1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you

Discussion in 'Quranic Debates' started by Dawnofhope, Nov 22, 2019.

  1. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    12,900
    Ratings:
    +12,505
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    The Word, Logos, is one description of Christ, in St John's Gospel, which is of pivotal importance to Christian doctrine about the nature of Jesus. Logos (Christianity) - Wikipedia

    According to this yes, the Word is a messenger to man, but is an aspect of God himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Crosstian

    Crosstian Baring the Cross

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2019
    Messages:
    368
    Ratings:
    +94
    Religion:
    Seventh-day Adventist
    Did you even read the conversation from the beginning? I was speaking about the word "trinity" as being falsely "translated" from the Arabic word "; or ثَلَاثَةٌ" (three, which does not mean "trinity", but is being inserted by Jesuits into English qur'ans. I was not speaking about the origin of the word itself, or the doctrine.

    Please, try not to misrepresent what I have stated, in its context. Thank you. (I am ex-Roman Catholic (having been for some 30 years Roman Catholic), and so I understand its history just fine, and can document it in all its error, and that includes the evils of the Jesuit order and its orgins)
     
  3. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +3,345
    I stand corrected.

    • That, as you say, Jesuits inserted "trinity" into English Qur'ans, replacing the word "three", may have occurred in some translation either of the relevant surah or the Qur'an. But I have never seen such an egregious mis-translation. I and everyone I have exchanged comments with, here in RF, use translations by Muslims, not Christians, Catholics or otherwise. Everyone, that is,--now that I have reread the OP--except Adrian in the first post. Ha! I didn't catch that.
     
    #23 Terry Sampson, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  4. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +6,423
    Religion:
    Judaism
    The word translated as "messager" above is "rasulu" Further context can then be found in Qur'an 10:47 which qualifies the role of a rasul ( messenger ): There is a messenger for each nation.

    SAHIH INTERNATIONAL 10:47 ( link )
    And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged.

    Respectfully, the "Elohiym is plural" argument is a little underwhelming... Names aren't conjugated.

    There aren't a lot of examples in English, but, Dennis is a good one. The name Dennis is not plural in spite of the "s" at the end. Also Jesus... is the word Jesus plural?

    The same is true for Hebrew... Abraham and Miriam are the first to come to mind. But also wasn't Moses' son named Gershom... OH! What about Shem, and Ham?

    If none of those names are plural, then neither is Elohim.

    The best example I can think of is "Mitzrayim". Mitrayim is the hebrew name for "Egypt" in the exodus story. Eqypt is not plural even though, etymologically, it appears to be plural. It's the same thing for Elohim. It's not plural because it's a name.

    Here's a link to the Strong's Index entry for Mitzrayim. You'll see it's listed as plural. But understanding it as actual multiplicity doesn't make sense at all.

    Strong's Hebrew: 4714. מִצְרָ֫יִם (Mitsrayim) -- a son of Ham, also his desc. and their country in N.W. Africa

    I should also add, that Islam maintains a list of divine names in the same manner that Judaism does. And there is probably a better name than Allah that correlates with Elohim. IMHO, Allah would be better equated to the 4 letter name. Elohim would only be one aspect of Allah. An important aspect. But it's not equivalent as far as I can tell.
     
    #24 dybmh, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,462
    Ratings:
    +2,820
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    As far as I know, Jesus was a messenger of God, as spoken by John the Baptist (Elijah), and the witness God gave, through the prophecies concerning the Messiah, as recorded by the prophets in the Bible. Jesus bore witness to these, by standing and reading the scroll of Isaiah the prophet. Isaiah 61
    Jesus never read anything from Muhammad... but how could he, when Muhammad wasn't even born until more than 400 years after Jesus left the earth.
    So, no.
     
  6. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    26,947
    Ratings:
    +11,925
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Different views. Either One Brahman (which may or may not be a God) or many Gods. Or a God which is difficult to distinguish from humans. All valid.
     
  7. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +886
    Religion:
    Christian

    The problem is the Trinity of the Koran is something Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians already do not believe in. The Koran speaks of the trinity of the father , son and mother. The Biblical Trinity is father, son and spirit.

