Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
herenow477

O Christians And Jews !

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Fun fun, That's one way to stir up an Islamic site.

 

The test here may be to see how fast people jump at the mention of trinity. It is a little intriguing that an ayat would mention three, then say "Don't say three" If you can't say three, do you say one, "all inclusive"?

I'm not saying three, and I'm not saying trinity, but there are a few things that do catch my eye here.

 

Baqar mentioned the Word is spelled with a small "w" because it does not mean "what I think it does" . Not a fair statement because I'm not totally sure what the "Word" is, but I can only go by English translations and see they are divided on who uses upper or lower case.

 

Putting this together, I thought we had agreed that the "word" was the active part of God. "Be, and it is". This shows up a couple times. The OT mentions "The Word" many more times and many times is also the active part of God. How much you can separate this "word" from God I don't know. At the same time, how can you separate God from His Holy Spirit?

I see this ayat as telling us these are the manifestations of God, do not separate them from God into their own beings, do not make them equal with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like i said i have met MANY Jews and MANY Christians, and they ado nto follow ANY laws of ANY kind 

NOTHING is off the table, they laugh at the idea of obedience

you cant even talk to them about it

if you say to them something like "dont lie or dotn swear" they say you are an extremist and taking life to "hard"  

how many people i knew that wont even talk to me because i am not "fun" enough i stop them from swearing and etc i say "that a sin and you know it" and they get offended like "stop telling me what to do " or make some joke about it o about you 

they have NO respect for God's commandments , they make fun of you and look at yo weird if you talk about God and sin and evil 

and this is the state for everyone today, the status quo of evil 

a miserable life in my point of view 

 

I know these people, met them all my life. They could care less. Some went to church, some didn't. Now a days they wear a big cross and say "Jesus saves!", and that...is their religion. It's all they know. That was not the fad in my school days, but still, they jeer and yell while you try to say your grace before eating, they push your buttons thinking your inaction is weakness.

 

I gave up telling these people to quit swearing for the same reasons you are noticing...it doesn't work. They don't care.

 

In the NT it's written about Christians, "By their fruits ye shall know them." "fruits" meaning good works, etc. (A thread unto itself). but if you don't see good works they are not as they say they are.

 

It also mentions about these people that God gave them over to a reprobate mind. They can't even remember righteous anymore.

The Quran confirms this with "Those who disbelieve and transgress, GOD will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way; "

They may come from a Christian or Jewish background, but you can see they are not following a proper path. Disbelievers come in all shapes and sizes. It's not fair to label disbelievers as anything more than disbelievers.

 

Sorry I was hard on you from the start, I did not know where you were coming from. I was there. May have been different time, different place but I know very well why it bothers you.

 

 

Years ago I learned that if you work all day trying to move a stone, and regardless what you have tried, if the stone didn't move then you have technically done nothing but wasted your day. Many of these people have stones in their hearts, and they can't be moved.

 

They party all the time, they laugh, drink, smoke, etc. They seem like very cool people. Of course there is an attraction. They look like the winners while we look like the losers, but we all know there comes a day we will all have to account, they will be speechless. For this we can feel for them, hoping one day they will turn, but there's no use getting in the middle of them. God may bring some to you, but don't expect many.

 

Don't ever worry about being a "not fun guy" this is not what we are here for. It is best that in all ways and everything we do to acknowledge God and He will direct our path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have ONE GOD, who is above and beyond any understanding we have of Him. --- But to relate to His creation that He brought into being on this little planet Earth, He has Manifested Himself in many ways, --- and the Three mentioned in Genesis 1:1-3 are the Manifestations of, --- God (as the Father of all), --- the Holy Spirit (as the Spirit of Life), --- And the Word (Logos, the creative power of God, and the symbol of Light).

So, very simply, --- There is one ALMIGHTY GOD, --- and these three MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD, --- which have been ‘from the beginning.’

 

 

Hi Placid

 

And that was exactly my point all along. Those three do not form an entity as you have been trying to make them.  

 

I reproduce here the two statements you made in post #63 and that, I am absolutely positive, are completely contrary to Islamic beliefs.

 

Statement #1 : When the verse says, “Say not Three,” --- it is acknowledging that there are ‘three,’

 

Statement # 2 And what it says to Muslims is that there were, and are, THREE IN HEAVEN.

 

I continue to believe that the whole idea of verse [4:71] is to reject the three, not to  acknowledge them, as you said in your first statement.

 

Nor is there any such thing in Islam as the THREE in heaven, as you said in your second statement, was implied by [4:171].

 

But I will leave you there. You can say what you want.

 

However, before I go, I would suggest that you consult with some Muslim scholars and see how they interpret [4:171]. There is probably no harm in soliciting expert opinion. It may only add to your understanding of Islam.

 

This is my last post to you on this topic. And possibly in this forum - at least for a while.

 

My friend, no offence was intended. If you might remember, I was and still am your oldest and at one time, your best friend in this site.

 

Differences of opinion should not dim old friendships. Will pray for the best for you.

 

Good-bye  and keep well. 

 

Enjoy!

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

Al-Imran, verse 59.

If Prophet Isa (a.s) is the word of Allah (s.w.t), than so is Prophet Adam (a.s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Placid

 

And that was exactly my point all along. Those three do not form an entity as you have been trying to make them.  

 

I reproduce here the two statements you made in post #63 and that, I am absolutely positive, are completely contrary to Islamic beliefs.

 

Statement #1 : When the verse says, “Say not Three,” --- it is acknowledging that there are ‘three,’

 

Statement # 2 And what it says to Muslims is that there were, and are, THREE IN HEAVEN.

 

I continue to believe that the whole idea of verse [4:71] is to reject the three, not to  acknowledge them, as you said in your first statement.

 

Nor is there any such thing in Islam as the THREE in heaven, as you said in your second statement, was implied by [4:171].

 

But I will leave you there. You can say what you want.

 

However, before I go, I would suggest that you consult with some Muslim scholars and see how they interpret [4:171]. There is probably no harm in soliciting expert opinion. It may only add to your understanding of Islam.

 

This is my last post to you on this topic. And possibly in this forum - at least for a while.

 

My friend, no offence was intended. If you might remember, I was and still am your oldest and at one time, your best friend in this site.

 

Differences of opinion should not dim old friendships. Will pray for the best for you.

 

Good-bye  and keep well. 

 

Enjoy!

I think Placid should learn Arabic that's his next step.

Translation can confuse.

'Say Not Three' is obvious to me what it is saying.

In the Arabic it is more like 'Dont say Three'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DaBeast,

Yes Adam was made from the dust of the earth and God breathed His Holy Spirit into him and gave him life.

Adam was created perfect and was given, within his intellect, the ability to choose. --- When he and Eve were tempted to sin, and yielded to the temptation, Adam failed and lost his place with God, see Surah 7. --- So Adam and Eve were taken out of the perfect environment and found themselves in human bodies, and working for their own food.

Jesus was born of humanity and basically we all come from the earth, because of the food we eat from the time we are born.

However Jesus was also made Perfect, having no human father, and was given the Word (Logos, "Be" and he is), from God, to indwell Him while on earth.

As I said, Jesus was not the Word, because Jesus was born on earth, and the Word came from God in heaven.

--- And Adam was not the Word, because the Word (Logos) was with God from the beginning of creation, --- and Adam was made of dust.

The similarity is that they were both made Perfect to begin with. --- Adam sinned and lost his place with God. --- Jesus never sinned and after his death, he was resurrected and caught up to God, Surah 3:55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tasfir Al-Mizan.

 

it proves that he was a human being, created, like any human being born of his mother, and His Word which He conveyed to Maryam: it explains the meaning of the 'word1; he was the word 'Be', which was conveyed to Maryam. His creation had not taken place through normal causes like marriage and father. Allah says: Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it: "Be" and it is (3:47). In fact, everything is the word of Allah; however, other things come into being through the agency of normal cause, while'Isa (a.s.) was born without some of the normal causes. That is why he was called "the Word", and a spirit from Him: The spirit is from the command. Allah says: Say: "The soul is from the command of my Lord..." (17:85); as'Isa (a.s.) was the creative word, "Be" and it is a command, therefore, he was called "the spirit".

 

believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God: It is based on the beginning clauses and springs from the words: the Messiah,'Isa son of Maryam is only a Messenger of Allah. In this situation, you are obligated to believe in the prescribed way, that is, belief in Allah and His Lordship and His messengers (including'Isa a.s.) and their prophethood. "and say not, Three." Desist from the belief in trinity. This desistance or this belief in Allah and His messengers and rejection of trinity is good for you. "Three" refers to the three persons of trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

Who is involved in His Lordship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid mentions why the term or word Trinity is not in the Bible but in the Quran.

Well it's obvious to me and Catholics (and orthodox alike).

It supports entirely our view on Sacred Tradition. Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it wasn't believed.

