Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

[MuhammadRizan]

salam.

It is your choice. You are free to make your own but not free from the consequence of that of that choice. IT IS SIMPLE GOD LOVED; GOD GAVE; YOU BELIEVE YOU RECEIVE. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR US IT IS ABOUT HIM.

i must admit u said it better than me.

Now i fully understand why there is final Battle before The Hour.

this fight will continue.

 

[MustafaMc]

John of Damascus wrote a fairly good description of this relationship...

Whatsoever the Son has from the Father, the Spirit also has, including His very being. And if the Father does not exist, then neither does the Son and the Spirit; and if the Father does not have something, then neither has the Son or the Spirit. Furthermore, because of the Father, that is, because the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are; and because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have everything that they have.

That is a very tongue twisting description, but he goes to such lengths to fully describe the nature of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. So when Christians speak of a "Father and Son", they are not speaking of God producing offspring or God being produced from a womb. Jesus Christ did indeed have a mother, but it was his spiritual essence that was God, not the flesh of His body.

I can tell that you are trying to explain the unexplainable, but at least you get an "A" for effort. Please, excuse my sarcasm, but Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" came to my mind.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml

I pray that I am not being and that I have not been disrespectful to Jesus (pbuh), but I can't imagine God being in some of the embarassing situations that I have been in and, as a human being, I would imagine that Jesus (pbuh) probably experienced some of them, too. Else, he wouldn't have been fully "human".

May Allah forgive me if I have misspoken.

 

[Keltoi]

I can tell that you are trying to explain the unexplainable, but at least you get an "A" for effort. Please, excuse my sarcasm, but Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" came to my mind.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml

I pray that I am not being and that I have not been disrespectful to Jesus (pbuh), but I can't imagine God being in some of the embarassing situations that I have been in and, as a human being, I would imagine that Jesus (pbuh) probably experienced some of them, too. Else, he wouldn't have been fully "human".

May Allah forgive me if I have misspoken.

, Who is on first anyway?

Seriously though, you are correct that many things about God are "unexplainable", and no Christian would suggest they have a complete understanding of the nature of God. As for Christ and His trials of the flesh, He did indeed experience pain, fear, and all the things that go with being human. That was all part of God's plan. Do I understand God's plan to the point of stating the why of all that? Of course not, but I do understand that Christ's trials and suffering were in order to grant me eternal salvation.

Muslims have a different view, I think we've established that eace:

 

[Redeemed]

salam.



i must admit u said it better than me.

Now i fully understand why there is final Battle before The Hour.

this fight will continue.

Yes, but this battle is not mine; it is the Lord's
Peace till he comes!

 

[vpb]

First of all, I didn't say Jesus and God are One, Christ did that.

It doesn't matter. We are not talking here about who said it, but the statement itself.

Secondly, on the issue of God being invisible, I think we would all agree on that point. God is impossible to see. Christ was in the flesh for a certain period of time, and those who were His disciples were well aware of what Christ was....

so how come he is invisible, and yet people can see him in flesh?

Here John clearly makes reference to the "One and Only" God, yet John doesn't differentiate between Jesus Christ and the One and Only God. This is the key.

who was talking about verses from John?? I pasted verses from Mark,Ephesians,Timothy.

but even if you are refering to the verse

Originally Posted by Keltoi
I and my Father are one. John 10:30

then Philosofer pasted the links concerning this verse:

Umm.....you do know that that's a forged verse right?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/trinity_forgery.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/F...16/errors.html
http://www.awitness.org/column/forge...esy_bible.html

could it possibly be that the other christians do not tell muslims that their religion is from the devil, that they are practicing shirk, that the prophet was a false prophet and on and on and on?

well, saying Islam contains shirk, is something that needs to be laughed at. teachings of Islam and shirk is like 'loud silence' or "anarchy rules".
so for somebody to claim that Islam teaches things which contain shirk, is just really to look and just laugh. nothing else.

I reject Muhammad because I accept the Bible to be the true word of God. That which differs from it, must therefore be false. My guess is that you probably have very similar feelings with regard to the Qur'an. The problem is that they both say rather plainly things that cannot be reconciled with each other. Thus either the Bible is corrupted (the Muslim view), or Muhammad got it wrong (my personal Christian view).

