Islam: Who else saw the angel?

[De_Maria]

According to Muslims, Christians don’t know who wrote the Gospels and therefore, the Gospels are not good evidence of what Jesus Christ taught. They reason that since there is no Gospel according to Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ did not write a Gospel. And since Jesus Christ did not write a Gospel, we don’t know where the four Gospels came from.

They are wrong.

1. We know the four authors of the Gospels.

Gospel of St. Matthew - St. Matthew was the tax collector who became the Apostle.
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Gospel of St. Mark - Mark was the disciple who became St. Peter’s secretary. The Gospel of St. Mark could actually be called the Gospel of St. Peter as written by St. Mark.
newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

The Gospel of St. Luke - St. Luke was a disciple who was also a physician and became a companion of St. Paul’s.
newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

The Gospel of St. John - St. John is the Beloved Disciple, the brother of St. James and the youngest of the Apostles.
newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

1. Jesus did not write a Gospel. Jesus gave a testimony of words and works which were witnessed and attested by the Apostles. The word “gospel” means “good news”. In Christian circles it has come to mean, “the good news of Jesus Christ”. So, the Gospel of St. John means “the Good News of Jesus Christ” according to St. John.

These definitions of Gospel are from the Internet:

the four books in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that tell the story of Christ’s life and teachings
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In Christianity, Gospels are a genre of Early Christian literature essentially concerning the message and meaning of Jesus. Each of the four canonic gospels reveals the “Good News” about Christ’s life and presence embedded in a narrative of Jesus Christ’s life. The word derives from the Old English word for “Good News”, a translation of the Greek word ευαγγέλιον, evangelion. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

3.As you can see, Christians have very good evidence indeed for the authencity of the Gospels.

a. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus life and works.
b. They were written by men who consider lying a sin against God.
c. Therefore, the Gospels can be considered sworn testimonies.

1. But lets consider the nature of Mohammed’s evidence.

Did anyone else see or hear the Angel’s testimony? No. Only Mohammed.

Essentially, Islam has one unsubstantiated witness testimony. This is a witness who teaches that lying is advisable in certain situations.

Christianity has four eyewitness testimonies which substantiate each other. These are witnesses that would rather die than offend their Lord by lying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

As Bill & Ted would say:

Most Excellent!

 

[chrisb]

1. But lets consider the nature of Mohammed’s evidence.

Did anyone else see or hear the Angel’s testimony? No. Only Mohammed.

Essentially, Islam has one unsubstantiated witness testimony. This is a witness who teaches that lying is advisable in certain situations.

Sounds a bit like Noah, Abraham and Moses doesn’t it…

Each one these Prophets had an encounter with the Divine with no one to substantiate it. Although later, Moses’ claims are substantiated by several miracles none are allowed to go with Moses atop Mount Sinai to substantiate the creation of the Commandments. Are you suggesting that we discard their testimony?

I can appreciate your polemics here to discredit Islam but perhaps there is a better way…

Christianity has four eyewitness testimonies which substantiate each other. These are witnesses that would rather die than offend their Lord by lying.

Which one of the authors of the four Gospels claim to be ‘eye’ witnesses besides the Apostle John? Aren’t the Synoptic Gospels all written by witnesses of developed oral tradition?

Please be careful.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

This is not true. Many Muslims saw the angel Jibril. Unfortunately, they thought they saw someone named Dihya al-Qalbi but Muhammad’s perspective was no doubt different from theirs. He saw Jibril while they saw only Dihya. It’s a miracle of Allah the merciful, the compassionate. If you disbelieve he will burn you in hell - but first expose your neck so I can part your head from your body. Only kidding!!!

alinaam.org.za/library/rasul/ddminarets.htm
Bukhari as narrated by Aaisha [Radhiallaahu anha], ‘After the battle of Ahzaab, Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] disarmed himself and took a bath. In the meanwhile, Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] came riding a pony and talked to the Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] near the door step of Baab Jibreel. Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] said to the Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam], ‘You have put away your arms but we (the angels) are still in battle uniforms. So you should come with us to attack Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.’ Aaisha [Radhiallaahu anha] added, ‘I was looking at Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] through the cracks in the door of my hut. Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] was covered with dust.’

Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] asked people on his way to Banu Qurayza, ‘Did you see anybody pass this way a little while ago?’ They said, ‘We saw Dehya Qalbi pass this way riding a white and black pony. He had silk sheet spread under him.’ Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] said, ‘That was Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] who was sent to Banu Qurayza to destroy their forts and induce fear in their hearts.’

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 503:
Narrated Abu 'Uthman:

I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was with him. Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet). Then the Prophet asked Um Salama, “Who is this?” She replied, “He is Dihya (al-Kalbi).” When Gabriel had left, Um Salama said, “By Allah, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Dihya) till I heard the sermon of the Prophet wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel.” The subnarrator asked Abu 'Uthman: From whom have you heard that? Abu 'Uthman said: From Usama bin Zaid.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 827:
Narrated Abu Uthman:

I got the news that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was present. Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet and then left. The Prophet said to Um Salama, “(Do you know) who it was?” (or a similar question). She said, “It was Dihya (a handsome person amongst the companions of the Prophet ).” Later on Um Salama said, “By Allah! I thought he was none but Dihya, till I heard the Prophet talking about Gabriel in his sermon.” (The Sub-narrator asked Abu 'Uthman, “From where have you heard this narration?” He replied, “From Usama bin Zaid.”)

Sahih Muslim

Book 031, Number 6006:
Salman reported: In case it lies in your power don’t be one to enter the bazar first and the last to get out of that because there is a bustle and the standard of Satan is set there. He said: I was informed that Gabriel (Allah be pleased with him) came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and there was with him Umin Salama and he began to talk with him. He then stood up, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to Umm Salama: (Do you know) who was he and what did he say? She said: He was Dihya (Kalbi). He reported Umm Salama having said: By Allah, I did not deem him but only he (Dihya) until I heard the address of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) informing him about us. He (the narrator) said: I said to Uthman: From whom did you hear it? He said: From Usima b. Zaid.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Rodrigo Bivar,

Sorry if I misrepresented Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I have limited knowledge of al-Quran and Hadith and so was speaking primarily with regard to the Prophets first encounter with the Divine in the Caves.

Wa’salaam

 

[thistle]

Grace and Peace Rodrigo Bivar,

Sorry if I misrepresented Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I have limited knowledge of al-Quran and Hadith and so was speaking primarily with regard to the Prophets first encounter with the Divine in the Caves.

Wa’salaam

How can you misrepresent something that is totally false like Islam and its founder a fraud.

 

[De_Maria]

Sounds a bit like Noah, Abraham and Moses doesn’t it…

No.

Each one these Prophets had an encounter with the Divine with no one to substantiate it.

You don’t know the Bible very well do you?

**Exodus 24:9-11
**

9Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Although later, Moses’ claims are substantiated by several miracles none are allowed to go with Moses atop Mount Sinai to substantiate the creation of the Commandments. Are you suggesting that we discard their testimony?

I’m suggesting you don’t know the Bible.

I can appreciate your polemics here to discredit Islam but perhaps there is a better way…

This is the best way. To identify error and expose it.

Which one of the authors of the four Gospels claim to be ‘eye’ witnesses besides the Apostle John?

All four.

Aren’t theSynoptic Gospels all written by witnesses of developed oral tradition?

No. Read the original post and go to the links. Each and everyone of the four Gospel authors walked with Christ.

Please be careful.

Peace and God Bless.

You as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

This is not true. Many Muslims saw the angel Jibril. Unfortunately, they thought they saw someone named Dihya al-Qalbi but Muhammad’s perspective was no doubt different from theirs. He saw Jibril while they saw only Dihya. It’s a miracle of Allah the merciful, the compassionate.

Then they didn’t see the angel did they? If they saw one thing but perceived another then what would they say they saw?

And if they say they saw a person named “Dihya al-Qalbi” why should we believe they saw anyone else or anything else.?

