Evidence for God from Science

Does the Qur'an Support the Concept of the Trinity

Let's take a look:

PICKTHAL: 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 Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

In this verse, you see that Allah has a personality – "messenger of Allah." He also has a word – "and His word. "He also has a spirit – "and a spirit from Him"

This is the creed of the Trinity and what Christians believe. It does not proclaim three gods, but it proclaims that there is One God and no God but Him.

Take a look at this verse in the Qur'an:

PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). Sura 3:45

Again God has a Word.

Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, “Be!”– and it is!) [Surah Yasin:82)

Allah creates via his word.

Also take a look at this verse in the Qur'an: Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

Here the Holy Spirit of God is active and proceeding from God: "I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit."

Quote from: the theological scholar Al-Shaikh Muhammad al- Hariri al-Bayyumi who said, "The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Allah (Kitab al-Ruh wa Maiyyyatuha).

What do we have here? Allah, Allah's Word and Allah's Holy Spirit. Not three Allahs, but One Allah. Basically that is the concept of the Holy Trinity.

What am I missing?

Thanks.

What you are missing is that Islam denies the distinct pershood of each.

Byblos wrote:What you are missing is that Islam denies the distinct pershood of each.

Where?

I thought I was off to a good start with this one, Byblos?

The author of the Qur'an does not mention the Trinity as defined by Christians; he only says "don't say three, which in context seems to suggest don't say three gods and we don't say that; we believe in one God.

The "trinity" in the Qur'an seems to be Allah, Jesus and Mary.

The author of the Qur'an said Jesus could not be God because He had to eat food, which strongly suggests he had never heard of the incarnation.

What a mess.

Thanks.

Islam's Trinity is actually a gelling of these three Mesopotamian gods known by other names in Canaan, etc...

Nanna, the god of the moon; Utu, the sun god; and Inanna (known as Ishtar)... who help the Serpent take over the world.

Three beast in the Book of Daniel and in Revelation these three are gelled into one beast...

Think on this a bit...
-
-
-

Christian2 wrote:

Byblos wrote:What you are missing is that Islam denies the distinct pershood of each.

Where?

I thought I was off to a good start with this one, Byblos?

The author of the Qur'an does not mention the Trinity as defined by Christians; he only says "don't say three, which in context seems to suggest don't say three gods and we don't say that; we believe in one God.

The "trinity" in the Qur'an seems to be Allah, Jesus and Mary.

The author of the Qur'an said Jesus could not be God because He had to eat food, which strongly suggests he had never heard of the incarnation.

What a mess.

Thanks.

A mess puts it lightly. Actually, C2, if you want to really press them, you can push them on how the tawhid ends up leading to something like the Trinity. Since the Koran speaks of both the Word of Allah and the Spirit of Allah, then the tawhid requires them to say that Allah just is His Word such that the language is merely metaphorical, and so, too, with His Spirit (such that, again, it is metaphorical), or else they have to assert something like the Trinity. There would, to hold to the tawhid, have to be something like a Trinity where Allah is God, but where He is not His Word even though His Word is still fully divine (e.g., not "a part" of Allah), and same with His Spirit. If you let them say that Allah's Word and Spirit are merely parts of Him, then they've denied the tawhid. So either all of those things are absolutely identical and all such language is metaphorical or else none of them are divine in any sense (and so, again, all the language is metaphorical, because they aren't even from God), or else you have something like a Trinity.

Thankfully to your Muslim friends, if they opt for something like a Trinity, they can look to Christian scholarship to see how that can be worked out so that they can maintain their belief in monotheism.

Jac3510 wrote:

Christian2 wrote:

Byblos wrote:What you are missing is that Islam denies the distinct pershood of each.

Where?

I thought I was off to a good start with this one, Byblos?

The author of the Qur'an does not mention the Trinity as defined by Christians; he only says "don't say three, which in context seems to suggest don't say three gods and we don't say that; we believe in one God.

The "trinity" in the Qur'an seems to be Allah, Jesus and Mary.

The author of the Qur'an said Jesus could not be God because He had to eat food, which strongly suggests he had never heard of the incarnation.

What a mess.

Thanks.

A mess puts it lightly. Actually, C2, if you want to really press them, you can push them on how the tawhid ends up leading to something like the Trinity. Since the Koran speaks of both the Word of Allah and the Spirit of Allah, then the tawhid requires them to say that Allah just is His Word such that the language is merely metaphorical, and so, too, with His Spirit (such that, again, it is metaphorical), or else they have to assert something like the Trinity. There would, to hold to the tawhid, have to be something like a Trinity where Allah is God, but where He is not His Word even though His Word is still fully divine (e.g., not "a part" of Allah), and same with His Spirit. If you let them say that Allah's Word and Spirit are merely parts of Him, then they've denied the tawhid. So either all of those things are absolutely identical and all such language is metaphorical or else none of them are divine in any sense (and so, again, all the language is metaphorical, because they aren't even from God), or else you have something like a Trinity.

