H
hamba2han
Guest
Are you saying that Christians are incapable of feeling LOVE if there is no doctrine of Trinity in Christianity?
- Status
S
spn82756
Guest
Why do you continuouly insist on twisting words?
H
hamba2han
Guest
I feel confused… and it is all thanks to the doctrine of the Trinity.
W
wwolverine
Guest
Its not only you, but Mohammed himself was confused. He thought it was Jesus, Mary and Angel Gabriel, who were three in one god. And that confusion he imposed on all Muslims, very minority of who found the real meaning and left Islam, but others are still swimming in that confusion.
S
spn82756
Guest
All muslims are confused. If they weren’t…they’d accept the Trinity.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Actually it doesn’t “introduce,” because according to the Trinitarian doctrine God has always been a Trinitarian God. And again, it cannot be “multiplicity” if God if, at the end of the day, God is still one. That is confusing what the Persons are and what they represent. As I said, each Person represents the fullness of God, and act in accordance with one another because of their united essence and substance.
There is no distinction of essence. If that is not the argument you want to make (as you said earlier) I would suggest you stop making it. The Persons are united by Essence, hence there is no compromising of the one Being of God. Patristics and the councils (which you claimed to be quoting) all agreed on this.
Actually, that’s a bad thing, because again the Quran addresses generic Christians (not specific) and says they believe this, and Muslims are left with a book that inaccurately represents the Christian position - a point I made in my earlier post which you are dancing around. I tried to put things in perspective by showing a theoretical situation where the Muslim position is misrepresented, but according to you that prophet can simply tell Muslims who object, “I’m sorry my holy book doesn’t treat Muslims in the manner that you would like.” That’s basically saying, “So what if it’s wrong? It’s my holy book, deal with it.” That’s the willful ignorance I stressed avoiding in my OP. That isn’t a good thing.
I appreciate there are scholars who can, however you can’t really answered my question of why the vast majority of Muslim scholars and classical theologians seem to address all Christians using this passage, if it is indeed only in reference to a small group?
It should not be “sufficient to their needs” if the Quran claims to be a revelation in line with Christianity. In essence, you are asking Muslims exactly what the prophet and his companions told Muslims: be willfully ignorant of that which came before. Revelation, however, never worked like this, except in the case of false prophets who had something to hide. As I showed, the early Christians and the Christians at the time of Mohammad knew what the doctrine was, and they accepted it. You can’t accept a supposed revelation that comes 600 years later with no contact with the Church or with a prophet not in line with Jewish tribes that is sourced to one man and one man alone and simply take his word for it. If that is your basis of criticism of Christianity, and you believe this is “sufficient” to the needs of Muslims, then the sufficiency is based on circular reasoning.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
This was what I was asking Hypatia - most Muslims I’ve heard who criticize Christianity use those passages from the Quran. Again, I can appreciate it if some Muslim scholars try to accurately represent the Trinity, I truly do, however I think their religion will be a stumbling block for them because of who the Quran teaches the Trinity.
Sir, you have in one sentence destroyed your argument that the Quran teaches the Trinity correctly. Christians do not believe Christ is the Father. That is modalism, which was condemned by the Church early on.
While I am aware you address modalism later on…
…the situation you present in favor of the Quran (that Christians believe Jesus is the Father) is indeed modalism. Therefore, you seem to present to us that the Quran truly had no understanding of what Christian doctrine was, if it confused the relationship between Christ and the Father with the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity (which I’ll get to in a moment).
Actually it doesn’t state that. It says to tell the Christians: “Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah” (5:73); “Say not ‘Trinity’…for Allah is one Allah” (4:171). The Trinity is not “God being one of three,” and the Trinity still teaches that there is one God. If you are going to argue that “Allah” means the Father, then the Quran is still in error because it claims that Christians believe that Jesus is the Father, or “Allah is Christ” (5:72). It goes on to warn “whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden” (ibid) - which, again is an error, because the Trinity is not joining other gods with God. One can try to argue that the Quran is teaching correctly if we separate from the text (which leads to eisegesis), but once we go to the text itself we find that the writer of the Quran did not understand what had already been established during 600 years of sound theology.
The fact is there is no way to find sound Trinitarian doctrine within the Quran, hence why there might be a need to turn to the heretical groups and claim that the Quran was only speaking of a group of Christians rather than Christians entire - but this, again, would contradict Muslim traditional exegesis as well as how the majority of Muslims view and use those passages. To defend the Trinitarian doctrine using the Quran, therefore, is a self-defeating purpose.
P
planten
Guest
wwolverine. that is not true. Nowhere did Muhamamd say that Mary was part of Trinity. The Quran also never says that Mary is part of Trinity. You cannot show such a thing from Quran.
The Quran however described a condition, a dialogue, that Mary was being worshipped. Allah asks Jesus “Did you allow and did you tell people to worship you and your mother??”
Jesus replied in the negative. Jesus denied such a thing. It means a lot. It also means that Jesus denied telling any one to worship him. That is proved by the bibleNT too. Nowhere in the bibleNT did Jesus tell any one to worship him. See how the truth of the Quran is being proved from the bibleNT??
Jesus also denied telling any one to worship his mother Mary. In fact Jesus told every one to worship the One God only and to love Him by heart and soul. He never said that He is a Triune God. When Jesus did not say such thing then no one has the right to spread the wrong news.
The worship of Mary has nothing to do with Trinity. That is separate matter which had been observed mongst the christians. So Allah forbade that too.
If Catholics use part of the verse 5:116 to disprove Islam, they should use the whole verse. In that verse jesus is denying that he told any one to worship him. In that verse Jesus is telling every one to worship the One God who was his Lord and Lord of the people. The Catholics should make use of the whole verse and not just a little part of it.
H
Hypatia
Guest
Once again, you keep putting an “of” where I put an “and”. I never said there is a distinction of essence [presumably you mean between the persons, the result of which would be crass tritheism]. I said there is a distinction between essence and persons. There is of course also a distinction between the three persons.
I realize it is slightly off topic for this thread, but I will quote myself from another thread, summarizing the basic problems Christianity faces on Islamic terms…
Christians can say that God is one all they want after they say those other things (and it is good that they say it), but their account of the One is unacceptable because of their maintenance of distinctions within God. End of story.
As for the rest, I think I have dealt with it before and replying will simply involve repeating myself.
Allahu alam
W
wwolverine
Guest
Ok the whole verse is here. Where did mohammed get this words to use?
005.116
YUSUFALI: And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
SHAKIR: And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
That is the thing - the Persons are not distinguished by their Essence. That is what I am saying. There can be no distinction between Essence and Persons when all Persons have the same Essence. All are united in Essence - in that there is no distinguishing. I quoted the First Council of Nicea to verify that earlier in this thread. It is that unity of Essence that confirms the Being of God is one in the Trinity.
Ousia refers to God’s essence, not His nature, hence the phraseology at the Council of Nicea in regards to whether Christ was homoousia (of the same Essence) or animoios (of a different Essence), or even the semi-Arian belief of homoiousia (of a similar Essence).
Furthermore, to speak of distinction in God’s Person presumes Unitarianism and a belief that God’s Being and Person are one and the same, which isn’t the case. God’s Being is One, and it is revealed through Three Persons - not three gods like the Quran says, but three Persons who all represent the fullness of God and are one in Essence.
No, we do not say God is three Persons, but that there exists within that one Being of God three distinct but unified Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is God, that is what “Being” refers to. Furthermore, this is not a problem that “Christianity extends,” but a belief that, again as I showed in my OP, what the early Christians believed because of what had been revealed to them. This wasn’t something Christians made up to tick off Mohammad one day, but what had been revealed to the early Christians and which they stuck by out of faith.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of the Incarnation. God is not identified with a human being nor is God made finite, rather the Divine, Eternal Word entered into His creation. Yet God did not cease being deity, but maintained that while taking on a full humanity. This is called the hypostatic union - Christ was both fully man and fully God. This is in line with the beginning of John’s gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us… [John 1:1, 3, 14; ESV]
As I know you are fond of Paul, I will show it is found even in the writings of Paul as well:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. [Philippians 2:5-8; NKJV]
Mohammad, unfortunately, was not aware of this teaching as well, and confusion regarding Christ, His relationship to the Father, and His human nature shows in the Quran. To quote James White, the reason you and I are having this discussion right now, 1400 years later, is because Mohammad did not know his scripture.
I’m sorry, but that is arrogance. You say that our understanding of God “on Islamic terms” is unacceptable. However, to simply say, “No matter what Christians say, they’re still wrong,” and because of an account that came 600 years after the time of Christ in another land and with another people and with no substantiated claim to what came before is circular thinking. We believe what we believe because it has been passed down to us by the apostles, preserved by the Church Fathers, and maintained even up to this day. No one who has ever received a revelation from God ever said, “Well that’s too difficult to understand, so I’ll just discard it,” hence the apostles could not simply discard that which God had revealed to them. They received the truth of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, their distinction as well as their unity within the God that had spoken to Isaiah, Elijah, Moses and Abraham. To simply say their belief is unacceptable because of what a man believed 600 years after them is - again, I’m sorry to say - simple arrogance.
F
fms
Guest
For Hypatia
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Newton developed terminology and (mathematical) language for gravity but it still was insufficient. Then came Einstein and with his theories got us deeper but still not all the way…
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Take the reality of gravity. This is a created reality but who can tell us what it really is?
