H
Holly3278
Guest
Hey everyone. I have heard that the Quran gets the Trinity wrong by stating that Mary is a part of the Trinity when she most definitely is not. Is this true? If so, which part of the Quran says this?
- Status
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
A
anixx
Guest
I didn’t know the Quran stated that God was triune. The Muslims don’t accept the Trinity, to my knowledge.
But, Catholic dogma speaks of Mary as* cotrinitaria*. Though she is not part of the Trinity, that would make God the Quadrinity, she is closely and intimately related with the Trinity. She is the spouse of the Trinity, the mother of the Trinity. We don’t use the term cotrinitaria, as for not to create confusion, but it is there. The most high of creatures, above all created worlds, even above angels, there is no one closer to God then she.
But, Catholic dogma speaks of Mary as* cotrinitaria*. Though she is not part of the Trinity, that would make God the Quadrinity, she is closely and intimately related with the Trinity. She is the spouse of the Trinity, the mother of the Trinity. We don’t use the term cotrinitaria, as for not to create confusion, but it is there. The most high of creatures, above all created worlds, even above angels, there is no one closer to God then she.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Ask any Muslim and they will reject there is any false notion in the Quran (obviously). However, any document that comes more than 600 years after the fact, one can expect very fuzzy details about Mary’s role and her story in about Jesus or Isa as Islam calls him.
I know Im not answering the question
MJ
D
dronald
Guest
You got it.
Yes, for the most part Allah thought Christians saw Mary as one of three. There is no mention in the Qur’an of our belief about the Holy Spirit. Rather it only touches on Allah, Jesus and Mary.
4:171O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
5:75The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
D
dzheremi
Guest
It has been advanced by certain authors (e.g., Griffith) that the relevant portion of the Qur’an reflects divisions and polemics found within (mostly Syriac-speaking) Christianity as they were understood in Arabia in Muhammad’s time and before, i.e., the East Syriac/Persian church’s insistence that it was improper to call St. Mary “Theotokos”, as that essentially deifies her (the thinking being that St. Mary is not the mother of Christ’s divine nature, but of His human nature, so she cannot really be the “God-bearer”, which is what “Theotokos” translates to). Obviously I don’t buy it (I’d just as soon call an error an error, rather than seek to legitimize it as somehow being in keeping with mainstream Christianity), but it is an interesting idea, and points to the debt that is owed to the Nestorians for what can be termed Islam’s wrong Christology.
L
losh14
Guest
So the Quran incorrectly lists an understanding about Christianity and then decries it. Thanks for the reference. I see now why John the Damascene considered Islam to be a heresy rather than a separate religion.
An easy argument to counter - no one will defend it because there is no defense.
If the Nestorian heresy were corrected and the True Gospel promulgated, would Islam have arisen? Error begets error.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry christmas.” - Don Meredith
D
dronald
Guest
The issue with this argument is it assumes that Muhammad was just some dude and the Qur’an was just some book.
The omnipotent omniscient Allah would have known what to write in a book for all mankind forever, and if true would have certainly had some issues with the Trinity as it was believed by most and would be for centuries to come. He wouldn’t pick a certain belief in a certain place and counter it; even if such a belief existed.
This is similar to Qur’an stating that the Jews believe Ezra to be the son of God:
Surah 9:30
The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
Jews will deny ever considering Ezra the son of God, especially in the way Christians do. So the Muslim argues, “well some may have in that region during that time.” Sorry, doesn’t fly.
D
dronald
Guest
I apologize; but I don’t quite understand what you mean?
J
jakasaki
Guest
There was a great thread on here from 4 years ago regarding Ezra and a different one regarding the Trinity…
Both threads are old and now locked… but… I’ll post the links for your review.
For Muslims: Ezra…the Son of God?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=414302
For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=423808
L
losh14
Guest
I’m thinking from a perspective of proselytizing. If someone who is weak in their is told something that is both false but sounds compelling about their faith, it’s easy to lead them away. In modern days, proselytizers use similar arguments to misrepresent the faith of Catholics and mislead those who don’t know their faith very well. Consider the Jack Chick tracts and their outrageous claims - ie, that the Vatican has spies in every congregation, that the Eucharist is really an Egyptian belief based on their sun-god, that the Virgin Birth is the retelling of some Babylonian myth, etc.
