|
Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Author | |
Jack Catholic 
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 22 September 2010 at 10:09pm |
|
Dear Mansoor __ Ali I checked as many of those old books you had quoted from, and I found the same list of quotes on a unitarian web sight. I need to tell you something about Unitarians. They are Christians, but the are not Catholic Orthodox Christian. They are a recently created group of Protestant Christians that believes that there is no such thing as a triune God such as Catholics have always believed for over 2000 years. I found a few of the authors who wrote some of the books you quoted, and they are as follows: Tom Harper lives in England and is Anglican The Anchor Bible Commentary by David Noel Freedman is Prespreterian. Peake�s commentary on the bible is Anglican History of Dogma by Adolph Harnack (is a German Protestant who does not believe in miracles and believes that Christianity is based in Greek paganism) The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau (a Unitarian Protestant who does not believe that there is any such thing as a trinity.) Of the ones I had a chance to look up, not one was Catholic, and some make some pretty wild claims about Jesus that I don�t even think Muhammad would agree with. Would you mind letting me know if any of the books you quoted from were Catholic. And what is the evidence that Matthew 28:19 is a fraud? The only evidence these quotes seem to draw off of is that in five other place in the New Testament the early Christian writers spoke of baptism into Jesus. Didn�t I explain the difference in meaning between baptizing in the name of Jesus and baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? One other thing about the Holy Trinity in the Bible, I mentioned this verse because it is concise and very clear. But there are numerous other locations in the Holy Bible where the Holy Spirit is mentioned as Divine, and where Jesus also refers to himself as Divine. About Surah 4:171, I understand up to the point where it says, ��and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:� This phrase I do not understand. It�s grammer is not very clear to me. Would you be so kind as to explain it? Thank you� About the Holy Trinity, there is absolutely nothing in the ancient church that even suggests that there is any kind of religious hierarchy in faith with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It would be impossible to imagine that there was any kind of teaching about a hierarchy because it has always been know that they are not separate Gods working together as one, but in truth are one and the same God, just different persons of that God. I know about Jesus not returning. It seems that many in their enthusiasm failed to remember that Jesus has said that only the Father would know the day and time of Jesus second coming, which would be the end of the earth. But this is off topic. Let�s get back to the topic� You said the Didache calls Jesus �the Servant of God.� You see, Jesus told his apostles not to behave as pagan rulers behave, but rather to be servants to others, and only by being servants can they be called children of God. The Pope refers to himself as a servant of the people of God, though he is in authority over them. Christians believe that Jesus came to earth in human form to show us by his example how Allah wants us to behave. Allah wants us to love one another and obey Him with the action of service. Does Islam teach that service to Allah is obedience, and that service to neighbor is love of Neighbor? This phrase in the context of Catholic values does not constitute denying the divinity of Jesus. You said, �The Didache was not mentioned until the late 2nd century.� I say, And because of this it was never included in the Holy Bible. However it has value in that it shows how the Christians of the second century lived out their faith, and it verifies the existence of the beliefs of the early church. It must not be used as a source of doctrine, however. How can one reject a document that simply reflects how Christians practiced their faith? That would be like rejecting history. The Catholic Church only recognizes the Didache for its historical value. That�s all.
You also wrote, �The Didache never mentions the Gospels, and is totally silent on Jesus� life.� This again is very perceptive of you. It is yet another reason why it was never included in the Holy Bible. The Didache was considered, but its value was historical about the church after the death of Jesus. The New Testament was written for the purpose of verifying and summarizing what the church taught and believed about the life of Jesus and his message. The Didache does not assist in this purpose. It does, however, show that the Christians up to the second century believed in the Holy Trinity. This is my point. It supports this claim. Salaam Alaekum, Edited by Jack Catholic - 22 September 2010 at 10:47pm |
|
 |
|
|
honeto
Senior Member 
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 September 2010 at 9:08pm |
|
Dear Jack,
it might me that Catholics believed in triune God for two thousand years, but that does not mean that they are right. Hindus will win over you on that basis if you mean the length of time proves anything.
God as One is probably the oldest teachings dating back to the Old Testament times, time of Adam (pbuh) to be exact, so Unitarians are not the first one to say that God is one of one. Triune God idea in Catholicism as we know now was never known to any prophets of the Old Testament. And at some point it was a new idea, as you yourself say its only two thousand year old.
Hasan
|
|
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 September 2010 at 2:47pm |
|
Dear Hasan,
My point to all this is not length of time, accept to say that Catholics did not invent this belief some time after Jesus life and death. The belief came directly from Jesus himself. Muhammad says that Jesus was sent by Allah, but if indeed Jesus was "sent by Allah," why would Muhammad pick and choose what he would accept of what Jesus said? This would make him exactly like the Protestant Christians who came so long after Jesus and also pick and choose what they wish to believe of what Jesus had said and taught.