So obviously it was a belief prior to Islam, prior to it being a formal Doctrine it was believed amongst the Christians in the Middle East for it to be acknowledged (and rejected) as such in the Quran.

Let me remind placid of John 20:30:

"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book."

So it's obvious sola scriptura fails here.

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me remind placid of John 20:30:

"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book."

 

 

Yes, but it's a tad problematic when the fundamental teachings of mainstream Christianity are textually absent. No one says it wasn't 'believed' by some Christians. The issue is that this wasn't taught by Jesus Christ himself, which is rather odd [from a Christian perspective]. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Placid

 

If you permit me, I have one last word for you on the topic of verse [4:171].

 

Point #1:-  If I have understood post #110 by our Arabic-speaking friend Shreek correctly, he has hinted very politely that your understanding of verse [4:171] is not right.

 

As we all know, Shreek is an Arabic-speaking Christian, not a Muslim.

 

Point #2:- In post #114, SoP has quoted from a famous Muslims scholar. And according to this scholar, 'Desist, Say not three' in verse [4:171] implies a rejection of the Trinity.

 

And it does not say that while one Trinity is wrong, there is another which is right.

 

Point #3:- Please note that every Muslim is required to say his prayers at least five times a day. In each prayer, we are required to 'send SALAWAT' on the Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlul Bayt (family). SALAWAT means something like praise and blessings.

 

Now, if there was this special THREESOME in heaven that you believe verse [4:171] is referring to, there should have been something  for them.

 

But there is none.

 

Point # 4 :- If there was such an important concept as that of a THREESOME in Islam, the Prophet would have certainly spoken about it.

 

Neither he nor Imam Ali nor any of the other Imams is known to have mentioned it at any point in time, even once.

 

Not once!

 

I just thought I'd make those points for you to consider. As suggested, it is a good idea to consult with scholars. And SoP has already provided the opinion of one scholar, which unfortunately does not suppport your view.

 

And I might add that if you were to consult other scholars, you will have the same answer.   

 

Ciao and best wishes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess friend Baqar got tired of my long posts.
Well, I will respond to his statements just as if he was still here, because others may wonder as well.

Quote from Post 108:
Baqar: I reproduce here the two statements you made in post #63 and that, I am absolutely positive, are completely contrary to Islamic beliefs.
Statement #1 : When the verse says, “Say not Three,” --- it is acknowledging that there are ‘three,’
Statement # 2 And what it says to Muslims is that there were, and are, THREE IN HEAVEN.
I continue to believe that the whole idea of verse [4:71] is to reject the three, not to acknowledge them, as you said in your first statement.

Response: --- Hey, more good comments, and a good explanation.
Baqar says, --- “The two statements --- are completely contrary to Islamic beliefs.”
--- But Notice: --- This is not about Islam, this is about Jesus.
Peace said in Post 113:
“In my understanding, it translates to 'There is no such thing as a Trinity'.

What a good conclusion. --- If you can start believing that then maybe you and everybody else will quit saying that Christians are all ‘trinitarians, with the warped idea of them being polytheists, --- which will exclude them from heaven.
In the many times I have used this verse before, to say that the Quran --- CORRECTS THE FAULTY DOCTRINE, --- you have never seen it.

Notice this statement from Post 117:
“It supports entirely our view on Sacred Tradition. Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it wasn't believed.”
--- He said before, that the doctrine was ‘written in stone,’ even though it was not ‘written in Scripture.’
Now he says, “It is their view on ‘Sacred tradition.’” --- So it goes from, ‘written in stone,’ --- to ‘Sacred Tradition.’ --- FINALLY THE ADMISSION THAT IT IS A CHURCH DOCTRINE. --- And should have been contained in the Church where it was written, rather than being imposed on all the Churches in the 300’s - 400’s.

 

--- Most Churches believe in some form of the three as a tradition, and I have no problem with that. --- It is in our own Evangelical Church as well, but whatever the view on the ‘three in heaven’ is, it should not cause division, because it is not a part of “Salvation through Faith and obedience.”
--- However, it has been a main cause of division on Shiachat, has it not?
Ali said in Post 118:
The issue is that this wasn't taught by Jesus Christ himself, which is rather odd [from a Christian perspective].
--- (Right on, --- Jesus didn’t teach trinity, --- Peter didn’t teach trinity, --- Paul didn’t teach trinity, --- John didn’t teach trinity, --- nor did James teach trinity.
Some may have believed it in the process of trying to understand Almighty God and His Manifestations (in bridging the gap between His Divinity, and our humanity), --- but when the newly formed Roman Catholic (Universal) Church made it their Doctrine at a meeting in 325 AD, it led them away from the simple teaching of the Gospel Message.