Thankfully to your Muslim friends, if they opt for something like a Trinity, they can look to Christian scholarship to see how that can be worked out so that they can maintain their belief in monotheism.

Thank you.

Answering-Islam has some articles on tawhid and that I am printing and will read tomorrow.

The situation with Islam seems hopeless. They think we are polytheistic pagans and guilty of shirk -- infidels -- "kill them wherever you find them."

I read an article online that I cannot find now, but it pointed out that because of the high birth rate of Muslims there will come a time when they outnumber non-Muslims and at that point there will be no turning back.

We know what will happen when Muslims outnumber the rest of us.

I keep thinking what Jesus said: "the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God."

I'm a bit more optimistic, but maybe just in denial. But I have two reasons for my optimism. The first is theological. I just don't see that happening. Yes, Israel was sent into exile from time to time, and God threatens to judge individual churches in the NT, but I just don't see any reason whatsoever to think that the church as a whole will be so persecuted. If we point to the Great Tribulation, you're now looking at end times kind of stuff, and if you're a futurist on that point, you sort of have to read the whole of prophetic revelation that way . . . suffice it to say the eschatology doesn't work out.

Anyway, the other point is more sociological and political. Yes, there was an Ottoman Empire, but the world today just doesn't tolerate that sort of imperialism. Given the way democracies work, it would take a lot more than 50% even to impose Sharia law. And LONG before it got to that point, you'd have a truly moderate wing of Islam that, while they wouldn't be our friends, they wouldn't want to live under ISIS styled government. I mean, you well know that Islam is not monolithic. The Sunis don't want to live under the Shiites or vice versa, and that's just the two big groups. Some more moderate, some more conservative. Modernism has a way of secularizing a people. Also, Islam can very much define itself against "the other" because they are the minority. If they were to get to a point where they were a majority or even the predominant minority group, the "tolerance" for their position and even their own self-identification changes a whole, whole lot.

So, I guess I'm just saying that it's a lot more complicated than, "They're having more babies so they're going to win." The assumption that all those future kids are going to view their own religion, much less their own world, the same way their parents did--and that the world into which those kids are born (in larger numbers) is going to view them the same way it viewed their parents!--is just not obvious. So, yeah, I'm more hopeful than that.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm a bit more optimistic, but maybe just in denial. But I have two reasons for my optimism. The first is theological. I just don't see that happening. Yes, Israel was sent into exile from time to time, and God threatens to judge individual churches in the NT, but I just don't see any reason whatsoever to think that the church as a whole will be so persecuted. If we point to the Great Tribulation, you're now looking at end times kind of stuff, and if you're a futurist on that point, you sort of have to read the whole of prophetic revelation that way . . . suffice it to say the eschatology doesn't work out.

Anyway, the other point is more sociological and political. Yes, there was an Ottoman Empire, but the world today just doesn't tolerate that sort of imperialism. Given the way democracies work, it would take a lot more than 50% even to impose Sharia law. And LONG before it got to that point, you'd have a truly moderate wing of Islam that, while they wouldn't be our friends, they wouldn't want to live under ISIS styled government. I mean, you well know that Islam is not monolithic. The Sunis don't want to live under the Shiites or vice versa, and that's just the two big groups. Some more moderate, some more conservative. Modernism has a way of secularizing a people. Also, Islam can very much define itself against "the other" because they are the minority. If they were to get to a point where they were a majority or even the predominant minority group, the "tolerance" for their position and even their own self-identification changes a whole, whole lot.

So, I guess I'm just saying that it's a lot more complicated than, "They're having more babies so they're going to win." The assumption that all those future kids are going to view their own religion, much less their own world, the same way their parents did--and that the world into which those kids are born (in larger numbers) is going to view them the same way it viewed their parents!--is just not obvious. So, yeah, I'm more hopeful than that.

Maybe I was having a bad day!

I'm wondering if there is such a thing as moderate Muslim -- maybe if they don't know what the Qur'an really says?

I talked with a Muslim I considered a moderate Muslim for over 6 years -- almost everyday for 6 years. I told him I hoped every Muslim was like him, until he showed his true colors when a Jew said Islam was an enemy of Israel and said something negative about Muhammad.

