Muslims: How could the Trinity NOT work?!

[Seeker]

Continued…

Part B – Distorted Theology

Why would a monotheistic religion choose such difficult doctrine? (And make no mistake, Christianity is a monotheistic religion.) The answer is that Christianity didn’t choose the doctrine of the Trinity; the Trinity choose Christianity… to be its champion and defender and beneficiary. Eventho the word ‘Trinity’ is never used in the Bible, theologically it is a useful term: a combining ‘tri’ and ‘unity’… three united in one. (The word “Trinity” comes from “Trinitas”, a Latin abstract noun that means “three-ness”, “the property of occurring three at once” or “three are one”.)(from Reference.com) It would have been far simpler for the Church (a.k.a. orthodox Christianity) to have gone along with the many heresies and misunderstandings with which she has had to battle.

Take Monarchianism (= existing in hierarchy) for instance. Why not just say Jesus was God’s first and most important created being? Ancient Arianism and modern Jehovah Witnesses say this. Most of the other Christian doctrines would not have been compromised (much) by this. Why insist on Jesus being God incarnate? BECAUSE that’s what the Bible indicates, explicitly in the New Testament veneration of Jesus, and implicitly in the Old Testament prophecies and types and theophanies.

Or maybe Polytheism (many gods)? Goodness knows this would have been easier to sell to an already polytheistic pagan world than trying to sell Jewish monotheism with a twist. The Mormons affirm this to this day, namely that the Trinity is about three Gods. It is even what the Muslims accuse us of (technically known as Tri-Theism). BUT NO, the early Christians firmly clung to Monotheism, indeed one of the earliest accusations against them was as “Atheists” because they claimed that all the other gods were either inventions or demons. Yet they still maintained the divinity of the Son (and His worthiness of praise alongside the Father) and the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Or how about Modalism (different modes), a.k.a. Sabellianism? Have you ever heard of the Trinity being compared to water? You know, that it has 3 ‘states’ it can be in, namely solid, liquid, and gas? The trouble is that the analogy breaks down in that water can’t be all three at the same time (unless you wish to try to explain the ‘Triple Point’ of chemistry to an incredulous layperson). The modern “Oneness” denominations broach this concept, tho it is as old as Sabellius (ca. early 3rd cent.) and his opponent, Tertullian. The Trinity is not about one God wearing three different masks for us to look at Him with; it is one God being three distinct, different Persons in relation to His creation, yet never ceasing to be one God.

Or just let Jesus be a man. Maybe even a good man (popular belief). Maybe even a noble teacher (Judaism). Maybe even a prophet of God (Islam). Maybe even indwelt by the Spirit of God at His baptism (Socinianism), but not God from His very conception, not God from eternity past. Or let’s just let Jesus be a myth, someone to inspire us to better things, to nobler thoughts. I am starting to get ill.

So who is Jesus? I’m betting the Trinitarian Christians got it right

God Bless

 

[famdigy]

Dear inJesus,

No I’m not Sunni and my views don’t represent the sunni majority. I am a twelver imami shi’ite Muslim.

Going back to the nature of the Quran as being created v.s. uncreated. This is not a primary doctrine in either sunni or shi’ite theology. It is not a doctrine present in the Sunni pillars of islam HERE neither is it a a doctrine in the Shi’ite roots of faith HERE

This is very different with Christianity where belief in the trinity is a principal doctrine where (forgive me if I’m mistaken) you can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in the trinity

Dear seeker, thank you for the article, but it doesn’t address my concerns in post #77 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2588629#post2588629

 

[Keikiolu]

not the point…

Are you folks still listening to Khal…!?

Good heavens… Life is better with a little “/ignore Khalfan” it it.

I do so love seeing “This user is on your Ignore List” on my monitor. It just gives me the warm and snugglies…

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Fam, old mensch (or ‘old bud’ if you prefer), here’s a proposition for you:

Let’s agree that I think your religion is a clever invention of political control, and a veritable virus of Ba’al himself, served up to an idiot as a seed to grow into the vehicle for the enslavement of all mankind,…

…while we also agree that you think that my religion is an overelaborated and corrupted version of the true word of god which is to be subjugated into dhimmi status as long as it’s adherants can continue to “feed (via booty)” the umma, or face violent conversion or anhiliation once the inevitably massively increased number of moslems allows the tools of the infidels to be turned on them.

Can we simply agree on the obvious,… and quit beating around the bush, Fam…?