As much as I respect Muhammad for trying to spread belief in Allah throughout the world (I'm sure this is what Allah wants), yet I would tend to believe the men Jesus personally chose and trained for over three years to know the truth whenever there is a discrepancy between their teachings and the teachings of someone 600 years later who disagreed with them and hadn't been taught either by Jesus or those who taught faithfully what Jesus taught. I don't think the length of time that the belief has been held has anything to do with how true the belief is. But when Protestants come along 1500 years after the death of Jesus and start teaching things Jesus never taught, I have to wonder where they got their ideas. Same with Muhammad.
The Apostles blieved and taught that Allah was tri-une God. They carried their messages to China, Russia, Europe and North Africa before the last Apostle, John, died in Egypt in 110 AD. The Apostles were all put to death because they taught belief, love, and obedience to a triune God, accept for John who died of old age. Why would someone agree to die a horrible, tortuous death for something they knew to be a lie? There is ample evidence in the Old Testament for the Trinity, though the Jews and the Israelites before them could not see it. Jesus pointed it out to his Apostles and made numerous references to it himself. The Catholic Church has documented these references in much of its literature since the days of the Apostles. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a resent invention as is the belief amongst Christian Protestants that Jesus is but a prophet or as some dare to say, a lesser God under the authority of Allah.
Don't you find some value in the logic of what I'm saying? Please explain your answer with why.
Salaam Alaekum,
Jack Catholic
|
|
|
|
|
Mansoor_ali
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 September 2010 at 12:04pm |
|
To Jack Catholic I keep aside for a moment whether Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation or not. Now i will focus whether Matthew 28:19 is a proof of trinity? Let us read the verse in context. Matthew 28:18-20 KJV 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." It is very clear by Jesus that his power had been given to him. Now it is a common sense that the one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Jesus Christ) are NOT the same - Jesus is NOT God. So context of verse doesnot support trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together make �one God.� This verse refers to three, but never says they are �one.�For example If 3 persons are sitting together at a same desk it doesnot mean that they are 1 person. I quote Misha'al ibn Abdullah: �Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:� If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to �Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,� does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity. So you cannot prove trinity with the help of Matthew 28:19 because context of verse doesnot support such kind of argument. |
|
|
|
|
Gibbs
Guest Group 
Joined: 29 April 2009 Status: Offline Points: 939 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 September 2010 at 1:06pm |
|
IMHO I think what is essentially problematic for Muslims and the Koran concerning the trinity is that you have three essences of One entity. The three essences are seperate (but equal). The problem here is the seperate essences (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). If the Father was the Son, there would be no need to say Father + Son, you'd say Son. Similiar with the Holy Spirit. I believe long ago I made a thread concerning this issue concerning the trinity. Basically it would be problematic if I said my house is only composed of walls. It's one house with many compartments. but I simply cannot say my house is simply made up of walls.
Regardless whether my house is composed of walls and floors its still one house (made up of a multiplicity of objects in the interior). Although God has no "interior" God is said to have many qualities such as all-powerful, good, etc which comparable to a house could have some relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
semar
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 11 March 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 September 2010 at 11:26pm |
|
Salam/Peace,
One scholar said that's the reason why there is a special discipline/subject named "theology", because the difficulties to explain "trinity". 3 in 1, 1 in 3, god have son, god have father etc. It is confusing.
|
|
|
Salam/Peace,
Semar "We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) "1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air" |
|
|
|
|
Mansoor_ali
Senior Member
Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2010 at 2:41am |
I quote Ibn Kathir: (171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah except the truth. Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three!'' Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One God, hallowed be He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.) Prohibiting the People of the Book From Going to Extremes in Religion Allah forbids the People of the Scriptures from going to extremes in religion, which is a common trait of theirs, especially among the Christians. The Christians exaggerated over `Isa until they elevated him above the grade that Allah gave him. They elevated him from the rank of prophethood to being a god, whom they worshipped just as they worshipped Allah. They exaggerated even more in the case of those who they claim were his followers, claiming that they were inspired, thus following every word they uttered whether true or false, be it guidance or misguidance, truth or lies. This is why Allah said, (They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, (Do not unduly praise me like the Christians exaggerated over `Isa, son of Maryam. Verily, I am only a servant, so say, `Allah's servant and His Messenger.') This is the wording of Al-Bukhari. Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said that a man once said, "O Muhammad! You are our master and the son of our master, our most righteous person and the son of our most righteous person...'' The Messenger of Allah said, (O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Shaytan to trick you. I am Muhammad bin `Abdullah, Allah's servant and Messenger. By Allah! I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah has granted me.) Allah's statement, (nor say of Allah except the truth.) means, do not lie and claim that Allah has a wife or a son, Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. Allah is glorified, praised, and honored in His might, grandure and greatness, and there is no deity worthy of worship nor Lord but Him. Allah said; (Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) `Isa is only one of Allah's servants and one of His creatures. Allah said to him, `Be', and he was, and He sent him as a Messenger. `Isa was a word from Allah that He bestowed on Maryam, meaning He created him with the word `Be' that He sent with Jibril to Maryam. Jibril blew the life of `Isa into Maryam by Allah's leave, and `Isa came to existence as a result. This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children. This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him. Rather, he came to existence through the word that Allah uttered, `Be,' and he was, through the life that Allah sent with Jibril. Allah said, (Al-Masih [`Isa], son of Maryam, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam] was a Siddiqah. They both ate food.) And Allah said, (Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be! ـ and he was.) (And she who guarded her chastity, We breathed into her (garment) and We made her and her son [`Isa] a sign for all that exits.) (21:91) (And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity,) and Allah said concerning the Messiah, (He [`Isa] was not more than a servant. We granted Our favor to him.) The Meaning of "His Word and a spirit from Him `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said that the Ayah, (And His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) means, He said, (Be) and he was. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ahmad bin Sinan Al-Wasiti said that he heard Shadh bin Yahya saying about Allah's statement, (and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him;) "`Isa was not the word. Rather, `Isa came to existence because of the word.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said that the Prophet said, (If anyone testifies that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and that `Isa is Allah's servant and Messenger and His Word which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true and Hell is true, then Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he performed.) In another narration, the Prophet said, (...through any of the eight doors of Paradise he wishes.) Muslim also recorded it. Therefore, `Ruh from Allah', in the Ayah and the Hadith is similar to Allah's statement, (And has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; it is all from Him.) meaning, from His creation. `from Him' does not mean that it is a part of Him, as the Christians claim, may Allah's continued curses be upon them. Saying that something is from Allah, such as the spirit of Allah, the she-camel of Allah or the House of Allah, is meant to honor such items. Allah said, (This is the she-camel of Allah...) and, (and sanctify My House for those who circumambulate it.) An authentic Hadith states, (I will enter on my Lord in His Home) All these examples are meant to honor such items when they are attributed to Allah in this manner. Allah said, (so believe in Allah and His Messengers.) believe that Allah is One and Alone and that He does not have a son or wife. Know and be certain that `Isa is the servant and Messenger of Allah. Allah said after that, (Say not: "Three!") do not elevate `Isa and his mother to be gods with Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. In Surat Al-Ma'idah (chapter 5), Allah said, (Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three.'' But there is none who has the right to be worshipped but One God.) Allah said by the end of the same Surah, (And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me''') and in its beginning, (Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam.) The Christians, may Allah curse them, have no limit to their disbelief because of their ignorance, so their deviant statements and their misguidance grows. Some of them believe that `Isa is Allah, some believe that he is one in a trinity and some believe that he is the son of Allah. Their beliefs and creeds are numerous and contradict each other, prompting some people to say that if ten Christians meet, they would end up with eleven sects! |
|
|
|
|
Mansoor_ali
Senior Member
Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2010 at 5:52am |
Here is reply by BiblicalUnitarian: It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one �name,� so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to �confound the persons� (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one �name,� especially since no such �name� is ever given in Scripture (�God� is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three �persons,� then it should use the word �names.� There is a much better explanation for why �name� is used in the singular. A study of the culture and language shows that the word �name� stood for �authority.� Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the �name� (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the �name� (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the �name� (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the �name� (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the �name� (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God. Reply by brother Ibn Anwar The volumnuous book What Did Jesus Really Say? provides a good explanation for the verse that does away with the Trinitarian argument that because the verse uses the word name in the singular form to describe three names this means that the three are one like 1 John 5:7. Unfortunately(for Trinitarians), as how What Did Jesus Really Say has illustrated such an argument does not hold much weight: �Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:�If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to �Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,� does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.(Misha�al ibn Abdullah. What Did Jesus Really Say?(1996). Islamic Assembly of North America. p. 26) Another Reply The word "name" is singular The Greek word for "name" in this passage is singular and not plural. It does not say, "into the names of," but "into the name of." Because it is singular, the Trinitarian argues that it must refer to one thing. This is absolutely correct. However they also claim that because three persons follow, it also therefore follows that the one thing to which this word refers is one identity which is therefore the one Trinity of three persons, that is, one "God." This is totally incorrect. Here Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of." In the ancient Jewish world, to do something in someone's name meant to do something under another person's authority, character, reputation, plan and purpose. It implies the idea that a subject of that authority is doing the authority's will for that authority. For example, the phrase "Stop in the name of the Monarchy" does not refer to the King's personal name, his surname nor the King and Queen's personal or surnames together. It refers to the plan and purpose and law of the Monarchy as established by their authority. And now we shall see this is exactly how the term is used at Matthew 28:19. In verse 18, Jesus declares, "all authority in heaven and earth is given to me." He then says, "therefore go." It is a basic tenet of hermeneutics that when one sees the word "therefore" one asks what the word "therefore" is there for. Jesus is expressing a cause and effect statement. Because he has been given all authority, the disciples are therefore to go out and baptize all nations "in the name of." As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). In other words, Jesus has been given the authority to have them do things in the name of his Father, who gave him that authority by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection, with the goal of bringing all nations into subjection to the authority of God. The authority of the Father is given to the Son in the Holy Spirit in which he rose from the dead in the very same way Jesus gives his apostles authority. This is why Peter says in reference to Jesus' resurrection, "God has made this Jesus.... 'Lord.'" The word 'Lord' is a word which indicates authority and Jesus was made Lord in his resurrection. This is the same idea as Matthew 28:18, "all authority... is given to me."(Source) |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 5> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Jack Catholic wrote: