Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Hiroshi]

That is simply a myth

Thank you for this. I need to research it.

If we assume that the Quran is the word of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then ,he,while getting the infancy story, neccesarily had access to at least the gospel of luke ,if so that raises just one of the problems with the idea that the Quran validates the bible as fully inspired......

If Muhammad thought the gospels to be 100% inspired why he negates some of the details of the narratives and provides other details?!!
If he read about Zachariah he must have read about the issue of Bethelehm..Egypt etc as well,isn't it ?....

There were other (apocryphal) writings that contain narratives which agree very well with the Quranic stories of the infancy of Jesus, depicting him as speaking while a baby and turning lumps of clay into birds (although these stories contradict the gospels). In any case it seems more likely that any such narratives would have been carried by word of mouth rather than by any actual written document being made available.

 

[Al-manar]

There were other (apocryphal) writings that contain narratives which agree very well with the Quranic stories of the infancy of Jesus, depicting him as speaking while a baby and turning lumps of clay into birds (although these stories contradict the gospels).

and contradict the Quran as well... eg; The infancy gospel mention of Joseph ....

Thanks for the link Al-manar but I still can't see which posts you refer to. Could you tell
me what number posts these are?

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-52.html#post1406401

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-52.html#post1410348

..........................


we have three passages remained in the infacy narratives according to the gospels .........

the writer this time is not going to predictions (as the case of Micah5 and Isaiah7).....but old testament passages that the writer lifted them out of context and applied them to situations that the original writers were not referring to !........
To get a double trouble ,there is a complete absence of any reference to such events by aany secular historian contemporary to the times ......
if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?on the other hand , the gospel writers were obviously biased in their zealous attempts to sell Jesus as the Messiah

...
The passages as quouted by Matthew:

Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Matthew 2 :14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

the original context of the passage:

Hosea 11: 1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?


........
Matthew 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?

The original context of the passage :

check it here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31&version=NIV


If one reads this statement in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two preceding chapters, he will see that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Time and time again, Jeremiah promised that the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. Finally, in the verse quoted by Matthew, he said, "Thus says Yahweh: `A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more'" (31:15). That Jeremiah intended this statement to apply to the dispersion contemporary to his times is evident from the verses immediately following, where he promised a return of those who had been scattered: "Thus says Yahweh: `Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh, And they [Rachel's children] shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope in your future, says Yahweh, that your children shall come back to their own border" (vv:16-17). (Farrell Till)



.......

Now with the third passage :


Matthew 2:19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.


2 questions here:

1- where does the old testament predict the messiah to be a Nazarene?

if we find some kind of answer ,then we need to ask again

2- lots were called Nazarens all over history , is there a away to distinguish the Messiah from all others who were called Nazarens as him? and did Jesus qualified himself for that by his deeds ?

 

[Al-manar]

what is the christian answer to the claim of old testament reference ,calling the Messiah as Nazarene?

- Various speculations exist concerning a possible answer to this question. One suggestion is that the author was referring to the description of the Messiah as a (netser), an offshoot, used in Isaiah 11:1, a metaphorical allusion to a new, flourishing scion from King David's lineage. This idea is problematic since, even though the metaphor is utilized by Isaiah, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it indicated or implied that (mashi'ah) will actually bear the name (netser). Moreover, the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote "… which was spoken by the prophets …", i.e., he refers to a plurality and not to a single prophet who may have made such a prophetic statement. Since there exists no other messianic application of the Hebrew term (netser) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to force the connection with Isaiah 11:1 fails.

Another suggestion is that the author was using a "play on words" with the Hebrew root verb (natsar), [to] guard, [to] watch [over]. However, this idea, too, cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew name for Nazareth is (natsrat) or (natseret), which may have a possible connection with the verb (natsar), primarily due to the geography of the town, as it is situated on an elevated plateau. However, one who hails from Nazareth is called (notsri; pronounced noh-tsree), a term that has become the Hebrew word for a Christian. However, the common noun derived from the verb (natsar) is (notser), a guard, a watchman, and such a term is never used in the Hebrew Bible in connection with (mashi'ah).

Still another proposed idea is that the author is referring to Jesus as being a Nazirite, an English term that comes from the Hebrew noun (nazir), one who is consecrated through a vow (e.g., Num 6:2, Jdgs 13:5). However, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it stated, alluded, or implied that (mashi'ah) will ever take the vow of a (nazir)[4]. Moreover, there is no linguistic relationship between the Hebrew word (nazir), Nazirite, which derives from the root verb (nazar), and the Hebrew word (notsri), Nazarene, which derives from the root verb (natsar).

The strongest evidence, the "smoking gun", may be found within the verse Matthew 2:23 itself, since it provides the reason for Jesus being called a Nazarene [NazwraioV (Nazoraios), of/from Nazareth in Greek]. Jesus is called a Nazarene because he resided in the town of Nazareth [Nazareq (Nazareth; in Greek)]. This has no relevance to the Hebrew words (netser), (natsar), or (nazir) and, therefore, any speculations about what the author of the Gospel of Matthew had in mind here, in terms of references to Hebrew words, are moot.
Consequently, whether or not the author of the Gospel of Matthew did this with intent, the outcome remains the same, Matthew 2:23 points to a nonexistent prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. by prof.Yori-yusef

 

[Al-manar]

Dear visitors to the thread

blessed Ramadan is at the door , and we gonna have the usual pause of Ramadan in that section ....

blessed Ramadan for you all ,may Allah strengthen you to prayer and protect you from the known devilish distractions during the month ....

......

Inshallah we will resume the discussion ...... the following items are ready to be posted after the month
as we long time posting biblical issue (the messiah) ,I think we should pause a while and go to a Quranic issues ..... I will visit the item, (Trinity in the Holy Quran ) with a thoroughly linguestic ,contextual analysis ....

then back again to the term messiah ,that will be concluded .......and from that conclusion ,we will visit the trinity again ,giving the proper answer to the question ,Is Jesus God?

If there is something else remained regarding the trinity, would be (Is trinity biblical)? but that issue as I said before should be not useful to a muslim .........Just why should a muslim care whether the trinity biblical or not?!

If we visit the issue ,it will be just out of curiosity .....


peace and bless

 

[Al-manar]

trinity in the Holy Quran ​

your ultimate refernce​

peace .

I planned to post such study very early in the thread when I started posting the item (trinity), but I postponed it due to the lack of some sources weren't available yet on my PC...... when It became available ,that motivated me to post.....

I intend the following study ,to cover the matter of (trinity in the Holy Quran) in depth ..... providing comparative linguestic,contextual analysis , quoting the Quranic commentaries and the objective work of non-muslims ,talks about the matter... also refute the dogmatic ,radical non-muslims with all their points of criticism ......

dear readers to the thread , though I know most (if not all) of you did read something on the topic online ... yet I'm sure ,inshaAllah you are going to read new lines in that study .......

Though I think the study cover everything on the issue....I will appreaciate lots any non-muslim comment on my posts... adding whatever what they think to be missed,or countring my arguments.......

Chapter 1 :Allah and the spirit ​

A Muslim Christian dialogue ​

Christian: How do you think, the Quran views the christian believe in the trinity?

Muslim: the belief of the trinity is just one chapter of the book of shirk …The overwhelmingly powerful assertion in the Quran that God is absolutely one rules out any notion that another being could share his sovereignty or nature …..
The Quran’s view the Christian doctrine of the Trinity involves an association of creature with God the creator, an infidelity that participates in the pagan infidelity of polytheism....

Some items need to be understood, in order to evade confusion
...

(1) Shrik​

What is Shirk ? it could be described in several ways:

(1) “Shirk-ul-Ilm is to ascribe Knowledge to others than God.”
(2) “Shirk-ut-Tassaruf is to ascribe power-to-act-independently, to anyone else than to God.”
(3) “Shirk-ul-Ebada is to ascribe a partner to God who can be worshipped, or worshipping the created instead of the Creator.”
(4) “Shirk-ul-‘Adat is to perform ceremonies or follow superstitions.” Among the above mentioned, is that Muslims believe that when Christians worship Christ or adore Mary, this is Shirk-ul-Abada; and when Christians say Christ intercedes by his power or merit, it is Shirk-ut-Tassaruf.

shirk is strongly condmned in numerous Quranic verses, such un-forgiven act of blasphemy:

Holy Quran 4:48 God does not forgive anyone for associating something with Him, while He does forgive whomever He wishes to for anything besides that. Anyone who gives God associates has invented such an awful offence!

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

Allah
​

Some non-Arab readers (Christians and Muslims alike) confused the term God (as understood by Christians) and the term Allah (God) (as understood by Muslims)


What is God according to Christianity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons Father, Son,and Holy Spirit distinctly coexisting in unity as co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial , or of one being According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, and omniscient." (wiki)



What is God, according to Islam?

He is the entity that sent Jesus and appointed for him a mission...Christians would like to call such being by (the father) .... Well, though I think he is a father of no one... I won't prohibit you from calling him what you wish, but pay attention....Whenever I mention the word (Allah ) you should automatically understand that when we refer to the entity you call (the father) we believe in him as the full un-manifested deity. He doesn’t mean for us one of the three aspects of the deity. Allah (what Christians call the father) is not what you think the incomplete definition of the deity but he is the full un-personified deity.....
For you the (Allah) the father is one of the three aspects of the deity for me he is the full deity with no three aspects…
Though we disagree regarding the limit of the father with regard to the deity, we agree in two points ...that (1) such entity exists (2) and divine as well...


Christian: Do you think that your definition is right and mine is wrong?

Muslim: From objective point of view, mine could be right or could be wrong ...yours could be right or could be wrong ... we even both could be wrong and that Allah (father) doesn't exist at all....It is a matter of faith........
trinity is a belief, according to you, based on a scripture that you belief to be fully the word of God, and must be telling the truth in any Metaphysical concept therein.
On the other hand, the Quranic criticism on the trinity is again a belief for me based on a scripture that I belief to be fully the word of God and must tells the truth in any metaphysical concept therein. What we applied to the father we can apply on the other members of the trinity as well....
Jesus could be a physical manifestation of the deity, or a prophet, or a lunatic was born through illegal intercourse etc.....The validity of any of the previous rests on the validity of the scripture (whether Christian, Jewish Islamic).....

The Holy Spirit​

According to Christians , the term refers to the third person of the trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is Almighty God. The Holy Spirit is seen by mainstream Christians as one Person of the Triune God, who revealed His Holy Name YHWH to his people Israel, sent His Eternally Begotten Son Jesus to save them, and sent the Holy Spirit to Sanctify and give Life to his Church. He is the Creator Spirit, present before the creation of the universe and through his power everything was made in Jesus Christ..

According to Islam (Quran and Sunnah) ,The Holy Spirit is identified with The Angel Gabriel ....

Christian: What evidence is given to suggest that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel? Also the Qur'an mentions the Holy Spirit, but also refers to the Spirit of Allah or "My [Allah] Spirit (see S. 12:87, 38:72). What is the difference, if any, between the Holy Spirit and the Qur'an reference to the Spirit of Allah, or when Allah is referencing His Spirit?