Christians reject Qur'an totally, while Muslims accept Bible(Injeel), as it was a book of guidance sent with Jesus a.s, but through time was corrupted.

Well, when you say that you love Jesus, that is wonderful. But that isn't what we mean when we say that we believe in Jesus. In fact we are even talking about two different types of belief.

It's not just that we love Jesus a.s , but he was also one of the most honored Prophets sent by Allah az.

When Muhammad tells me that Jesus didn't go to the cross, then Muhammad is telling me that I am still dead in my sins. If I have to chose to trust the words of Muhammad's condemnation or Jesus words of redemption, I'll choose Jesus.

in this case you are mixing both belief together, bc you can either believe Jesus was crucified and your sins are forgiven, to go to Heaven, or Jesus a.s did not die on the cross, he is alive, and we have to perform prayer and give the charity and ....and..... as Islam requires to get to Heaven.

Actually we claim it all. Be we won't use the word "just" as you did.

how can it be God and son of God at the same time? and also that you pretend you believe in one God??

The Jews of Jesus' day wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy when he claimed to be the son of God, because they understood that to be the same as claiming to be equal to God.

well, we believe that he Jesus a.s got attacked bc he came with the true message to correct the jews who deviated from the truth. and also every messenger from Allah az that was sent was faced with hostility, so this is was nothing new for Jesus a.s, it started since prophets were sent.

Of course, they understood Jesus correctly. The only problem with their thinking was they missed the fact that when a man claims to be God and it is true, that it isn't blasphemy.

They rejected Jesus, you reject Muhammed. what's the difference? u'r doing the same thing (rejecting) as they did.

I will agree with you that it doesn't always make sense. Sometimes there are paradoxes that I have trouble getting my mind around. But there is much in this world that is true that I don't fully understand. It does not bother me that there are things about God that I only perceive dimly at the present. I trust his revelation to still be true and that one day I will understand more fully. (Here Muslims insert ubiquitous line that I will learn about it to my peril. And probably some Christian then responds in kind. Now that I have done that, no one else needs to, please.)

I understand what you are saying, but there can't be any non-understandable thing in the basic principle that a religion is held on.
La ilahe ilallah Muhammad rasullalah, is so simple that it can't go beoynd.
simply, there is no diety of worship but Allah, and Muhammed is his Messenger.
but anyways

You are right that being in flesh does not make one God. But being God does not mean that you cannot reveal yourself in the flesh. And this is what we claim happened with regard to Jesus. We also understand that God is just one being, and yet not just one person. So each persona of God relates to each other persona in unique and distinct ways -

please watch this video, I've pasted it before, but i'm doing it again, in case that you missed. Dr.Zakir Naik explains the thing about if God is so powerfull why can't he become in a form of human being. If you can't understand his accent, then shout , and I'll put u a transcript of the video.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Vxmso5BuY[/media]

But that does not make Jesus less than fully God. See Jesus is not a God. The Father is not a God. We don't have a God until we have Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit all three personas in the one being. Then and only then do we have a God. And if you count, you will find that it is therefore, only one God.

someone in this thread showed verses that actually your God is not in three personas in one being but rather different beings. please check the previous posts, you should find them. it was a long discussion.

but by denying at least the possiblity that God can and is able to manifest Himself in different ways, is cornering God into a box of human design.

it's not about putting God in a box, it's about looking at things which if God does , he doesn't seems to be God anymore. God does not intend to do things which are ungodly, as dr. zakir naik explain. please watch the video. again, if you can't understand it, i'll put the transcript for u.

Why would Christians put Jesus "above" God? How can God be above Himself?

opppsss...

You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:28).

I mean, how could this verse me interpreted differently??

When you say "God cannot have a son or a mother" I agree with you, because that isn't what Christians refer to when they speak of the Father and Son, at least not in the physical sense that I believe you are referencing. To put it another way, Christ did not suddenly exist as an "offspring" of God.

why then no prophets said before that "God has a son, that he will sent later". ??? is there any such saying from any prophets?

Jesus Christ did indeed have a mother, but it was his spiritual essence that was God, not the flesh of His body.

God cannot have a mother in any sense. Period.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

Jn.3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. It is your choice. You are free to make your own but not free from the consequence of that of that choice. IT IS SIMPLE GOD LOVED; GOD GAVE; YOU BELIEVE YOU RECEIVE. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR US IT IS ABOUT HIM.

may be , u will be interested to know what an ex-missionary has to say about this verse.


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]"Son of Who?"


[/SIZE][/FONT]By - Yusuf Estes




Note: This verse was actually modified by Jerome in the 4th century.

ARIUS (Early history of the Church) a popular leader from Alexandria, Egypt.




He argued, Jesus, peace be upon him, was created and not ‘begotten.’




He was charged with heresy and his followers were horribly oppressed by the Church.








After the matter was ‘decided’ and ‘confirmed’ by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and in an effort to consolidate both beliefs, Jerome altered the original version of the Gospel of John 3:16 by changing the word ‘monogenes’ (unique) and substituted the word ‘ingenious’; meaning ‘only begotten.’








What other ‘interpretations’ did the early Church Fathers invent to satisfy their claims of the divinity of Jesus, peace be upon him?


Good question.


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


Luke 3:36


“Enos was the son of Seth, and Seth was the son of Adam, and Adam was the son of God.”





Note: Adam, not Jesus, is listed in this genealogy of Jesus as the son of God, not Jesus

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/son_of_who.asp

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/ peace ;

If God can become His own son , If God can be equal to His own creation , then why can't Christians put Jesus (p) above God ?

Just invent another mystery & it will be possible.

You are still thinking and speaking of God in human terms. We are not. This I think is why Muslims do not understand us, even after all these many explanations. Muslims immediately pose ideas of shirk on to an understanding of God that is definitely not shirk. If Muhammad says it is, then that alone is enough reason as to why Christians do not follow Muhammad's teachings.

The Christian understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, or more appropriately worded - God the Son, is not something where God became his own son, became a Son, or became anything at all. To speak of becoming means there was a time when he was not, and then a time in which he came into being.

We believe that God is eternal. That God has always existed. And that God has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, God did not become, God has always been the son. Christians do not believe that first there was a God who then becomes a father by having a son. That would be shirk. But we do not believe such things. If you are hearing that in this discussion, then you are not hearing us corrrectly.

So, please, stop projecting ideas onto our theology that are not a part of it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I can understand somewhat your point. I see that you are saying that our Muslim insistence that God cannot have a son any more than He can have a mother is putting limitations or restrictions on God's unlimited ability. I can't imagine looking upon the Glory of God in this life, even in a diluted human expression. In my limited capacity as a human I cannot conceive of God being born of a woman and needing to eat and drink and then relieving Himself of the waste. I just can't wrap my little ole mind around that one.


We Muslims do not try to define Allah beyond how He describes Himself in the Quran.

Quran 24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche, in which there is a lamp, the lamp is enclosed in crystal, the crystal is of a starlike brilliance, it is lit with the olive oil from a blessed olive tree which is neither eastern nor western, its very oil would almost be luminous though no fire touched it - as though all the means of increasing Light upon Light are provided - Allah guides to His Light whom He pleases. Allah cites such parables to make His message clear to the people; and Allah has knowledge of everything.

And really we Christians should not expect any Muslim to define Allah beyond how He describes himself in the Qur'an. But given that we know something different (I wanted to say "more", but will just say "different") we cannot ignore that knowledge. We must either accept it or reject it, but we have to acknowledge that Jesus claims to have made God known to us in the flesh. Neither Muslims nor the Jews have to acknowledge that, as you don't recognize the veracity of the New Testament. But Christians must do something with Jesus. Those you are talking to here on this forum have obviously chosen to worship him. Those who reject his claims in the end do not remain Christian.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

but we have to acknowledge that Jesus claims to have made God known to us in the flesh. Neither Muslims nor the Jews have to acknowledge that, as you don't recognize the veracity of the New Testament. But Christians must do something with Jesus. Those you are talking to here on this forum have obviously chosen to worship him. Those who reject his claims in the end do not remain Christian.

Could you please help me out and point where exactly in the Bible it says that Jesus (peace be upon him) made such claims?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Could you please help me out and point where exactly in the Bible it says that Jesus (peace be upon him) made such claims?

