Islamic teaching questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.”

John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

Matthew 20:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Verses from Douay-Rhiems Catholic Bible.

These verses all clearly support the trinity and all are from the Gospels.
Click to expand...
I will just interprate John 1:14 according to Qur’an. Yes the word was made flseh and dwelt among us. But that do not mean Jesus is divine. If you refer to John 1:1 ?

Parallel statements are mentioned in Qur’an:

45- [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. Ali-Imran(3)
 
What about “I and the Father are one?” That explicitly means that Jesus is God. Also, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus, the Word, is God.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
What about “I and the Father are one?” That explicitly means that Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
The verse does not imply any equality in deity and it cannot be interprated separately from the whole passage. Jesus preached people to believe in him and performed some miracles. But people did not believe him. Jesus said “the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.” Here Jesus do not talk about deity of himself but about his work which He made in name of Father.

When people intent to stone him then Jesus asked for what? They said " because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Jesus answered: " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

The word of God came to Jesus so Jesus talk in that way. Jesus was sent by God and were given all authority by God to preach. In that manner Jesus and God are one means that order and words of Jesus are authorized by God. Otherwise Jesus did not confirm claim of being deity. He rejected that. And notice that Jesus always said that “Father sent me” or “all were given me by Father” etc. Here Jesus never assert to be deity. Those are also explained in Qur’an:

49- And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. Ali-Imran(3)

110- [The Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.” Al-Maidah(5)

Pure Sipirit is Holy Spirit. Jesus were supported by Holy Spirit.
 
But Jesus, the Word as revealed by himself, is God as explicitly stated in John 1:1. Jesus states that he was sent by the Father because the Father did send him, but as part of the Trinity. Jesus says he is God, one with the Father and holy Spirit. The Qur’an was based on heretical Arian teachings and can’t be taken as authority for interpretation of biblical passages. There are many more verses explaining the Trinity in the bible that I can cite. It’s just not accurate to say that Jesus would call for his disciples to baptize in the name of God, a human, and an angel. God is 3 persons in one Trinity.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
The Qur’an was based on heretical Arian teachings and can’t be taken as authority for interpretation of biblical passages.
Click to expand...
That is very very very stupid lie. Muhammad could not read or write. After Muhammad got first revelation He was taken to monk Waraka and and Waraka confirmed revelation. Waraka had read some parts from OT and NT. That was just a very short meeting. Through one meeting Muhammad has been the most intellectual man in religion and faith!? Has waraka known so much(we must think waraka transfered all knowledges once in a short time by unusual way!)? You see that is a very comic argument.
 
St. Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians. It is considered inspired from the Holy Spirit. No one else could contribute more to the scrolls and books/letters of the Bible. When the last Apostle died, Holy Spirit revelation ceased for scripture. Last verses are something like:Don’t add or subtract from the writings within or woe to you. Not exact quote
 
The claim that Muhammad could not read or write is actually in the defence of the Quran, to make it some kind of a miracle. However, most scholars agreed that Muhammad actually could read and write in elementary manner for him to do business for his employer Khadijah whom he later married.
 
Last edited:
That was the problem. Waraka was a Christian heretic which Muhammad consulted for information about Christianity and thus got it wrong about the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.

Muhammad could have obtained correct information about Christianity, which was already established in the seventh century, had he went to Jerusalem or other Christian cities instead of being isolated in the Arabian desert.
 
Last edited:
Well, then he couldn’t have fabricated Islam. He needed information from a lapsed Christian heretic to fill the gaps from Waraka with his own ideas.
 
Muhammad had never taken anything from Waraka. If it was so people around Muhammad would not believe in Him as prophet of God. Are you blind?
 
A heretical Christian said “Yeah, what you’re saying makes sense.” Had Muhammad gone to a Christian in Jerusalem or somewhere where there were true Trinitarian Christians, he would’ve been rightly turned away as a crazy person. He didn’t borrow anything from Waraka, but he wasn’t corrected on the massive holes in what he said, either.
 
mhmtas63 said:
After Muhammad got first revelation He was taken to monk Waraka and and Waraka confirmed revelation. Waraka had read some parts from OT and NT. That was just a very short meeting.
Click to expand...
That it was a short meeting is not true. Waraka was an extended family member, a distant cousin of Khadijah. They would sure be seeing each other very often. Waraka also is a revered personality in Islam.

The importance of Waraka to Muhammad, as you said, is that Muhammad went to him for consultation. And Waraka being a Nestorian, was a heretic Christian. Not surprising that Muhammad revelation from ‘Allah’, constituted some of Nestorian/Arianism belief that Jesus was not divine. Allah got the Christian doctrine of the Trinity wrong though. But it was right from the Nestorian’s (Waraka) perspective.

Waraka (or Waraqah) bin Nawfal ibn Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusayy Al-Qurashi (Arabic ورقه بن نوفل بن أسد بن عبد العزّى بن قصي القرشي) was the paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophetMuhammad.
_Waraka and Khadija were also the first cousins twice removed of Muhammad: their paternal grandfather Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was Muhammad’s matrilineal great-great-grandfather. _
Waraka was a Nestorian priest and is revered in Islamic tradition for being one of the first hanifs to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad.
 
