For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

[Jay53]

Let us understand Trinity first from posts of B W and the gospel.

Okay, it is all One with a little three subsistences in it. Very Good. We stress on the word One only. Agreed.

Okay that belief may be good. But it should be traced back to the gospel. Did Jesus (or Mary) say that Jesus was the begotten son of God?? Please show from gospel. Otherwise it is talk of your mouth which you have made up yourself.

• Let that be so. It is true, that is the belief of the Catholics today. Christians are monotheists. Very good. They believe in one God who exists in Trinity (?). That Trinity is the problem and not explained. It is only believed. It had been the belief from beginning, say 200 years after Jesus till today.

Did God say Trinity is made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit?? Did God say that He was a Triune God??? Please show it. Only Jesus son of Mary himself told his apostles to go ahead and preach in the name of father, son and the holy spirit. Did he say that God was made up of these? Not at all. Jesus also did not say (In that speech) that son and holy spirit were part of God.*

Okay, it is alright to profess faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But as what?? We Muslims will under the God from Father, and Jesus from the son, and angel Gabriel by the Holy Spirit. It is true that if any one believes in father (Real One God) but does not believe in son (i.e. Jesus), his faith is false and useless. We Muslims agree to that. It is necessary and a must to believe in Jesus, the messenger, in order to believe in God. It is also necessary to believe in the holy Ghost to believe in Jesus. Without belief in holy ghost, the belief in God and the messenger becomes useless and false.

The Unity of God is always preached by the prophets and messengers only. Nobody can claim approach to God without the agency of a messenger. So, belief in Jesus is a MUST.
So far so good. But is it necessary to make a God out of the messenger (angel) and the messenger (prophet)?? Not at all. There had been many prophets (messengers) before Jesus. None of them claimed to be God.

I agree to the statement of St. Basil the Great.)

In the above statement of St. Basil, there is no mention of any divinity.Belief is stressed in the holy Spirit. Similarly belief in the son (i.e. Jesus) is stressed. Not in his divinity. .

3 points with regard to this post:

1.) What happened to your need for large fonts because you had trouble reading the normal-sized fonts? Some of your replies have gone in the opposite direction and are extrememly miniscule. (Or are you trying to hide your actual responses for some reason? Because you obviously have to deliberately pick “size one” from the sizes above to make it that small.

2.) The belief in the Trinity is NOT from “say 200 years after Jesus until today”. The belief in the Trinity is from how God revealed it to us through Jesus. St. Peter, one of Jesus’ Apostles, (about whom I’ve never seen/heard Muslims utter any insults/complaints etc. as they do about St. Paul), specifically says in the greeting of his 2nd epistle: (2 Peter 1:1) (emphasis mine) "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained an equal privilege of faith with ourselves through the justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. He also goes on to say in verse 3: “For indeed his divine power has granted us all things pertaining to life and piety through the knowledge of him who has called us by his own glory and power…”

3.) Christians DO NOT make a god “out of the messenger (angel)”. Once again, the Holy Spirit IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, the Angel Gabriel. Other than use of the title “Holy Spirit” is there anything in Islamic writings that equates the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit as a belief that the Angel Gabriel is God?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

the text nowhere says that it is addressing Conciliar Xty, and since Mohammed (pbuh) and those around him would have had very limited contact with that, I see no reason to assume that that is what is being critiqued. It may well be the case that Christians in Arabia held a position like the one given in the Qur’an.

You have avoided several points I made: 1) if we are going to simply disregard true Christianity, then should we disregard true Islam and turn to other sects and refuse to allow Muslims to define themselves in that regard? I was speaking only of consistency; 2) this belief in the Trinity goes all the way back to the early apostles, and therefore early Christians, which I pointed out in my post, therefore to turn to the councils repeatedly is to ignore the evidence before you; 3) I asked that if you were going to make the claim that this only addressed a small sect of Christians (which is nowhere to be found in the Quran, let alone the hadith sources) to provide evidence from Muslim scholars or classical Muslim theologians to substantiate this. In this regard, you simply repeated your argument. Again, I must ask to provide these sources to show this is a belief in Islam.

It should not even matter if Mohammad himself had contact with true Christianity, as Allah has knowledge of all things, does He not? Therefore, Allah should be fully aware of what the doctrine of the Trinity truly was.