Newton developed terminology and (mathematical) language for gravity but it still was insufficient. Then came Einstein and with his theories got us deeper but still not all the way…
H
Hypatia
Guest
you continue to misinterpret what I am saying. Plain and simple, when you say ousia and when you say hypostasis, you are not saying the same thing. You need the distinction between the two terms in order to explain how the three distinct persons are one.
I am happy to go with whatever translation of ousia you prefer.
I think I have been at pains throughout this thread to stress that I know very well that Conciliar Christians do not worship 3 separate gods. The objection to them has always been that their one God is not the One because they continue to apply distinctions to God.
I am, again, willing to defer to your wording, which seems to me to be no improvement. You believe in one God: Father, Son and HS. There are three hypostases.
I am not terribly concerned with when Christians started believing it, and I certainly don’t think they had the Prophet in mind. Whenever they started going down this path (and I think we have seen that they are already headed in this direction as early as Paul, which are the earliest Christian writings we have access to), it was wrong and logically incoherent.
Christians claim that Jesus is God. Yes, I am familiar with the hypostatic union: one person (the person of the Logos); two natures: fully human, fully God. The details don’t really matter after the initial claim that the man, Jesus, is God. To say that some thing in the world can probably be called God is a violation of the One.
I’m going to start by quoting what I actually said:
“Christians can say that God is one all they want after they say those other things (and it is good that they say it), but their account of the One is unacceptable because of their maintenance of distinctions within God. End of story.” [emphasis is mine]
once Christians start making distinctions (to quote you: “three distinct but unified persons”) with respect to the One, nothing else they say is going to save the coherence of their position. They are not providing a sensible account of the One. Unified is not the same thing, btw, as the One.
This really has nothing to do with the Qur’an; in fact, you can forget I am Muslim for a moment if you like. The Catholic/Orthodox position is incoherent. When talking of the One, there is no place for distinctions, nor can you identify a particular human being as God.
I give Christians full credit when they say they worship the One. I believe them, and would defend that they worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. Their intention is right. But large parts their theology of God is an unsalvageable disaster.
H
Hypatia
Guest
you continue to misinterpret what I am saying. Plain and simple, when you say ousia and when you say hypostasis, you are not saying the same thing. You need the distinction between the two terms in order to explain how the three distinct persons are one.
I am happy to go with whatever translation of ousia you prefer. I have, for the most part, used the word “essence” in this thread.
I think I have been at pains throughout this thread to stress that I know very well that Conciliar Christians do not worship 3 separate gods. The objection to them has always been that their one God is not the One because they continue to apply distinctions to God.
While I don’t think my wording was problematic, I am, again, willing to defer to your wording, which seems to me to be no improvement. You believe in one God: Father, Son and HS. There are three hypostases. God (who is One) is (this word does nothing but has to be there in English) three persons (Father, Son, HS).
I am not terribly concerned with when Christians started believing it, and I certainly don’t think they had the Prophet in mind. Whenever they started going down this path (and I think we have seen that they are already headed in this direction as early as Paul, which are the earliest Christian writings we have access to), it was wrong and logically incoherent.
Christians claim that Jesus is God. Yes, I am familiar with the hypostatic union: one person (the person of the Logos); two natures: fully human, fully God, without separation, without confusion. The details don’t really matter after the initial claim that the man Jesus, is God (“and became man”; “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, etc., etc.). To say that some thing in the world can properly be called God is a violation of the One.
I’m going to start by quoting what I actually said:
“Christians can say that God is one all they want after they say those other things (and it is good that they say it), but their account of the One is unacceptable because of their maintenance of distinctions within God. End of story.” [emphasis is mine]
once Christians start making distinctions (to quote you: “three distinct but unified persons”) with respect to the One, nothing else they say is going to save the coherence of their position. They are not providing a sensible account of the One. Unified is not the same thing, btw, as the One.
This really has nothing to do with the Qur’an; in fact, you can forget I am Muslim for a moment if you like. The Catholic/Orthodox position is incoherent. When talking of the One, there is no place for distinctions, nor can you identify a particular human being as God.
I give Christians full credit when they say they worship the One. I believe them, and would defend that they worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. Their intention is right. But large parts their theology of God is an unsalvageable disaster.
F
fms
Guest
You are welcome Hypatia!
K
Kadaveri
Guest
So why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say “The Father is that which the Son is”? Does the Catholic Church also teach Modalism? You’re ignoring 5:73, which shows the Qur’an cannot possibly be mistaking the Trinity for modalism as it recognises the three persons as separate, whereas Modalism rejects such a distinction.
