Is the Qur'an wrong about the trinity?

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

but you did that before I did to you.

and that justifies you ad hominem . . . sure.

Neverland:

Let us see the situation:
A formal charge of wrong doing:
Allah asks Isa IN THE LAST JUDGEMENT
He asked if ISA WANTED the people to worship Him as Allah. This is wrongdoing in Allah’s point of view.

yes, a formal charge of wrong doing. these are usually made in the form of positive statements: “you did such and such.” a question is not a formal charge. had the question in the verse been a leading question, you might have an argument.

Neverland:

You didn’t comment anything about my question of your Golden Rule. You judge that the Jews worship their Rabbis not from the source of the Jews. And I call it dishonesty, because I read somehow that you believe to learn about Islam you MUST ask moslems (or at least you believe so).

did you read the explanation of how the people of the Book worship their learned men and clergy?

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal]

Then you said:
yes, a formal charge of wrong doing. these are usually made in the form of positive statements: “you did such and such.” a question is not a formal charge. had the question in the verse been a leading question, you might have an argument.

USUALLY doesn’t mean it is ALWAYS. A formal charge is a charge made FORMALLY. Here God ASKED Isa in the JUDGEMENT DAY, IF he did such a thing…like playing God.
And I use your dictionary anyway.

you also said:
and that justifies you ad hominem . . . sure.

I only try to make the score into 1-1 and remind you that people can also apply ad hominem on you, as you did to Rodrigo. But this will not lead to a healthy discussion that we search for here.

You asked again:
did you read the explanation of how the people of the Book worship their learned men and clergy?

I asked first, where did you learn the source? Jewish source or Islamic source?

 

[inJESUS]

well, whether it is Mary, Jesus and allah, or Jesus, a rabbi and allah, or Jesus, a monk and allah, or a monk, a rabbi and allah : IT IS STILL WRONG; all allah refuted is HERETIC teachings that Christians themselves refute; allah talked about all kinda heresies, but NEVER the true worship of mainstream Christians; allah was limited by the 7 th century heresies and we all know there were many heretical teachings at mohammads time; mohammads grandfather who took care of him after his father’s death was a Hanif ; hanif = the one who deviated from truth; mainstream christians used to call the heretic nasara Hanif; mohammad was circled by nasara, Waraqa Bin Nawfal, Khadija His nanny Baraka al Habachiyya called Um Ayman and others; Joining Waraqa, Abd al Muttalib ( his grandpa), and Khadija, the religious, social and commercial heretical nazarene power was in mohammads hands;
Mohammads life ( sira ) is divided in 3 steps : with the bishop of Mecca Waraqa , Monk Bohayra in Basra; and his marriage to Khadija by the acceptance of the bishop; mohammad lived with Khadija ( nasrania) and Waraqa, the translator of the “nazarene gospel” from hebrew to arabic.

093.006 Did He not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter (and care)?

093.007 And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance.

093.008 And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.

shelter thru his grandpa the Hanif
independent : by his marriage to the wealthy Khadija
But , what about guidance?it happened “before” getting married ;so what does it mean that he came to follow the muslims before him?did mohammad come with a religion out of nowhere? who did he follow? whose doctrines did he adopt? The Heretic teachings of Arabia.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Aren’t you glad I give you the time of day?

you really think too highly of yourself.

No. It was in response to your question about why I bother to reply to you.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

It is not there because Allah will accuse Jesus of telling the people to worship Jesus and Mary min dooni Allah – nothing about rabbis and monks.

so a question now turns into an accusation?

What are accusations but a form of questions? It is the form that makes a question an accusation.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I put it to you it is talking about the Catholic practice of venerating saints. Saints are not deities.

wrong. see the explanation given for how the people of the Book took their rabbis and monks as deities above. it’s obviously clear you missed it.

No. Please explain again how the Christians and Jews taking rabbis and monks as LORDS besides Allah is not making them deities? Veneration of saints is not the same as the worship of God. Or didn’t your Muhammad know that?

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Thanks for your tacit admission that you made up that ‘ad hominem circumstantial’ against me.

there’s no such admission in my post, tacit or otherwise. like i said, i know how to spot a flaw in logic when i see one. you don’t need to be schooled in the art of fallacy naming to do so either. your inference that because there are a total of three objects of worship mentioned in 5:116, this circumstancial mention necessitates a reference to the trinity is flawed logic, especially when elsewhere in the Quran it mentions the people of the Book taking others as objects of worship as well—regardless of whether you believe the Quran was wrong in that assertion or not.

Yes it was a tacit admission all right – there was no flaw in my reasoning because you cannot explain away one error by pointing to another error. In this, Muhammad made 2 errors:

1. He thought veneration of saints was worshipping them as deities besides Allah.
2. He thought the Trinity comprised of Jesus, Mary and Allah.

Now, you’re claiming that in part 2, Jesus and Mary are merely part of 1. Still wrong because a) these rabbis and monks are not mentioned in 5:116; b) Jesus is not venerated as a saint but as the Son of God and c) the veneration of saints could not have occurred in Jesus’s lifetime thus making your interpolation of 9:31 into 5:116 rather meaningless – remember he will be accused of teaching the people to worship Jesus and Mary besides Allah. Since the practice of venerating saints developed after his death it is not part of 5:116. I hope you can see that.

There is a difference between the Catholic practices of worshipping Jesus as the Son of God and their veneration of saints, including Mary, mother of Jesus.

I hope you’ll see this. Everyone here except Muslims will, I’m sure.

Hasta la vista
Rodrigo

 

[inJESUS]

Rodrigo,
it is clear that mohammad stressed on “correcting” us ,refuting all kinda heresies that we already refute ( we dont need him),but never the mainstream faith ( that he considers heretic as well) coz obviously he did not understand the Trinity or what mainstream Christians believe in; mohammad was stuck in the heresies of his time; in fact, he adopted them and added some “priviledges” of money and women coz he is the “messenger” of allah ( as if God rewards a prophet by giving him women)

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam All;

This is to summarize what we got so far concerning the claim that Muhammad (PBUH) got the trinity wrong. That claim was made using verse 5:116: “*And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods **min dooni *Allah”. Polemics forced the Arabic term min dooni to mean “as well as” or “along with” implying equality, thus saying that Muhammad (PBUH) did not understand the Christian trinity. So blinded by their aim to disprove the holy Qur’an; the polemics forgot (intentionaly) the basics of religious studies, that is to look at the environment surrounding any event reported by a given verse.

First, some people made the comment as to why should Jesus explain something he never said?? Didn’t Allah know Jesus never said it? If he must ask someone, it should be THE ONE who said it, not Jesus.

The answer to that question is that Allah (SWT) knew Jesus (PBUH) did not say such a thing, but asked him for another reason as we will recall below.

In verse 3:55, Allah (SWT) told Jesus (PBUH) that He will raise him up to Him and clear him from the falsehood of those who blaspheme.
If Jesus (PBUH) asked people to take him as god apart from Allah, he would have blasphemed, and how would Allah (SWT) clear him from those who blasphemed if he himself blasphemed?
Furthermore, Allah (SWT) did indeed raise Jesus (PBUH) to Him: “…But they killed him not, nor crucified him…,” “Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself” (Qur’an 4:157-158). Conclusion: Allah (SWT) saved Jesus (PBUH) from death and raised him to Himself because he did not blaspheme by saying what he had not right to say. Would Allah (SWT) save a blasphemer from death and give him the highest honor to raise him to Himself? So up until Jesus (PBUH) was raised up, he did not say such a thing and Allah (SWT) testified to that.

So, why did Allah (SWT) ask Jesus (PBUH) such a question as in verse 5:116?
First, one needs to find out the context in which such a question was asked.