Muslim:

We need to check all the varied usage of the word (Ruh) with relation to Allah in the Quran......
In pre- Islamic poetry the Arabic word (Ruh) refers to a blowing or breathing, In the Quran, The word appears twenty-one times and has several different usages in the Qur'an with a wide range of meanings.
The following meanings are those that accepted by the vast majority of Quranic commentaries:

1- spirit as Mercy:​

Holy Quran 12:87 "O my sons! go ye and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah's Mercy (Rauh): truly no one despairs of Allah's Soothing Mercy, except those who have no faith."

Such meaning for the (the spirit) is un-questioned by the Quran commentators, as any other meaning would be nonsensical to the context….

2- spirit as Revelation:​

Holy Quran 42:52 We have thus revealed a Spirit to you [Prophet] by our command: you knew neither the Scripture nor the faith, but We made it a light, guiding with it whoever We will of Our servants. You are indeed guiding to the straight path.

Here spirit is an inspiration (wahy), brought to life in those whose hearts are dead through ignorance.

Christian: It seems that the spirit in the verse is an entity reveals the revelation….

Muslim: why not the revelation itself?

Christian: Holy Quran 16:2 Also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants: "That you shall warn that there is no god but I, so be aware of me."

The Quran is simply emphasizing the point that it is Allah that commands the Spirit to come down and reveal the inspiration.

Muslim: Can’t we say that he sends, by his command, the angels with the revelation upon whom He wishes of His servants? If not, why not?

Even if we suggest that the (spirit) mentioned after (commands) not to mean (a revelation), still we can argue that it means (Gabriel) ….. And the meaning would be:
He sends down the Angels with Gabriel by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants etc…. if not, why not?

3- The Spirit as Gabriel
:​

Gabriel could be called the spirit, the trustworthy spirit, the holy spirit

Holy Quran 16:102 SAY: ´The Holy Spirit has brought it down as Truth from your Lord to brace those who believe and as guidance and good news for Muslims."

Holy Quran2:97
Say: "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel,then know that Hehas brought it down for your heart with God’s permission, to confirm what came before it and as guidance and good news for believers.


قل نزله روح القدس من ربك بالحق ليثبت الذين آمنوا وهدى وبشرى للمسلمين

قل من كان عدوا لجبريل فإنه نزله على قلبك بإذن الله مصدقا لما بين يديه وهدى وبشرى للمؤمنين


Quran 26:193
The Faithful Spirit has brought it down into your heart, so that you may be a Warner.

70:4
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:
78:38 on the day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right.
97:4
The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.

19:17
So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man.

Christian:
It is stated that Allah used more than one messenger to bring down the Quran:

Muslim: where?

Christian:

Holy Quran 77:5 By those who bring down the Reminder.

According to the Quran, the Reminder refers to the revelation given to the prophets and to Muhammad.

Holy Quran 16:2 Also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants

Muslim:

First:
Though the revelation given to Mohamed was called (reminder), Holy Quran 15:6 And they said: "O you upon whom the Reminder has been sent down, you are crazy."
not every reminder is synonymous with the reminder revealed to Mohamed (pbuh)…
The folk of Noah had their own reminder Holy Quran 7:63 Are you surprised that a Reminder should come to you from your Lord through one of your own men, so He may warn you and you will do your duty, and in order that you may receive mercy?"

The folk of Aad had their own reminder as well Holy Quran7:69 Are you surprised that a Reminder from your Lord should come to you through one of your own men, so that He may warn you?

The torah was a reminder too... Holy Quran 21:105 We have written in the Psalms following the Reminder; "My honourable servants shall inherit the earth."

Second: Holy Quran 16:2 also 40:15 He sends down the Angels with the Spirit (Ruh) by His command upon whom He wishes of His servants

1- The angels are sent down to selected servants, not servant ……..Nothing would force the meaning of the verse that a group of angels are sent to each single servant

2- Even if the meaning that a group of angels are sent to each single servant, we don’t have any clue that Mohamed peace be upon him had it this way …. Both the Quranic verses and the authentic sunnah affirmed that it was a specific Angel who revealed the Quran ……..
With the hundred of hadiths mention the revelation of the Quran, there is not one instance that mention any other entity whether An Angel or whatever, that taught Mohamed peace be upon him the revelation the only angel whose name is mentioned with regards to the revelation of the Qur’an is Gabriel…

Clearly the argument that Allah used more than one messenger to bring down the Quran, is an argument from silence ….
4- More important, let’s assume that several Angels revealed the Quran. What does that prove?
That will get us back to verse 16:102 SAY: ´The Holy Spirit has brought it down as Truth from your Lord to brace those who believe and as guidance and good news for Muslims."

You don’t like the title holy spirit to be applied to Gabriel ,well then, choose any other candidate for the title ,who has to be An Angel from the group of Angels that supposedly revealed the Quran to Mohamed …..
If you still assume that the holy spirit is neither Gabriel nor any other Angel then...We would like you to quote the occasions where the prophet was visited by any other entity than Gabriel to teach him the Quran ……

Your theory that the holy spirit (whom you imagine to be different from Gabriel) brought down some of the Quran is mere a conjecture till you tell us when and where such holy spirit, that is distinct from Gabriel, taught Mohamed even a verse from the Quran......
Till you do so,( I doubt you’ll able to) ,Verse 2:97 ,that says clearly ,that it is Gabriel who brought the Quran down for Mohamed’s heart ,Will remain a reference that Gabriel brought down all of the Qur'an ….till a qualifier , modifier be provided to render the meaning as Gabriel brought some of the Quran down for Mohamed’s heart...


By the way, questioning the Islamic belief in Gabriel as the holy spirit is just a new trend in the Christian circle ……

Let’s quote some Christian writers who disagree with you:

ruh al-qudus is the trustworthy spirit, which descends with the Qur’an (26:163), which is trusted by Allah in bringing the revelation upon Muhammad’s heart; the spirit is Gabriel, the angel of revelation. D.B. Macdonald, The development of the idea of spirit in Islam, in mw22 (1932), 25-42; T.
................................

Warren Larson, the Director of Zwemer Centre for the Study of Islam, (Nov. 22, 2004) in his class states that “Muhammad’s understanding of his revelations seems to evolve as time goes on.” Larson gives this example: “For example, in mid-Mecca, the Qur’an says he was visited by ‘spirit’ (26:193). Then, later in late-Mecca, he said it was the Holy Spirit who came to him (16:102). Finally, in Medina, he concluded that it was Gabriel, (2:97).
........................................

There are at least another sixteen places in the Qur_ān where the “spirit” (rū_) is mentioned without the qualification deriving from its association with the noun “holiness” (al-qudus), in the sense of Holy Spirit. From a consideration of these passages one acquires a fuller understanding of the Islamic conception of God’s spirit as a created agency by means of which God communicates with angels and men. In five instances the text speaks of the ‘spirit’ in conjunction with God’s “bidding” (amr), suggesting that the spirit comes at God’s bidding (cf. e.g. q 17:85) upon whomever he wills of his servant creatures to bring a warning (q.v.) to humankind (cf. e.g.q 40:15). The angels play a role in bringing down the spirit at God’s bidding (cf.q 16:2). The spirit and the angels are present together, always ready to do God’s bidding (q 70:4; 78:38), and they were there on the Night of Power (q.v.; q 97:4). A ‘spirit’ from God is parallel with “his word” (kalimatuhu)in Jesus, son of Mary (q 4:171). In the case of Muhammad, the Qur_ān says that it was “the faithful spirit” (al-rū_ al-amīn) that was bringing the revelation down onto his heart (q.v.) so that he would become one of those to bring a warning (q 26:192-4) from God to humankind. The characterization of the spirit as ‘faithful’ here highlights its creaturely status in the qur_ānic view. Finally, from this same perspective, when God sent his spirit to Mary, the Qur_ān says that it appeared to her in the form of a well formed man (q 19:17).
The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Sidney H. Griffith, S.T. (Ph.D., The Catholic University of America)
..........................................

The term Holy Spirit as found in the Quran, being always understood to refer to the Angel Gabriel see chap. ii. 253. A comprehensive commentary on the Qurán: comprising Sale's ..., Volume 2
By Elwood Morris Wherry, George Sale
....................................

And strengthened him with the holy spirit. “We must not imagine Muhammad here means the Holy Ghost in the Christian acceptation.The commentators say this spirit was the angel Gabriel, who sanctified Jesus and constantly attended on him." Sale, Jaldludain.
..........................................

Muhammad's career is guided by Gabriel, called 'the holy spirit' in 16. 104; 26. 193. Qumran studies Chaim Rabin
...........................................................

Greatest of all the angels is Gabriel (Jibrail), God's messenger, through whom Muhammad received many of his revelations. In the Quran he is called the holy spirit. Sydney Cave, D.D.
..................................

‘He is strengthened by the Holy Spirit,' for so Mohammed, in more Than one passage, calls the Angel Gabriel." 5. Bosworth Smith , Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 271, second edition.

.......................................

unfortunately for that argument ,even if the holy spirit not Gabriel ,it can't be more than a creature .... let's discuss that later on the study....

Christian: In verses 78:38 On the day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right. and 70:4 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:, and 97:4 The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.
Also in Hadith"Narrated Aisha: The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to pronounce while bowing and prostrating himself: All Glorious, all Holy, Lord of the Angels and the Spirit." (Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 0987)

Make a distinction between the angels (of which Gabriel is obviously one) with the Spirit. This supports that Gabriel is not the Spirit. Had the Spirit been Gabriel there would be no need to distinguish him from the angels.

Muslim:
In Arabic language it is not unusual to specify part of a whole group to emphasize the significance of that part.
e.g.. in 55:68 God talks about fruits, dates and pomegranate to emphasize the last two kinds of fruits.
[55:68] In them are fruits, date palms, and pomegranate. In 2:238 God talks about Salat and the middle salat to emphasize its significance of the middle salat.

and

66:4 If the two of you repent to God, then your hearts have listened. But if you band together against him, then God is his ally, and so are Gabriel and the righteous believers. Also, the Angels are his helpers.

This verse mentions the Angel Gabriel separately from the other angels, but we know that he is An Angel himslef.

the same idea in another verse

2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

This verse mentions the Angel Gabriel and theAngel Michael separately from the other angels, but we know that they are angels themselves.

Christian: How do you know that Gabriel is an angel?

1-As far as the Quran is concerned, it is the Angels(assuming more than one Angel sends the revealation) who are the agents of conveying the revelation to the prophets, and Gabriel was defined as the one who revealed the Quran, and that is a Quranic hint that he is an Angel..

2- We have numerous super Authentic Hadiths, tell us, not only who Gabriel is (An Angel) but also lots of other things about him ….

Some proofs, in brief …

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said to Gabriel, "What prevents you from visiting us more often than you visit us now?" So there was revealed:-- 'And we (angels) descend not but by the command of your Lord. To Him belongs what is before us and what is behind us...'(19.64) (Bukhari Book #60, Hadith #255)

Narrated Aisha: …………….
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him…………………. (Muslim Book #019, Hadith #4370)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:................................Whenever Gabriel came to Allah's Apostle ' he would keep quiet (and listen), and when the angel left, the Prophet would recite that revelation as Allah promised him. (Bukhari Book #60, Hadith #451)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle was the most generous of all the people, and he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night of Ramadan to teach him the Qur'an. Allah's Apostle was the most generous person, even more generous than the strong uncontrollable wind (in readiness and haste to do charitable deeds). (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 5: ) etc …. etc…. etc…

Christian: Accepting the idea that the spirit is Gabriel (who is a creature), would contradict other Quranic verses that ascribe the following divine qualities to the Spirit:

1- A Life giver:
Qur'an 15:29 Also 32:6-9 , 38:72 So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. These passages indicate that after fashioning man God gave him life by breathing his Spirit into him….. With the same linguistic structure, in verse 21:91 Mary received the breath of life (life giving spirit) and conceived Jesus: 21:91 "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and we made her and her son a sign for all peoples." We are also told that God’s Spirit appeared to Mary in the form of a man: 19:17 she chose to be secluded from them. We sent her Our spirit, who presented himself to her as a full-grown human being. These passages indicate that the Spirit is not a force but a divine personality

Muslim: Only a dogmatic and close minded who would consider every mention in the Quran, of the word spirit (Ruh) ,has to be the holy spirit, or all the instances the word spirit mentioned, has to be typically in meaning ….

First:

In its role as conveyor of revelation, the spirit is identified as Gabriel (q.v.; Jibrīl, q 2:97). In Mary’s story, the spirit is the life-creating force of, or from, God. Qurānic commentary, however, has consistently differentiated between “our spirit sent to Mary in the form of a well proportioned man” (q 19:17) and “our spirit [of ] which we breathed into Mary” (q 21:91; 66:12), identifying the former with the angel Gabriel and the latter with the life substance with which God (directly) awakened Adam to life from clay, just as it (directly) awakened Jesus to life in Mary’s womb . The classical interpreters established that Gabriel was a mean, or instrument, of God’s creative power, whence they linked his agency with God’s breathing, or blowing, of his spirit into Mary by developing the theme of Gabriel’s blowing at Mary’s garment or person . Encyclopaedia of the Quran Barbara F Stowasser Professor of Arabic & Islamic Studies CENTER FOR CONTEMPORARY ARAB STUDIES

Second: Assuming the spirit to be some other entity than Gabriel, still it has to be a created entity ……The idea of the divine to be manifested in the flesh is clearly condemned in the Quran …
The idea of a created messenger from God that took the human form goes very well with the idea of Angels, especially Gabriel, taking the human form in earthly mission ….

Third: In Islam, Calling Allah a spirit is a gross error ....
Muslims assert, “The suggestion that God is a spirit implies He is a created being, like an angel.” Undeniably, Islam says that God is not a spirit; otherwise, one would imply he is part of the created realm, like the angels. On the Contrary, the Bible says that God is Spirit (Jn 4:24; Is 31:3). Ron Rhodes,president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

“the Qur’an uses the word ruh twenty times, but each time the word is understood to refer to a created being that has a subtle body.” Similarly, “Angels and jinn have such a subtle body capable of penetrating a coarse body.” The indications are therefore that “to say that God is a spirit is understood to mean that he is a created being.” Muslim & Christian at Table by McDowell & Zaka (1999:94)

Evidently, “The Muslim’s concept of God conflicts with the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (1) the concept of the absolute unity of God precludes the possibility of the Holy Spirit being God. (2) The personality of the Holy Spirit, and indeed the possibility of knowing God in a personal way through the indwelling Holy Spirit, is incompatible with the Muslim’s concept of Allah's absolute transcendence.” “Since man is a servant (‘abd) of Allah, he does not look for a close communion with God through the Spirit of adoption. The very idea of the Spirit indwelling the believer is incompatible with Islamic ideology”. “Only the Sufis (mystics) aim at union with God, but for them this is achieved by man’s striving upward and not by the coming down of the Holy Spirit to dwell in their hearts.” THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE QUR’AN AN ASSESSMENT FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE By Judy Tao Shih-Ching


next post ,the first chapter (Allah and the spirit) will be the concluded (inshaAllah) going next to the second chapter (Jesus and Mary) .... Thank you for your patience in reading ... May Allah bless you all...

 

[Hiroshi]

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-52.html#post1406401

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-52.html#post1410348

Many of the Messianic prophecies are yet future and will be fulfilled on earth when Jesus and those who go to heaven to be with him rule over this earth in God's kingdom. The earth will then become a paradise for mankind to dwell in forever.

Even the Qur'an speaks of this where it makes reference to Psalms 37:29.

Psalms 37:29 "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."

Surah 21:105 "We wrote in the Psalms after the Torah was revealed: "The righteous among My servants shall inherit the earth.""

Surah 39:73-74 "... Enter Paradise and dwell in it forever." They will say: "Praise be to God who has made good to us His promise and given us the earth to inherit that we may dwell in Paradise wherever we please."

we have three passages remained in the infacy narratives according to the gospels .........

the writer this time is not going to predictions (as the case of Micah5 and Isaiah7).....but old testament passages that the writer lifted them out of context and applied them to situations that the original writers were not referring to !........
To get a double trouble ,there is a complete absence of any reference to such events by aany secular historian contemporary to the times ......
if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?on the other hand , the gospel writers were obviously biased in their zealous attempts to sell Jesus as the Messiah

...
The passages as quouted by Matthew:

Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Matthew 2 :14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

the original context of the passage:

Hosea 11: 1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?


........
Matthew 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”


Is that a prediction ,before we talk about fullfilment?

The original context of the passage :

check it here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31&version=NIV


If one reads this statement in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two preceding chapters, he will see that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Time and time again, Jeremiah promised that the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. Finally, in the verse quoted by Matthew, he said, "Thus says Yahweh: `A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more'" (31:15). That Jeremiah intended this statement to apply to the dispersion contemporary to his times is evident from the verses immediately following, where he promised a return of those who had been scattered: "Thus says Yahweh: `Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh, And they [Rachel's children] shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope in your future, says Yahweh, that your children shall come back to their own border" (vv:16-17). (Farrell Till)



.......

Now with the third passage :


Matthew 2:19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Old Testament prophecies are often hidden cryptically in a phrase or sentence that, in its original context, had reference to something different. For example, in Psalms 16:10 David is apparently speaking about himself but "because he was a prophet" he "spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ" (Acts 2:30-31). Many prophecies even have more than one fulfillment (e.g. Habakkuk 1:5-6; Acts 13:40-41).

Muslims themselves argue for far more obscure connections between OT passages and Muhammad as with Song of Solomon 5:16.

2 questions here:

1- where does the old testament predict the messiah to be a Nazarene?

Isaiah 11:1

2- lots were called Nazarens all over history , is there a away to distinguish the Messiah from all others who were called Nazarens as him? and did Jesus qualified himself for that by his deeds ?

Jesus fulfilled not just this one but something like 200 other prophecies concerning the Messiah. When all of the evidence is considered he is indeed distinguishable from others that could be called Nazarenes.

 

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi ,It seems you didn't read the article well ...

[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
the passage concerns a central biblical theme (messianic prophecy) and must therefore be considered important, yet it was in neither the Septuagint version nor the Jeremiah scroll found at Qumran. These omissions have grave implications for the inerrancy doctrine, because they suggest that significant editing occurred in at least one Old Testament book after completion of the original manuscript. So what exactly are we to conclude from this? After verbally inspiring Jeremiah to write his manuscript, did Yahweh decide he could improve on the original and then direct someone to reorganize the material and insert the passages that weren't available to the Septuagint translators or to the scribe who made the Qumran copy? If so, what does this say about the omniscience of Yahweh that we hear so much about? Or if the changes didn't happen under Yahweh's direction, did some scribe or committee of scribes just take it upon themselves to do the editing? Either way again, the proponents of Bible inerrancy have a serious problem on their hands. They preach a doctrine that simply cannot be squared with known facts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by The Jeremiah Dilemma
by Farrell Till [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To explain the problem posed by these variations in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, proponents of the inerrancy doctrine once attributed the deviations from the Masoretic text to poor translation, but after the discoveries in Cave Four, this "explanation" became hard, if not impossible, to defend. Work on the Septuagint version began in Alexandria around 285 B.C., and the Jeremiah manuscript found at Qumran, like the Isaiah scroll, was dated in the early second century B. C. Since the Qumran text of Jeremiah was parallel in content and organization to the Septuagint version, here was tangible evidence that at one time, for at least two centuries, a shorter, differently arranged version of the book existed. Hence, variations from the Masoretic text in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah resulted not from careless translation but from a radically different Hebrew text that the translators had before them [/FONT]

Sorry, I have only just noticed your reply here which you gave ages ago.

My copy of N. J. Dawood’s translation of the Qur’an says this in the introduction on pages 2-3:

“The Koranic revelations followed each other at brief intervals and were at first committed to memory by professional remembrancers. During Muhammad’s lifetime verses were written on palm-leaves, stones, and any material that came to hand. There collection was completed during the caliphate of ‘Umar, the second Caliph, and an authorized version was established during the caliphate of ‘Uthman, his successor (644-56). To this day this version is regarded by believers as the authoritative Word of God. But owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.

In preparing the contents of the Koran for book-form its editors followed no chronological sequence. Its chapters were arranged generally in order of length, the longest coming first and the shortest last. Attempts have been made by Noldeke, Grimme, Rodwell and Bell to arrange the chapters in chronological order, but scholars are agreed that a strictly chronological arrangement is impossible without dissecting some of the chapters into scattered verses, owing to the inclusion of revelations spoken in Medina in chapters begun several years earlier in Mecca.”


In Muhammad’s lifetime the contents of the Qur’an were in disarray and even when they were later collected together they were not compiled in any logical sequence but randomly arranged roughly according to the length of each surah. The result of this was that the surahs were arranged in almost reverse chronological order. In addition, revelations spoken in Mecca were muddled up with those spoken in Medina. Reportedly also, many of the verses were lost. And the number of variant readings is huge, at times completely changing the meaning of the verse in question.

[FONT=&quot]If all of this is acceptable to Muslims (I see no reason why it shouldn’t be), why then should there be any objection to the compilation of the contents of the book of Jeremiah?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by jewishencyclopedia [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Passage on Sabbath Not Genuine(in the book of Jeremiah).

The one non-authentic passage incorporated in group 2 is that concerning the Sabbath, xvii. 19-27. The reason why the prophet can not be credited with the authorship of this passage, though in form and content it is not unlike Jeremiah, is the high value put upon the observance of holy days, which is wholly foreign to the prophet. The author of the passage not only recommends the keeping of the Sabbath day holy as a day of rest ordained by God, but he even goes so far as to make the possibility of future salvation, and even directly the destruction of Jerusalem, depend upon the observance or non-observance of this day.[/FONT]

As far as I can see this objection is only an opinion of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I cannot see why the exhortation to follow the Law of Moses by observing the Sabbath should appear strange or “foreign” to the book of Jeremiah.

 

[Al-manar]

Christian: When Muhammad was asked concerning the Spirit he didn’t say he was Gabriel.And they ask you concerning the Ruh (the spirit). Say: "The Ruh (the spirit) is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord...

