humanity and not divinity. she did not birth the divine nature but rather only his humanity. as such, she herself is not divine but is only called the mother of god because christ is god, and she is the human mother whom he saw fit to enter the world through. how could christians consider mary to be divine when they believe that she is created by jesus himself? look at these quotations again:

Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.

Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not mary. now, instead of simply showing us passages in which church fathers call mary the mother of god, can you actually give us citations from christian creeds in which the title theotokos is explained as mary being divine? simply having individuals call her mother of god is not enough seeing as we want to know what the title means.

Which denomination would i have to refer to Sol as your understanding of Mary as a Protestant is different to a Catholics understanding. According to Catholics you are a fundamentalist reformer and Protestants like yourself have tried to downplay Marys divinity and quite rightly so but the Catholics are still trying to hold onto Marys divinity with dear life and until this day they openly venerate and worship Mary as "The mother of God".

"As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I was devoted to Mary. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by sincere people. I prayed the rosary, including rosary novenas. I wore a Brown Scapular and a Miraculous Medal. (You can read about these things in the Glossary, which is Appendix C.) I visited shrines that honor Mary. I had beautiful statues of Mary. I attended special services where we prayed to Mary and recited a litany of titles honoring her."


Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200712140...ryWorship.html

Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm



"It was at Ephesus, the city of the goddess, that the earliest proof is found of an established cult of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and in the council held at Ephesus in A.D. 431 this cult was definitely established as a feature of the orthodox ritual." (James Hastings - Encyclopedia Of Religion & Ethics Part 18 - Kessinger Publishing, 2003 - Page 908).



This sect is called "Mariamites" who believed that Mary is part of the trinity.


"Mariamites. Mariamites (4 syl.). Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. Source: Brewers." (Trinities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases - Inc Icon Group International 2008 - Page 119).


A non-Muslim explains further:

"Among the Arabs, it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and Nazaraens1, and also that of Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the later introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sects had it's name.2 This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were named Mariamites.3 Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran4 as idolatrous, and have a handle to Mohammed to attack the Trinity itself."



1. Epiphan de Haeresi. 1, 1; Haer 40.

2. Idem ibid. 1. 3; Haeres. 75, 79

3. Elmacin Eutych

4. Chap. 5

(George Sale - Koran - Lulu.com 2007 - Page 27).


Also, please refer to: (Tienne Ursin Bouzique - The History of Christianity - General Books LLC, 2009 - Page 29 - Source) and (William Cooke Taylor - Readings In Biography: A Selection Of The Lives Of Eminent Men Of All Nations - J.W. Parker, 1834 - Page 192 - Source).


Here we will analyse the sayings of the early church fathers in more detail:



Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).


Jerome


"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


A human women bearing God himself? NO normal human can bear the creator of the universe GOD and just be seen as a normal human.


Gregory the Wonderworker


"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

Gregory refers to Mary as the "Holy mother of God". If this is not referring to her divinity then what is?


Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Here we can see that Methodius and Gregory both referring to Mary as "The HOLY Mother of God" and Methodius is even supplicating to MARY like she is God herself for Who would supplicate to a human if that human is not seen as divine? She is seen as so divine that she is worthy of supplication as is God and Jesus.


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Here we can clearly see that Cyril is giving mary divine status like the three entities of the trinity and the arc angel Gabriel. The father bearing witness from heaven to his son. The holy spirit bearing witness coming down in the form of a dove. The arch angel Gabriel bearing witness and the VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD bearing witness. She is bearing witness just like the other divine beings!


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Ambrose of Milan saying that What is greater than the MOTHER OF GOD? Such a powerful word so much so that she is referred to as GREAT and not just great but WHAT CAN BE GREATER THAN HER THE MOTHER OF GOD?

Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

This statement by Theodore clearly states that Mary is NOT just the mother of the humanity of God but the mother of the divinity of GOD himself!

Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

Cyril is clearly stating here that if Jesus is God then how can Mary his mother not be the mother of God himself? Again this does not just refer to Mary being being the mother of his humanity but the mother of his divine being as well.


....This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

Need i say more?


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).

John Cassian is again confirming that if Jesis is God then Mary is NOT just the mother of his humanity but the mother of his divinity aswell so she is the mother of the divine God and not just the humanity of God. Again this further refutes your false arguments.


Council of Ephesus


we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very
conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).


Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995) under the heading of Mary:


Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son.

Clearly here we can see that she is seen as responsible for the redemption of mankind. What "normal" human be given such a high status to be able to be responsibile not only for BEARING the divnity of God but also being partly responsible for the redemption of mankind itself!


Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

She is being called HIS FAITHFUL SPOUSE. Connecting her to the holy spirit. NOTHING short of divine!


The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Here again we see her being connected and linked to the 3 divine persons in the trinity.

She is also being called THE DAUGHTER OF GOD AND THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! What normal human could ever be given such a high divine status as she is being given by the early church fathers and the Christian creed?


Here Pope John Paul the second says:

Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

The early church fathers and the Christian creed is clear on this matter that Mary is NOTHING short of being the mother of not only the humanity of God but of the divine nature of God himself so she is the mother of God. She is clearly being connected to the trinity in a divine way and she has been described as the spouse of the holy spirit as well as the daughter of God.

The evidence is over whelming Sol and this you cannot deny now after seeing the proof with your very eyes. All can read the above and conclude that Mary is seen as NOTHING short of divine!

When the issue is of Worshipping, Venerating, Deifying and Idolizing, it is Mary - the "Mother of God" and not the Holy Ghost has that kind of rank and status. Clearly as can be seen from above the historical figures of Jesus and Mary are venerated as Deities. The Holy Ghost is not venerated as a Deity.

During his ministry, Jesus Christ had taught in very explicit language to worship the “Father in Heaven” (see Matthew 6:5-13). Jesus NEVER ever taught his followers to make images of him or his mother and then venerate either of them.

The Bible NEVER mentions nor talks about Mary as being "the Mother of God" nor does it mention the word trinity or Theotokas nor does it teach the trinity or Theotokas and nor did any Prophet or Jesus ever teach the trinity or Theotokas which were created hundreds of years after Jesus.

How can the most fundamental concepts of Christianity be left out of the Bible and not even mentioned nor taught by Jesus or the Christian deity in the Bible?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is not the author of confusion ...”

This verse from the Bible further contradicts the fact that the two most fundamental concepts of Christianity could have been shrouded in so much confusion and mystery that until this day there is NO mention of it in the Bible or from the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Tyrion]

Just my opinion here. It seems we have some misunderstandings/misconceptions going on.

Some members seem to be under the impression that the Quran is attempting to describe and condemn only Christianity, specifically the "Official" Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

To compound this, throughout the centuries there have been various groups who professed to be Christian but who's views were heretical to Christianity, Instead of looking at the condemnations as applicable to all people who call themselves Christians one may be better off in looking a bit more simple, look for what specific acts and beliefs are condemned. Look at the acts that are condemned and not worry about if they are Christian Doctrine or the doctrine of other faiths.

The worship of Mary

The worship of Jesus(as)

The concept of a Multiple god.

The list can be made longer, but I think that is sufficient to point out what I am trying to say.

We are making things too complex. look at the individual acts that are being condemned and remove the idea that all of them are the beliefs of any single group. They may or may not have been general beliefs but should not be considered a blanket description of Christianity. Some could also have been practiced by people who did not refer to themselves as Christian. The purpose of the Qur'an is not to describe what Christianity is or is not. The purpose is to condemn specific practices. It is an error to assume that all these acts together are a description of Christianity although they have at various times been practiced by some people wearing the name of Christian, We Muslims err when we put them all together and call them Christian doctrine. Non-Muslims err when they do the same and see it as an invalid description of Christianity.

Some but not all things condemned in the Qur'an are Christian beliefs, but all put together are not a representation of Christianity.

To further simplify things and to attempt to answer the original Question: "How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?" We need to look at the most simple view and that being. "Christians are people of the Book who erred when they took on the worshiping of Jesus(as)."

I feel like Woodrow has addressed the original question, and I really don't think anyone else can give a better answer than this.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

so having seen that you can't actually deal with my points, you know bring up the "original language" excuse, well let me tell you that this simply won't work. if it were the case that the original language somehow exonerated the muslim deity then you would have countless muslims posting this vindication of the muslim god within this thread. the fact that there is none actually only strengthens my point. the defense of the original language is actually a ruse and you only fall back on it once you have no other way of defending your point. but let me ask you, if in fact this is an adequate point, do you understand greek or latin? if not, then on what basis do you feel comfortable to pontificate on the matter of the title, theotokos? if your argument is that seeing as i do not possess a mastery of the original language of the qur'an, then i am unable to speak concerning it then the same would apply to you with regards to the bible, and the works of the church fathers. yet once again you show your inconsistency by not practising what you preach. so no, the above is not a defense at all and is only a means of trying to save face.

It is clear that it is you are trying to decievingly find ways of misinterpreting verses of the Qur'an and implying they mean that which they do not.

Your gross errors in trying to intepretate verses referring to the trinity and Mary have been refuted time and time again yet you keep repeating the same mistakes that you have repeated throughout this thread.

It has already been established that the verses referring to the trinity do NOT stipulate what order God is in the 3 nor does it stipulate what the trinity consists of but condems it on a theological level yet you keep repeating the same gross errors in implying that the verses can only be referring to Mary as part of the trinity when the verses clearly do not imply anything of the sort.