Verse 5:119 gives the context, Allah (SWT) said: “That (is a) day, the truthful their truthfulness benefits (them)…” That day is the Judgment Day.
Also the answer of Jesus (PBUH) sets the context to be also the Judgment Day: “I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (Qur’an 5:117). Jesus (PBUH) took the moment he was raised up as a reference because till that moment he did not say such a thing as to take him and his mother as gods rather than Allah (SWT) and Allah (SWT) testified to that as explained above.

Allah (SWT) will gather the human beings from Adam till the Last Day, and they will be judged the Judgment Day, and they will be asked, who did they worship? Some people will accuse Jesus (PBUH) to have said to them to take him and his mother as gods rather than Allah (SWT) and Allah (SWT) will bring Jesus (PBUH) to testify: “…and on the Day of Judgment he (Jesus) will be a witness against them” (Qur’an, 4:159)

Second, the Arabic word (min dooni) can have many meanings such “rather than” or “other than” or “at the exception of” but does not have a connotation of equality as it is with the Christian trinity. If we take a step ladder of 10 steps, min dooni could be any step from the 9th step downward, but never the 10th step.

Conclusion: Verse 5:116 is about Jesus (PBUH) defending himself the Judgment day against an accusation made by those who took him and his mother as gods rather than Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) will inform him of their saying, relaying to him their accusation. Those people will say it was Jesus who told them such; the truth is that it was: “…people who went wrong in times gone by, - who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way” (Qur’an 5:77) who told them things Jesus (PBUH) never said.

The claim that through verse 5:116, Muhammad (PBUH) got the Christian trinity wrong is an utterly ignorant claim to say the least. The desired target behind such a claim is in fact to disprove the Holy Qur’an and therefore its Author, Allah (SWT).

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[inJESUS]

Where is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit Trinity in quran? mohammad so far refuted all kinda heresies that we refute as well; where is the biggest heresy of billions of christians now in the quran? of course you will say : allah did not mention them all; but allah indeed mentioned a lot, then why did mohammad spend energy refuting all these heresies and not the true heresy believed by all christians now?

 

[inJESUS]

Third Member of The Trinity according to the Quran: Holy Spirit or Mary?
Sura 2:97 says that Gabriel brings down the revelations to Muhammad, while Sura 16:102 says it is the holy spirit. Therefore Muslims say that “holy spirit” is just another name for Gabriel. Thus in the Quran The Holy Spirit is not seen as part of the Trinity but as the Angel Gabriel. One more application of this is that Muhammad cannot be the “Holy Spirit” and Comforter who was promised by Jesus in the Book of John because the Muslim “holy spirit” cannot be both, Gabriel and Muhammad. See also Muhammad in The Bible.

Sura 5:116 “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, make me and my mother idols beside God?”

Sura 5:73 talks about the Trinity, but who are the members? Two verses after that, Sura 5:75 says “The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food.” In this context the two extra people of the “trinity” talked about in Sura 5:73 seem to be Jesus and Mary. The Quran’s argument that “both of them used to eat the food” to trying to show that “Mary is just a saint and not God”. This is because her food-eating is not trying to prove her saintliness it trying to disprove her being God. Note how it says “BOTH of THEM ate food”, this is making one single point about the nature of BOTH Jesus AND Mary.

This misinterpretation of the Trinity may have come from the Mary-worshipping cult (the Choloridians) who lived in Arabia at that time. This mistake could also be from Muhammad’s belief that Christians say, “God had a child with his wife” (See Suras 6:101 and 72:3).

Since mohammas bothered to talk about the christian heresies, why did he focus on a heresy refuted by mainstream christians as well and not on the BIGGEST heresy that billions now believe? allah/mohammad did NOT understand the maistream Christian Trinity , otherwise he would have refuted it, knowing that billions will believe it.