Thanks in advance.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[inJESUS]

Only Mohamed? Entire Christianity for last 2000 years couldn’t understand trinity. You are a Christian, right?

sorry for my late replies

there is difference between “not fully understanding” and “giving wrong info”.

We do not fully understand God (Trinity) because we are not God nor do we have His mind. To say that we fully understand the Trinity means we are on the same level with God which is not true. Hence, repeating it a thousand time that we do not understand it fully is not something we feel bad about but rather it is what biology and logic says.

However, giving “wrong info” about the Trinity and really believing that the all-knowing God got it wrong is the problem. What Muhammad said about the Trinity is simply not true. You can believe God got it wrong, we don’t; it was simply Muhammad’s misunderstanding.

 

[inJESUS]

Originally Posted by inJESUS
what is it you fail to understand after a thousand post Khalfan? Jesus is NOT the Father. The Wisdom of the Father comes from the Father hence the Father is the “boss” so to speak.

Seems you miss to understand what you are saying. Jesus (pbuh) and Father is supposed to be one. Jesus (pbuh) is the Wisdom of God which is God itself since they both are one eternal being. The concept ‘Father’ and the concept ‘Wisdom’ both are eternal, So both are of one God. You contradicted yourself two times here.

nop. Fact is, you are getting it I already explained that being an attribute of the Father, His Wisdom is ontologically equal to the Father hence Father and Wisdom are One. Yet, the Wisdom of the Father comes from the Father, is subordinate to the Father and is not the Father just like your wisdom is you because it is an attribute of yourself yet it is not you unless you believe that you are not a body as well. So your wisdom is you as an attribute but not you in function. So yes Jesus and God are One but does not mean Jesus is the Father. Clearer now?

1. You seperated Father and Wisdom by saying Jesus/Wisdom is not the Father. (If they both are eternal, then there are 2 eternal being/God which proves the islamic claim of Christian belief of three Gods, since the same applies to Spirit as well)

it is NOT a seperation. It is a “distinction” in function (one comes from the other) .The Wisdom of the Father comes from the Father hence it is subordinate in function but equal in nature because, exactly, it is eternal and uncreated.The Islamic claim simply is wrong.

1. Father and Wisdom is supposed to be of the same being. One cannot be the boss or God of the other. If it can, then one is more powerful than the other which ultimatly proves one powerless God and a powerful God.

the Wisdom of the Father comes from the Father hence the “head” or the “source” is the Father.

How can Father be the head of his own Wisdom or his own Spirit? You are saying One is the slave/subordinate of the other which again says 2 powerless part of God to one powerful part of God.

simply because Wisdom comes from the Father. Am not talking about power here. Am saying Wisdom comes from the Father and it is not the Father in function but in nature.

There is point in asking who prayed to God. Because Jesus (pbuh) is the Wisdom of God which is God itself. Why is it depended on the father which is God too?

because you always forget that we do believe 1) Jesus was born as a human, as a Jew,not pagan. 2) When the Wisdom of God speaks about God in the OT, it does not mean it is someone else. The same Wisdom personified in the OT is the Wisdom personified in the NT.

What is the function of father and why do they have to be seperate to fulfill the functions as God? Why do you limit the ability of God?

they are NOT seperate. They are distinct in function because God’s Spirit and Wisdom come from the Father hence distinct in function but equal in being uncreated and eternal. We make a distinction, not a seperation since God is One.

Is it the same for Wisdom too, that ‘wherever the Wisdom is, there is God’? If so, then why Jesus (pbuh) asked to be saved from cross since he knew the plan of God?

it is because He knew that He refered to the Father’s will. The Bible is clear : Jesus felt sadness and anxiety because He was a true human, not pretending to be one. Knowing the plan of God does NOT mean that Jesus had no feelings. He knew He will be resurrected again, and talked about it before being put on the cross, but this does not mean He had no feelings about what is to come just like when He cried when Eliazar was dead knowing that He will resurrect him in a minute.

cont…

 

[inJESUS]

Quote:
what is the “proof” you are looking for?

For that he was God while he was a man.

yes but what proof do you need if you believe God does not preseve His words?if everything is a conspiracy theory by corrupt Christians who corrupted the Bible, where do you want me to give you proof from? my own experience does not interest you am sure.