Hi Son, --- I believe they are finally paying attention to what you said in Post 114, and if I ever get around to it, I will add a little more as I said I would.
--- (They are so interested in lining me up in opposition to the Muslims, as in this statement:
“But to say that you understand the Quran better than 1 billion Muslims and more importantly better than tens of thousands of Muslim scholars is a bit over the top. A fair bit, actually!”)

--- Here we have been saying to Muslims, --- THE QURAN SAYS IT RIGHT, --- but for them to accept that, they would have to give up bashing us with their worn out argument of trinity.
--- So, next, I want to comment on this verse about Jesus in the Quran, --- to agree that there never should have been a word ‘trinity,’ --- which comes from tri-unity.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Mizan is not my favorite, but the only tafsir I have at the moment. He doesn't think very highly of Christians to start with so I don't expect much.

 

I still think he's a little confused as he calls Jesus "The Word" he also calls Jesus "The Spirit".

In other words he takes both manifestations to be Jesus when we have already established "The Word" to be the active part of God's command "Be" and it is. Problem with attributing The Word to Jesus is to say this active part of God's command started and finished with Jesus and we know that not to be the case. Not only that but it says God gave the word to Mary...Again, when it says, "and of His spirit" Al-Mizan says that also means Jesus. I see it as a sly way to say "anything but what the Christians say" and why I say this is because the author doesn't give a definite answer other than don't say three. (in a trinity)

 

What I gather from his explanation is that Jesus is, the Messiah, son of Mary, The Word, and the Spirit, but don't say three. That statement begs a conclusion that Jesus is one with three components. Once you read it and see there is God, then His Word, then His Spirit, then there is Jesus with God's Word, and God's Spirit, what is one to do other than count to three? twice...

 

I do understand his quest to get away from a trinity, but it would be better if he didn't make you count to three twice before saying don't say three.

 

Here's what I gather, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but God has 99 names. Each name is associated with an attribute of God. Muslims can't say God is 99. They agree God is one with 99 attributes. Christians have limited God to three, and made God's attributes equal with Him.

 

I have no problem praising Jesus for who He was, but not as God. Also, there is no solid scripture that says one should praise the Holy Spirit at all, let alone as God.

It's another one of those unwritten doctrines that have changed how Christians worship.

 

Of course, not being in the Bible may be an argument against sola scriptura, but other than sola scriptura what we have floating around is called the synthetic analytical method. Yes, Jesus said more than is recorded. Imagine how much larger the Gospels would be it everything was written. What we have is the Disciples who did hear (what we don't see) teaching it along with what is recorded. (Still not saying three)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To examine the verse about Jesus, I understand it this way, in Surah 4:

171 Pickthall: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God.

171 Yusuf Ali: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him

--- These are both Muslim translations, --- one in Old English, the other in more modern English.

In saying “People of the Scripture (or Book), in this case it refers to Christians, and obviously ‘trinitarians.’

So it says, “Don’t exaggerate in your religion, or say anything that isn’t the truth.”

--- For the Trinitarians to say Jesus was ‘one of the three,’ or ‘was god’ --- was the ‘exaggeration’ --- and not the truth. --- So, what was the truth?

1 “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,”

2 “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,”

--- (A note here): --- While the Trinitarians were over-exalting who Jesus was, Pickthall simply says Jesus ‘was only a messenger.’ --- Yusuf Ali says, Jesus ‘was (no more than) an apostle.’

--- In the Quran, when you find words in brackets ( ) --- I understand that this indicates they are not in the Arabic, but they are used to join sentences, or used by way of explanation, as they are used here, --- It seemed that Yusuf Ali wanted to under-exalt who Jesus was by saying (no more than). --- However, Jesus was ‘more than just a messenger,’ in that he was the Messiah as well.

--- But for this verse it should be understood that Jesus was just the Messenger.

Can all Muslims agree with that? --- Jesus was just the Messenger, and not God.

Jesus was the human body, and verse 172 says, “The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah,” --- and ‘slave’ can mean ‘servant,’

--- So, Can you accept that, that Jesus was the Messenger and servant of God?

Okay, we should be able to stop here and everybody should be happy.

--- Here is where Muslims have to understand that this verse is not about Islam, but is about Jesus, --- so either tune out now, and be happy that the verse says that Jesus was just the Messenger and servant, --- or try to understand what the verse says about Jesus.

--- Jesus was the Messenger of, “Allah, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him.”