That seems like a total stretch to me, reading over the passages that you quote. Romans 1.1&1.3: “…the gospel of God…the gospel concerning his * Son…”; 1.9 is the same pattern (really this whole section from 1.1-1.9), seems to pretty clearly contain the type of language that the Qur’an is critiquing. God (Allah in Arabic) is joined to his Son, Jesus. So there is God and then there is Jesus and occasionally there is the Holy Spirit as well.*

Romans 1:3 doesn’t mention the “the gospel concerning His Son,” but only says “concerning His Son…” with no mention of a gospel, leading one to wonder if you really did read over the passages quoted. In fact you ignored the other passages mentioned, for example Paul’s reference to the shema, as well as the Great Commission where Christ Himself not only mentions the Trinity but affirms its unity. We can go on from here, such as John 1:1 where it mentions the Word and distinguishes it from God the Father while at the same time saying it is God, and that this Word entered into His creation (John 1:14). I can continue from here, but the point is that the Fathers of the Church were working from the scripture and that tradition which grew from the scripture.

The fact also not being addressed is that Paul was a monotheist to the core, and often criticized paganism or worshiping other gods in his epistles - therefore to argue that he is associating others with God, as the Quran says, would contradict his very theology. Furthermore, if you are going to make the claim that the Quran is reflecting Paul’s writings, and that Paul speaks of God and Jesus separately…then the Quran is still in error, because the Quran claims that Christians believe “Allah is Christ” (S. 5:17; 72), thereby saying (according to the argumentation you’ve presented) that Christians believe Christ is the Father.
Hypatia;6260825:

All i did here was paraphrase Nicea. There is one God: Three persons. And there is a distinction between essence

and persons.

You did paraphrase it, because that was not what Nicea said. Allow me to quote Nicea:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father…And whosoever shall say…that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father]…the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. link]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same substance and essence as one another. Therefore, yes, you have misrepresented the councils. They never argued a distinction between the essences of the Persons, because all the Persons are united in Essence. That is what makes them One. This has been orthodox Trinitarian thought for the past 2000 years.

From an Islamic (and logical) standpoint this is a violation of the idea that God is One. Even though I know Christians really mean it when they say they are monotheists, you can’t really affirm the One and then have real distinctions all over the place in God. The fact is Christians have real distinctions present in God at two different levels: a real distinction between the persons; and a real distinction between person and essence (needed b/c you made the distinction between persons to start with and now you are just multiplying the problem)…I am simply saying that you can say you believe in the One, but when you start making real distinctions within the One, you undermine and even contradict that affirmation.

Note the phraseology you yourself give: distinctions within the One. That is precisely it - God is still One. Monotheism is the belief in one god, and I am happy to see that you do indeed believe that we believe in one. The Trinitarian God is still one God. The Persons are all unified with that One by Essence, and each one represents the fullness of God. We are not talking of one God being divided into three Beings, for God is one Being - we are speaking of one Being of God being revealed through coeternal and cosubstantial Persons. Therefore Christians do not believe that “God is one of three,” as the Quran says, nor do they believe that Christ is the Father or any other such belief - they believe God is one. There is no undermining.

 

[planten]

B W, you are trying to go back to very old times. Okay. Go to bibleNT and show Trinity from bibleNT.

All I can see there is that Jesus advised his disciples to go ahead and preach in the name of Father, son and holy spirit. That is all.

How much can you deduce from that one short sentence?? Did Jesus say that son and holy spirit are divine (part of God)?? Did he say that son and spirit are gods?? We admit the preaching in the name of God and Jesus and Holy spirit. That is essential and understood. But it appears that you people have tried to extract extra meaning out of that which was not necessary.

WE Muslims also preach in the name of Allah and name of Muhammad (and we believe in the holy spirit too even though we do not mention it all the time.). But we do not make god out of Muhammad. We always say that he is the messenger of Allah. So that Muslims do not make the mistake of taking Muhammad as God.

Then you speak of the son too much. But you do not explain in what sense you take Jesus as the son of God. Is it a spiritual son of God?? Is it a reallife son of God?? Is it a literal son of God?? WE Muslims do not believe that God has any wife or father or son or daughter.

If you take the spiritual or symbolic meaning of son then things become different. But you never tell in what sense you are taking Jesus as a son of God. Even if it is begotten, we need to know if the begotten is literal or spiritual, symbolic.

Then some friends here (even a saint) is saying that all three (parts of Trinity) are different and equal. But I read in the bible that Jesus said “Father is greater than I”. So they are not equal. B W you have said (admitted) that many christians also do not understand Trinity but still Trinity is True. Why you have such a complicated item of faith which your own people cannot understand. Which the Jews and the Muslims also can nevert agree to??

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I have been monitoring planten’s comments for most of this thread, and had noticed he hadn’t directly spoken to me yet. I assumed that was because he was fully aware that I had him on ignore, as I had told him plainly in a thread we were actively talking in that I was putting him on ignore for blatantly dishonest debate tactics.