Muslim: 1-Most commentators suggest the (spirit) was asking about here ,is the (soul) that is based on clues eg; (And they ask you concerning the Ruh.) Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "This was when the Jews said to the Prophet , `Tell us about the Ruh and how the Ruh will be punished that is in the body - for the Ruh is something about which only Allah knows, and there was no revelation concerning it.' He did not answer them at all, then Jibril came to him and said: (Say:The Ruh (the spirit) is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little.'') So the Prophet told them about that, and they said, `Who told you this' He said, (Jibril brought it to me from Allah.) They said, `By Allah, no one has told you that except our enemy ﴿i.e., Jibril. Then Allah revealed (Say "Whoever is an enemy to Jibril (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's permission, confirming what came before it.)'' ﴿2:97

2-Even if we ignore the narrations , the verse simply mentions the spirit(which has varied meanings) without revealing anything about its nature.So what are you looking for?
A Koranic divine spirit similar to your divine holy spirit?
Unfortunately you won’t find such spirit in the Qur'an, you will find it nothing more than a creation:

A-The spirit not only is said to have A God, but also in complete submission to him....Just like angels (or being an angel) it won’t dare to move without God’s permission "The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. The angels and the Spirit descend therein by the permission of their God, with all decrees. Peace until the rising of the Dawn." 97:3-5

B - The spirit can’t even speak without God’s permission: "Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, the Beneficent; with Whom none can argue. On the Day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent allows and who speaks right. That is the True Day. So whoso will should seek recourse unto his Lord?" 78:38

C. The spirit can take the human form: "Then We sent unto her (Mary) Our spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a well built man.

D-He is called a messenger from God, not God:
Holy Quran 19:18She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a Messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

The incarnation for an earthly mission and be called a messenger fits perfectly with the angels.
Holy Qur'an 6:9 And (even] if We had appointed an angel as Our message-bearer, We would certainly have made him [appear as] a man .

E-In the Qur'an ,Jesus is described as a spirit from Allah ,yet we know that he is created, not divine by any sense ,according to the Qur'an


To conclude the first chapter

even though the Holy Spirit is referred to by name in the Qur'an, it is not a distinction in the Godhead but refers to the angel Gabriel.
Islamic view of the holy spirit as Gabriel requires:

1-one of the points of disagreement between the Qur'an and the old testament.
2-when it comes to Christianity, the conflict is much deeper …The holy spirit whom they call (the third person of the Christian trinity), is imaginary non-existed partner with God (even they argue to be aspect of the deity)
Unlike Allah and Jesus, whom according to the Qur'an, are ill defined by Christians the matter is more problematic with the holy spirit, ….Not only the entity is ill defined(to be God), but it (as Gabriel) is substituted by another non-existed entity …

Chapter:2 Jesus,Mary and saints​

The Koranic Jesus?

Jesus is a human being that is a no different than any other except that he had a virgin birth. He is a prophet as there are other prophets, and that is all that He is.


He is a creature [q 3:059] In clarifying the nature of Jesus as fully human, the Qurān repeatedly likens Jesus to Adam because both are God’s creations ,He was merely a “servant” (q.v.) of God (q 4:172; 19:30;43:59) , a “prophet” (nabī,q 19:30) and was required to pray and to pay alms, giving; prayer. God could destroy him and his mother and the whole world if he wished(q 5:17). ..........

The Qurān emphatically denies any sense of divinity to Jesus ....

Qur'an Sura 4:171: “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not “three” :desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.”


A passage concerned with the proper status of Jesus begins by warning Christians not to “exceed the bounds’ in their religion . This idea of “exceeding bounds in your religion’ is a good summary of what the Qur’an sees as wrong with Christian attitudes to Jesus. The respect proper to a messenger of God has lost its moorings and drifted into idolatrous worship. The Qur'anic rejection of the idea that Jesus could in any sense be divine obviously makes all trinitarian language about God out of the question, as we saw above: “do not say ‘Three"’ (4: 171). Islamic Interpretations of Christianity by Lloyd Ridgeon(the University of Glasgow)


Jesus as God's word?

When read as part of the whole verse, the reference here to “three” is most obviously connected with the rejection of the related claims that Jesus was more than a human messenger and that God had a son. So a straightforward interpretation would be that here as in q 5:73 the Qurʾān warns against both divinization of Christ and Trinitarian exaggerations because no other beings should be placed beside God in divinity. (There is a curious reminiscence of the classical Christian doctrine in the immediately preceding mention of Jesus as word and spirit of God, though also a clear denial of it on the grounds that the titles hypostasised into persons of the godhead by Christians are no more than qualities to be ascribed to the human Jesus.) Like the ¶ other two, this third qurʾānic reference to tripleness in deity is, then, really directed against associating creatures with God, though it must be taken as intended to refute the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and, as such, as a radical deconstruction of that doctrine in its essential formulation of three discrete beings who share in divinity[Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an]

Christian apologists often argue that they echo the teaching of John’s Gospel, which states that God’s divine Word (logos), which was with him in the beginning and through whom he created all things, became flesh in Jesus Christ ( John 1:1-18). We shall see, however, that although the Qur_ān calls Jesus “a word from God” it does not endorse the orthodox Christian view that he was the incarnation of a pre-existent divine hypostasis.
q 3:45,which recalls how the angels told Mary:“God announces to you good news of a word from him; his name will be the Messiah Jesus son of Mary….” Here kalima clearly refers to Jesus and, as the annunciation to Mary is the structural homologue of the earlier annunciation to Zechariah, it seems likely that kalima refers to Jesus there as well. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, whereas kalima is a feminine noun, the pronominal suffi x attached to “name” is masculine. Thus the name “the Messiah Jesus son of Mary” is attributed to the male person indicated by the word, rather than to the word itself. Elsewhere in the Qurān kalima usually denotes a divine decree, and this seems also to be the case here. The classical commentators argued convincingly that Jesus is called a “word” primarily because, as was also the case with Adam, God brought him into existence
merely by uttering the command “Be!” as is stated a few verses later in q 3:59 The People of the Book (q.v.) are ordered not to exaggerate in their religion and to speak nothing except the truth about God. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was only God’s envoy and “his word which he cast unto Mary” and a spirit from him. Here, Jesus and the “word” are even more closely associated because the verb “cast” is followed by the redundant feminine object pronoun. Nevertheless, as there is no suggestion that Jesus was God’s sole envoy and, as “spirit” is indefinite, “his word” should probably be construed as “a word of his,” without any implication of uniqueness. In any case, the polemical context and the insistence that Jesus is only an envoy, word and spirit, should caution Christian apologists from interpreting kalima in the light of orthodox Christian logos theology.



Jesus as a spirit from God?

see our first chapter (Allah and the spirit)....


quran 5:72
They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Certainly they disbelieve who say, "God is one of three" There is only One God. If they do not desist from so saying, a painful punishment is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.



Professor David Thomas ( University of Birmingham, UK.)wrote under “Trinity”. in the highly prestigious Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an :

It has been noted that, in fact, this is not a reference to the Trinity but to Jesus, who in Syriac literature was often called “the third of three” (Griffith, Christians and Christianity, 312-13). By this reading q 5:73 must be seen as constituting part of a sustained criticism of the belief in the divinity of Christ that occupies the whole of q 5:72-5, i.e. an emphatic repetition of the criticism in verse 72 that God and Christ are identical .But it is equally plausible to read this and the preceding verse, which is evidently intended as a pair with this since it begins with the same formula (laqad kafara lladhīna qālū inna…), as intentional simplifications of the two major Christian beliefs in the humanity and divinity of Christ and the Trinity, simplifications that expose the weaknesses they each contain when analyzed from the strictly monotheistic perspective of the Qurān. Thus, q 5:72 attacks what it portrays as the eternal God and the human born of Mary (q.v.) being identical, while q 5:73 attacks the notion that God could have partners in his divinity. The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God.

Notes:

First:The verse, simply, attacking the notion that (God was manifested in the flesh of Jesus)
1 Tim.3:16 “God was manifested in the flesh”(according to kjv etc..)

Yes it is a partial definition of the trinity (God according to Christianity is manifested in father, Holy Spirit as well), but it seems that the Quranic stress on the criticism on notion of the deity of Jesus due to the suggestion that ,if there is something most wicked in the whole formula ,would be the deity of Jesus …………..
As we know that the first person of the trinity the father (Allah) is recognized as divine by both Muslims and Christians……and when it comes to the holy spirit though thought to be divine by Christians yet he is hardly worshiped ,venerated (we will get back to that point soon)

Second: The expression ( thalithuthalathatin) which some translators translated as (third of three) shouldn't trick you as non Arab , into the meaning ( the third in order ) which (by linguistic necessity) isn't the meaning intended

The expression (thalithu thalathatin) , simply means (one of three)Let’s visit both the Arabic grammatical references :The comprehensive reference of Arabic grammar (the book of Alkfaaf) كتاب الكفاف فى قواعد اللغة العربية

http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/...AdadMadoud.htm
under the term numerical rules in Arabic , he wrote

الذين قالوا إنّ الله ثالث ثلاثة[ (المائدة 5/73)

الترتيب والتسلسل والتتابع غير مرادة في الآية، وإنما المراد أنهم قالوا: إنّ الله تعالى واحد من ثلاثة. ولو كان الترتيب
مراداً لقالوا: إنه ثالث اثنين. وانظر إلى ما جاء في صحيح البخاري
تجد المسألة على أوضح الوضوح. فدونك النصّ الحرفي، كما ورد فيه: [عن... خرجت رابع أربعة من بني تميم أنا أحدهم، وسفيان بن مجاشع، ويزيد بن عمرو بن ربيعة، وأسامة بن مالك بن حبيب بن العنبر، نريد ابن جفنة الغسّانيّ بالشام فنَزلنا على غدير...]. ولو أراد الترتيب لقال: [خرجت رابع ثلاثة] أي: تَقَدَّمَه الثلاثةُ، ثم خرج هو بعدهم، فكان رابعاً

By grammatical necessity ,Order, sequence in any kind is not intended in such verse ,if it denotes order, then the expression (thalithu ethnaini) (ثالث اثنين) has to be used …

Similar example of that rule from the Quran :The expression (thaniathnaini) (ثالث اثنين) (one of two)
The Quran - 9:40 If you do not succour the Apostle, then [know that God will do so -just as] God succoured him at the time when those who were bent on denying the truth drove him away, and he was but] one of two: when these two were in the cave, [and] the Apostle said to his companion, "Grieve not: verily, God is with us.

it doesn’t denote order at all , it doesn’t denote that the companion of the prophet was expelled by the pagans and then the prophet later as his second ,but they been expelled together ..

another similar meaning in Sunna narration :http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...477&pid=588439

Muhammad ben udai said : I was one of four رَابِعَ أَرْبَعَةٍ (rabea arbaaten) who travelled to Syria etc….. (narrated Altabarani)
If he wanted to get the reader a meaning of order, he would have used ( rabea thalathaten) رابع ثلاثة
........



Christian:But we don't believe God is one of three?

Muslim: Don't you believe that (the father) is one of three persons of the Godhead?

That is your theory but Do you remember my note of taking care of the term (the father) when dealing with the Qur'an?
Again Allah (the father) according to Islam is the term that represents the divine being fully, and not mere a manifestation of the deity…..