How can anyone pay for the sin of others? How can it be accepted by God, since the same God taght, ‘the soul that sin should die’ -Eze18:20?

every soul sins hence we are all dead. Jesus reversed this. We are all alive through His death for us. It is simply what Jesus said : there is nothing better than giving your life for others. It is exactly like when a mother or father or brother decides to pay for a wrong done by one member of the family; it is simply love. That’s why we stress on God’s love , because we witnessed it, here on earth.

Quote:
does the complaint of Jesus prove that he was not crucified?

It proves that, it was not Jesus (pbuh) on the cross.

cool, who was it? give me one logical answer that does not insult neither my intelligence nor God’s character.

Why he had to pray to be saved from cross since he himself is God and he can do whatever he want?

it’s like saying why He had to eat since He is God and needs not to eat? why did He cry knowing that He will raise Eliazar from death? why did He cry knowing that He will raise Himself ?that’s the beauty of it : He was a true human being : cried, laughed, felt sad, felt happy ecc. We do NOT believe that humanity per se is something shameful. We do NOT believe that God is “scandalized” by anything related to humans. You believe Allah is so remote from anything human, we simply don’t because He is our Father.

In what sense you said he was quoting psalms?

Quote:
Jesus was quoting a Psalm about suffering and how he will end up victorious. You can consider it a foreshadowing of how His suffering will end up in His Victory, the resurrection. Not praying in as much as telling that He is victorious. The choice of the Psalm is not meaningless.

 

[inJESUS]

My dear, do we Muslims separate his wisdom from him?

we dont seperate as well. We make a DISTINCTION, just like in :

This posting sums up the doctrine of the massive majority of the Muslims concerning the pre-existent, pre-eternal, beginningless, and **uncreated nature of the Divine Speech **Allah Most High has named Quran.

And know that the phrase ‘Kalām Allah’ (Allah’s Word) is applied to the beginningless unuttered speech (kalām nafsī qadīm), which happens to be a quality (sifah) present with His being (dhat) – High is He.

A quality present means a quality in God, not God, yet not different from Him IN NATURE.

Did we ever say that Wisdom alone came on earth in a book?

IF you want to refer to the Word of Allah, you refer to a book, don’t you? didn’t the eternal word of Allah materialize in a book? didnt the eternal enter the realm of time and space in a material form?

Quran is not the wisdom of God that came on earth, Quran is NOT THE UN-UTTERED WORDS OF GOD but the uttered words of God. But the message is eternal since the source is the Wisdom of God which is a quality of God present with God.

what i quoted is more than clear to anyone who is interested in the sunni position.

Jesus (pbuh) was more than just a man. He was not the Wisdom of God as there were many things that he was unaware of. Wisdom of God is OMNIPOTENT. Please let it be known to you.

Jesus can do whatever the Father can do. Is that not omnipotence? Jesus can give power to His followers, wherever they are, to do miracles. Is that not omnipotence when only God can empower people everywhere at the same time? Jesus gives wisdom to all at the same time, Isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus gives peace the world cannot give, isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus knows what people in a different city are talking about, or what they are thinking within themselves, isn’t this omnipotencw?Jesus can raise Himself, isn’t this omnipotence? Jesus can be with different people at the same time, isnt this omnipotence? or are all corrupt as usual? i hope you are not refering to the fig tree again cuz a kid of 10 years in Palestine or Lebanon knows the season of figs…lets not be joking and i already explained what it means in context and with OT references.

Quran is not the WHOLE WISDOM of GOD, but just a MICRO PORTION of it. The Message in the Quran do exist eternal IN the WISDOM of GOD. You cannot call Quran as Wisdom of God since it is not the WHOLE of it. You cannot call Jesus (pbuh) either as Wisdom of God since he too had limit in his knowledge.

whole or half is irrelevant.

“And know that the phrase ‘Kalām Allah’ (Allah’s Word) is applied to the beginningless unuttered speech (kalām nafsī qadīm), which happens to be a quality (sifah) present with His being (dhat) – High is He.

Quote:
the Bible clearly says in the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the ord IS God. No polytheism, but pure monotheism.

That si just a claim. I can see what you believe.

thats what sunni believe in too

“And know that the phrase ‘Kalām Allah’ (Allah’s Word) is applied to the beginningless unuttered speech (kalām nafsī qadīm), which happens to be a quality (sifah) present with His being (dhat) – High is He.

And know that in the beginning was the Word (beginingless unuttered speach) , and the Word was with God (which happens to be present with His being) and the Word is God ( his dhat- quality).