Last edited:
Reuben_J said:
That it was a short meeting is not true. Waraka was an extended family member, a distant cousin of Khadijah. They would sure be seeing each other very often. Waraka also is a revered personality in Islam.

The importance of Waraka to Muhammad, as you said, is that Muhammad went to him for consultation. And Waraka being a Nestorian, was a heretic Christian. Not surprising that Muhammad revelation from ‘Allah’, constituted some of Nestorian/Arianism belief that Jesus was not divine. Allah got the Christian doctrine of the Trinity wrong though. But it was right from the Nestorian’s (Waraka) perspective.

Waraka (or Waraqah) bin Nawfal ibn Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusayy Al-Qurashi (Arabic ورقه بن نوفل بن أسد بن عبد العزّى بن قصي القرشي) was the paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophetMuhammad.
_Waraka and Khadija were also the first cousins twice removed of Muhammad: their paternal grandfather Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was Muhammad’s matrilineal great-great-grandfather. _
Waraka was a Nestorian priest and is revered in Islamic tradition for being one of the first hanifs to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you understand what I say. That meeting were once and short and the rest is your assumptions. Ofcourse it is possible that they should meet but that could not be about religion because Muhammad were not aware of such thing before revelation. Muhammad had never been taught by any people in religion but by God and angel Gabriel. People around Muhammad were used to know Him and who he met or talked. If prophet Muhammad had taken something from any source that would be very easy to refute Muhammad. Muhammad had many enemies. Pagans were very wistful to see wrong in His religion. Pagans or people in that times had known Muhammad from birth to that years. That argument is expressed very excessively and it is nonsense.

I say very clearly: Qur’an is direct words of God and pure revelation.

You can be in doubts about faith. That belongs to your free will.
 
mhmtas63 said:
That meeting were once and short and the rest is your assumptions. Ofcourse it is possible that they should meet but that could not be about religion because Muhammad were not aware of such thing before revelation.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this premise. First, family was extremely important then and it’s unlikely that Muhammad only met Waraka once for a short period. Second, Muhammad definitely would’ve known about religion before. It might’ve been limited in capacity but enough to sway others to him so his religion could develop.
mhmtas63 said:
I say very clearly: Qur’an is direct words of God and pure revelation.
Click to expand...
You can say that, but why would it contradict all the gospels, which say that Jesus is the risen God? Aren’t they divine revelation too?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
You can say that, but why would it contradict all the gospels, which say that Jesus is the risen God? Aren’t they divine revelation too?
Click to expand...
The revelation part of Gospel do not say that. Gospel is not pure revelation with present condition. Writers narrated the life and words of Jesus. The present text of Gospels are interpretation of interpretation. There is no original text. Jesus were alive after crucifixion(the man got crucifixed were not Jesus) but did not say that “I got crucifixed and die and rise from death”. He was invisible and loss for some days. Then He met with apostles but He did not say or preach or imply anything in that way, did He? There are just some conjectures.

God do not die. God is eternal. Eternity mean there is no death.

God do not suffer. God is omnipotent. Nothing can harm God.

God has/is love. Also God is justice, Mercy, eternal, omnipotent, etc. Non of attribute contradict with other.

God can see and feel every thing without any means. That means for God to see how human suffer or feel so there is no need for being incarnated. The law of God is that to forgive sins: Humanbeing will repent and forswear for sins. That is enough. Adam did in that way and God accepted his repentation. The sin or false of Adam was humanely because it got comitted by a human(Adam) so a humanely sacrifice is enough for that. God did not sin(that is not valid for God) so God must pay. Every human may and do commit sins just like Adam.

God is divine justice and God do not accuse one for other’s sin. Sins are personal so sins do not inherited. Son get not imprisoned because of father’s murder or crime. God is not cruel.

…

…

You see to support such doctrine we must disregard many facts. Yet that doctrine was not taught by Jesus.
 
What part of the bible is “true?” Did it exist at the time of Muhammad?
 
mhmtas63 said:
I wonder if you understand what I say. That meeting were once and short and the rest is your assumptions. Ofcourse it is possible that they should meet but that could not be about religion because Muhammad were not aware of such thing before revelation.
Click to expand...
This is against common sense. Waraka was an extended family members who was related both to Khadijah and Muhammad. Don’t you think they do not meet together? And what would they talk about? Of course it could be anything but certainly it would be some points of interest. What could be of interest then? You answered that question. You weaken your argument by denying this as if you are blind to common sense just to support your point.

Besides he was a ‘monk’ albeit a Christian heretic so there was much that Muhammad could get from him on (name removed by moderator)uts.
mhmtas63 said:
Muhammad had never been taught by any people in religion but by God and angel Gabriel. People around Muhammad were used to know Him and who he met or talked. If prophet Muhammad had taken something from any source that would be very easy to refute Muhammad.

.
Click to expand...
Now I would say this is just your assumption. Muhammad could have heard about religions from people he interacted with in his trade activities. Waraka too was an important influence that among others he could be mentioned in Islam history despite the poor documentation. That shows much about Waraka’s position in the development of Islam.

As for refuting Muhammad’s teaching, apparently this was done in any major Christian cities because of the error that he said about Christian belief. But not Waraka though, who became a Muslim later, as he did not agree with mainline Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top