 

[inJESUS]

Surah 3:67/67Say: “O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That **we worship none but Allah. that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.” ** If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah.s Will). . . . Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah’s (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

mohammas was adressing the heretics of his time ; partners? lol; no idea about trinity

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

allah is 1 ! do not say he is 3 ! 3 what? deities of course…interesting, enlightning indeed

allah has a son?? astaghfirullah! how can he have a son with no consort??

oh my…genius pubh :tiphat:

 

[inJESUS]

:dancing:

Surah 5:72-73 They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: **Allah is one of three ** : for there is **no god except One ** Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Allah is Christ?
join other gods with Allah
allah is one OF three

yet, mohammad understood the trinity :dancing:

 

[inJESUS]

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105 Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, ‘Who do you use to worship?’ They will say, ‘We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son.’ 14. Abu Said Al-Khudri, Hadith Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105

 

[discipleofJesus]

inJESUS:

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105 Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, ‘Who do you use to worship?’ They will say, ‘We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son.’ 14. Abu Said Al-Khudri, Hadith Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105

Thanks for sharing inJESUS, very helpful
By the way, this Hadith is from Sahih Bukhari, in case others wanted to know.

 

[inJESUS]

discipleofJesus:

Thanks for sharing inJESUS, very helpful
By the way, this Hadith is from Sahih Bukhari, in case others wanted to know.

cant get enough englightnment

 

[Joseph_Alison]

inJESUS:

cant get enough englightnment

Salaam inJESUS;
We would like, if you will, get some enlightenment from you as well.

You believe that Jesus is the Son of God and you also believe that the Son is God; the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God; three persons, co-equal, co-eternal, but one God.

When you say that Jesus is the Son of God, what does it mean? Does it mean: He is the Son of God, God the Father? Or the Son of God, God the Holy Ghost? Or the Son of God, God the Son (in this case, Son of Himself)? Or in short the Son of God, God being the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? In which case he is also the Son of Himself.

Also, since God is the Creator, would it be appropriate to call Jesus, the Son of the Creator? And if Jesus is God, then he must be the Creator, would then the Creator beget Himself or beget a Son who is Himself?
Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[JimG]

Joseph_Alison:

When you say that Jesus is the Son of God, what does it mean?

When we say that Jesus is Son of God, it means that he is the Person of God the Son who has assumed a human nature, while as the second Person of the Trinity, wholly retaining his divine nature. The one divine nature of God is not multiplied.

What God is, is One.
Who God is, is Three.

God the Father begets the Person of the Son by the operation of his divine self-knowledge. Father and Son generate the Person of the Holy Spirit by the operation of the divine will to love.

Each Person wholly possesses the one divine nature.

Nothing of God’s existence or nature can be explained if He is a material being.
Does Islam believe that God is a material being?

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam JimG.

JimG:

God the Father begets the Person of the Son by the operation of his divine self-knowledge. Father and Son generate the Person of the Holy Spirit by the operation of the divine will to love.

Thank you for your answer.
For my own understanding, I will rephrase your above quote as follow, please correct me if I am wrong: "God the Father begets God the Son by the operation of his divine self-knowledge. Father and Son generate God the Holy Spirit by the operation of the divine will to love. Am I correct?

I understood from the above quote that God the Father pre-existed the Person of the Son (that is because the Son is the begotten of the Father, no matter what the act of begotting is) and that both the Father and the Son pre-existed the Person of the Holy Spirit, because he was originated by both of them. Am I correct?

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[JimG]

Joseph_Alison:

I understood from the above quote that God the Father pre-existed the Person of the Son (that is because the Son is the begotten of the Father, no matter what the act of begotting is) and that both the Father and the Son pre-existed the Person of the Holy Spirit, because he was originated by both of them. Am I correct?

No. Neither Person of the Trinity pre-existed the other because the word pre-existence assumes the existence of time. God (3 Persons) in His one divine nature does not exist in time, but in eternity.