Christian: It seems that the Qur'an assumes and condemns Christians for believing in three gods?


You want to know what exactly the Qur'an accuses Christian with. It is not three gods, but one true God (whom they belief to be just one manifestation of God) accompanied by partner A (the creature Jesus whom they belief to be the physical manifestation of God) and partner B (the imaginary entity holy spirit whom they belief to be a manifestation of the deity)


Christian: I don't like someone define for me what I believe in?


Your belief is not above criticism … the first thing I did is providing what Christians define God with, now I'm criticizing such definition ……My criticism comes from The Qur'an and your definition according to you, comes from the bible ……..Have you proofs of the trinity beyond the bible? On the other hand have I proofs of the notions (the father as the creator, Jesus as a prophet etc…) beyond the Qur'an?

The answer for both is absolutely not…
As I said before: Trinity is a belief, according to you, based on a scripture that you belief to be fully the word of God, and must be telling the truth in any Metaphysical concept therein.On the other hand, the Quranic criticism on the trinity is again a belief for me based on a scripture that I belief to be fully the word of God and must tells the truth in any metaphysical concept therein. What we applied to the father we can apply on the other members of the trinity as well....Jesus could be a physical manifestation of the deity, or a prophet, or a lunatic was born through illegal intercourse etc.....The validity of any of the previous rests on the validity of the scripture (whether Jewish, Christian, and Islamic).....


Third: The Quranic saying (They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three) is applied to any formula that require Allah (the father) to be included…..It is applied to any form of trinity …whether
So called orthodox trinity Father, son, Holy Spirit Or another Father, son, Mary


Christian: what about the understanding that the trinity that the Quran is concerned about is the second one, father, son, marry?

Muslim: I took such suggestion seriously and checked the material provided to back up such claim, but finally felt not in favor for such suggestion……….

Before showing why I can't buy such understanding, let's read the argument,Let's quote the balanced work of Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, again:

Sura 5, section 16, verse 119, reads: “And behold! God will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God”? He will say: “Glory to thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I have not known what is in thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden.”

The writer at first explains reasons for such flawed understanding:

Thus, q 5:72 attacks what it portrays as the eternal God and the human born of Mary (q.v.) being identical, while q 5:73 attacks the notion that God could have partners in his divinity. The teaching in this verse is certainly that Christians place other beings alongside the true God. If it is taken in its context, the implication can be drawn from q 5:72 and 75 that one of these is Jesus, while from the firm emphasis on his and his mother's human needs in q 5:75 (“Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger [q.v.]… and his mother was a woman of truth [q.v.]; they had both to eat food”; see food and drink; prophets and prophethood ), it is even possible to infer that the other was Mary
Whether or not this is the intention in q 5:73, the second reference in the Qurān to three deities makes such an accusation explicit. This is in q 5:116: “And behold! God will say: ‘O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say to people (al-nās), “Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?”’ He will say, ‘Glory to you (see glorification of god )! Never could I say what I had no right [to].’” In what is intended as an eschatological interrogation of Jesus, God brings up a claim evidently associated with him, that he encouraged people to regard himself and Mary as gods besides God (min dūni llāh). The implication is that Christians made him the source of the wrong belief they hold.

Now the writer goes on:

Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God (see idolatry and idolaters ). As such, it could be ¶ understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshiped.

The writer moves to the issue of Collyridians :

If this verse (mentions Mary)could be read in relation to the Trinity ,It has been argued that at this accusation, which is remote from orthodox Christianity, may be directed at a particular form of deviant belief, such as that associated with the Collyridians, a female sect who sacrificed cakes, kollyrídes, to Mary (Masson, Coran, 93; Parrinder, Jesus, 135). They are described by the fourth century heresiographer Epiphanius (d. 403 c.e.) as a sect that “came to Arabia from Thrace and northern Scythia” (Panarion LXXIX). This suggestion is helpful in linking the accusation with a historical referent but it raises the problem of why the Qurān should take this comparatively little-known belief as a representative formulation of the Trinity. To accept such a link may have some attraction on historical grounds (though firm proof is entirely lacking), but it entails acknowledging that the Qurān is not addressing mainstream Christian beliefs.
If, on the other hand, there is no sectarian version of Christian doctrine being addressed in this verse, it need not be read as a rejection of a deviant doctrine of the Trinity but as a denial that Jesus and Mary are equal with God, and a warning (q.v.) against making excessive claims about them. Thus, it can be understood as an instance of the warning against the divinization of Jesus that is given elsewhere in the Qurʾān and a warning against the virtual divinization of Mary in the declarations of the fifth-century church councils that she is ¶ theotókos, “God-bearer.” The vehement opposition of Nestorius (d. ca. 451) and his followers to this title as incompatible with the full humanity of Christ may be part of the historical context from which the polemics of this verse arise. It is not far-fetched to think that ecclesiastical extravagances as related by groups of Christians to whom they were distasteful, combined with the constant emphasis in the Qurān on the uniqueness of God, produced this dramatically conceived denial that other beings could be divine besides him.

………………………………..

Notes: I would elaborate more to support that there is no sectarian version of Christian doctrine being addressed in this verse:

First: I checked the linguistic formula of the verse with the other verses the same formula is used … as nothing better than understanding the Qur'an by the Qur'an........

The formula is To take, worship(ettakhath) someone, something as god………. Instead, other than(men doon) of God

The formula is used outside the context of worship....
Eg;
"You are taking (ettakhath) the men out of lust instead of (men doon) the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" an-Naml 27:55
Does the verse suggest those men as taking men for sexual pleasure besides women?Not at all ....
The meaning is though they know the normal object for sexual intercourse (women) they approached the abnormal object(men) instead

Another example:

al-Jumu`ah 62:6
Say, "O you who have Judaized, in case you assert that you are patronized(ettakhath) by Allah, apart(men doon) from mankind, then covet death, in case you are sincere."


The formula is used inside the context of worship in numerous instances ..and we will notice that those who take (object of worship) either they think of it as divine or not divine but is worshiped, venerated for the sake of intercession ....

the first kind could be found in:

an-Naml 27:24 I found her and her folk prostrating herself to the sun—instead of (men doon)God—and Satan made to appear pleasing to them their actions and barred them from the way so they are not truly guided.

The second kind could be found in numerous instances

az-Zumar 39:38 If you should ask them who created Heaven and Earth, they would say: "God." SAY: "Have you (all) ever seen what you appeal to(ettakhath) instead of (men doon) God [Alone]? If God wanted [to cause] me any trouble, would such females ever remove His trouble? Or if He wants some mercy for me, will such females hold back His mercy?" SAY: "God is [the Means] by Which I reckon; on Him do the reliant rely."


Yunus 10:18 They worship, instead of (men doon)Allah, what can neither harm them nor help them, saying, ´These are our intercessors with Allah.´ Say: ´Would you inform Allah of something about which He does not know either in the heavens or on the earth?´ May He be glorified and exalted above what they associate with Him!


Ya Sin 36:23 Should I adopt (ettakhath) other gods instead of (men doon) Him? If the Mercy-giving should want any harm [to happen] to me, their intercession would never help me out in any way nor would they rescue me:


az-Zumar 39:43 Or do they adopt(ettakhath) intercessors instead of(men doon) God? SAY: "Even though they do not control a thing and cannot even reason?"

al-A`raf 7:197 while those you appeal to(ettakhath) instead of (men doon)Him cannot lend you any support nor do they even support themselves.


The two types of objects of worship could even be included together in the same verse and that is the key point towards understanding verse 5:116 Examples:

at-Taubah 9:31 They have taken (ettakhath) their learned men and their monks for their lords instead of (men doon) God. So have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary, although they were commanded to worship only the One God. There is no deity but He. He is far above whatever they set up as His partners!

Have you seen,what the verse saying ?

1- when it comes to worship, it is not Intention but your actions that counts ,it is not what you think you are doing but what you REALLY do.
2- veneration, asking for intercession etc . is considered worship in Islam even if the object of veneration is not believed to be divine…. It is enough that you direct any form of worship that is due to God alone for anyone, anything to turn him, her ,it to be god ….

3- the verse is a strong refutation for those who suggest that verse 5:116 is formulating a trinity of God, Jesus and Mary …..



Holy Quran 5:116 And as Allah said, "O Isa son of Maryam, (Jesus son of Mary) did you say to mankind, "Take (ettakhath)me and my mother to your selves as two gods, apart from(men doon) 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. then You already know it. You know whatever is within my self, and I do not know what is within Your Self; surely You, Ever You, are The Superb Knower of the Things Unseen.

The verse is just one example of, the thought to be divine(Jesus) and the thought to be not divine yet could be intercessor and be venerated (Mary),be taken as gods ..And that is the repeated message all over the Quran

al-Imran 3:64 SAY: "People of the Book, [let us] rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you, that we shall worship only God [Alone] a associate nothing else with Him, nor shall any of us take on others as lords instead of God." If they should turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims."

Christian: what about the Quran mention of Jesus and Mary eating food?

That question was answered by the the writer of (Islamic view of trinity) in wikipedia…

I'm sorry but your arguments make a number of assumptions and liberal interpretations to reach your desired conclusions. First, you make the assumption that the argument the Koran is putting forward is that since Mary and Jesus eat food, neither is God. Therefore, the Koran believes Mary is part of the Trinity. However, the argument could be easily construed, since Mary and Jesus ate food, both are nothing but plain humans. This doesn't imply that Mary was part of the trinity Godhead in the Koranic view, but merely that in the Koranic view Christians viewed her as something aside from another plain human being. As is described in the article itself, some Christian sects truly worshiped her and the Church itself put her forth as Godbearer, which is more than just another human being. Indeed, Catholics continue to address prayers to her, an act that would be considered shirk in Islam (i.e., associating others with God). Hence, the Koranic argument need not be interpreted as anything more than that Jesus and Mary are both human beings.

The writer once again under the assumption that the word (men doon) in verse means ( in addition to) wrote:

The argument about the "triad" of which Mary is supposedly a part, is again to make a logical leap from the verses provided. The verse says: "Did you say to people: 'Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God'." The verse does not mention specifically that the Godhead that is being addressed is the trinity. You may think this is semantics, but it is not. If I say for example, that "People believe Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are 2 great basketball players beside Michael Jordan" this is not the same as saying: "People believe there are 3 great basketball players: MJ and Magic and Bird beside him." In the first statement, there could be 10 people that are considered great basketball players besides Jordan, I am only mentioning 2 others in this specific conversation to make whatever point I wish to make (i.e., I make no assertion re: the number of great players). However, in the latter statement I am actually and clearly addressing the belief/assertion that there are three great players, Jordan and the two others.

Once again let's repeat the reasonable conclusion of Professor David Thomas:

Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God. As such, it could be understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshiped. Professor David Thomas ,Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an(Trinity)



Christian: where is in the Qur'an the holy spirit isn’t God and how do you explain nowhere in the Quran the worship of the holy spirit is condemned?


By saying the holy spirit is Gabriel ,created is negating the divinity isn’t it?

you remember when I said that it seems that the Quran counts for ones actions in worship?
Though Mary(saints also) is not thought divine yet worshiped, On the other hand the holy spirit is thought to be divine yet hardly is worshiped....

How many images, idols are those of Mary and Jesus is bowed to, prayed to ,asked for help and mercy compared to those of the holy spirit….

listen to the common prayers in the christian world:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Lord Jesus help me protect me save me etc......

or let's listen to the common prayers of the world's largest Christian church, with over a billion members.

Most Holy Virgin Mary, Help of Christian,how sweet it is to come to your feet imploring your perpetual help.If earthly mothers cease not to remember their children,how can you, the most loving of all mothers forget me?Grant then to me, I implore you, your perpetual help in all my necessities, in every sorrow, and especially in all my temptations.I ask for your unceasing help for all who are now suffering.Help the weak, cure the sick, convert sinners.Grant through your intercessions many vocations to the religious life. Obtain for us, O Mary, Help of Christians,that having invoked you on earth we may love and eternally thank you in heaven.

Holy Mary,help those in need,give strength to the weak,comfort the sorrowful,pray for God's people,assist the clergy,intercede for religious.Mary all who seek your help experience your unfailing protection.Amen.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....................
I won't waste my time as a Muslim criticizing such form of idolatry..I will let the christian protestant (whom though they practice shirk themselves while praying to the human Jesus yet have the advantage of avoiding Mary and saints worship) voice speak ...

just a sample quotes:

To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between the Graeco-Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism.
the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and hyrerdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of Christ.
..The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the worthiest object of adoration.
The Festivals of Mary.
This mythical and fantastic, and, we must add, almost pagan and idolatrous Mariology impressed itself on the public cultus in a series of festivals, celebrating the most important facts and fictions of the life of the Virgin, and in some degree running parallel with the festivals of the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

The Roman Catholic view of Mary is pagan, it is utterly pagan.

Does the Roman Catholic Church promote idolatry? According to the scripture and its own practices, yes it does. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," (1 Cor. 10:14).

As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I practiced Mary worship for many years without realizing it.....................

If you want to see what a person's real priorities are, then watch what they do when their life, or the life of a loved one, is in danger. When Pope John Paul II was shot, while the ambulance was rushing him to the hospital, the Pope was not praying to God or calling on the name of Jesus. He kept saying, over and over, “Mary, my mother!” Polish pilgrims placed a picture of Our Lady of Czestochowa on the throne where the Pope normally sat. People gathered around the picture. Vatican loudspeakers broadcasted the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life.......

If you are not persuaded that Catholicism encourages and even requires a level of “devotion” to Mary that really is a form of worship, then I challenge you to ask God what He thinks about it. If you are sincere in your prayer and open to letting God show you the truth, then He will.

you can check hundreds of evangelical input condemning such worship with the strongest of terms ...... Hail Mary! Hail Satan! Catholics Commit Idolatry by Praying to Dead Saints ,Catholics Worship Statues in Vain etc.........

links:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/hail_mary_hail_satan.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/mary_worship.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc5-saints.htm


You still wonder, why the worship of Jesus ,Mary and the saints is being attacked rather than the holy spirit? !!!!


.......................................



Is there a christian apologetic agenda in denying that the Qurān does criticize conventional Christian doctrines ?

Too often in the past, Western scholars in particular have wrongly interpreted the rhetorical devices (see rhetoric of the Qur'an) of the Qu rān’s criticism or rejection of conventional Christian doctrines as flawed reports of misunderstood teachings or as echoes of the doctrines of shadowy groups such as the “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans” or the “Collyridians” of the Byzantine heresiographers or of “Jewish Christian” groups often mentioned
by modern scholars, no historical trace of whom is otherwise to be found in the Arabian milieu in the time of Mu ammad and the Qurān. Such interpretations have themselves often been the product of a polemical or of an apologetic agenda in regard to the Qurān rather than the yield of a credible historical examination of the
milieu in which the text appeared, and to which it spoke in the first instance. In light of the plentiful evidence of the presence of Christians in the world of earliest Islam, their several conventional denominations of that time and place, the most plausible interpretive stratagem is to relate the Qurān’s statements about the “Nazarenes”
and the “People of the Book,” their beliefs and practices, to these known Christian groups with reference to the largely Syriac idiom in which modern scholars can find written expressions of their faith and works. On this reading of the evidence, the “Nazarenes” of whom the Qurān speaks were no other group than the “Melkites,”
“Jacobites” and “Nestorians” of ordinary church history, notwithstanding the fact that in earlier times there were some who were called “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans” by the Byzantine heresiographers, whom they described as espousing views which, in hindsight,some modern scholars would regard as being compatible with views of Christ
expressed in the Qurān. Rather, the term “Nazarenes” as it is used in the Qurān is taken to be a general one
reflecting an archaic Syriac usage and indicating those “People of the Book” whom others customarily called “Christians.” The Qurān would have had its own reasons for not using the more customary nomenclature and it is not inconceivable that these were polemical reasons comparable to the use of the cognate term no rīm by Jews as attested in some rabbinical texts and in accordance with the practice of non-Christians, as reported in Syriac texts, of calling Christians in Persia “Nazarenes⁄Nazoreans.” to the troubles of the neighboring Byzantines
(q 30:2).

 

[Al-manar]

before concluding the issue of trinity in the holy Quran , I would answer one last question I got from a christian

Christian : Just why doesn't the verse 5:116 says instead of "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

"Take me and the holy spirit to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

Muslim : because no christian ever take the holy spirit (as defined by the Quran ,the Angel Gabriel) , the holy spirit as defined by Christians doesn't exist in the Quranic terms .....

The Quran just defined the same exact term Christians use (holy spirit) with a total different object (Gabriel) .....

dear readers , plz provide whatever questions ,notes related to the topic,if you would like to...thanx

to conclude :

It is obvious that while the Quran criticize the trinity ,the criticism comes from within a wider context of a several false objects of worship (Jesus,Mary,numerous saints .......) that the christian world is plagued by !!.......

Allah (what they like to call The Father) , neither the complete term to fill the divinity , nor the one that they direct the worship at alone .... though he is divine in theory ,yet in practice he is ignored !

whenever you go watching the process of worship in the christian world it would be directed at either Jesus or Mary ,saints ...... the father is hardly prayed to .... he is substituted by the so called ( the physical appearance of God) or any other objects of worship receive both the actions and words that is due to God alone .....

In a word .It seems that Satan has succeeded perfectly with Christians to turn the first and second of the commandments into a past .... how about the rest of the commandments,eg, the law? in future posts we will find out that he was as successful as well !.


before we do so , let us go on with the trinity and another chapter.......

.................................................................................................................

Trinity in the Bible

Introduction​

1- should we quote the new testament or the old testament or both ? would we find the apocryphal writings as helpful as well?
2- Does the old testament pave the way to the concept of physical manifestation of the divine,if so ,how would the Jews interpret it?
3- Does the new testament textually support the idea of Jesus being God? did Jesus claim divinity? did the writer(s) of the new testament thought of Jesus as God? was Jesus worshiped the worship that is due to God alone in the new testament?
4- Is there a significance to the answer of that Questions to Muslims?
those are the proper questions that should be answered to approach the matter

I will answer the 3rd and 4th questions in an unexpected way...... but do not be surprised till you read more my input.....


till next post


peace

 

[Al-manar]

........

The issue of the divinity of Jesus ,and the mistakes of the muslim christian dialogues :

I have noted several mistakes commited by those muslims who are,were involved in trinity debates ...

The first mistake:

Is that, they exaggerate the significance of the issue with regard to the difference between Islam and christianity .... many muslims mistakenly believe that the only difference between Islam and christianity is the issue of Jesus' nature ,that is why there are numerous muslim-christian debates on the trinity.
their mistake here is that they are not fully aware of Islam opposing ,not only how the christians suggest the nature of Jesus is ,but also how would they suggested his role in both past and future ,in addition to all that Islam opposes strongly the concept of blood atonement .

The second mistake

most of them, don't appear to realize the big difference between , the Question, Is Jesus God? and Does the bible say Jesus is God?


I contacted many muslims who scared to find out that the bible suggests Jesus as divine , though they know the Quranic attitude towards the bible ( as partially inspired with some added fabrications therin),yet when it comes to the texts that suggest Jesus as divine ,they would never digest the idea that such passages could be human uninspired concepts, but they must be the true words of Jesus ,it is just those who belong to mainstream christianity misunderstood them !
and that leads to other mistakes

1- If we approch the matter that way ,we will give a wrong impression to the christians that we accept such verses as inspired,it is just we disagree with them regarding how it should be understood !!

Is such tactic Islamic? not it isn't ..actually ,it is against Islam
I will give just one example of the awful consequences of arguing that way (that christians misunderstood the bible !)

eg; what if a muslim engaged in an argument regarding the most important proof text in the bible supporting the divinity of Jesus?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

the debate regarding that passage is linguestic :

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."— David A. Reed. "How Semetic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1." Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709

There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[9] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.[10] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.(wiki)

If you notice, the dispute is whether the word (logos) is God, or "... a god" or "... divine" ... there is no third option ...

Hasn't the muslim debater already assumed that the problem is not the passage but the way christians understand it?!

if so ,what would he suggest the proper understanding would be? ...... it would be logically the second option..... if so , would he accept Jesus as a god (not God) or in some sense divine? is that Quranic? more important have you read what the THE WORD (LOGOS),did according to the writer of John?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Through the word ,that is Jesus ,everything was created !.....

Are you ready to accept that?! Is that Quranic?!

Have you as a muslim any chance to have any of John's prologue (with whatever meaning you may suggest) to be in accord with Islam? it is obvious that the meaning that is suggested as an alternative from the text continues to contradict the Qur'an and teachings of Islam!
why would you waste your time arguing with christians the meaning ?...... Have you any difficulty including such passage fully ,as one of the parts of the new testament to be against what the Quran defines as the true gospel revealed to Jesus,and thus has to be be rejected totally ?

now to

The third mistake:

Though the muslim got the message of the Quran that anyone, anywhere,anytime believes in the divinity of Jesus ,has commited blasphemy ,yet he would like to make exceptions !!
I dunno why should a muslim exclude one or more from the writers of the new testament to has been a founder,believer of the belief of the deity of Jesus !!
Just where is such Islamic textaul support either from the Quran or sunnah ,claiming that none of the writers of the new testament believed in the deity of jesus ?


The fourth mistake:

confusing Is Jesus God? with Is Jesus God be biblical? !!

I remember once I visited a coptic christian friend and invited me to watch a lecture on the trinity by a coptic church priest ,after he finsihed the lecture ... the friend said, the father is very convincing he provided unrefutable proofs from the bible that Jesus is God .... he then said to me :

now you have found out that the bible teaches the divinity of Jesus ,so I don't think you have now any excuse not to accept christianity ?

I told him that If I suppose that the man convinced me that the trinity biblical ,still that doesn't proof that the trinity exists..... Islam denies the deity of Jesus ,not whether ,it is there in the bible or not !....I told him ,what If I brought you some Quranic verses affirms that Mohamed is the last of the prophets ,would you accept that he is a prophet,or you will say ,it is just the Quran claims so,but it doesn't neccesarily means so !

I have contacted some un-experienced muslims who felt shaky in their faith after reading or listening to the christian materials that argue for the divinity of jesus as biblical .....
those good ,pious muslims,and due to their lack of reflection , been misleaded and thought the if the bible teaches trintiy then not only christianity is true but Islam is false !!!!

what a shallow thinking,indeed !!!!!

A pill for the trinity headache:

Have you engaged in such futile debates on the trinity whether biblical or not?

why don't you take a pill for such trinity headache? would you waste your time again ,arguing with christian that Islam has no problem with the texts that they use to argue for the divinity of Jesus ,it is just they misunderstood it?!

just be assured of something, whatever amount of attempts to accomodate the trinity proof texts into Islamic style, would fail ! ....

I will show the readers inshallah in next posts that the problem with most (if not all) the trinity proof texts ,is not what some may believe that they are misunderstood ,twisted by christians but is that there is no hope for them entirely to be included in what the Quran define the true gospel of Jesus ....

what is more amazing is that , even the new testament texts that is used against the trinity seems to be against what the Quran defines as the true gospel of jesus !!

dear muslim,just relax to read the following Trinitarians VS unitarian debate on whether the trinity is biblical or not , which by no means is supposed to be Trinitarians VS muslims debate....
simply because whatever outcome of it (whether the case of the divinity of jesus as biblical well established or shaky) should mean anything of significance to muslims more than curiousity ....


to be continued

 

[Al-manar]

the previous post was dedicated to some of my positive criticism of the good muslims who engage themselves in the trinity debates with the christians ...... let's continue adding more points....


The fifth mistake : "you are worshipping 3 gods" A muslim telling a christian !!

dear muslim ,plz pause and rethink what you have just said !
you have just offended Allah ,without realizing that !!

what christians believe in ? they believe that the divine being is manifested in 3 entities The father (Allah), the son (Jesus),the holy spirit .

you are calling those three (gods) !!
but you know that a god (with small g) denotes false deity,isn't it? do you believe that Allah (whom they call the father) is a false god ?!!!!

so pay attention ,and never say christians worship 3 gods ,that is simply non Quranic ....

The Quranic position? Allah (whom they call the father, considering him just one of the three manifestation of the divine being ) is the only divine entity to be exist and to be alone worshipped ...he doesn't need neither (the son),nor (the holy spirit) to complete the Godhead..... he is simply alone there ....

The Quran accuses christians with ascribing mortal partners to the almighty,besides ,offering the worship that is due to Allah alone ...

the term (3 gods) while criticising christianity is not proper for a muslims (neither a Jew) , it is proper for atheists etc but not muslims who believe in the divinity of Allah (the father) .....

The christian reaction is as flawed as the muslim argument ..... christian would simply respond : but we don't believe in 3 gods, you surely misunderstand the trinity ,it is not 3 gods but one God with three manifestations ....

oh well .... may I ask you where did you get the idea that there is God and he is manifested to his creation with three ways? you will argue that the bible says so.... and the bible is entirely the word of God ,that it must be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth ....

I think it is fair to say that ,the validity of the trinity depends on the validity of the bible ....
it is a matter of faith ,or would you claim that the supreme being is kept there in a laboratory and proven to be with three manifestations?

your definition of the deity (as manifested in 3 ways) is based on a book of faith (bible),on the other hand a muslim counter definition of the deity (one entity with no manifestations) is based on a book of faith ,too (Quran) .......
may be one of us right ,another wrong ... may be we both are wrong and the deity doesn't exist at all...

in sum the Quranic view on the trinity is:

Allah (God,the fully divine being) + Jesus (god) + Holy spirit (god) = One God associated with 2 gods ..

the improper formula that muslims are tricked with

Allah (god) + Jesus (god) + holy spirit (god) = 3 gods !


The sixth mistake : Is when the issue of Arius be brought in the discussion .... usually the muslim while discussing the trinity, would suggest that the Arians were true montheists ,and a representative of the true christians ,who been destroyed by the trinitarians (false christians) ....


The muslim use of such flawed argument besides the argument that the bible surely doesn't teach the divinity of Jesus ,would explain that muslims obviously are greatly influenced by the arguments of the unitarian christians ..eg; the testimony of Jehovah ....

but the fact ,with careful thinking ,one would easily understand that merely the belief that Jesus is not God ,doesn't necessarily require that those adherent to such belief to be muslims or their belief to be in accordance with Islam.......

Though Arians never believed in Jesus as God the almighty ,yet the rest of their beliefs (including their view on the pre-existence of Jesus) are against Islam !.

details on that point, coming soon....

till next post (tomorrow or after tomorrow inshallah )

Peace be upon you all

 

[Al-manar]

we still with the sixth mistake , I believe, that not only muslims would be wrong once they believe that Arianism is the representative of the true christianity ,but also christians would be wrong if they believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) integrated and advanced the Arian theology !.....


Who are the Arians?

1-They ,unlike muslims, believe the new testament as fully the word of God .
2-They, unlike muslims , believe Jesus to be the son of God ,while divine , was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe !.
3-They, unlike muslims ,believe that Jesus was not only crucified but also atoned with his blood those who believe in his message (as it is in the new testament).

Are those supposed to be the true christians?!!

I don't find Islam agree with them in ANYTHING .....
They opposed Jesus as God ,yet they preached the pre-existed ,creator Jesus !! both of the two versions against the Islamic created Jesus the prophet .
Christians whether Trinitarians or unitarians are two faces of the same coin ... no big difference is there ,indeed.


Till next post


peace

 

[cOsMiCiNtUiTiOn]

Have you guys watched Muhammad in the Bible? it goes through topics such as the ones being discussed currently here.

http://www.youtube.com/gangstrous#p/c/6B36E4E4DFD6E52F/0/toWCM3eqQp0

info may come in handy -cOsMiC

 

[Al-manar]

Have you guys watched Muhammad in the Bible? it goes through topics such as the ones being discussed currently here.

http://www.youtube.com/gangstrous#p/c/6B36E4E4DFD6E52F/0/toWCM3eqQp0

info may come in handy -cOsMiC

Thank you sis cosmic ..... Though I disgree with few of the material (eg;the song of solomon as a prophecy) I pray Allah to reward the creator of videos the best for his time and efforts ....

 

[Al-manar]

Is Jesus God according to the bible?

Though all the writers of the new testament believed in Jesus as the Jewish promised king messiah(whose case to be resumed and yet to be finished in our thread) that was prophecised in the old testament .It doesn’t seem that all of them took that leap of thought Divinizing their Messiah ....

Let’s visit the commonly quoted gospel in trinity discussions ..It is the gospel according to John (a writer whose identity was and still controversal among the scholars of the new testament)

In order to be fair , I will provide the commentaries as much as possible of the people who read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity,or the opposite ….


1- The Prologue of John’s Gospel


1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him,
and without him was not anything made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light,
that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the
world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him,
yet the world knew him not.
11 He came to his own home, and his own people received
him not.
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name,
he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh
nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father.


Bart Ehrman seems that he (just as most non christian scholars of the new testament) leans to the Trinitarian understanding

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings[/B]]


- divinity, for example, is one of the leading points of the prologue.

- The Gospel of John has always been one of the most popular and beloved books of the New Testament. It is here that Jesus makes some of his most familiar and yet extraordinary declarations about himself, where he says that he is "the bread of life," "the light of the world," "the good shep-herd who lays down his life for his sheep," and "the way, the truth, and the life." This is the Gospel that identifies Jesus as the Word of God "through whom all things were made." It is here that he makes the astonishing claim that "before Abraham was, I am," where he confesses that "I and the Father are one," and where he tells Nicodemus that "you must be born again." And it is in this Gospel that Jesus performs many of his most memorable acts: turning the water into wine, raising his friend Lazarus from the dead, and wash-ing his disciples' feet. These sayings and deeds, and indeed many more, are found only in the Fourth Gospel, mak-ing it a source of perpetual fascination for scholars of the New Testament. Why are such stories found in John but nowhere else? Why is Jesus portrayed so differently here than in the other Gospels? Why, for example, does he talk so much about his own identity in John but scarcely at all in the Synoptic Gospels? And why does this Gospel identify Jesus as God's equal, when none of the earlier Gospels does?

-Jesus, to be sure, was still thought of as a rabbi, as the lamb of God, and as the messiah, but he was much more than that. For these excluded Christians, (the johannine community) Jesus was unique in knowing about God; he was the one who brought the truth of God to his people. How did he know this truth? The community came to think that Jesus knew God because he had himself come from God. He was the man sent from heaven, come to deliver the message of God to his people before returning to his Father. Only those who ultimately belonged to God could receive this truth; only those who were born "from above" could enter into God's kingdom (3:3). The social context of exclusion from the syna-gogue thus led these Johannine Christians to see Jesus as something more than a man representing God or as one sent to deliver God's message. He came to be understood as the embodiment of that message itself. Jesus was himself God's Word. As his Word, he had existed with God from the beginning and was himself God, in a sense. He was God's equal, existent from eternity past, who became human to communicate God's truth to his own. Those who saw him saw the Father, those who heard him heard the Father, and those who rejected him rejected the Father.

-If we were to examine John from a strictly thematic point of view, we might follow the pattern we established for the book of Acts and look at some of the salient motifs established at the outset in the prologue, and in some of the speeches of the main character. From a thematic point of view, it is interesting to note that although the prologue identifies Jesus as the Word of God who has become human, he is never explicitly called this anywhere else in the Gospel. Nonetheless, certain other aspects of the prologue's description recur throughout the narra-tive. For example, just as the Word is said to be "in the beginning" with God, so Jesus later speaks of possessing the glory of the Father "before the world was made" (17:5); just as the Word is said to be "God," so Jesus says "I and the Father are one" (10:30); just as in the Word "was life," so Jesus claims to be "the resurrection and the life" (11:25); just as this life is said to be the "light that enlight-ens all people," so Jesus says that he is "the light of the world" (9:5); just as the Word is said to have come from heaven into this world, so Jesus maintains that he has been "sent" from God (e.g., 17:21, 25); and just as the Word is said to be rejected by.

- "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (14:6). Whereas Jesus scarcely ever talks about himself in the Synoptics, that is virtually all he talks about in John, and there is a close relationship here between what he says and what he does. He says that he is the one sent from God to bring life to the world, and he does signs to show that what he says is true. In short, John is markedly different from the Synoptics in both content and emphasis and with respect to both Jesus' words and his deeds. As I indicated at the outset, historians must try to explain these different portrayals of Jesus. One of the ways they have done so is to use the socio-his-torical method. Before looking at how this method works, however, we should see what important fea-tures of the Fourth Gospel can be uncovered through a redactional approach.
Readers have often noticed that Jesus speaks about himself far more in John than in the Synoptics. Jesus refers to himself using the phrase "I am" only two times in both Mark and Luke (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 22:27; 24:39), and only five times in Matthew (11:29; 14:27; 18:20; 27:43; 28:20). Contrast this with the Gospel of John, where Jesus uses the verb to refer to himself a total of forty-six times! Among Jesus' important self-identifications in this Gospel are seven "I am" sayings in which he speaks of himself symbolically: "I am the bread of life" (6:35, 51), "I am the light of the world" (8:12), "I am the gate "(for the sheep; 10:7, 9), "I am the good shepherd" (10:11, 14), "I am the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6), and "I am the true vine" (15:1). All of these images show that Jesus is uniquely important as the way to God and eternal life. In several other places in the Fourth Gospel Jesus simply says of himself "I am." The most striking occurrence is in 8:58. Jesus' opponents have objected to his reference to the father of the Jews, Abraham; in order to show that he is himself greater than Abraham, Jesus replies, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (cf. 8:24, 28; 13:19). It appears that Jesus is not simply claiming to be very old here (Abraham lived some 1,800 years earlier); by calling himself "I am" he may actually be taking the name of God. In the Jewish Scriptures, when Moses is sent by God to assist the Israelites, he asks God his name. God replies "I am who I am... Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'I am has sent me to you" (Exod 3:14). If God's name as revealed to Moses was "I am," and Jesus in John calls himself "I am," is he claiming to be God? His hearers appear to understand it in this way. They immediately pick up stones to execute him for blasphemy.