The Muslim went berserk. He said all Jews were DNA deficient and Israel should be nuked. When a Christian told him he had a niece who was 12 years old and asked the Muslim what should happen to her in his opinion. The Muslim said she should be killed when she grew up to adulthood. All of us on that discussion board were shocked. I thought he just got angry and would apologize but he never did -- he just left the site.

We only know a person by what they reveal to us.

A husband may not reveal to his wife and neighbors who he is or what he is really thinking or doing. Everyone thinks he is the salt of the earth; he goes to church, works in a soup kitchen, and is considered the salt of the earth only to find out he is a serial killer when the police find 10 bodies buried in his backyard.

Christian2 wrote:We only know a person by what they reveal to us.

A husband may not reveal to his wife and neighbors who he is or what he is really thinking or doing. Everyone thinks he is the salt of the earth; he goes to church, works in a soup kitchen, and is considered the salt of the earth only to find out he is a serial killer when the police find 10 bodies buried in his backyard.

Umm, someone should call C2's wife. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

No, really, anyone have her number?

Kurieuo wrote:

Christian2 wrote:We only know a person by what they reveal to us.

A husband may not reveal to his wife and neighbors who he is or what he is really thinking or doing. Everyone thinks he is the salt of the earth; he goes to church, works in a soup kitchen, and is considered the salt of the earth only to find out he is a serial killer when the police find 10 bodies buried in his backyard.

Umm, someone should call C2's wife. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

No, really, anyone have her number?

It's unlisted. Although the police may have it.

To your point, C2, Islam itself is not moderate. Moderate Muslims exist only to the point that they either are ignorant of their faith or they simply disregard those aspects they find repugnant. It's not that different from a lot of Christians of any denominations. Some reject basic teachings out of real ignorance. Others out of full knowledge but emotional and willful rejection of what Christ says.

It is, though, fair to recognize the differences between a moderate Christian and a moderate Muslim, the biggest I see being this: Islam is, by nature, a political religion. Christianity is not. Yes, there are political Christians (i.e., Christians who use their faith to push their political ideologies) and there are non-political Muslims. But that has far more to do with how people choose to use or not use their faith than the faith itself. The basic message of Christ is to submit to others; the basic message of Muhammed is for others to submit to him. Christianity has the Cross. Islam has the sword.

Where I think that distinction becomes practical, in light of what I've been arguing, is that it is psychologically and sociologically much easier to define yourself as part of a group when your group is the minority, to define yourself against "the other." Of course, in order to do that, you need an "other" to define yourself against! As that other decreases in size or power, you end up finding other "others" to define yourself against, typically within your own ranks, where you start arguing about purity. You see this in all stripes of political and ideological movements. So a moderate Muslim may truly be moderate--they honestly may either reject or simply not care about some aspect of their faith. But when you start pressing them on that very issue, you force them into an identity crisis. Suddenly you become "the other." It's no surprise when young Muslim men radicalize as they watch what is going on in the middle east. They were truly moderate before, but as they are forced to "choose sides," what they're really being forced to do is choose their identity. And when they choose to fully embrace their faith (and you know better than I with Islam that's especially important given the centrality of the family and the community), they of necessity shed their moderate views.

I expect, then, a general growth of more and more moderate strains of Islam as the growing population gets more and more invested in Western culture. That's just the effects of secularism on any religious viewpoint. And as they grow, the threat of "the other" will always be a bit diminished. But I equally expect radicalization will be a long term problem, because as "they" grow, the internal tensions will grow over ideological purity and things like what you saw with your friend will become more commonplace. It'll be a constant tension.

From an evangelistic perspective, though, I think that opens interseting opportunities. I don't know that you'll have much luck arguing for the theological supremacy of Christ, although we should never stop making that argument. Hebrews didn't win over the Jews en mass, and an epistle to the Arabs won't win them over en mass, either. But while we make the argument, what will be effective at an individual level will, I think, be what always has been: the true moral and spiritual superiority of Christ. When moderates are forced into that identity crisis, and we recognize it is really and truly a crisis, as we help them see they aren't really choosing between being faithful to the faith of their fathers or not but rather between following that faith or the faith they see demonstrated in Christ (which is what they truly want, else there would be no crisis) . . . I think that's what will and does ultimately win them. "It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance."

Just my rambling $.02.

Jac3510 wrote:To your point, C2, Islam itself is not moderate. Moderate Muslims exist only to the point that they either are ignorant of their faith or they simply disregard those aspects they find repugnant. It's not that different from a lot of Christians of any denominations. Some reject basic teachings out of real ignorance. Others out of full knowledge but emotional and willful rejection of what Christ says.

