For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

[Byzantine_Wolf]

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.

But…you said that no Christian understood the doctrine.

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.

In any case, you are now continuing your practice of simply repeating an argument without addressing what is said to you, disrespecting those responding to your arguments.

So, unfortunately, I will have to say to you what I said in my Ezra thread: Hamba, do not respond again unless you are willing to respond to what is said to you. If you are going to simply keep repeating something ad nauseum, you will not contribute anything and will only repel people from your cause.

 

[jakasaki]

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??

Pass me the bifocals please!!!

 

[jakasaki]

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

I think not!

Planten is an Ahmadi muslim. After the islamic self proclaimed mohamad, the Ahmadi have come upon their own prophet. Some dude from the 1800’s.

Regarding Planten and the Ahmadi muslim belief, Jesus was not crusified, but traveled to India where he lived, got married and is burried there. And Jesus lived to be 120 years old.

Mother Mary, also followed Jesus to India and she too died of an old age and she too, Mother Mary is buried in India.

They, the Ahmadi muslims have 2 tombs, 1 for Jesus and the other for Mother Mary.

So they believe…

And you are an Ukranian Orthodox Chistian?

At times, I’m embarrassed to call my self Orthodox Christian the way people of my EO like you carry on.

Stick around and learn about the posters before you go one with your asinine posts.

 

[Hypatia]

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.

Let’s just start with this really quickly, b/c this is NOT what I said. I did not say there is a distinction between the essences of the persons, which would land you in a rather bald tritheism. I said Christians, having already made a real distinction between the various persons, try to prevent that type of crass tritheism by making a distinction between the essence (ousia) and persons (hypostases) within God.

The introduction of real distinctions within the One (between the persons, and between person and essence) means that even Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic accounts of the Trinity will remain unacceptable and insufficient accounts of God (despite their best intentions, which, as I said, I do recognize) precisely because the One is lost in the end.

 

[Hypatia]

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.

I am going to let you and the other Christians on here sort out what the “true” Christianity is. I simply see no reason to presuppose that the Qur’an is meant as a critique of Roman Christianity when the community to which it was addressed had extremely limited encounters with those Christians. I think the more interesting question to ask is what kind of Christians seem to be engaged by the Qur’an. Any Christians in southern Arabia were unlikely to have been “true” Christians, by your definition. But I was always taught that the material, esp. in Surah 3 and Surah 5, was composed while in Medinah, after the Prophet had received a delegation of Christians from Yemen: you would find a summary of such in Muhammad Asad’s, The Message of the Qur’an; Richard Bell’s and Montgomery Watt’s work still remain classic; and I also tend to like the work of David Marshall (see, for instance God, Mohammed and the Unbelievers).

It is always important to keep in mind the concrete situation that the Qur’an is addressing, as it is, quite often, speaking to very specific events or moments in the life of the Prophet (pbuh).

 

[planten]

Brilliant!

Re: For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf
(Part 3/3)

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

Brilliant!

What B W had written in post #31 is valid and good reasoning. But the reply from Hamba is also logical.

Here in thrid part of post BW discussed by way of Hadith. At the same time, B W was discussing everything by the Christians Hadith, i.e. sayings of the later day saints. BW did not present anything about Trinity from the direct word of Jesus or God.

That was a great weakness in the argument of B W. Why not go by the actual official sacred texts?? i.e. Quran and the bibleNT??
I would not enter into any discussion by B W by way of any hadith even though it may be favorable to my cause.

Here is a contest and it is better to prove things by the first hand reports i.e. Quran and BibleNT. The subjet is Trinity. Discuss by those two sources first.When the matter is exhausted then proceed to other sources i.e. Sayings of our Prophet Muhammad and the sayings of the Catholic Saints.

How about it??. I see nothing brillient in presenting Hadith yet. As I see there is no Trinity in the Quran or the BibleOT or the BibleNT.

I have studied the BibleOT and NT and Quran quite enough. But BibleNT I studied the gospel only. Not letters of Paul.

We have to discuss the status of our books too. What is Quran?? What is BibleNT?? What Muslims say about these books??. What the Catholics say about these books??

God Willing, I will present in next Post.

 

[planten]

Continued…

Quran.
Muslim believe it is the direct word of God, in its original form as it was revealed.
Catholics probably deny that it is word of God.