If you disbelieve

I disbelieve. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

he will burn you in hell - but first expose your neck so I can part your head from your body. Only kidding!!!

Chau,
Rodrigo

Yeah, right!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Lets examine these so called testimonies and compare them to the Gospels.

T
alinaam.org.za/library/rasul/ddminarets.htm

Bukhari as narrated by Aaisha …, ‘I was looking at Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] through the cracks in the door of my hut. Jibreel [Alayhis salaam] was covered with dust.’

Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam]… asked people on his way to Banu Qurayza, ‘Did you see anybody pass this way a little while ago?’ They said, ‘We saw Dehya Qalbi pass this way riding a white and black pony. …

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 503:
Narrated Abu 'Uthman:

I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was with him…

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 827:
Narrated Abu Uthman:

I got the news that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was present…

Sahih Muslim

Book 031, Number 6006: …He said: I was informed that Gabriel (Allah be pleased with him) came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and there was with him Umin Salama and he began to talk with him…

Chau,
Rodrigo

First, let us recognize that these books are not considered the Word of God by any Muslims. And in fact, Muslims are not required to believe them.

A hadith was originally an oral tradition relevant to the actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Starting the first Fitna of the 7th century, those receiving the hadith started to question the sources of the saying [1]. This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example “A told me that B told him that Muhammad said”. This list was called an Isnad. The text itself came to be known as Matn.
The hadith were eventually recorded in written form, had their Isnad evaluated and collected into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar II (bin Abdul Aziz, grandson of Umar bin Khattab(RAA)2nd Caliph) during 8th century, something that solidified in the 9th century. These works are still today referred to in matters of Islamic law and History.
The hadith are prone to error and often misinterpreted. They are meant to be a secondary source of Islam, if followed at all. More and more muslims are reverting back to the Quran alone when they realise the method of compilation of hadith is based on hear-say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

*10.1 The meaning of Hadith and Sunnah *
*According to the Qur’an, hadith means ‘story’, ‘news’, ‘report’ or ‘narration’ and it is used in the Qur’an a number of times in these senses. In practice, the word hadith, to most people calling themselves Muslim, means the reported sayings and practices of the Prophet. The operative word here is ‘reported’. The Hadith literature was collected by word of mouth, about 250 years after the death of the Prophet. The Hadiths – as the Hadith literature is commonly called – can be classified roughly in four categories…:We must remember that the Qur’an was revealed as a final revelation because the previous revelations were corrupted by human interference. If we now say in one breath that we cannot accept the previous revelations because they have been corrupted by human interference, how can we then say, in the same breath, that the Hadiths are acceptable even though they are the results of human endeavour and, without doubt, many of which contradict the Qur’an? The Hadiths can never be classed as a revelation.
*
members.aol.com/Mamalek2/qbook10.htm

So, although Rodrigo has tried to pass this off as eyewitness testimony, and compared it to the inspired testimony of the Gospels, the fact is that Muslims aren’t required to believe this. And if Muslims aren’t requried to believe this, why should we?

So, back to square one. Muslims only have one uncorroborated witness. Which in fact, leaves them with nothing. Because even Sharia law requires more than one witness.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Grace and Peace Rodrigo Bivar,

Sorry if I misrepresented Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I have limited knowledge of al-Quran and Hadith and so was speaking primarily with regard to the Prophets first encounter with the Divine in the Caves.

Wa’salaam

You didn’t misrepresent Islam. There were no other witnesses to the angel. That is the truth. Unless you believe the sunnah of the prophet, of which it is said in the Quran:

“You will find that the Sunna of Allah is the only Sunna” (33:62…35:43…48:23)
submission.org/dozen.html

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam De Maria;

Did anyone else see or hear the Angel’s testimony? No. Only Mohammed.

You are right De Maria, there was no witness who heard or saw the Angel who spoke to Muhammad (PBUH), but we believe Muhammad because he told us that Jesus was born of a virgin and that his Mother Mary was a chaste woman
How did Muhammad (pbuh) knew that? Well, we did not personally know, how could he? the disciples of Jesus did not know either, how could they? no one has a solid evidence that Jesus was not an illegitimate child; so where did they get the information that Jesus was a virgin birth from? From God, through His Angel is the answer.

May be you can answer the following question: who heard or saw the Angel who came to Joseph in a dream to tell him that the pregnancy of Mary was not illegitimate? You have no solid evidence that Jesus was a virgin birth, but you believe he was, why? because an Angel, no one saw or heard except Mary, came and gave her glad tidings of a virgin birth. Did she have a witness with her? No. Did Joseph had a witness with him? No. Can the Gospel writers prove that they were divinely inspired to write the story of the virgin although they did not witness its events? No, and yet you believe that Jesus was a virgin birth! Are you irrational? No, I don’t think you are, and so we are not. There is something called faith.

Kind Regards.
Joseph.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Hi Joseph,
I’ve heard a few islamic people say that Mary is the fourth part of the Trinity.
Where would that idea have come from, if true?

 

[Gnosis]

The idea the the gospels were written by eye witnesses has been so largely discredited by historians and scholars and texutal experts that its really not even a question any more.

Matthew, Mark and Luke have no claim to be an eye witness account and no author was assinged to manuscripts until about a century after they were written. Basically, they do not contain the characteristics of an eye witness account, nor does anyone sign their name to it.

Only in John is there a suggestion that this person was with Jesus- the problem is that the content of John is radically different from the other earlier synoptic texts that its very difficult to take most of John as historical material-- other and earlier Christians would have simply recorded some of those vital sayings had they existed at the time of Mark, Matthew or Luke.

 

[eliasaph99]

No. Read the original post and go to the links. Each and everyone of the four Gospel authors walked with Christ.

Hi De Maria,

I think that your OP raises a great question and I am interested to see what Muslims have to say in response.

However, I must correct you on this point.

Luke was not an eyewitness and neither was Mark. They were both converts after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.

Of the two, my understanding is that it is very plausible that Marks account is largely Peters account, as Mark may have been Peters secretary of sorts. Luke, on the other hand, approached his account from a more historical perspective. He interviewed many people and compiled the information into his Gospel.

Of course, for all the writers, the Holy Spirit guided and inspired what they wrote. It is all true, but not necessarily eyewitness account.

 

[eliasaph99]

Salaam De Maria;

You are right De Maria, there was no witness who heard or saw the Angel who spoke to Muhammad (PBUH), but we believe Muhammad because he told us that Jesus was born of a virgin and that his Mother Mary was a chaste woman
How did Muhammad (pbuh) knew that? Well, we did not personally know, how could he? the disciples of Jesus did not know either, how could they?

The disciples of Christ knew His Holy Mother who traveled with them. The story of Christs miraculous conception and birth would have been well known to them all.

Mohammed had this information from Christians with whom he had come into contact. Christianity was relatively widespread by the seventh century and Mohammed was a traveling trader. He would have come into contact with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and probably even the occasional Hindu and Buddhist bringing merchandise from the Far East.

It is not miraculous in the slightest that anybody had this knowledge. It was told to the Apostles by Christs Mother who then passed it on to Christians, where it became part of the general knowledge of society.

May be you can answer the following question: who heard or saw the Angel who came to Joseph in a dream to tell him that the pregnancy of Mary was not illegitimate? You have no solid evidence that Jesus was a virgin birth, but you believe he was, why? because an Angel, no one saw or heard except Mary, came and gave her glad tidings of a virgin birth. Did she have a witness with her? No. Did Joseph had a witness with him? No. Can the Gospel writers prove that they were divinely inspired to write the story of the virgin although they did not witness its events? No, and yet you believe that Jesus was a virgin birth! Are you irrational? No, I don’t think you are, and so we are not. There is something called faith.

Kind Regards.
Joseph.

Actually, while I believe that an angel did come and announce to Mary that she would be with child, I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth because of the story of the angel. Instead, it is the example of Christs character, His miracles, and the fullfillment of prophecy by His living which cause me to believe in the account given by His Mother.

You see, I have the miraculous life of Christ to give me confidence that what His Mother claims is also true. You’ve got your causation backwards.

For Mohammed, no such parallel exists. Mohammeds life was far from miraculous. There were no miracles, just the rise of a warlord who cemented his followers loyalty with a religious philosophy which, unfortunately for the world, has managed to persist until this day. The only thing which sets him apart from other warlords is the persistence of his philosophy. If not for that, he would be forgotten in the sands of time. Plenty of men throughout history have risen from nothing to be successful warlords, and with much more success. Just look at Ghengis Khan. He managed to conquer almost the entire known world during his lifetime. So did Alexander the Great.

Point being that Mohammed has nothing in his later life to confirm his earlier claim. If he was God’s prophet, then where were the accompanying miracles? Why didn’t he seal up the sky for three years, or cause an axhead to float? Why didn’t he predict the future? Why didn’t he raise the dead or raise himself from death? Exactly where was his pull with God?

I don’t see any.

 

[De_Maria]

Salaam De Maria;

You are right De Maria, there was no witness who heard or saw the Angel who spoke to Muhammad (PBUH),

Thanks for the admission.

but we believe Muhammad because he told us that Jesus was born of a virgin and that his Mother Mary was a chaste woman
How did Muhammad (pbuh) knew that?

Muhammad knew that from the Christians in his area.

Muhammad knew about Christianity imperfectly. That is why he also said that the Trinity is composed of Allah, Jesus and Mary:

**“And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?” … Holy Qur’an 5:116
mostmerciful.com/mary.htm
**
No one has ever heard of such a Trinity. For one thing, the Trinity is ONE GOD in three divine persons. Not three Gods. For another, Mary has never been part of the Trinity.

So, Muhammad knew about Christianity imperfectly and made these errors. Further proof that the Quran is not the Word of God. As God does not commit errors.

Well, we did not personally know, how could he?

No, he misunderstood the true Christian doctrine of the Christians in his area.

the disciples of Jesus did not know either, how could they?

Jesus told them:

Luke 24: 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ** ** 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, **
** 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: **
** 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. **
** 48And ye are witnesses of these things.

no one has a solid evidence that Jesus was not an illegitimate child; so where did they get the information that Jesus was a virgin birth from? From God, through His Angel is the answer.

1.From God through His Angel.
2.From Jesus when He opened the Scriptures to them and told them how the Scriptures prophecied His coming.
3. And probably from Mary, who was also a witness of these things. As the same Angel appeared to her.

May be you can answer the following question: who heard or saw the Angel who came to Joseph in a dream to tell him that the pregnancy of Mary was not illegitimate?

No one. But lets put this in perspective. Joseph’s dream is one part of the Gospels and does not stand on its own but on the merits of the Gospels.

Compare that to the fact that the Quran has no substantiation whatsoever.

You have no solid evidence that Jesus was a virgin birth, but you believe he was, why?

Because Jesus was witnessed to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, bring the dead to life and because of the wisdom of His Teachings.

All these are lacking in the Quran.

because an Angel, no one saw or heard except Mary, came and gave her glad tidings of a virgin birth. Did she have a witness with her? No.

Yes. The same Angel corroborated the fact to Joseph.

This is a characteristic of every Catholic vision. Either the vision is corroborated by witnesses as in Fatima where three children saw the same vision. Or the vision is corroborated by miracles as in Mexico where San Juan was the single visionary but the Roses grew out of season, the picture miraculously appeared on the mantle and San Juan’s father was miraculously cured.

Muhammad lacks all claims to validity.

Did Joseph had a witness with him? No.

Yes. Mary saw the same Angel.

Can the Gospel writers prove that they were divinely inspired to write the story of the virgin although they did not witness its events? No,

Yes. They walked and talked with Jesus. They saw His miracles firsthand.

and yet you believe that Jesus was a virgin birth! Are you irrational?

You are the one acting irrationally to compare the lack of witness and credibility of the Quran with even one little part of the Gospels which are well attested and documented.

You have admitted that no one saw the Angel and that means there is no credible witness for Muhammad’s story. Therefore, you have admitted that the message of Muhammad would be thrown out of any court in the world.

No, I don’t think you are, and so we are not. There is something called faith.

There is also something called blind faith. Blind faith is unreasonable. True faith does not contradict reason. Those who believe that the Islamic texts are more credible than the Bible are exercising blind faith.

Kind Regards.
Joseph.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

The idea the the gospels were written by eye witnesses has been so largely discredited by historians and scholars and texutal experts that its really not even a question any more.

Secular historians and scholars do not interest me. There is no concensus amongst them.

The Catholic Church teaches that the four Gospel writers were there and walked with Jesus and were eyewitnesses.

Matthew, Mark and Luke have no claim to be an eye witness account

Yes, they do. Read the first post, the references are there.

and no author was assinged to manuscripts until about a century after they were written.

False. Manuscripts were in circulation thirty years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Basically, they do not contain the characteristics of an eye witness account,

Yes, they do.

nor does anyone sign their name to it.

No need to. The Catholic community knew who they were.

Only in John is there a suggestion that this person was with Jesus- the problem is that the content of John is radically different from the other earlier synoptic texts that its very difficult to take most of John as historical material-- other and earlier Christians would have simply recorded some of those vital sayings had they existed at the time of Mark, Matthew or Luke.

The difficulty is only yours. Like so many people, you make little scenes in your mind and expect they should be played out that way. But God’s wisdom is beyond yours or any man’s.

The Gospels were written by four credible witnesses who walked with Jesus. Three of the Gospels were obviously written by witnesses who knew each other and possibly consulted on the testimony. The fourth testimony was more indepth and written by an individual who was more intimately related to Jesus.

Either way, the testimony of the Gospels is far greater than that of the Quran.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Hi De Maria,

I think that your OP raises a great question and I am interested to see what Muslims have to say in response.

However, I must correct you on this point.

Luke was not an eyewitness and neither was Mark. They were both converts after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.

Of the two, my understanding is that it is very plausible that Marks account is largely Peters account, as Mark may have been Peters secretary of sorts. Luke, on the other hand, approached his account from a more historical perspective. He interviewed many people and compiled the information into his Gospel.

Of course, for all the writers, the Holy Spirit guided and inspired what they wrote. It is all true, but not necessarily eyewitness account.

I believe you are correct. My bad.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[meedo]

Hi Joseph,
I’ve heard a few islamic people say that Mary is the fourth part of the Trinity.
Where would that idea have come from, if true?

No.

You see the confusion comes from the point that the concept of worship is much broader in Islam than in Christianity.

If you plead to a dead saint so he can intervene with God this is worship in Islam . If you make a human Holy or semi devine then this is worship in Islam .

The Quran doesnt mention mary as part of the trinity but mentions her as bieng in the status of a God to some people.

That is why some christians think that the Quran was confused about the nature of teh trinity. But actually its them who are confused wbout what constitues worship in islam .

Hope i replied to your question

Meedo

 

[eliasaph99]

No.

You see the confusion comes from the point that the concept of worship is much broader in Islam than in Christianity.

If you plead to a dead saint so he can intervene with God this is worship in Islam . If you make a human Holy or semi devine then this is worship in Islam .

The Quran doesnt mention mary as part of the trinity but mentions her as bieng in the status of a God to some people.

That is why some christians think that the Quran was confused about the nature of teh trinity. But actually its them who are confused wbout what constitues worship in islam .

Hope i replied to your question

Meedo

I don’t know if you are a Sunni or a Shi’ite, but I think that you are greatly oversimplifying matters.

I know for a fact that Shi’ites revere and pray to dead Muslims from their history. There are hundreds of shrines to these Muslim ‘saints’ spread across the Muslim world.

Whatever it is they think they’re doing, I’m sure that the Muslims honoring and praying to these people would not claim that they were worshipping them.

This practice is also widespread in Sufism, which is a branch of Islam.