The two verses referring to the trinity DO NOT imply Mary to be part of the trinity as both are SEPERATE condemnations. One of the trinity itself and the absurdity of a 3 in one triune godhead and the other the absurdity of raising the status of Mary to that of God in referring to her as the mother of God as she is seen as today.

Clearly they are two seperate condemnations and if we look at commentators of the Qur'an for the past 1500 years then they also mention the same fact that the three refers to the father, son and holy spirit. Surely you know nothing compared to the commentators of the Qur'an for the past 1500 years so how can you continuously reject what they say and instead try to misinterpret already translated verses of the Qur'an and try to use "english grammer" to try and prove your point which in itself exposed your grammatical errors . It is IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone to interpret and make commentaries on already translated verses of the Qur'an.

The language of the Qur'an is SO deep and meaningful that it can ONLY be translated by having superiour knolwedge of the language aswell as vast knowledge of Islam and the Qur'an. So the ONLY way for you to prove your point is to use the original language. of the Qur'an. That is not an excuse but that is a fact and the ONLY way you can prove your point

The Qur'an is not translated, interpreted and commented on like the Bible is where translated verses are translated again and again and then commented on until you have lost the true meaning of the verse and therefore have a flawed understanding of the verses. That is why the Bible has been proven to be so erronious in its translations but the Qur'an is still in its original form from revelation until now. The verses of the Qur'an can ONLY be interpreted and commented on by translating the original language. You will NEVER see ANY commentator of the Qur'an commenting on and intepreting verses of the Qur'an that have already been translated into another language but they translate the verses of the Qur'an using its original language.

The language of the Qur'an has such deep meanings that one CANNOT interpret or make commentaries on verses which have already been translated into other languages.

Therefore i have now corrected your misconception and misunderstandings regarding this matter and if you persist in denying this fact then it is clear your reasons for being on this forum is not to clarify your knowledge and misconceptions regading the Qur'an and Islam but to propogate your false beliefs regarding it.

 

[Chavundur]

As far as I understood, Christians produced such a complex theory without taking any help from divine books, especially from old testament, They can not give up supporting or believing so easily.

 

[gmcbroom]

Five Solas,

I think its safe to say from what I've read from our muslim friends here that they condemn the Trinity as to them it ascribes partners to God which is of course forbidden in Islam as it is also forbidden in Christianity and Judaism. Where we say God is Triune; 3 persons, one essence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They simply see three persons and think we mean Father, Mary, Son which of course is forbidden. They can't change that belief because it written in the Koran so to muslims its true, and no amount of lecturing and bible thumping will ever change that.

That is why Christianity and Islam are 2 totally different faiths. All we can do is agree to disagree concerning our views of God, for both hold doctrines that are fundamentally different. Christianity sees itself as an Abrahamic religion, and Islam sees itself as an Abrahamic religion. Catholism acknowledges that Islam says its an Abrahamic religion.

Peace be with you

 

[Tyrion]

Five Solas,

I think its safe to say from what I've read from our muslim friends here that they condemn the Trinity as to them it ascribes partners to God which is of course forbidden in Islam as it is also forbidden in Christianity and Judaism. Where we say God is Triune; 3 persons, one essence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They simply see three persons and think we mean Father, Mary, Son which of course is forbidden. They can't change that belief because it written in the Koran so to muslims its true, and no amount of lecturing and bible thumping will ever change that.

That is why Christianity and Islam are 2 totally different faiths. All we can do is agree to disagree concerning our views of God, for both hold doctrines that are fundamentally different. Christianity sees itself as an Abrahamic religion, and Islam sees itself as an Abrahamic religion. Catholism acknowledges that Islam says its an Abrahamic religion.

Peace be with you

Have you not read the last few posts? Woodrows in particular might help you out... And like I said before, I think people need to stop talking about a "Christianity", as if a single, unified religion by that name exists...

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

What is clear to all is that the Qur'an condems the trinity at a theological level without stipulating what order or what constitutes the trinity and what is also clear is that the Quran does NOT imply Mary to be part of the trinity but also condems those who raise her status to divinity as a SEPERATE condemnation.

There is NO doubt that the most fudamental beliefs of Christianty that of the Theotakas and the trinity ate mentioned KNOWHERE in the Bible nor wete they ever taught by Jesus and are creations of theologans hundreds of years after Jesus and the Quran is perfect in the wsy it condems such polytheistic and blasphemous beliefs.

So i ask Christians to please think about this and contemplate why such fundamental beliefs are not mentioned or taught ANYWHERE by Jesus or the bible and how then can such false beleifs be attributed to Jesus and the Bible.