It is, though, fair to recognize the differences between a moderate Christian and a moderate Muslim, the biggest I see being this: Islam is, by nature, a political religion. Christianity is not. Yes, there are political Christians (i.e., Christians who use their faith to push their political ideologies) and there are non-political Muslims. But that has far more to do with how people choose to use or not use their faith than the faith itself. The basic message of Christ is to submit to others; the basic message of Muhammed is for others to submit to him. Christianity has the Cross. Islam has the sword.

Where I think that distinction becomes practical, in light of what I've been arguing, is that it is psychologically and sociologically much easier to define yourself as part of a group when your group is the minority, to define yourself against "the other." Of course, in order to do that, you need an "other" to define yourself against! As that other decreases in size or power, you end up finding other "others" to define yourself against, typically within your own ranks, where you start arguing about purity. You see this in all stripes of political and ideological movements. So a moderate Muslim may truly be moderate--they honestly may either reject or simply not care about some aspect of their faith. But when you start pressing them on that very issue, you force them into an identity crisis. Suddenly you become "the other." It's no surprise when young Muslim men radicalize as they watch what is going on in the middle east. They were truly moderate before, but as they are forced to "choose sides," what they're really being forced to do is choose their identity. And when they choose to fully embrace their faith (and you know better than I with Islam that's especially important given the centrality of the family and the community), they of necessity shed their moderate views.

I expect, then, a general growth of more and more moderate strains of Islam as the growing population gets more and more invested in Western culture. That's just the effects of secularism on any religious viewpoint. And as they grow, the threat of "the other" will always be a bit diminished. But I equally expect radicalization will be a long term problem, because as "they" grow, the internal tensions will grow over ideological purity and things like what you saw with your friend will become more commonplace. It'll be a constant tension.

From an evangelistic perspective, though, I think that opens interseting opportunities. I don't know that you'll have much luck arguing for the theological supremacy of Christ, although we should never stop making that argument. Hebrews didn't win over the Jews en mass, and an epistle to the Arabs won't win them over en mass, either. But while we make the argument, what will be effective at an individual level will, I think, be what always has been: the true moral and spiritual superiority of Christ. When moderates are forced into that identity crisis, and we recognize it is really and truly a crisis, as we help them see they aren't really choosing between being faithful to the faith of their fathers or not but rather between following that faith or the faith they see demonstrated in Christ (which is what they truly want, else there would be no crisis) . . . I think that's what will and does ultimately win them. "It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance."

Just my rambling $.02.

I can't say that I disagree with what you wrote.

One of the saddest things that Muslims believe is that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, yet everything they come up with when put in context does not lead to Muhammad.

The silliest one is that Muhammad's name is in the Song of Songs where the lady is describing her beloved.

Some Muslims put Jesus down even though they are not supposed to do that. One Muslim said that Jesus was a sinner and then ticked off His sins and then ended with "I forgive Jesus for his sins."

I think perhaps some Muslims try to put Jesus down because they know He outshines Muhammad even in the Qur'an.

Christian2 wrote:The situation with Islam seems hopeless. They think we are polytheistic pagans and guilty of shirk -- infidels -- "kill them wherever you find them."

Here's a video that puts to rest the idea that belief in Jesus as God, indeed the Son of God (and all that Muslims think that implies i.e., God copulating with Mary), is a polytheistic pagan idea.


https://youtu.be/55MVA2BD0_M

Just a short comment between classes, I have spoken to a Muslim man on one occasion about the divinity of Jesus. In short, he said the idea is repulsive to Islam that Allah could have been a mortal man. Why? Jesus had to eliminate waste, he bled, he did all sorts of "unclean" and weak actions part of being human that Islam considers blasphemous to relate to Allah.

I don't know if his belief was mainstream, since it's just one guy, but that's my piece

Hortator wrote:Just a short comment between classes, I have spoken to a Muslim man on one occasion about the divinity of Jesus. In short, he said the idea is repulsive to Islam that Allah could have been a mortal man. Why? Jesus had to eliminate waste, he bled, he did all sorts of "unclean" and weak actions part of being human that Islam considers blasphemous to relate to Allah.

I don't know if his belief was mainstream, since it's just one guy, but that's my piece

I hear stuff like this all the time -- "your God wore diapers."

Do they not know that Jesus is human as well as the incarnate word of God?

Allah apparently didn't; otherwise, Allah would not have said Jesus could not be God because Jesus had to eat food -- big mistake in the Qur'an.