--- So, what was the connection between God’s Word (which was conveyed into Mary, to bring Jesus into existence) and the Holy Spirit, which was with Jesus through his earthly Ministry, --- to Jesus himself? --- Do you want the verses again Surahs 3:45, 2:87, 2:253, and 5:110?

This is not about the Quran, but it is about Jesus in the Quran, where it mentions the Word, “Be” - and he is. --- And the Holy Spirit that was with Jesus, and was later given to his Apostles, in the Book of Acts.

--- So count these. that Jesus was the Messenger of: --- 1. God (the Father) --- 2. The Word (that was conveyed into Mary), --- and 3. The Holy Spirit.

These were the same three as were active in Genesis 1:1-3. --- (but they were not three gods that could act on their own, but were the Manifestations of our One God.)

--- Okay, that is the history of Jesus from the OT and NT, --- Now we come to 626 AD, which was about 300 years since the faulty doctrine tried to put these ‘three’ Manifestations of God together and call them co-equal, --- and the verse says:

“So believe in Allah and His messengers,” --- BELIEVE IN GOD, --- This became a problem when the focus was on three, instead of One God.

--- “And His Messengers,” --- What Messengers would this be referring to?

Naturally, Jesus who was called a Messenger, and since it was in 626 AD, the other Messenger was Muhammad.

So it is saying, “Believe in God, and His Messengers, Jesus and Muhammad.”

--- “Say not “Three,” or "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you:

(The three, as I said before, are the ones from the faulty trinity doctrine that took the attention away from God) --- It seems to say, “So stop even thinking in terms of three”

--- “For God is one God: Glory be to Him.”

If you can believe what this verse in the Quran says, --- then the next time you hear about trinity, you will remember that it was a faulty doctrine (tradition) of which the Quran says, “DON’T SAY THREE, GOD IS ONLY ONE GOD.”

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Response: --- Hey, more good comments, and a good explanation.

 

Hi Placid

 

That was hardly a response.

 

If you can believe what this verse in the Quran says, --- then the next time you hear about trinity, you will remember that it was a faulty doctrine (tradition) of which the Quran says, “DON’T SAY THREE, GOD IS ONLY ONE GOD.”
 

 

We are in agreement there. And we never had a problem with that.

 

But we don't agree with your earlier claim that in saying "Say not three", [4:171] is actually acknowledging that there are three.  

 

By the way, I was expecting that in your post 120, you would respond to my post 119. Instead you are still talking about much earlier posts.  It will be easier to communicate if you first addressed recent posts and then go back to the distant past, if anything remained to be said.

 

Any chance of a response to  points 1, 3 & 4 of my post 119?

 

Okay, that is the history of Jesus from the OT and NT, --- Now we come to 626 AD, which was about 300 years since the faulty doctrine tried to put these ‘three’ Manifestations of God together and call them co-equal, 

 

Unceasing references to the Bible in a matter relating solely to the Quran are not really necessary.  And there is no such thing as the ‘three’ Manifestations of God' in Islam.  There are no THREEs in Islam at all. 

 

and the verse says:  So believe in Allah and His messengers,” --- BELIEVE IN GOD, --- This became a problem when the focus was on three, instead of One God.  --- “And His Messengers,” --- What Messengers would this be referring to? Naturally, Jesus who was called a Messenger, and since it was in 626 AD, the other Messenger was Muhammad. So it is saying, “Believe in God, and His Messengers, Jesus and Muhammad.”

 

There were many other messengers, apart from Jesus and Muhammad, for example, Noah, Abraham and Moses.  This is yet another example of how you draw your flawed conclusions and then raise the banner that this is what the Quran says.  My friend Placid, if you don't mind my saying half of your posts are self-derived conclusions that have no basis in Islam.

 

And please don't let comments such as "One billion Muslims don't believe a word of what you say" bother you.They are not meant to offend. They are just a reflection of fact that while you think that the Quran  says exactly what you say, in fact, the two are like chalk and cheese.

 

SoP has conceded that the Mizan rejects your interpretation of [4:171] but does not find it explained very well and even imputs slyness to the author.  Be that as it may, none of us here is as knowledgeable as our scholars. Do you think any of us understands the Quran better than them? 

 
There is really no point in continuing this discussion unless you can find a Muslim scholar who accepts your interpretation of verse [4:171]. And if you do, it would be good if you could bring him to this forum to explain his stance to us. Until then, honestly, all this chit-chat is nothing but a waste of yours as well as our time. If you agree, it might be a good idea to call it quits now instead of going around in endless circles.  
Edited by PeaceLoving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid what are you trying to say?