.

on the other hand Prof James D. G. Dunn ( Lightfoot Professor Emeritus of Divinity at the University of Durham in England.He is one of the world's premier New Testament scholars). views the alternative understanding

Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. [/B]]

Jesus as god/God

We have already noted the attribution of the title 'God'/'god' to Jesus in John's Gospel — the pre-incarnate Word as God (John 1.1), the incarnate Word as the only begotten God/god who makes known the unseen/unseeable God (1.18), and the risen Christ worshipped as 'my Lord and my God' by Thomas (20.28). The fact that even when describing the Logos as God/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence: 'In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God (literally, the God, ton theon), and the logos was god/God (theos, without the definite article):91 Such a distinction may have been intended, since the absence or presence of the article with theos was a matter of some sensitivity. As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30): He that is truly God is One, but those who are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the article, saying 'I am the God', while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying, 'Who appeared to thee in the place' not 'of the God', but simply 'of God' [Gen. 31.13]. Here it gives the title of 'God' to his chief Word.
The possible parallel is notable, since Philo was clearly willing to speak of the Logos as 'God', as we see here and already noted in Chapter 3. But he did so in clear awareness that in so doing he was speaking only of God's outreach to humankind in and through and as the Logos, not of God in himself. John's Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos, pre-incarnate and incarnate, though he uses lang-uage in regard to Christ that is very close to that of Philo in regard to the Logos.' But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God's effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself." There was more to God than God had manifested in and through his incarnate Word. The same is probably true of the other important Johannine text here — 1 John 5.19-20. For the passage expresses gratitude for the understanding that the Son of God has given us 'so that we may know him who is true [presumably God], and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.' If the last 'he' refers to Jesus (though the point is unclear and disputed), then as with John's Gospel, the godness of Jesus Christ is that as God's Son he fully represents God; to be in Christ is to be in God, or to be in him is to know God; the Son has made God known and present. As such he can even be described as 'the true God and eternal life: It is because the depth and profundity of God has been so fully revealed in and through Christ that Christ can be described as the revelation of the true God. Since we have already given some attention to the Revelation of John, the only other text that needs to be taken into account here is Hebrews. For in Hebrews 1.8 the writer quotes Psalm 45.6 as an address to the Son: 'Your throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever.' Following the strong Wisdom christology of the opening verses (1.1-4), and the interpretation of Deuteronomy 32.43 as a call on the angels to worship God's firstborn Son (1.6), the text must be given due weight. At the same time, however, we should recall that Psalm 45.6-7 was probably addressed to Israel's king, a fact that the writer of Hebrews was probably aware of since he carries on the quotation to Psalm 45.7, which speaks of the king as having been anointed by 'God, your God'. So again we are confronted with the use of (God'rgod' in a transferred sense, emphasizing the divinely accorded status of an individual while always aware that God was still the God of the one so described. In effect we are back into the powerful significance that Paul saw in Jesus' Lordship while he continued to think of God as the God of the Lord Jesus Christ.
.

conclusion :

I think what should matter a muslim is that the prologue is entirely non-islamic

1- Jesus(as the word) pre-existed with Allah ,and I think the writer means it for real (and continued repeating it again and again in his gospel) ...
2- All things were created for and by the Logos(word ,Jesus).

The Islamic Jesus is both created (whether soul or flesh,just as any human being) by Allah ,and wasn't the entity through whom the universe was created....

what are you waiting to include the prologue of John into the flawed words of man that been added to the true word of God ?!

 

[Burninglight]

Item 2 :

Eden

Bible:

the Earthly eastern garden where the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, lived after they were created by God, The Genesis creation narrative relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush)...
according to the bible ,after they were expelled from such earthly garden God placed cherubim with an omnidirectional "flaming sword" to guard against any future entrance into the garden.

However, The Talmud associates paradise with the Garden of Eden which considered as the the eternal destination for the righteous .or a heavenly realm where souls reside after physical death until the time of bodily resurrection in the days of the Messiah.
Talmudic would view the righteous: sitting at golden banquet tables (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit 25a) or at stools of gold (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot 77b), enjoying lavish banquets (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Batra 75a) enjoying sexual intercourse (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 57b). no envy or hatred or rivalry; but sitting enthroned [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 17a ]
"Garden on Eden has two gates of ruby, by which stand SIXTY varieties of pure servants. The luster of the face of each of them glistens like the splendor of the firmament. When a righteous man arrives, they remove his clothes in which he had been buried.." (Yalkut Shimoni, Bere**** 20)


Quran:

1- Eden is such heavenly paradise which has gardens

Holy Quran [9:72] GOD promises the believing men and the believing women gardens with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever, and magnificent mansions in the gardens of Eden. And GOD's blessings and approval are even greater. This is the greatest triumph.

2- Was Adam expelled from heavenly paradise or Earthly garden,according to the Quran ?

though the controversy , I think the clues for the first is overwhelming...I wouldn't mention all the clues but just 2 strong ones...


1- the use of the difinitive article (the) before the word Paradise ,denotes it as the heavenly paradise.

2- The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) said, "Allah will gather people so the believers would stand up when the Paradise will be brought nearer to them. They would come to Adam and say, "O our father! Open for us the Paradise." He would answer, "Wasn't it the sin of your father which got you out of Paradise?" (Sahih Muslim)


according to the narration,The paradise of eternity is the paradise that Adam been expelled from,isn't it?

Till next item

and any comment from muslims or non muslims is welcome
peace

I found that interesting to note.

 

[Burninglight]

Christian : Just why doesn't the verse 5:116 says instead of "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

"Take me and the holy spirit to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?"

Muslim : because no christian ever take the holy spirit (as defined by the Quran ,the Angel Gabriel) , the holy spirit as defined by Christians doesn't exist in the Quranic terms .....

The Quran just defined the same exact term Christians use (holy spirit) with a total different object (Gabriel) .....

dear readers , plz provide whatever questions ,notes related to the topic,if you would like to...thanx

I don't really understand this explaination. I thought he didn't mention the Holy Spirit was because he thought the trinity consisted of the father, son and Mary. Quran 5:116 doesn't say "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, instead of Allah '?" It says "besides Allah" so Allah would be considered the father in this case, Jesus the son, and Mary the mother. Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD this is not a true Biblical practice and never has been.

So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran when the Bible unequivocally states The Holy Spirit is God way before Muhammad was born. Moreover, Muslims see as commiting shirk when Christians ascribe deity to God's creation (Jesus), but Christians can say the same about what Muslims do with Gabriel (God's creation) who is considedred to be the Holy Spirit by them but who is God to the Christians, but Gabriel is an angel and not God. I know Muslims see gabriel as a creation too, but they call him who we call God as in the Bible.

Christians see Gabriel as a creation but Jesus is not God's creation; He is His very word. God's greatest creation is human life, why wouldn't He want to be a part of and not aloof from what He loves most? How can he be closer to us than our juglar if he doesn't interact with us? It is written, "He came unto his own, but they didn't recognize Him..." God is God, and He is not limited He can take on any form he wants.

The kings of the earth used to walk among their subjects as a peasants just to find out what the people are feeling and really saying and believing about his reign. God doesn't need do do that to know, but to interact with whom He loves (His creation) He can do it how He wants. So Christians don't feel that God is limited to just being aloof and yet closer than our juglar. In fact, I don't understand how that is possible; how is it possile for Allah to be closer than our juglar if he is too good to interact with His creation. We believe God is good, but not too good to be part of our lives in an intimate way.

 

[Al-manar]

Greetings Burninglight to the thread .... and I hope your posts (if you intend to post more here) will be as focused as your first post here...

I thought he didn't mention the Holy Spirit was because he thought the trinity consisted of the father, son and Mary. .

and I wouldn't find such understanding to be that surprising ,but careful examination of the quranic terms and proper linguestic analysis would at least question the understanding that the Quran attacks a sectarian trinity ....

now all what I ask you ,is to get back again in the thread, to the one post before the post you just quoted, to find out the answer to your question and how should Quran 5:116 be understood in light of the similar verses related .....

Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD

Once any worship that is due to God alone, be directed at anyone ,anything, any time , considered automatically shirk in Islam .... (I have mentioned that previously supported by the Quran itself)...

So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran

The holy spirit is mentioned several times in the Quran ,but defined as you already know (Gabriel).

Moreover,Muslims see as commiting shirk when Christians ascribe deity to God's creation (Jesus), but Christians can say the same about what Muslims do with Gabriel (God's creation) who is considedred to be the Holy Spirit by them but who is God to the Christians, but Gabriel is an angel and not God. .

that is not shirk (from a christian point of view) ,but let's rightly say ,according to christians,muslims have degraded the third divine mask of the deity (holy spirit) into a creature....
In Islam elevating a creature as divine,or directing a worship to it ,is what we mean by shirk ....

Jesus is not God's creation.

we disagree on that ...

Christians see Gabriel as a creation .

we agree on that .


reagrds

 

[Burninglight]

Originally Posted by Burninglight
So the Holy Spirit was totally left out of the Quran
The holy spirit is mentioned several times in the Quran ,but defined as you already know (Gabriel).

I know. You missed my point. He was totally left out in regards to being part of the trinity or 3 persons of the one God

Originally Posted by Burninglight
Only Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God NOT has GOD
Once any worship that is due to God alone, be directed at anyone ,anything, any time , considered automatically shirk in Islam .... (I have mentioned that previously supported by the Quran itself)...

This also is missing the point I was trying to make. I know and agree with Muslims on this, but you missed the point being that Allah asks Jesus (Isa) if he claimed himself and his mother as two gods besides Allah. I know of no one in the Bible that consiered Mary to be God or the mother of God. Not even Catholics call Mary "God" so why would Allah ask Jesus such an irrevelant question? Who called Mary God? The only way IMO, Allah's question could make any sense is if he believed Mary was part of the Christian's trinity. Now, Muslims know she is not, and she had never been and never will be. She is not the mother of God either, she was just blessed among woman.

 

[Al-manar]

you repeat the points already discussed in details in the post ,I'm not sure if you read the post carefully

here it is ,the second half of it is dedicated to the issue of Mary explaining all what you have just mentioned...

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-57.html#post1478071

Regards