BibleNT.
Muslims believe it was the revealed word of God but is not in original form now.
Catholics believe it is sacred. Only they can tell what is BibleNT.

Hadith.
It is generally the sayings and descriptive deeds of the Prophet Muhammad as reported by some persons. It is not the direct word of God.

BibleNT seems to be some sort of Hadith to me. It is the reports of some persons other than Jesus, about Jesus, about his words and his deeds.

In any discussion, we Muslims cannot go far away from the actual sources because the BibleNT is already proved to be not on a level with Quran. So, it is best to stick to actual words of BibleNT and not to bring the various christian saints into play. Welcome.

 

[Hypatia]

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.

I apologize, but my translation of the Bible (RSV) reads as I quoted. Others do not. So I checked the Greek and it is true that “euaggelion” only appears in v.1. This doesn’t really impact what I had to say since I was most interested in the way in which Paul refered to God and his Son. It is a reminder, I suppose, of the issues one has to be wary of when dealing with translations.

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.

I think Paul is sufficient to the day. Bringing in other authors writing other texts seems to simply confuse the issue. While John is interesting on quite other grounds, it is precisely Paul’s way of talking about God that bears the greatest similarities to the issues raised by the Qur’an, it seems to me.

I Cor 8.6 doesn’t appear to be a paraphrase of the ‘shema’ so much as a perversion. Using the shema, which affirms that God is absolutely One, to justify the kind of doubling that Paul undertakes may be very creative, but hardly comforting. In any case, notice that Paul still associates the word God with the Father and has to resort to other language to speak of the Son. I don’t doubt nor did I ever question Paul’s intended monotheism. I agree, it would be incredible if Paul were to suddenly go become a rabid polytheist. But the ambiguities and problems inherent in Paul’s language parallel very closely the concerns raised by the Qur’an.

Paul regularly and consistently uses the word “God” to refer to the Father. The Son and Holy Spirit are then paired with the Father. To affirm that Jesus is God introduces a critical ambiguity into Paul’s language since the term God is typically used to denote the Father and Paul is trying to distinguish the Son from the Father.

-God is certainly 3 in Paul: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (without ascribing to Paul tritheism)
-God is one of three: the word God is used almost exclusively as a way of referring to the Father in Paul (this is the point i have tended to emphasize in Paul)
-and, again granting that Paul is almost certainly monotheistic, one has to find a way of saying that Christ is God (there is no way that Islam isn’t going to view this as pagan no matter which Christian says it); of course, this an ambiguous claim with regard to Paul b/c of how he typically uses the word God.

It seems to me that while Christians find better language than Paul’s along the way (and this is why I have used the Councils: they are normative for many Christians and they have worked out many of the ambiguities that are present in earlier writers) it foreshadows all the reservations that Muslims will continue to have with later, more systematic and precisely thought articulations of the Trinity.

Even “orthodox” Christian accounts of the Trinity are not going to fair well in the estimation of Muslims.

 

[Nine_Two]

**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.**

I suggest you read more of Planten’s stuff before criticizing BW. When I started here I was willing to give him a chance, however he shortly got rid of that. His posts are utterly ridiculous, second to Hamba’s posts (who once said that if you prostrate you will become a Muslim).

Yes BW was most certainly attacking Planten, but it was based on Plantens past dishonest dealings with him. You’ll not that his attitude toward other Muslims in this thread has not been nearly so confrontational.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 1/2)

Let’s just start with this really quickly, b/c this is NOT what I said. I did not say there is a distinction between the essences of the persons, which would land you in a rather bald tritheism. I said Christians, having already made a real distinction between the various persons, try to prevent that type of crass tritheism by making a distinction between the essence (ousia) and persons (hypostases) within God.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I would not say Christians “try to prevent that type of crass tritheism” because that is not an issue within the true doctrine of the Trinity. Three Persons within the One Being of God is no danger of tritheism, unless one completely misunderstands what the terms Persons and Beings mean, or confuses one for the other (which unfortunately many Oneness Pentecostal apologists do).

I am going to let you and the other Christians on here sort out what the “true” Christianity is. I simply see no reason to presuppose that the Qur’an is meant as a critique of Roman Christianity when the community to which it was addressed had extremely limited encounters with those Christians. I think the more interesting question to ask is what kind of Christians seem to be engaged by the Qur’an.

The thing is, again, there is never made of a distinction between the Christians in the Quran - it simply says “the Christians” or “Christians” or “tell the Christians,” etc. I have also presented a path through 600 years of Christian tradition showing a consistent thought regarding the Trinity. Again, I can cite plenty of more sources.

But I was always taught that the material, esp. in Surah 3 and Surah 5, was composed while in Medinah, after the Prophet had received a delegation of Christians from Yemen: you would find a summary of such in Muhammad Asad’s, The Message of the Qur’an; Richard Bell’s and Montgomery Watt’s work still remain classic; and I also tend to like the work of David Marshall (see, for instance God, Mohammed and the Unbelievers).

Ah, thank you for the sources, and I agree that it is important to understand context. Out of curiosity, do you have at hand anything written by Muhammad Asad on the topic?

I would also ask: if the Quran is only speaking of the Christians in the Arabian peninsula of the 7th century, why do later Muslims apply it to all Christians? Furthermore, why do Muslim apologists today debate modern Christians using these passages? Are modern Muslims therefore taking these passages out of context?

Something else I am curious about: I am trying to make a connection between the two main arguments you seem to be presenting. On one hand, you argue that the Quran is speaking of the Christian Arabs of Mohammad’s time. On the other hand, you jump 600 years and argue that the Quran is addressing the language of the writings of Paul, which surely more Christians than those in Arabia would be aware of. Could you explain this for me, please.

I apologize, but my translation of the Bible (RSV) reads as I quoted. Others do not.

Totally understandable, and forgivable. Incidentally, a good website for that is biblos.com - you can bring up a verse and it will show you a comparison of literally dozens of translations, even in various non-English languages.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 2/2)

I think Paul is sufficient to the day. Bringing in other authors writing other texts seems to simply confuse the issue. While John is interesting on quite other grounds, it is precisely Paul’s way of talking about God that bears the greatest similarities to the issues raised by the Qur’an, it seems to me.

I’m sorry, but what you have just presented - intentional or not - is selective reading. Bringing in the other authors is not going to “confuse the issue,” because of the fact that all the apostles belonged to the same church and considered themselves all brothers in Christ. It’s not going to confuse the issue any more than reading the entire context of the Quran would any Quranic issues. There is a harmony in the New Testament which you must allow. To simply say, “I’m going to pick these texts, but ignore these texts,” leads to circular reasoning.

I Cor 8.6 doesn’t appear to be a paraphrase of the ‘shema’ so much as a perversion. Using the shema, which affirms that God is absolutely One, to justify the kind of doubling that Paul undertakes may be very creative, but hardly comforting. In any case, notice that Paul still associates the word God with the Father and has to resort to other language to speak of the Son. I don’t doubt nor did I ever question Paul’s intended monotheism. I agree, it would be incredible if Paul were to suddenly go become a rabid polytheist. But the ambiguities and problems inherent in Paul’s language parallel very closely the concerns raised by the Qur’an.

Again, there are no problems unless one ignores the context of which Paul is speaking as well as his overall theology, and the consistency found in the text along with the rest of Christian scripture. I would argue, for example, that there is no “doubling” with the context Paul is speaking, because he associates the Father and Son together with similar traits. Let’s read the full context of what he is saying:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [1 Cor 8:5-6; ESV]

Paul speaks of one God, the Father, and one Lord, Christ, and acknowledges both bringing about the existence of all things - this could only be existent in one Being wherein all Persons are united by essence and substance. This is very similar to the start of the beloved disciple John’s gospel, in which he writes that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1) and “all things were made through him” (John 1:3).

I would not say this teaches a “critical ambiguity” unless one, again, does not study this belief further. Remember that Christianity started in the Jewish community and branched out to the Gentiles, and many of the places Paul wrote to (including Corinth) were made up mostly of ethnic Jews who had been raised in the Jewish tradition. They therefore would understand the shema and understand the concept of God’s oneness, and knowing that Christ is God and is seated at the right hand of the Father as well as Christ’s own teachings on His oneness with the Father, as well as Christ’s title as Lord, and the command by Christ to baptize in the name (even the original Greek is singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They would be fully aware that Paul is referring to the Oneness of God with the distinction of the Father and the Son within that Being. Which, again, is consistent with how the Fathers of the Church from the apostles to the time of Mohammad interpreted it.

 

[Sicilian]

How has Hamba “told the truth” about what orthodox and catholics believe about the trinity?

He has come to a catholic forum and diliberately told another definition of the Trinity that runs contrary to what catholics define the trinity to be, and furthermore what they say they believe.

It’s very nice for muslims to have such a venue as catholic answers to misrepresent another’s faith on their very own forum and end up alive.

It would likely not be the same for any christian here, let alone a heathen like me to get off so easy and live to tell about it.

HEAR, HEAR! Let the actions, (we know all too well), of the muslims speak for islam!

 

[hamba2han]

HEAR, HEAR! Let the actions, (we know all too well), of the muslims speak for islam!

Likewise, let the actions of the 60-strong Christian delegation from Najran speak for Christianity.

As far as Muslims are concerned, the real and meaningful discussion between Muslims and Christians concerning the Trinity and other such matters took place some 1400 years ago when this delegation of Christians from Najran met and discussed for 3 days with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

And as I have mentioned, they did NOT dispute what was written in the Qur’an about the Trinity even though they had every opportunity to do so.

Christians today who may be questioning the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an regarding the subject of the Trinity and other such Christian beliefs need to first acknowledge this fact before they wish to argue with Muslims on these matters.

 

[planten]

to Andrew Phillip, I think not!

Planten is an Ahmadi muslim. After the islamic self proclaimed mohamad, the Ahmadi have come upon their own prophet. Some dude from the 1800’s.

Regarding Planten and the Ahmadi muslim belief, Jesus was not crusified, but traveled to India where he lived, got married and is burried there. And Jesus lived to be 120 years old.

By not Crucified, the Ahmadi Muslims understand that Jesus was put on the cross, suffered much, but did not die. He fainted when he was brought down. His legs were not broken. He was laid in a room like tomb, but removed from there after a few hours to give full protection to the wounded body of Jesus who was alive all the time.

Since he was a condemned man, Jesus could never appear in public. He travelled east ward (because going to west would have kept him in the Roman Empire.). His followers told every one that Jesus had gone up to the Father. That was so that nobody goes looking for him. His departure was kept secret, Quran tells about his migration to a new good place.

He himself had come for the lost sheep of Israel. He had said that he had other sheep too, to whom he must go.

So Ahmadis do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. According to a Hadith, Ahmadis believe that Jesus lived a long happy life of 120 years and died a comfortable natural death in Kashmir in India. Many Budhists and Jews believed in Jesus in Kashmir and became his followers. He was known there as a prince prophet. There is a tomb of the prophet in Sirinagar, India, called the tomb of the prophet.(Jesus).

Mother Mary, also followed Jesus to India and she too died of an old age and she too, Mother Mary is buried in India.

Yes Quran says that God gave protection to both Jesus and his mother after great calamity at a lofty place full springs and fountains.

They, the Ahmadi muslims have 2 tombs, 1 for Jesus and the other for Mother Mary.

I hope not. Ahmadis do not have any tombs. Only the tomb of Jesus is famous and it is a public place. It does not belong to Ahmadis. The grave of Mother Mary is in Murree, a hill station in Pakistan. Perhaps that city (Murree) was named after mother Mary. Only God knows best.

So they believe…

So the Ahmadis believe as I have stated above…

And you are an Ukranian Orthodox Chistian?

At times, I’m embarrassed to call my self Orthodox Christian the way people of my EO like you carry on.

Stick around and learn about the posters before you go one with your asinine posts.

Yes, Andrew Phillip, stick around. Also stick to the advice of jakasaki. You may benefit. I also wish you well. All the best.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Likewise, let the actions of the 60-strong Christian delegation from Najran speak for Christianity.

As far as Muslims are concerned, the real and meaningful discussion between Muslims and Christians concerning the Trinity and other such matters took place some 1400 years ago when this delegation of Christians from Najran met and discussed for 3 days with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

And as I have mentioned, they did NOT dispute what was written in the Qur’an about the Trinity even though they had every opportunity to do so.

Christians today who may be questioning the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an regarding the subject of the Trinity and other such Christian beliefs need to first acknowledge this fact before they wish to argue with Muslims on these matters.

Hamba, this is your final warning which I am giving you as the author of the OP. Either respond to what people have said to you on this - which is called dialogue and which forums are all about - or stop posting because you will be contributing nothing.

 

[hamba2han]

The topic of the thread is “For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity”.