 

Are you saying because the Quran says "Say not Three" the Quran is acknowledging that there is a mainstream belief in the Trinity (amongst Christians)?

Or are you saying because it says "Say not Three" that the Quran admits belief in the Trinity?

 

The literal translation of those words in Arabic is not 'Say not three' but "Do not Say (there is) Three"

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Placid

 

The reason why Son may have found a lack of clarity in Mizan is probably because translations into English of Islamic books are generally done by non-native English speakers, who have lived in India or Iran or the like all their life.  Their style is often quite hard to understand. But he is right that the Mizan rejects the trinity. Anyway, Mizan is, in fact, one of the respected books for Shia Muslims. And yes, there are many messengers other than Jesus and Mohammad. 

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To examine the verse about Jesus, I understand it this way, in Surah 4:

171 Pickthall: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God.

171 Yusuf Ali: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him

--- These are both Muslim translations, --- one in Old English, the other in more modern English.

In saying “People of the Scripture (or Book), in this case it refers to Christians, and obviously ‘trinitarians.’

So it says, “Don’t exaggerate in your religion, or say anything that isn’t the truth.”

--- For the Trinitarians to say Jesus was ‘one of the three,’ or ‘was god’ --- was the ‘exaggeration’ --- and not the truth. --- So, what was the truth?

1 “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,”

2 “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,”

--- (A note here): --- While the Trinitarians were over-exalting who Jesus was, Pickthall simply says Jesus ‘was only a messenger.’ --- Yusuf Ali says, Jesus ‘was (no more than) an apostle.’

--- In the Quran, when you find words in brackets ( ) --- I understand that this indicates they are not in the Arabic, but they are used to join sentences, or used by way of explanation, as they are used here, --- It seemed that Yusuf Ali wanted to under-exalt who Jesus was by saying (no more than). --- However, Jesus was ‘more than just a messenger,’ in that he was the Messiah as well.

--- But for this verse it should be understood that Jesus was just the Messenger.

Can all Muslims agree with that? --- Jesus was just the Messenger, and not God.

Jesus was the human body, and verse 172 says, “The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah,” --- and ‘slave’ can mean ‘servant,’

--- So, Can you accept that, that Jesus was the Messenger and servant of God?

Okay, we should be able to stop here and everybody should be happy.

--- Here is where Muslims have to understand that this verse is not about Islam, but is about Jesus, --- so either tune out now, and be happy that the verse says that Jesus was just the Messenger and servant, --- or try to understand what the verse says about Jesus.

--- Jesus was the Messenger of, “Allah, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him.”

--- So, what was the connection between God’s Word (which was conveyed into Mary, to bring Jesus into existence) and the Holy Spirit, which was with Jesus through his earthly Ministry, --- to Jesus himself? --- Do you want the verses again Surahs 3:45, 2:87, 2:253, and 5:110?

This is not about the Quran, but it is about Jesus in the Quran, where it mentions the Word, “Be” - and he is. --- And the Holy Spirit that was with Jesus, and was later given to his Apostles, in the Book of Acts.

--- So count these. that Jesus was the Messenger of: --- 1. God (the Father) --- 2. The Word (that was conveyed into Mary), --- and 3. The Holy Spirit.

These were the same three as were active in Genesis 1:1-3. --- (but they were not three gods that could act on their own, but were the Manifestations of our One God.)

--- Okay, that is the history of Jesus from the OT and NT, --- Now we come to 626 AD, which was about 300 years since the faulty doctrine tried to put these ‘three’ Manifestations of God together and call them co-equal, --- and the verse says:

“So believe in Allah and His messengers,” --- BELIEVE IN GOD, --- This became a problem when the focus was on three, instead of One God.

--- “And His Messengers,” --- What Messengers would this be referring to?

Naturally, Jesus who was called a Messenger, and since it was in 626 AD, the other Messenger was Muhammad.

So it is saying, “Believe in God, and His Messengers, Jesus and Muhammad.”

--- “Say not “Three,” or "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you:

(The three, as I said before, are the ones from the faulty trinity doctrine that took the attention away from God) --- It seems to say, “So stop even thinking in terms of three”

--- “For God is one God: Glory be to Him.”

If you can believe what this verse in the Quran says, --- then the next time you hear about trinity, you will remember that it was a faulty doctrine (tradition) of which the Quran says, “DON’T SAY THREE, GOD IS ONLY ONE GOD.”