The technique isn’t limited to proselytizing - its been part and parcel of propaganda for generations. “This political party wants to force birth control on teenagers, that one wants to forbid the teaching of science in the classrooms”.
When Muhammed (m.s.a.c.) wrote the Quran and invented Islam, he wanted to found a faith that would counter Christianity and Judaism, so he presented them as fundamentally-flawed. Thus he presented arguments that would hold sway among 6th-century peoples who weren’t necessarily well-versed theologically, ie:
“Don’t believe in Christianity because Christians think Mary is part of God.”
“Don’t believe in Judaism because Jews believe Ezra is the son of God.”
These are arguments that no one will defend but that I’ve heard Muslims use in conversation in an attempt to lead me away from the lies Paul told about “Prophet Jesus”.
D
dronald
Guest
It really amazes me that I keep an open mind and can’t find one compelling argument supporting the Ezra claim in the Qur’an. Not one Jewish source was provided.
Thanks, I enjoyed the read.
J
jimkhong
Guest
There is a more direct reference. Mohammad identified Waraqa ibn Nawfal as someone who knows Christianity well (being very learned in Jewish and Christian scriptures), and presumably learnt about Christianity from him. Islamic traditions regard him as a believer during the Age of Ignorance (the period before Mohammad) and he remained a Christian even after discourses with Mohammad until his death.
Unfortunately, Waraqa ibn Nawfal was an Ebionite, a Judeo-Christian sect who denied the divinity of Christ and thus, are non-Trinitarians.
Furthermore, a number of stories about Jesus and Mary in the Quran (eg., the story of the baby Jesus speaking in the cradle; the story of the child Jesus making birds out of clay and making them fly) are not in the canonical Gospels but in the heretical Gospels for the Arabs (these stories probably originated from the Gospel of Thomas).
Therefore, the knowledge that Mohammad had about Christian faith came from heretical Christians, sects which are now extinct today - is it any wonder why Muslim disagreement with Christian doctrines are flawed?
D
dzheremi
Guest
It is hardly uncontested that the Ebionites actually lasted into Muhammad’s time, so while I would agree that they are likely the heretical group that most closely resembles Islamic Christology (if it is proper to talk of such a thing), the religious identity of Waraqa Ibn Nuwfal is likewise a matter of some debate. There is no conclusive evidence of which strain of Christianity he might have belonged to. All Islamic sources, unsurprisingly, simply state that he was a Christian, without any further clarification.
I think the most we can say with certainty is that if Muhammad did learn Christianity from that man, then either he was really heretical (regardless of sect), or Muhammad garbled whatever he had been taught so as to come up with the heretical things that Islam teaches about Christ and Christianity. Either scenario is bad, so I would say this doesn’t really matter. I only presented Griffith’s argument because his recent book was the first time in quite a while I had seen that particular thesis taken up by a serious scholar (older works, themselves polemical in nature, point to “Monophysite” – read: non-Chalcedonian – influences on Islam via Syriac and Ethiopian communities present on the fringes of the Peninsula, and I suppose it is intriguing that the stories of the martyrs of Najran are preserved in Syriac, though of course there too the Islamic literature that mentions them does not distinguish them as belonging to any particular tradition, so there is only so far we can extrapolate based on available evidence, which is very scant).
No matter whose fault it is (and to me Muhammad is as good as any), the important point to remember is that the Qur’an is wrong.
I think the most we can say with certainty is that if Muhammad did learn Christianity from that man, then either he was really heretical (regardless of sect), or Muhammad garbled whatever he had been taught so as to come up with the heretical things that Islam teaches about Christ and Christianity. Either scenario is bad, so I would say this doesn’t really matter. I only presented Griffith’s argument because his recent book was the first time in quite a while I had seen that particular thesis taken up by a serious scholar (older works, themselves polemical in nature, point to “Monophysite” – read: non-Chalcedonian – influences on Islam via Syriac and Ethiopian communities present on the fringes of the Peninsula, and I suppose it is intriguing that the stories of the martyrs of Najran are preserved in Syriac, though of course there too the Islamic literature that mentions them does not distinguish them as belonging to any particular tradition, so there is only so far we can extrapolate based on available evidence, which is very scant).
No matter whose fault it is (and to me Muhammad is as good as any), the important point to remember is that the Qur’an is wrong.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Islam never has the True Catholic Christianity because it never knows of True Christianity from its’ late beginnings.
Muhammad’s brother in law was a condemned Christian (Arian Heretical) Priest , from which Islam gets its’ deformed interpretations of Christianity.
Islam’s rejection of it’s deformed Christianity is never Catholic, because the Catholic Church already rejected and excommunicated (the Arian heresy) Islam’s deformed view of Christianity before Muhammad was ever born.
Islam’s rejection of Christianity is never True Christianity. Islam rejects the deformed Arian heresy of the Trinity, Which the Catholic Church rejected centuries before Muhammad’s interpretation of Islam.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The Church coucil used the term “Theotokos” never to deify the blessed Mother, this is where the Nestorians took a wrong turn from the Church council reasoning, thinking, and holding to the Apostolic Sacred Tradition.
Theotokos is used to confirm that Jesus is God, it is never interpreted to deify the blessed Mother.The Orthodox teach and hold to this as well.
Theotokos holds to the revelation of the Trinity, which Theotokos does not divide the blessed Trinity, yet holds to God is ONE even at the revelation of the Word of God being born of flesh. Theotokos separated the sheep from the goats that reveals the two natures of Jesus Christ is One, when the Word became flesh, Jesus humbled himself for our sake, yet the revelation of Jesus Christ revealed the Trinity is One God and no other.
While the blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus humanity, who is Emmanuel = God with us. The blessed Virgin Mary is Theotokos, because the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ is not divided, the blessed Mother gave birth to the Incarnate Jesus Christ, for which her title reveals who Jesus is God incarnate, thus the blessed Virgin Mary who bore God (incarnate), She is Mother or God bearer “Theotokos” of Jesus Christ who is God incarnate, when the Word of God took on flesh.
Theotokos does not give birth to Jesus Christ divine nature. Theotokos gave birth to Jesus full humanity who was never without His full divine nature (Emmanuel) is what the Church council defined.
Nestorians tried to divide the two natures of Jesus Christ which divided the Trinity and were labeled heretics by the Church council. Theotokos maintains the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ fully intact confirmed by the Apostolic Sacred Traditions unchanged.
Islam would come centuries later to pick up (false teachings) heresies of the Trinity to deny Jesus full divinity. Theotokos defeats any and all those who deny Jesus divinity, because God dwells with the human race.
Peace be with you
M
MartinJordan
Guest
I must add centuries too late to come up with accurate, factual, historical and theological exegesis. I think Islam depends on too much raw emotions, which is a **human **trait.
MJ
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Indeed; the natural man has to die first (baptism in the Trinity) in order to enter the mysteries of God (Trinity) for no man can see God and live. So long as the natural man lives the natural laws remain in effect, which the flesh becomes a stumbling block for the natural man to enter into the spiritual eternal realities of God who reveals them to our humanity.
I find it troubling for Muslims to address Catholic theology (Trinity) with a false premise, grounded from their false view of the trinity (Mary being part of the Trinity per the Quran), while Muslims error supposing that Catholics believe in a trinity which the Quran reveals (a false trinity) and rejects.
The Quran reveals and rejects a heretical condemned view of the Trinity by the Catholic Church.
How can the Quran be labeled a writing inspired of God, which teaches and reveals an error of the blessed Trinity that falsely accuses what true Christians believe? Why would a word from God falsely accuse Christians of believing in the Quran’s false trinity? When God does not lie.
When the correct and true Trinity was defined and believed in long before the Quran was ever written.
Peace be with you
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Absolutely. This is what Theology encompasses, especially long before Islam. The latter has that human tendency to be frustrated with the the perfectness of the Faith of Christ who is true God and true Man. The true Messiah. Islam promises but a reworking of the deliverer, by rejecting Christ (as understood by the Church) in whom our Faith comes from.
I’m sad about it. I would love for Islam (who profess to hold the Faith of Abraham and who accept Jesus as a prophet) to see things as it was before the formation of Islam. The Faith of Christ was lived by the Church, real human beings who suffered.
Perhaps because Islam’s founder didn’t understand it. Atleast I am not aware if he ever analyzed Orthodox Christianity.
I pray for those who accept the Quran and that the light of Christ eventually may be revealed to them by our Faith in action. We must show the way.
MJ
- Status