Now you’re ignoring 5:72 which states that Christians believe The Father and The Son to be the same God, and so they can’t possibly be three separate gods. This is also demonstrating a lack of seriousness on your behalf. How can you go around saying the Qur’an is teaching the Trinity as Modalism, and also go around saying the Qur’an is teaching the Trinity as tritheism? That’s as nonsensical as the Trinity itself.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Then I’m afraid your argument is just silly. Those are two separate words. Of course we have to distinguish between them.
You might as well lecture a cook on the fact he has to distinguish between the definitions of knife and fork. If the problem Muslims have with Christians is that they use different words to help define something, then there is a large gnat being strained.If you know that Christians do not worship three separate gods, then you are at disagreement with the Quran, which says many times that Christians do. If you are going to turn here and repeat your argument that the Quran is only addressing a small number of Christians, I would ask you to first address my question of why this doesn’t seem to be the majority opinion of Muslim tradition and apologetics, and I would also ask you to resolve this conflict between yourself and other Muslim members such as Kadaveri.
In that case, you tell us that you believe that Christ was wrong and logically incoherent. He commanded His apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19), and gave witness to them of Trinitarian revelations such as His baptism (Mark 1:9-11) and His transfiguration (Matt 17). Peter, John, Paul and other apostles of Christ all affirmed Christ’s divinity, lordship, and ergo the Trinity.
If the apostles were in error, what does that say of Christ’s judgment in choosing those who would take over after He left? What does that say of the Quran’s statement that “compassion and mercy” was put into the hearts of those who followed Jesus? (S. 57:27) What does that say of the Quranic passage where Christ’s followers promise to be faithful? (S. 3:52-53) I know that Mohammad said the first two or three generations of Muslims would be faithful, and only after that would untrustworthy people come…why then is this standard not applied to Christ and His apostles, and indeed the early Church Fathers? If the early Christians were in error (and you say this happened at the time of the apostles) then Christ was apparently horrible when it came to choosing successors and companions of His own.
So your argument is: I don’t care about the proper definition, and I don’t care that it is founded in scripture…I’m just going to keep saying it’s wrong. Again - and I’m sorry if this offends, but - that is arrogance. To say something in the world can properly be called God is not a violation of God’s unity, because really it has nothing to do with His unity in the first place. Furthermore, as I said, the early Christians had a revelation given to them that they could not ignore. When Peter, James and John saw the Transfiguration - where they heard the voice of the Father, saw the glory of the Son, and were enveloped by the Holy Spirit - they couldn’t just say, “Nah, that’s too weird. We’ll just ignore that.” They couldn’t any more than the ancient Hebrews when they saw the Red Sea part or Elijah as the fire came down from heaven. They accepted it as a theological reality because God had granted it to them as one.
Therefore, if you understand the true meaning of the hypostatic union, and you know that it is proven in scripture, I must ask…what is the TRUE basis of your rejection? Which leads into the next point…
It has everything to do with the Quran, unless you presume that the Quran is not the central focus of the Muslim’s life. This, again, dances around my point of presuppositions and the flaw that comes from them. I cannot forget you are Muslim any more than you could forget I am Christian. If a rejection of the Trinity and hypostatic union is the opinion of one man who gave isolated revelation that amounts to a collection of his personal revelations, and it has no true connection with what came before, then is that really a sound basis for rejecting anything?
Again, if a revelation came later that claimed to be in line with Islam, yet it got Muslim doctrines wrong, and you debated one of the followers of this revelation and they responded with, “Muslims can explain that all they want, they’re still wrong,” how would you feel?
Again, if that is true, then Christ’s ministry was an unsalvageable disaster, as I explained earlier.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I’m not Catholic, therefore the Catechism means nothing to me. You might as well ask me why the Westminster Confession has the filioque in it.
Actually, I think most people who read my OP (which, incidentally, addressed your Allah is Father argument) as well as my responses to you would know that I am not going back and forth between two points, but addressing the incoherent definition of the Trinity in the Quran and the double-standard presentation which you give in its defense.
You argued that S. 5:72 saying “Allah is Christ” means that Jesus is the Father (because you defined “Allah” as “Father”). In that case, the Quran is still wrong (if we go by your definition) because it then does teach modalism. The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. Entire ecumenical councils were held to resolve this issue.
Furthermore, you continually misquote 5:73, saying that it claims the Trinity is three distinct persons. That isn’t what it says at all. Allow me to quote it:
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah…
If the Quran knew that the Trinity involved three Persons, it would not back up its condemnation of it with “there is no god except One Allah.” That isn’t a problem in the Trinity - the Trinitarian God is One God! This is the same error the Quran makes in S. 4:171, and later on in S. 5:116 when it declares that Christians have taken up not only Christ but the Virgin Mary alongside God.
Again, the error is not with me, but the Quran.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Wait… he said that? Didn’t the Shia/Sunni split originate in the first generation?
- Status