Therefore, I do not understand how anyone can consider the meeting that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had with the Christian delegation from Najran and discussing with them their beliefs on the Trinity to be not relevant to the subject being discussed.

 

[Hypatia]

I’m sorry, but what you have just presented - intentional or not - is selective reading. Bringing in the other authors is not going to “confuse the issue,” because of the fact that all the apostles belonged to the same church and considered themselves all brothers in Christ. It’s not going to confuse the issue any more than reading the entire context of the Quran would any Quranic issues. There is a harmony in the New Testament which you must allow. To simply say, “I’m going to pick these texts, but ignore these texts,” leads to circular reasoning.

I doubt we are going to come to an agreement on this point. Paul is an author in his own right. It seems to me perfectly fair, and even necessary, to examine what Paul says. He has a significant body of letters and represent the work of a very powerful mind. He deserves to be treated as such. It is not selective reading to take Paul as the author that he is, with the concerns, vision, problems and language that are uniquely his.

The Bible is a collection of texts by many different authors. It ought to be respected as such (not that similarities and differences between Paul and his contemporaries are not interesting questions, but you can’t use those contemporaries to find a solution to questions and issues raised by Paul and then call the solution Paul’s).

---

Quick Mohammad Asad quote from The Message of the Qur’an

According to all the reliable authorities, verses 59-63 of this surah were revealed in the year 10 H., on the occasion of a dispute between the Prophet and a deputation of the Christians of Najran [in Yemen] who, like all other Christians, maintained that Jesus was “the son of God” and, therefore, God incarnate. Although they refused the “trial through prayer” (mubahalah) proposed to them by the Prophet, the latter accorded to them a treaty guaranteeing all their civic rights and the free exercise of their religion.

That is the comment on Surah 3, and it is particularly pointed out b/c most of the material found in 3 is from much earlier. 3.59-63 comes from same period as the bulk of Surah 5 which was given in yr 10, near the end of his time at Medinah (you can find that about surah 5 almost anywhere, but Asad notes it, for instance, in the introductory remarks to the surah 5).

---

While the material in the Qur’an, esp. in the Medinah period, seems grounded in the actual encounters that the Prophet (pbuh) is having with actual Christians in southern Arabia, the suggestion that no Christian would talk about God and Jesus in the way that the Qur’an describes seems to raise the question of Christian sources. I am simply pointing out that you, in fact, have, in the writings of Paul, quite firm precedent for the type of language that the Qur’an attributes to the Christians that the early is Islamic community is familiar with. Not only that, Paul is someone that these Christians are likely to have known well, have had read to them on a regular basis, etc., etc. So it would not be surprising to hear them echoing the language of Paul.

In contrast, the appearance in the Qur’an of themes that are typical of John’s writings are much more severely limited. Etc.

 

[dzheremi]

The topic of the thread is “For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity”.

Therefore, I do not understand how anyone can consider the meeting that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had with the Christian delegation from Najran and discussing with them their beliefs on the Trinity to be not relevant to the subject being discussed.

Because, as Hypatia has pointed out, these Christians obviously must not have been within the fold of orthodox Christianity. Nothing proves this point more than what you keep repeating as though you’re somehow serving your own argument: They apparently did not dispute Muhammad’s misunderstandings of the Trinity. This shows them to be anything but adequate apologists for Christianity.

 

[planten]

Because, as Hypatia has pointed out, these Christians obviously must not have been within the fold of orthodox Christianity. Nothing proves this point more than what you keep repeating as though you’re somehow serving your own argument: They apparently did not dispute Muhammad’s misunderstandings of the Trinity. This shows them to be anything but adequate apologists for Christianity.

Hamba is addressing the issue at hand. The subject is that Muhammad (or Allah) did not understand Trinity. That was advanced by B W. We have proved that the belief in Trinity has not changed for 1400 years. Jesus was considered as God in those old days. Even today it is the same. Jesus was considered the son of God. It is same today.

It is the responsibility of the Catholics church here to stop misleading people about Muhammad and Quran. Or, they have to tell clearly what is disturbing them from the Quran. Jesus is the main issue in this whole matter. He was son of God long ago and a God too. He is son of God even now and God too. Please tell what has changed??

The Quran has rightly challenged both the wrong beliefs severely. There is no ground for Trinity from three or four points:.

No. 1, Jews are also in the field. They do not support Trinity.
No. 2, The Muslims do not support it. Quran is against Trinity.
No. 3, Most of the christians do not understand it. It is a mystery ( ends up in mystery).
No. 4, The Catholics run back to One God again. Why?? If there is Three then why to come back to One?? That is because of the excessive pressure on them from Judaism and Islam. Otherwise, they have Jesus as the God Almighty. First they try to make Jesus as a part of Trinity. Then they go one step forward and say that Jesus is everything. That is high handedness.

Take another example. The Catholics say that Jesus is son of God. Jews and Muslims do not agree to that at all. But then the Catholics move one step further. Not satisfied with making Jesus a son of God, they advance further and say Jesus is the begotten son of God… Well how and in what way?? They do not tell. There is no incarnation. That is a Hindu belief.

Then they are not satisfied with Jesus being the begotten son of God. They advance further and stress that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. WE have understood the bad policy of the christians in all these matters. There is no way that they can convince anyy sensible person about all these things.

Did Jesus say that he was son of God, or begotten son of God. Did he say that he was the only begotten son of God?? No. Did his mother Mary say that Jesus was the son of god?? Perhaps she did not know about it. All the Catholics have are derived meanings, and they are wrongly derived.

Now I am inviting BW to come to bibleNT and prove from that about begotten son and Trinity. Did Jesus say that he was divine or holy spirit was divine and part of God?? No.

If it is not in bibleNT then where from this subject has been dug out?? The later day Saints had no right to put extra meanings into simple things.

I have posted the same subject before looking into gospels. But no one is replying. Every one is against Hamba who has also discussed Trinity in the time of the prophet Muhammad. BW is having good dialogue with Hypatia. But that is too high level long posts, no one is interested in them

 

[spn82756]

Hamba is addressing the issue at hand. The subject is that Muhammad (or Allah) did not understand Trinity. That was advanced by B W. We have proved that the belief in Trinity has not changed for 1400 years. Jesus was considered as God in thos edays. Even today it is the same. Jesus was considered the son of God. It is same today.

It is the responsibility of the Catholics here to stop misleading people about Muhammad and Quran. Or, they have to tell clearly what is disturbing them fromthe Quran. Jesus is the main issue in this whole matter. He was son of God log ago and God too. He is son of God now and God too. Please tell what has changed??

The Quran has rightly challenged both the wrong beliefs severely. There is no ground for Trinity fromtwo or three points.
No. 1, Jews are also in the field. They do not support Trinity.
No. 2, The Muslims do not support it. Quran is against Trinity.
No. 3, Most of the christians do not understand it. It is a mystery (in the end).
No. 4, The Catholics run back to One God again. Why?? If there is Three then why to come back to One?? That is because of the excessive pressure on them from Judaism and Islam. Otherwise, they have Jesus as the God Almighty. First they try to make Jesus as a part of Trinity. Then they go one step forward and say that Jesus is everything. That is high handedness.

Take another example. The Catholics say that Jesus is son of God. Jews and Muslims do not agree to that at all. But then the Catholics move one step further. Not satisfied with making Jesus a son of God, they advance further and say Jesus is the begotten son of God… Well how and in what way?? They do not tell.

Then they are not satisfied with Jesus being the begotten son of God. They advance further and stress that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. WE have understood the bad policy of the christians in all these matters. There is no way that they can convince anyy sensible person about all these things.

Did Jesus say that he was son of God, or begotten son of God. Did he say that he was the only begotten son?? No. Did his mother Mary say that Jesus was the son of god?? Perhaps she did not know about it.

Now I am inviting BW to come to bibleNT and prove fromt hat about begotten son and Trinity. Did Jesus say that he was divine or holy spirit was divine and part of God?? No.

If it is not in bibleNT then where from this subject has been dug out?? The later day Saints had no right to put extra meanings into simple things.

I have posted the same subject before but no one is replying. Every one is against Hamba who has also discussed Trinity in the time of the prophet Muhammad. BW is having good dialogue with Hypatia.Butthat is too long high level posts, no one is interested in them

The problem with Christians and the koran is that the koran is a false book. A book of Satan. The demonic angel gabriel mislead mohammad. The true angel Gabriel of God told us and you that Jesus is true God. You just refuse to believe it. Instead you believe and worship the evil one.