= pure monotheism

 

[inJESUS]

Dear inJesus,

No I’m not Sunni and my views don’t represent the sunni majority. I am a twelver imami shi’ite Muslim.

Going back to the nature of the Quran as being created v.s. uncreated. This is not a primary doctrine in either sunni or shi’ite theology. It is not a doctrine present in the Sunni pillars of islam HERE neither is it a a doctrine in the Shi’ite roots of faith HERE

This is very different with Christianity where belief in the trinity is a principal doctrine where (forgive me if I’m mistaken) you can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in the trinity

Dear seeker, thank you for the article, but it doesn’t address my concerns in post #77 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2588629#post2588629

yes i know it is not a principle doctrine yet people got killed in the past for believing that the Quran is created. Putting all this aside, how can you or Sunni muslims reconcile the fact that Allah is eternal and His Word is eternal , that both are equal and not equal at the same time, with monotheism?

it’s what we believe in. God, His Word, His Spirit is simply monotheism. We do discuss the nature of God because it was revealed to us.We are not afraid of compromising our monotheism when we explain the nature of God, His Word and His Spirit. However, we do not accept that people accuse us of polytheism, either because someone gave them wrong info, or because they themselves are afraid to discuss the nature of the Oness of God.

 

[Khalfan]

sorry for my late replies

there is difference between “not fully understanding” and “giving wrong info”.

We do not fully understand God (Trinity) because we are not God nor do we have His mind. To say that we fully understand the Trinity means we are on the same level with God which is not true. Hence, repeating it a thousand time that we do not understand it fully is not something we feel bad about but rather it is what biology and logic says.

However, giving “wrong info” about the Trinity and really believing that the all-knowing God got it wrong is the problem. What Muhammad said about the Trinity is simply not true. You can believe God got it wrong, we don’t; it was simply Muhammad’s misunderstanding.

What is God and what God is not, is not the issue that Islam and Christianity differs in; it is what Jesus (pbuh), a man that lived 2000 years ago was and what he was not. To know that man, we need a study. Where do we get to know him as he was? the Gospels? Let’s consider the gospels to know him. Which gospel was written first? Mark’s. Do we find Godman in that Gospel? We find a man that denied even being called as good. We find a man that prayed to be saved from getting killed by his enemies. We find no records of resurrection part. Then we read Matthew. We find few of the quotes and events exactly similar as it is in Mark; many events with different quotes and details which is not mentioned in Mark. We find a developed Godman in Jesus (pbuh). Then we read Luke. All we know that the writer was not eyewitness to any events. He was writing according to what the people believed and knew of Jesus (pbuh). We find same issues in Luke’s record, that we saw in Matthew’s record, such as similar events, differed events and new events. Further more, we find more than 200 almost exactly similar verses in Matthew and Luke, despite the similar verses in Mark, which leads to a probability of copying from some other record or source, which some people today reconstructed as Q Gospels, which could have existed at the time of Mark’s writing or before that. The point is if we go to that earlier writings on Jesus (pbuh) like Mark or to that possible Q record, we don’t find a Godman but a very human that came on a mission from God with revelations from God (Mark 1:14 ‘Gospel of God’ –NASB; ‘Good news of God’ –NIV (which translated as ‘INJEEL’ in Arabic) which mentioned only once in the entire Bible and even that is changed in many versions as ‘Kingdom of God’). Then we read John. We find a far developed ‘God in Man’ that cannot be kept along with the previous records known as ‘Synoptic’. Since we don’t have any gospel written before Mark, we are unable to find the development of the stories in Mark. We must know that the real Jesus (pbuh) is not that what we find John, Matthew/Luke, Mark but the one that lived before them. Since the development is visible, we must conclude, knowing the real Jesus (pbuh) from the Gospels is impossible. As history cannot be recreated, the only way is God and his revelations -Quran.