Placid

 

Alright.  All this makes sense.  Just one thing...  How exactly is the doctrine of Trinity (which you are calling faulty) different from what you are saying about Jesus being a messenger of the "Word, Spirit, and God" (each of which are three manifestations of the One)?  

 

When I took a course on Christian Mysticism and when we were studying the Trinity by Augustine, I remember our professor telling us that the term itself, "Trinity", simply means "three", it doesn't mean "Tri-Unity",    

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^  :)

 

I now see why he cuts and pastes.  He is unable to quote properly, 

 

 

 

The complete verse,

 

"Women of the Household (of Muhammad  (pbuh) ), God seeks only to remove uncleanness from you and to purify you."

 

How you arrive at your conclusions based on evidence you present is a mystery.  

 

This is probably Wisdom Lion playing around with a second Shia Chat profile.  Their style and leaps in logic are near identical.

 

All the Best,"

David

That is NOT what the Ayat says . It is in Ayat 32 that the phrase "nisa ul nabi" is used. Nisa means women so it is talking about his wives. Ayat 33 uses the term Ahl al Bayt which means "people of the house" which refers to his family as clarified in hadith Al Kisa exactly which members those were. The word ahl does not mean women and even a rudimentary understanding of Arabic will teach you that. Come on . Try harder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eThErEaL,

Thank you for your understanding and agreement.

Quote from Post 126:

Alright. All this makes sense. Just one thing... How exactly is the doctrine of Trinity (which you are calling faulty) different from what you are saying about Jesus being a messenger of the "Word, Spirit, and God" (each of which are three manifestations of the One)?

Response: --- Jesus was the human Messenger that God prepared for the Word to indwell, as it says in Hebrews 10:

5 Therefore, when He (the Word) came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.

7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—

In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’”

See the difference? This says, --- The Word who came from heaven to indwell Jesus (or, to live through Jesus on earth), ’pre-existed’ with God in heaven.

--- But Jesus was born on earth, was He not? --- He could not have ‘pre-existed’ Mary, --- because it was when Mary was already living that God said “Be” – and he was. --- Is that not right?

Quote: When I took a course on Christian Mysticism and when we were studying the Trinity by Augustine, I remember our professor telling us that the term itself, "Trinity", simply means "three", it doesn't mean "Tri-Unity",

Response: --- Okay, ‘triad,’ or ‘three,’ or ‘tri-unity’ all allow for differences, one to the other, --- but trinity is expressed in the doctrine as the three being co-equal (or, the same), --- whereas in the Scripture, the Father was the ‘Designer,’ --- and the Word and the Spirit were Servants to the Father, to do His will.

--- But notice how it is written in the Doctrine of 325 AD:

Quote: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

[but those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] --- End of quote.

--- Notice: --- There is no mention of the Word (Logos, the creative power of God), but advances the human Jesus to that place of Divinity with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, --- And the [bracketed warning]:

{But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' --- or 'He is of another substance' — they are condemned by the holy catholic Church.]

--- (This was the kind of pressure the newly formed Church imposed on the local Churches to comply with their new doctrines, or be condemned, --- and continue to be persecuted. ---But now, by the orders of Rome, through the Church that Rome approved of.)

--- So, this (faulty doctrine) would deny that Jesus was born in the ‘substance of flesh and blood,’ as was His Mother, Mary, --- and it would condemn the Scripture which says in Hebrews 2:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.

--- And this was added concerning the Holy Spirit in the new version in 381:

Quote: And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. --- End of quote.

You see, eThErEaL, it was this doctrine, that said Jesus was ‘very God of very God,’ and exalted him to Divinity--- and notice these words, “(The Holy Ghost), who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified,”

--- Since the word ‘trinity’ is not in the Bible, there is nowhere in Scripture where the trinity was to be worshipped or glorified

--- There is nowhere in Scripture where the Word nor the Holy Spirit are to be worshipped or glorified, --- but only God is to be worshipped.

--- See how subtly the doctrine turned the attention from worshipping God only, to the worship of the trinity? --- Later they added the ‘Veneration’ of Mary, and the Saints. --- (All of this took away from worshiping God, so, the Church drifted.)

--- Yes, there are many faulty parts to it, are there not?

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed that Yusuf Ali wanted to under-exalt who Jesus was by saying (no more than). 

 

It is not intended to under-exalt.  There are similar verses about Muhammad.

 

For example [35:23]

 

Arberry -----   You are nothing but a warner.

 

Khalifa -----    You are no more than a warner. 

 

Shakir -----     You are naught but a warner.   

