This thread should not be derailed. The topic is “Mohammed the Prophet” and it’s not about explaining and proving the concept of the “Trinity”.
As Jakasaki said, you asked for the standard of Mohammad being a prophet, I answered. If you’re curious about the Trinity, I made a post on my blog about the Trinity, including where it’s found in scriptures, and you can read it there.
Tawheed simply means unity or oneness. The root word WHD is found in numerous places in the Qur’an most especially Surah al-Ikhlaas “Qul huwa Allaahu Ahad”, Surah Ghaafir: “huwa Allaahul Waahidul Qahhaar” and many others.
,
A separate issue from the Trinity, per se. There are many ways of understanding Jesus’ divinity without positing a Trinity.
No one has implied they were impious, just wrong.
You just can’t resist misrepresenting what Baha’is believe, can you? I already demonstrated that Baha’is do indeed believe this. Yet you insist on telling us we can’t. Guess what? You don’t get to decide what we do or don’t believe!
Repeating “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” is not the same as suggesting those three make up a Godhead.
Again, that proves the existence of a Holy Spirit. It doesn’t make it part of a Godhead.
,
I have addressed it but as usual you ignore what I say and (mis)interpret anyway you like. You not only can’t get the Qur’an right, you can’t even get what I say right. The Qur’an doesn’t say anything about them being ‘true’ as opposed to ‘false’ Christians. It simply says that those who accept Christ will be victorious over those who reject him.
Sorry, but those two things are not equivalents. Jesus said nothing about the Trinity. The Bible says nothing about the Trinity. Therefore not believing in the Trinity cannot be compared to not believing in Muhammad or the Qur’an. An Islamic equivalent would be not believing that the Qur’an is uncreated or not accepting hadith.
Jesus is called the Word in the Qur’an as well.
And I would suggest the quranic author did not know what it meant, in fact the Christians of Najran seemed to stump muhammad on that one.
You have a very funny take on what happened during Muhammad’s discussions with the Christians on Najran. And given your record of not even understanding what I am saying, I certainly would not trust your interpretation of that event.
What do you know, I feel the same about you.
Indeed, and this is the basis for Christian objections to what is seen as a warped Islamic theology that (as the Syriac Orthodox Bishop and Saint Jacob Bar Hebraeus put it in the 13th century) demands apology for our religion only by means of those parts of it that the Muslims themselves recognize. So the Muslim gets to use Jesus Christ being kalimatullah as a means of buttressing his own religion and “inviting” gullible Christians to it (how often I have heard, particularly from the most extremist and hateful of the Islamic religion, how “we (Muslims) love Christ more than you (Christians) do!” Yes, sure…and I am the Mahdi…), but when it is pointed out to them that they have no clue what that actually means, as the writer of the Qur’an also did not, they will protest that somehow those who originated the term are mistaken, but the one who came ~600 years later with a private revelation that directly contradicts what came before it, which nonetheless nobody was allowed to witness or question, is the one who really understood.
)After reading the links, the greatest problem I can see is still that the vast majority of it is attempting to see things through the lens of Muslim theology, while at the same time ignoring the problems that have been brought up by Christian theologians ever since the days of John Damascene, who lived during the eighth century and worked in the Muslim-controlled court of Damascus (hence his name). Some of the pages, in fact, never once mention Christian scripture. Again, if one wishes to prove their status with what came before, it has to be held to the standard of that which came before. This is the standard God used with the prophets throughout the Old Testament (who were always referring back to the Law), and the standard God used with the New Testament (the apostles were almost CONSTANTLY referring back to the Old Testament). Why did God change His method of revelation with Mohammad, if we are to believe Mohammad is a prophet of the same God in the past revelations? To confirm a person’s revelation with his own revelation is circular reasoning - according to such standards, even men like Joseph Smith would be legitimate.
I don’t quite understand your contention here. In any case, the legitimacy of the works of the Bible and the surety of their authors existed long before the Bible, as did councils affirming both. Certainly Christ and the apostles had no problem quoting the Old Testament, and some of the links you have attempted to provide cite the Bible. Therefore your contention here is not only historically inaccurate and inconsistent to your own point, but really a non sequitor.
If you think people have been arguing “he’s not because he’s not,” then I’m sorry, but you’re not giving any one due respect by understanding where they’re coming frank. And to be frank, if your response to every Christian objection to your faith is to avoid giving a response, or jump to another point, or call them slow in the head (which caused the mods to delete some of your posts), then it doesn’t amaze me that you don’t see any strong arguments. However, your way of going about this is hardly a “legitimate fairness” - if anything, it’s a sign of willful ignorance.
Because that’s not the topic of this thread. Feel free to start another thread to discuss it.
Yes, but in His Divine Station Jesus is the same as Krishna, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah, etc. In other words, they are all the Divine Logos.
Did you read that earlier quotation I put up from the Kitab-i Iqan?
Doesn’t say that.
You are beginning with an unproven assumption and trying to prove something else on its basis. Sorry, that won’t work.
If you want to conceive of the Holy Spirit as a person, I have no problem with that. Muhammad conceived of it as the angel Gabriel, Baha’u’llah conceived of it as the Maid of Heaven [Huri]. That has nothing to do with the question of whether it is part of the Godhead.
Sorry, the fact that Qur’an criticizes Jews and Christians is not prove that it objects to God being called father.
No, the Qur’an says nothing at all about calling God “Father.” It does say “He does not begat nor is He begotten.”
Given your ignorance of what the Qur’an actually says, I submit that you are in no position to say what it does or does not understand.
Why? It has nothing to do with the ayat in question which as usual you have completely misunderstood.
Because Muhammad’s revelation was aimed at those with virtually no knowledge of either the Tanakh or the New Testament, therefore biblical proofs would have been meaningless.
It is not simply claiming to have a revelation which serves as proof of Prophethood, it is the content which proves it to be revelation.
Because there was a day after Hebrew’s ‘last days’? Apparently what the author wrote is incompatible with history as well. The days of the Apostles turned out not to be the last days and their generation past away without seeing the end of these things.
Where did you get that year for the canonization of the Bible?
It is true that the Messiah who comes is never the one expected, but you do realize that the Qur’an acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah?
A church council may well decide which books are to be legitimately considered scripture, since that’s their decision, but they can’t determine their authorship. That is a historical question, not a matter of faith or morals.
I suspect he finds the so-called ‘scrutiny’ here as inane as I do.
Hmmm indeed. Just for your own future knowledge, the earliest writing in which the present day canon of the NT as it would be accepted subsequently in councils (e.g., as most of the world’s Christians would recognize it, having inherited their canon from such earlier sources that declared this or that particular canon authoritative) is found is the 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the Patriarch of Alexandria, in 367 AD. But even if that were not the case and the dates you posted above are correct in some context (though I don’t know what; the Latins did not formally close their canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, if my memory serves me correctly; it is important to note that this was done in response to then-recent Protestant tampering with the canon that had been accepted as authoritative in the West for centuries).