Now that he has spoken to me, and attempted to speak to me on the Trinity, I must point out this is done with some irony, because of his admittance with regards to the Trinity.

B W, thanks for your long post. I did not study Trinity because I am not a christian.link; emphasis mine]

Planten has blatantly admitted that he has not studied the Trinity - he said this after arguing with Christians at length on the Trinity, and still has with no sign that he has done any research into it despite the repeated explanations given to him. To put things in context: suppose I joined a Muslim forum and began to argue with dozens of Muslim members on the topic of zakat. Now imagine if after many threads and posts, I boldly said to all Muslim members, “I did not study zakat.” Muslims would have every right to question the validity of my belief. I would be laughed at. And Muslims would have a right to.

Note too what planten does, which is common for his posts: he turns to the Bible and attempts to attack the Bible. Many of the arguments he’s presented I’ve already discussed ad nauseum, and he has shown he simply refuses to address the scripture in an honest fashion. Yet again, note the attempt - is the discussion here the scriptural reliability of the NT with Trinitarian doctrine? It can be related to the topic, however the issue is the accuracy of the Quran with Christian belief, no exegetical matters.

Again, if a later “divine” revelation came that claimed Muslims were in error because they worshiped Mohammad or believed that zakat and jizya were the same thing, Muslims would have every right to question how divine that revelation is. Hence, if a revelation comes later that claims to be in line with Christianity, yet it contradicts what Christians have believed for 600 years, then the true divinity of that revelation has to be questioned.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

I think planten is arguing his point of view more clearly than Byz Wolf at this point.

 

[Jay53]

I think planten is arguing his point of view more clearly than Byz Wolf at this point.

:hypno: What thread are you reading?!?

(I think Byz Wolf has explained his position quite clearly and has argued more convincingly than any of the other posters here. )

 

[dzheremi]

Your antagonistic, negative comments about your fellow Christians are really tiring and paint a very bad picture of the faith to inquirers, Andrew Phillip. If you want to talk about the Trinity, which is the topic of this thread, feel free. Leave personal attacks out of it.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Your antagonistic, negative comments about your fellow Christians are really tiring and paint a very bad picture of the faith to inquirers, Andrew Phillip. If you want to talk about the Trinity, which is the topic of this thread, feel free. Leave personal attacks out of it.

**Sure… a much better picture to paint for enquirers is to attack and belittle them - just as some of my “fellow” Christians have done. Why should any Muslim be an expert on the Christian concept of the Trinity - when even Christians disagree on it?

Frankly, I have no idea what Byz Wolf is saying - and I understand plantens argument much better.

As for antagonisim - perhaps some of you should get a mirror and look into it.**

 

[Jay53]

**
Frankly, I have no idea what Byz Wolf is saying - and I understand plantens argument much better. **

What part of his posts don’t you understand? Perhaps he (or someone else) can make it clearer for you.

 

[dzheremi]

Sure… a much better picture to paint for enquirers is to attack and belittle them - just as some of my “fellow” Christians have done. Why should any Muslim be an expert on the Christian concept of the Trinity - when even Christians disagree on it?

I don’t read the OP as asking Muslims to be experts on the Trinity in the first place. I think it is asking Muslims to reevaluate their idea of what the Trinity is in light of what we, the Christians, say that it is, since it is our doctrine to begin with. Furthermore, it is presented in as placid a manner as I’ve seen here, hardly “belittling” anyone. If you disagree with this characterization, that’s fine, but why not post about why you feel that way instead of posting what you did?

Frankly, I have no idea what Byz Wolf is saying - and I understand plantens argument much better

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

My intent was to open discussion with Muslims regarding what orthodox Christian Trinitarian thought was as compared to how they are taught in their Quran and at the mosque and by their scholars. In regards to Muslims being “experts” on the Trinity, I am trying to educate Muslims on what the Trinity is, but if a Muslim continually debates Christians on a topic while admitting they know nothing of that topic, that to me is rude and arrogant. Again, if I went to a Muslim forum and debated on an Islamic topic at length yet admitted I knew nothing, Muslims would have a right to question why I was pontificating on it at all. Furthermore, to say some Christians don’t understand the Trinity is simply a straw man - the individual opinions of isolated Christians means nothing in the larger scope of things. I’ve shown a consistent patristic thought in regards to the Trinity to show there did exist an orthodox doctrine of what the Trinity was. There have been times when I met Muslims who did not understand their own beliefs, but that did not mean there did not exist orthodox Islam, or that there isn’t a standard we can go by in Islam.

Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve attacked or belittled any one, merely stressed consistency, intellectual honesty, and an adherence to plain facts. I’ve quoted Christian belief from a Christian context and Muslim belief from a Muslim context.

 

[hamba2han]

I do not believe that there has been even a single individual in the entire 2000-year history of Christianity who could adequately explain the Trinity to make any kind of cogent understanding of the doctrine.

And since there are innumerable explanations on the doctrine of the Trinity, then no one can claim that they are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone else.

It is just not possible for someone who has been blind since birth to explain how the colour ‘red’ looks like to someone else who is also born blind.

 

[fms]

(Part 3/3)

There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:
… discussed.

Brilliant!

 

[JimG]

I do not believe that there has been even a single individual in the entire 2000-year history of Christianity who could adequately explain the Trinity to make any kind of cogent understanding of the doctrine.

And since there are innumerable explanations on the doctrine of the Trinity, then no one can claim that they are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone else.

It is just not possible for someone who has been blind since birth to explain how the colour ‘red’ looks like to someone else who is also born blind.

I thought Frank Sheed explained it pretty well, and he’s not even a Thomas Aquinas. It only requires that one be able to understand a difference between “being” and “person.” But from reading these forums it appears that’s a distinction that no muslim is willing to make.

Since I am one human being–i.e., having a single human nature, and also I am one human person, I suppose that would make me a duality instead of a single entity, according to muslim thinking.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I do not believe that there has been even a single individual in the entire 2000-year history of Christianity who could adequately explain the Trinity to make any kind of cogent understanding of the doctrine.

And since there are innumerable explanations on the doctrine of the Trinity, then no one can claim that they are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone else.

You’re absolutely right. 2000 years of patristics and a uniformity of belief between such esteemed theologians as St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Athanasius, St. John Damascene, St. Photios, in addition to Roman Catholic saints such as Thomas Aquinas and Fulton Sheen as well as Protestant scholars such as John Piper, John MacArthur and James White cannot possibly show a uniformed belief in the Trinity among Christians.

Forgive the sarcasm, Hamba, but if you are going to make these bold and blanket assertions, please have something to back them up. Otherwise (especially when a person has made a case for uniformed thought, as I did in the first part of my OP, with sources cited) you are not going to be taken seriously.

 

[fms]

. Furthermore, there is no distinction between the divine essence - they all have the same Essence, because they are all within that Being of God.

They all have the same Essence = accurate

because they are all within that Being of God = not accurate.

Each is that Being God. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253
The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity."83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254
The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255
The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

256
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian,” entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down . . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God . . . the three considered together. . . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . . .92

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

They all have the same Essence = accurate

because they are all within that Being of God = not accurate.

Each is that Being God…

I clarified in another post that each represents the fullness of God. I’ve also stated that in other threads where I debated on the Trinity.

 

[fms]

(Part 2/3)

in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; .

What do you mean by this?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

What do you mean by this?

When a member of the Trinity acts, the other two act accordingly. For example, all are present in the Baptism, all are present at the Transfiguration, all are present at the Incarnation, even if not obvious then in one form or another. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit can’t argue with one another or second-guess the other. To put it in a joking way, the Holy Spirit doesn’t sit around and say, “Ha ha, the Father and Son have no idea what I’m gonna do here!”

 

[hamba2han]

I thought Frank Sheed explained it pretty well, and he’s not even a Thomas Aquinas. It only requires that one be able to understand a difference between “being” and “person.” But from reading these forums it appears that’s a distinction that no muslim is willing to make.

Since I am one human being–i.e., having a single human nature, and also I am one human person, I suppose that would make me a duality instead of a single entity, according to muslim thinking.

The point that I am trying to make on this particular thread is that the many Christians who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) 1400 years ago “understood” the doctrine of the Trinity as well as any Christian today.

In the year 10 A.H. (631 CE), Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) received a delegation of sixty Christians from Najran in Medinah. The territory of Najran was located south of Bani Khath’am near Yemen, about 450 miles south of Medinah. They were received in the Prophet’s mosque, and the Prophet allowed them to pray in the mosque, which they did facing East. This group of Christians followed Byzantine rite.

They discussed with the Prophet the points of doctrine including the nature of God, and he replied them by reciting Surah Ikhlas (112) of the Qur’an. It begins with the word ‘Qul’ meaning ‘Say’. The translation of the meaning of the Surah is:
’Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him’.

Further discussion on the nature of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) led to some disagreements, on which he recited them the three Ayats of the Qur’an from Surah Ale-‘Imran (3:59-61).
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.
The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt.
If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"

After three days, the Christian delegation decided to conclude its mission.