I've posted such things several times in this and other Trinity threads. Rather than bore all of the readers by repeat them all again, I'm simply providing a list of verses that have to do with the theme. You may interpret some of these different than I do and not get how they speak to the issue, if you really don't get it, I'll be glad to continue in conversation to show you what it is I see. If you just disagree with what I see them to say, well that's OK. I'm not trying to convince you, just answer where it is that I see that Jesus made some claims.


Jesus uses the phrase "son of God" or "the Son" with respect to himself:
Luke 22:70
John 5:19
John 5:22-23
John 5:25-26
Matthew 11:27
Matthew 28:19
Mark 14:61-62
Luke 10:22
John 3:36
John 6:40
John 8:36
John 13:32
John 14:13


Times when others made such references to Jesus and he either accepted or acknowledged them and times when they claim that he had made such claims that he does not dispute (even though Jesus' actual statement is not recorded, his response to other's statement that he had made such a claim is):
Matthew 4:3 & 6
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 16:16
Matthew 27:43
Mark 3:11
Luke 4:9
Luke 4:41
John 1:49
John 19:7


Now, one might say that a phrase like "the Son" or "Son of God" is not the same as a claim for divinity, and that would be true in some instances with some people. But it would not be true in all instances and we can see from the reactions of those around Jesus that some of these times he clearly was making claims that they considered blaphemous. The reason for the blasphemy was, as they said: "We are not stoning you for any of these [good deeds]," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

And again: "...you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" (John 10:36)

See also Matthew 26:65 and Mark 14:64. This form of blasphemy was the major complaint with Jesus and why the ruling Jewish leaders sought to put Jesus to death: "The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God'." (John 19:7) Now, if these claims were just that Jesus was the son of God like God is father to everyone who prays to God as "Father", the Jews would have had no problem with that. The problem was that Jesus was claiming a different type of relationship, "but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)

And when Jesus didn't do it by his words, he did it by his actions: He forgave sins (Luke 5:17-26); something that only God had the authority to do. And Jesus demonstrated authority to command both nature (Matthew 8:22-27) and demons (Matthew 8:28-34).

Jesus did much more than simply declare that he was one with the Father (see John 10:30). He also said that he was with God before the world began (John 17:5). He even went so far as to take the very sacred name of God (see Exodus 3:13-14) and used it refer to himself (see John 8:58).

Perhaps one or even two of these references could be dismissed. But taken as a whole, they show a consistent pattern where Jesus was making and accepting divine claims with regard to himself. None more blatant than when Thomas actually referred to him as both "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)

 

[snakelegs]

You are still thinking and speaking of God in human terms. We are not. This I think is why Muslims do not understand us, even after all these many explanations. Muslims immediately pose ideas of shirk on to an understanding of God that is definitely not shirk. If Muhammad says it is, then that alone is enough reason as to why Christians do not follow Muhammad's teachings.

The Christian understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, or more appropriately worded - God the Son, is not something where God became his own son, became a Son, or became anything at all. To speak of becoming means there was a time when he was not, and then a time in which he came into being.

We believe that God is eternal. That God has always existed. And that God has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, God did not become, God has always been the son. Christians do not believe that first there was a God who then becomes a father by having a son. That would be shirk. But we do not believe such things. If you are hearing that in this discussion, then you are not hearing us corrrectly.

So, please, stop projecting ideas onto our theology that are not a part of it.

it is not only muslims who find this incomprehensible. i think, in order for it to make sense, you need to be a christian. i've never understood it, tho i admit that i never really tried because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
i am also under the impression that some christians don't really understand it either.

 

[vpb]

i am also under the impression that some christians don't really understand it either.

I don't to offend anyone , but I've said before, trinity is a complex thing, it can't be explained clearly, so in order to believe in it, u just have to accept it and not question.

 

[Keltoi]

it is not only muslims who find this incomprehensible. i think, in order for it to make sense, you need to be a christian. i've never understood it, tho i admit that i never really tried because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
i am also under the impression that some christians don't really understand it either.

Considers what you mean by "understand" it. If you mean do all Christians fully understand God's nature and how He manifests His will and what that will is, then you are correct, many Christians(if not all) would never claim to understand it fully.

If you mean the Trinity concept, it isn't really something you "understand", as it is an attempt to "understand" God. However, Christians put their faith in the New Testament, and as Grace Seeker mentioned in a previous post, there are numerous verses pointing to Christ's divinity. This creates a new "understanding" of God. Added to the mystery of the Holy Spirit, Christians are left with an issue of theological importance. If God is God, if Christ is God, and if the Holy Spirt is God, then all three are God. If all three of these manifestations are God, than we needed a word to describe this difficult concept. The word Trinity was born. Do I understand every nuance of the concept, no. From a Christian point of view, as we accept the Word of Christ in the New Testament as undeniably true, it is our role to acknowledge this truth, meaning Christ's divinity and relationship with God.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If all three of these manifestations are God, than we needed a word to describe this difficult concept. The word Trinity was born. Do I understand every nuance of the concept, no. From a Christian point of view, as we accept the Word of Christ in the New Testament as undeniably true, it is our role to acknowledge this truth, meaning Christ's divinity and relationship with God.

This is the key. We don't begin with the Trinity and then try to prove that it is true. We end up using that term to label what we have already found to be true and are now attempting to describe. So the question is not is the Trinity true. That is like asking if the United States is true. The United States is neither true nor false. It is a label given to define the joining of many independent sovereign states into (what in 1787 is) a new way of making a single country from many. Are there many? Are they one? Yes. How can this be so. In politics the answer was to call the country made of many the United States. In Christian theology the answer was to speak of the one God manifested in three ways as existing in Trinity.

A war was fought between the states to determine if the lable United States was truly a good label or heresy. In Christian theology, councils debated for many of the same reasons, to determine if it was a good label to adequately describe God or not. Now, some people don't like either. But for those who live in them, practicing that form of goverment or that form of religion, the labels have served their purpose and seem to have stuck.

 

[doorster]

Edit: Questioning/protesting rules, or moderator's action, in public 20% warning

As to answer your inquiry, Muslims do not get special treatment and rules apply to everyone.

 

[doorster]

Edit: so that is two time 20 for questioning moderator publicly and an additional 30 ( Repeating a serious rule violation 30% warning) bringing you on a total of 70 percent

 

[doorster]

Edit: Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody) 15-25% warning

So If we would give the minimum warning that brings you to 85%

 

[glo]

it is not only muslims who find this incomprehensible. i think, in order for it to make sense, you need to be a christian. i've never understood it, tho i admit that i never really tried because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
i am also under the impression that some christians don't really understand it either.

I don't to offend anyone , but I've said before, trinity is a complex thing, it can't be explained clearly, so in order to believe in it, u just have to accept it and not question.

In some ways I agree with both of you.

If I had £1 for every time I have seen debates about the trinity, I could give up my day job!
So I've been reluctant to enter this one, but here's my penny's worth:

What non-Christians have to understand is that there is no clear definition of the trinity in the Bible.
The trinity is a human-made concept, and an attempt to explain the nature of God, as outlined in the Bible.

I have yet to meet anybody (and that includes Christians), who fully and totally understands the trinity and is able to explain it so non-Christians can make sense of it ...

The concept of the trinity is not really important.
What is important is the nature of God. According to the Bible, God appears in three different and separate existances.

In the account of Jesus' baptism in the gospel of Matthew:3, they all appear at together:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit ...

And yet, the Bible tells us over and over (indeed Jesus tells us himself) that there is only one God.

Now, for somebody who is a Christian and believes the Bible to be God's word, both premises have to be true:
There is only one God
and
God has three separate persona

That's how the concept of the trinity comes about ...
No, it doesn't make much sense to human reasoning ... but then God is above and beyond human understanding ... :statisfie

Peace

 

[vpb]

The concept of the trinity is not really important.
What is important is the nature of God. According to the Bible, God appears in three different and separate existances.

but the trinity is still yet the concept that explains the whole christianity.

 

[Grace Seeker]

but the trinity is still yet the concept that explains the whole christianity.

Not really. While the Trinity is an important concept, it is the ideas expressed in the doctrine of the hypostatic union which is at the root of understanding the concept of the Trinity. But, ultimately it is the Cross that explains the whole of Christianity. (Of course, us Christians are batting 0 for 2 in talking to Muslims about these things.