One way of looking at eternity is that God, unlike us, does not possess his being in a sequence of events. He possesses his entire existence at once. That is why the Jewish name for God essentially means “I AM.”

We cannot properly say that he was, or he will be. Because time (and space, for that matter) do not apply to his divine nature.

So God the Father, from all eternity (having no beginning and not existing in time) knows himself, and in knowing himself, generates the Person (not the nature) of the Son.

No time has elapsed in this “begetting.” There is no pre-existence.

The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and this divine interchange of love is so perfect that it has in itself the quality of Personhood. There is nothing left out, and no time has elapsed.

For God, in His divine nature, this is not a process; it takes no time; it is all “now.”

The three persons in the one Divine Nature is really God’s personal existence, and we know of it only through the revelation, by His Son taking on a human nature, and revealing himself to humanity.

(But whenever we speak of Jesus, we are really speaking of one Person, but two natures.)

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison,
I admire your tenacity. However, all translators except you, translate min dooni in 5:116 to mean ‘besides’ or its synonyms. But you know better.

There are some verses which clear take min dooni to mean besides, but you ignore those even when they have been shown to you.

That is your sole point of argument.

Ciudate,
Rodrigo

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam JimG.

So God the Father, from all eternity (having no beginning and not existing in time) knows himself, and in knowing himself, generates the Person (not the nature) of the Son.

But when you say generates or begets, does not this involve an act of willing from the part of God the Father?
Even if the Person of the Son is co-equal to that of the Person of God the Father, it was generated, begotten, following a will, which was not its own will, even if that will was made in eternity. The same applies to the Holy Spirit.

We have two entities, begotten or generated by the will of another entity and that entity did not need the will or any other entity to exist.

It cannot be called God an entity which depended on the will of another entity to come into existence. My conclusion is that the trinity is three different entities: One entity -the One True God- and two other entities -taken as gods- and which came to be by the will of the One True God.
That One True God is what Muslims call Allah (SWT); everything apart from Him is His creation.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[JimG]

Joseph,

Yes, Christians also believe in One True God—One entity.

Theologically speaking, the Father does not will the Son into existence. And the Son does not have a separate existence from the Father. The Person of the Son (and the Spirit) are eternally present simply by reason of the Father being eternally present.

Let me put it this way. In the absence of creation, what does the One True God do? What faculties of divinity are always in operation?

Well, since He is Existence, he always is. But that is not a passive existing, but an active one. (I AM)

Additionally, He knows himself. Using a human analogy, he has an idea of himself.

Now, I know myself, but not perfectly. My idea of myself is never quite the same as the original. My idea of myself may be better looking and weigh less than the original. I cannot know myself perfectly.

But God can. When God knows Himself, there is nothing lacking in his “idea.” His knowledge is so perfect, that his idea of himself contains everything that is in the original. So perfect that it is even a person. He cannot know Himself other than perfectly.

But an idea is not separate from the knower. It is not a separate entity. If there is no knower, there is no idea. Both are eternally present. It is not an act of will, because the Father, just by being, eternally knows Himself. John the Apostle calls this self-knowledge the Word. The Word that God speaks is the Son.

We say that the love between the Father and Son IS the Holy Spirit. Now love is an act of the will, but it is not a will to create. It is simply that the Persons of the Father and Son simply by being, love each other, and that love is equally as perfect as the Father’s knowledge of himself. Love is not separate from the lover. It is not a separate entity. The Trinity is not a process but an eternal, inevitable, relationship.

The One Divine Nature cannot be divided. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all possess the One Divine Nature. The do not ‘share’ it for then it would be divided, and God, as pure spirit, cannot be divided.

Since we have no experience of more than one person possessing one nature, this is hard to accept. I do not expect to convince you, merely to explain that the relationship between the persons is not one of Creator to creature. It is rather the One True God, whose very nature is to know and to love, eternally existing. The generation of persons is eternal and timeless, and not a causal relationship.