And [88:21]

 

Arberry  -------     Then remind them. You are only a reminder

 

Rodwell --------     Warn then. For you are a warner only

 

Shakir    ---------    Therefore do remind for you are only a reminder  

 

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eThErEaL,Thank you for your understanding and agreement.Quote from Post 126:Alright. All this makes sense. Just one thing... How exactly is the doctrine of Trinity (which you are calling faulty) different from what you are saying about Jesus being a messenger of the "Word, Spirit, and God" (each of which are three manifestations of the One)?Response: --- Jesus was the human Messenger that God prepared for the Word to indwell, as it says in Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He (the Word) came into the world, He said:“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’”See the difference? This says, --- The Word who came from heaven to indwell Jesus (or, to live through Jesus on earth), ’pre-existed’ with God in heaven.--- But Jesus was born on earth, was He not? --- He could not have ‘pre-existed’ Mary, --- because it was when Mary was already living that God said “Be” – and he was. --- Is that not right?

Catholics and those who are of the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that there are two manifestation of Jesus.

1) The terrestrial/historical manifestation of the Word. (Also referred to as "Jesus as Human")

2) The transpersonal/ trans-historical Word of God (aka Eternal Son of God).

I still don't see a real difference with what you are saying and what they are saying. The only difference is in semantics. I don't see anything wrong with what you believe in except for your claim that what you believe in is different from what Catholics believe in.

Notice: --- There is no mention of the Word (Logos, the creative power of God), but advances the human Jesus to that place of Divinity with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, --- And the [bracketed warning]:{But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' --- or 'He is of another substance' — they are condemned by the holy catholic Church.]---

Are they advancing the "human Jesus" or Jesus inasmuch as he is the transpersonal Word of God? In Islamic Metaphysics Muslims use the term "Muhammad" to refer to both 1) a historical/ terrestrial manifestation and to 2) the trans-historical Word of God or "Nur Muhammadiyya" (that through which the world came about). In the same way, Catholics use the term Jesus to sometimes refer to 1) the Word of God and sometimes to 2) the manifestation of the Word of God in history. Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference in their beliefs.

 

For Catholics and many other Christians, God and Jesus

  • are consubstantial, that is of the same substance  and
  • they have both always co-existed.

Brother Shreek, please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

For Placid,  God and Jesus are not consubstantial. And Jesus was created by God. 

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference in their beliefs.

For Catholics and many other Christians, God and Jesus

  • are consubstantial, that is of the same substance and
  • they have both always co-existed.
Brother Shreek, please correct me if I am wrong.

For Placid, God and Jesus are not consubstantial. And Jesus was created by God.

Again, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christianity use the term "Jesus" to refer sometimes to 1) the Word of God and sometimes to 2) the historical manifestation of the Word of God. Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference in their beliefs.

 

For Catholics and many other Christians, God and Jesus

  • are consubstantial, that is of the same substance  and
  • they have both always co-existed.

Brother Shreek, please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

For Placid,  God and Jesus are not consubstantial. And Jesus was created by God. 

 

Yes they are one and the same.

your two points are correct.

God is defined as three con-substantial persons, or the greek term Hypostases, distinct, yet are one in substance, essence or nature.

 

for more details you can read the 15 books 'On the Trinity' by St Augustine. It will put you to sleep quickly.... :)

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are one and the same.

Your two points are correct.

God is defined as three con-substantial persons, or the greek term Hypostases, distinct, yet are one in substance, essence or nature.

 

Thanks brother

 

for more details you can read the 15 books 'On the Trinity' by St Augustine. 

 

Are they available on the Internet?  

 

It will put you to sleep quickly.... :)

 

I will read it after a good night's sleep, so I can keep awake.

Again, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christianity use the term "Jesus" to refer sometimes to 1) the Word of God and sometimes to 2) the historical manifestation of the Word of God.

 

I think Shreek will be able to explain to you those fine details. I told you what I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the differences mentioned above, I believe there is one important belief that Placid shares with the Church - the Trinity, but not entirely. My friend Placid, please correct me if I am wong.

 

The Christian Trinity consists of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But Placid's Trinity is made up of God, the Word and the Holy Spirit. These THREE have always co-existed in heaven. However, the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus after he was born.  But that does not exactly make him part of the Trinity. 

 

Would that be nearly right, Placid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks brother

 

 

Are they available on the Internet?  

 

 

I will read it after a good night's sleep, so I can keep awake.

 

I think Shreek will be able to explain to you those fine details. I told you what I know. 

 

On The Trinity:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm

 

oops ethereal already posted. how do i delete?

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...