 

[Booklover]

What is God and what God is not, is not the issue that Islam and Christianity differs in; it is what Jesus (pbuh), a man that lived 2000 years ago was and what he was not. To know that man, we need a study. Where do we get to know him as he was? the Gospels? Let’s consider the gospels to know him. Which gospel was written first? Mark’s. Do we find Godman in that Gospel? We find a man that denied even being called as good. We find a man that prayed to be saved from getting killed by his enemies. We find no records of resurrection part. Then we read Matthew. We find few of the quotes and events exactly similar as it is in Mark; many events with different quotes and details which is not mentioned in Mark. We find a developed Godman in Jesus (pbuh). Then we read Luke. All we know that the writer was not eyewitness to any events. He was writing according to what the people believed and knew of Jesus (pbuh). We find same issues in Luke’s record, that we saw in Matthew’s record, such as similar events, differed events and new events. Further more, we find more than 200 almost exactly similar verses in Matthew and Luke, despite the similar verses in Mark, which leads to a probability of copying from some other record or source, which some people today reconstructed as Q Gospels, which could have existed at the time of Mark’s writing or before that. The point is if we go to that earlier writings on Jesus (pbuh) like Mark or to that possible Q record, we don’t find a Godman but a very human that came on a mission from God with revelations from God (Mark 1:14 ‘Gospel of God’ –NASB; ‘Good news of God’ –NIV (which translated as ‘INJEEL’ in Arabic) which mentioned only once in the entire Bible and even that is changed in many versions as ‘Kingdom of God’). Then we read John. We find a far developed ‘God in Man’ that cannot be kept along with the previous records known as ‘Synoptic’. Since we don’t have any gospel written before Mark, we are unable to find the development of the stories in Mark. We must know that the real Jesus (pbuh) is not that what we find John, Matthew/Luke, Mark but the one that lived before them. Since the development is visible, we must conclude, knowing the real Jesus (pbuh) from the Gospels is impossible. As history cannot be recreated, the only way is God and his revelations -Quran.

Horse feathers! And we are supposed to believe that the Quran is the word of God by a man who taught that lying is okay, who’s been accused of being a narcissist, pedophile, mass murderer, terrorist, mysoginist, lecher, cult leader, mad man, rapist, torturer, assassin and looter!

Get real!

Vickie

 

[inJESUS]

What is God and what God is not, is not the issue that Islam and Christianity differs in;

i think we do differ about the Oness of God.

Oness=Tawhid
Tawdid (wahhada) = to Unite
Tri-Unity = Tawhid =Oness

this is why, in our creed, we start with God is One, and then we explain the nature of this Oness. This, indeed, takes us to your second point:

it is what Jesus (pbuh), a man that lived 2000 years ago was and what he was not.

 

[inJESUS]

We find no records of resurrection part.

but we do find about the crucifixion, don’t we? do you believe it? no so what would change if you found about the crucifixion? arguments must have a basis.

we find no record of Jesus being born miraculously in all gospels so surely He was not according to your logic. Ironically, the one who talked about it is the same NON-eyewitness you are talking about, Luke, yet you find the same in your book.

Then we read Matthew. We find few of the quotes and events exactly similar as it is in Mark; many events with different quotes and details which is not mentioned in Mark.

so? did you expect different people to write the same things? the same words? the same events? don’t you realize that in your own book there are repeated passages with differing details?and the author is supposed to be one and all-knowing, not learning history?

We find a developed Godman in Jesus (pbuh).

that was already adressed. Unless you refute the answer, there is no need to repeat the same claim.

As to why John writes differently, or why Matthew writes differently, or why more details are given here and not there is because these were people, not robots, writing to different audience. You do not write to Jews in the same way you write to pagans and no 2 people focus on the same events and yes, not all of them were eyewitnesses, but even if they were, you wouldn’t believe what they said because God supposedly failed in gurading His scriptures. And you also forget that like you, we have a huge tradition where these same gospels you are questioning were already quoted, taught, and explained in our tradition. Not to mention that these same non-eyewitnesses have their words in your Sunna as Allah’s word. You cannot have the cake and eat it
Forget about His deity, all gospels talk about the crucifixion, history talks about his crucifixion, eyewitnesses talk about his crucifion, non-Christians talk about his crucifion, yet what do you believe in? that the Word of God became suddenly the exact replicas of Gnostic teachings and apocrypha writers who were neither disciples nor eyewitnesses nor wrote in the first century nor ever met the disciples? are there words more plausible but the words of tradition passed on from the disciples since the first century is not? is the words given by Ghulam Ahmad more plausible than the ones given in sunna?

 

[inJESUS]

Then we read Luke. All we know that the writer was not eyewitness to any events. He was writing according to what the people believed and knew of Jesus (pbuh).

Papias (AD 60-140)

Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, and he was a companion of Polycarp, John’s disciple and had also heard John personally. He says:

'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.

Papias also said:

'So then, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language"

Irenaeus (AD 120-190)

Irenaus was a pupil of Polycarp, who as noted above was a disciple of John himself. He records that:

**‘Matthew **also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while **Peter **and **Paul **were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. **Luke **also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.’

Clement of Alexandria (AD 155-220) also says of Mark:

‘When, at Rome, Peter had openly preached the word and by the spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it.’

And these people not only knew the disciples, but quoted their teachings in their writings. When you talk about the authors of the gospels, you give the impression that these were lonely people who had no disciples and pupils to pass on their teachings but this is simply not true. The church was spreading in different countries and the disciples’ teachings were handed down to many, were recorded, taught, and explained. Should i believe first and second century people wo were ready to die and indeed died for their faith or should i believe in a man who came 600 years later, who neither knew Jesus, nor His disciples, nor His disciples’ pupils, not had anything to do with the disciples’ tradition but who simply adopted Gnostic teachings and legends about Jesus, without even understanding what Jesus’ titles means, and wants to really convince me that these are the literal, eternal words of an all-knowing God?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Father + Word (Quran) = the One same Allah

A small correction to an otherwise good post.

Master+slaves word= allah

 

[Khalfan]

Mark 13.31: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.–

Let me ask.

What was originally written in Mark 1:14 and how do you translate it?

 

[Khalfan]

but we do find about the crucifixion, don’t we? do you believe it? no so what would change if you found about the crucifixion? arguments must have a basis.

we find no record of Jesus being born miraculously in all gospels so surely He was not according to your logic. Ironically, the one who talked about it is the same NON-eyewitness you are talking about, Luke, yet you find the same in your book.

Was I talking about the authenticity of the events? or was I talking about a missing event in mark which is there in the other gospels?

Resurrection story is the most important for a christian than the crucifiction; than Jesus (pbuh) himself as per,

1 Cor 15:14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Missing of the resurrection story in Mark is just one of the many reason for not believeing in that.

so? did you expect different people to write the same things? the same words? the same events? don’t you realize that in your own book there are repeated passages with differing details?and the author is supposed to be one and all-knowing, not learning history?

I do. I really do. Since all are talking about a same single person. I expect all of the reporters to write the same events with the same details as all their writings were breathed of GOD / spiritually/divinely inspired. Otherwise, that claim of divine inspiration becomes a lie. I do expect atleast the quotations of Jesus (pbuh) to be the same, since it was the same Jesus (pbuh) talking to all disciples. Otherwise you must agree that, the writers were writing it from their own memory as they remember about the sayings of Jesus (pbuh) or they wrote it as they got it from the heresay. Again, the claim of accuracy in reporting the actual words/message of Jesus (pbuh) becomes a lie then.

I don’t wonder even if you say, “see your God says “THERE IS NO GOD” here by saying LAA ILAAHA…”

As to why John writes differently, or why Matthew writes differently, or why more details are given here and not there is because these were people, not robots, writing to different audience. You do not write to Jews in the same way you write to pagans and no 2 people focus on the same events and yes, not all of them were eyewitnesses, but even if they were, you wouldn’t believe what they said because God supposedly failed in gurading His scriptures. And you also forget that like you, we have a huge tradition where these same gospels you are questioning were already quoted, taught, and explained in our tradition.

You forgot that, there were many manuscripts that church rejected; there were many that believed it wasn’t Jesus (pbuh) on the cross like Barnabas; there were even disciples who acted like hypocrites accrording to your self witnessed visionarry -Paul.

Who could be the first and best believer, the first and best witness of Jesus (pbuh)? His mother Mary (r) and his family. Did they believe in him fully, trust his words completely according to the gospel reporters?

Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Could Mary (r) think of him as a mad for whatever he speaks?!!

 

[Khalfan]

Not to mention that these same non-eyewitnesses have their words in your Sunna as Allah’s word. You cannot have the cake and eat it

Now here you lost the base of discussion. The possibility for Prophet copying the stories from the ‘eye-witness’ reports in Bible, is just an allegation. Unless it is proved, you have no base to say it was copied.

Forget about His deity, all gospels talk about the crucifixion, history talks about his crucifixion, eyewitnesses talk about his crucifion, non-Christians talk about his crucifion, yet what do you believe in? that the Word of God became suddenly the exact replicas of Gnostic teachings and apocrypha writers who were neither disciples nor eyewitnesses nor wrote in the first century nor ever met the disciples? are there words more plausible but the words of tradition passed on from the disciples since the first century is not? is the words given by Ghulam Ahmad more plausible than the ones given in sunna?

My dear, you do agree that the Gnostic teachings, apocrypha and many other unincluded manuscriupts talkes many things similar to Quran. Were did they come from? from air? tell me, how many apocrypha were there in the first compiled book of Bible?

None of the book in the Bible today, were written to be part of a book called Bible. But the church compiled the books that went along with what they believed about Jesus (pbuh). As we both know, it was Paul’s writings (the very same self proclaimed visionary disciple of Jesus (pbuh)) that were serculating around even before Mark. While life and teachings of Jesus (pbuh) is only about 15%, the teachings of Paul is morethan 50% in the Bible. The influence of those writings and teachings are the main reason for develpment of Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospels and in Christianity. You believe Paul had vision of Jesus (pbuh) and he wrote accordingly. Now, there are many other who too had visions of Jesus-God like Ellen G. White, but you reject them. Why? There is a living Jesus-second coming in US, but you reject him. Why? How do you measure the visions?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Unless it is proved, you have no base to say it was copied.

The proof is the fact that Mohammad had access to the stories that he had incorporated into the koran.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ahlan wa sahlen,

If God/Allah is infinite in His Design, what stops Him from fulfilling His Will by manifestation of Three Most Holy Persons in One Essence? It defies human logic and our definition of “one”, but for God nothing is impossible OR illogical because He IS His own definitions, not ours.

Peace to all. I am not trying to start an argument, I’m merely curious about the Muslim perspective of the idea of the Sacred Trinity.

The problem with belief in the Blessed Trinity is that to a Muslim it looks like nothing but another form of shirk - that is, it denies the Unity & Uniqueness of God by associating partners with Him, who are by definition not God. Therefore, what Christians believe is just another form of polytheism - therefore, it has to be rejected.​

If we do not mean by “circle” what “God means”, He might by “good” mean what we mean by “evil” - if a revelation is to be helpful to its recipients, there has to be some likeness between God’s “idea” of good & ours: otherwise His revelation will be misleading. This is why emphasis on the genuinely human authorship of the Bible is so important to understanding it: what God means, is not accessible to human testing - at least in principle, what S.Paul (say) meant by his choice of words can be tested: versions of his writings can be compared, analysed, tested, criticised. Even though his personal knowledge of Christ was his & not ours.

Since we have access to Christ through the Holy Spirit of Christ, we can (as the Psalmist says) “taste and see that the Lord is good” for ourselves, both individually & as a Church. IOW, we can test the truth of St. Paul’s word for ourselves. That so many Christians through the centuries have found them verified in their own experience, is a strong evidence of their truth - & so, of the truth & authenticity & Divine Authorship of them A single individual might be wrong, & often is - but when many individuals taste and see for themselves that what seems incapable of being true, is found true by every test that life can put it through, the case for the truth of whatever-it-is, looks stronger: which is how the fact of a Church is so helpful - it is immensely varied, in just about every way conceivable: the one bond common to all its members is that they are Christians. That they believe in a God Who is Tri-Une, despite their many differences & enormous variety, is something worth noting.

And as his words can by these tests be known to be true, we have a “test” for the Church’s experience that the Blessed Trinity is a reality. Faith is always necessary while we are on earth - perhaps because Christian faith is faith by persons, in Persons. So it is simply not possible to demonstrate that God is Tri-Une by argument: relations between personal beings cannot be tested in that way; that the Blessed Trinity is “really Real”, is not a theorem in geometry; so an argument that would suit geometry is an inappropriate method for knowing the Blessed Trinity.

An answer based on the freedom of God,like “X defies human logic” is an answer vulnerable to attack because it is not clear to an anti-Trinitarian that the Christian belief is itself anything more than a construction of human reason. We believe in the Blessed Trinity because of God’s Revelation on Christ, Who is made known by the Divine gift of faith - but, that reply is not going to answer a Muslim: as belief in the Trinity is not true (the Koran makes that clear enough), nothing can make it true. The absolute trustworthiness & Divine origin of the Koran is basic to Islam; it can no more be taken out of Islam without destroying it, than belief that there is a God can be taken out (say) Christianity without destroying that.

In the Doctrine of God, the Christian certainty, & the Muslim certainty, have somehow to be interpreted as compatible with one another. (That, or one of them must give way: which is not likely to happen.)