     
  8. Crosstian

    Crosstian Baring the Cross

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2019
    Messages:
    368
    Ratings:
    +94
    Religion:
    Seventh-day Adventist
    I do not believe you (at all) based upon our past experience.

    That you have misrepresented it, would only make it so in your mind, but thankfully your mind is not the standard of judgment.

    Elohiym isn't a 'name' (you just misrepresented right there). JEHOVAH is the name. Elohiym is about the numeration of persons, and title of authority (Deity) among them (Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit).

    Additionally there are several places in scripture which make this known 'conjugates':

    We see that God the Father orchestrated, which the Son honoured the Father, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit was moved and was breathed, and thus all 3, the “trio” are the “Makers” [Ecclesiastes 12:1 HOT & so-called LXX and *], see also Job 33:4; Isaiah 43:7; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2, 2:10; Revelation 4:11, etc KJB.

    * “... First, then, this name, though a plural noun, when used of the one true God is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular. We are thus prepared, even from the beginning, for the mystery of a plurality in God, who, though he says, “There is no God beside me,” and, “I am God, and there is none else,” says also, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;” and again, “The man is become like one of us;” and again at Babel, “Go to, let us go down and confound their language;” and again, in the vision granted to the prophet Isaiah, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And this same mystery, though hidden from an English reader, comes out again and again in many other texts of Holy Scripture. For, “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth,” is literally, “Remember thy Creators.” Again, “None saith, Where is God my Maker?” is in the Hebrew, “God my Makers.” So again, “Let Israel rejoice in him that made him,” is, in the Hebrew, “in his Makers.” And so again in the Proverbs, “The knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding.” So again where the prophet says, “Thy Maker is thy husband,” both words are plural in the Hebrew. Many other passages of Scripture have precisely the same peculiarity. Therefore in heaven “cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts,” while on earth, taught by the Spirit of our Lord, we say, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” The plural form of the first name of God, that is “Elohim,” shadows forth the same mystery; while the verb, and even the adjective, joined with it in the singular, as when we read, “the living,” or “the righteous,” or “the most high God,” show that this “Elohim,” ... plural,....—“The Names of God in Holy Scripture,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 15-17. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. HBS 217.1 ...” - Handbook for Bible Students, p. 217.1, 1922

    Hebrew has a singular form, a 'dual plural' form, which is two and only two, and the true plural or three or more form.

    There are three Persons/Beings in Genesis creating, the one "and God said ..." (speaking to another), and the one "and God made ..." (obeying the will of the other), and the one "Spirit", which "moved" in the making, and which witnessed, for this one "and God saw", and hence we have the record as it is inspired. Father issuing the order to make, the Son obeying the order to make, and the Spirit witnessing the order and moving based upon the order.

    Apples to Oranges. Not the same at all. In speaking of plural persons all named Jesus, the word would be conjugated as Jesuses, like when speaking of multiple persons of hispanic background with that name.

    "... Names are pluralized like regular words. Add -es for names ending in 's' or 'z' and add -s for everything else. ..." - Plural and Possessive Names: A Guide

    Your example is false and again misrepresentative of two languages (Hebrew and English), not one.

    I just showed otherwise. I gave evidence, documented, cited, and you simply cited 'you'.

    That their names in English end in "m"? That doesn't grant plurality. That is foolishness and not the argument linguistically at all.

    Logical fallacy, for your starting apriori was in error (demonstrated) and thus your conclusion also erred, but that is not my fault, but yours.

    Egypt (Hebrew (H4714): Mitsrayim) means: "places of distress", and there was the upper and lower places, and is written in "dual form", not true plural form. It means two, not three or more. Your lack of linguistics in Hebrew is really showing here.

    If you actually had read that entry, you would have read that it says, "... Dual of H4693; Mitsrajim, that is, Upper and Lower Egypt: - Egypt, Egyptians, Mizraim. ..."

    The BDB, states, "Egyptians = “double straits”", and likewise other such lexicons, concordances.

    They just proved what I stated, and showed your error.

    Again, "allah" is always singular in Arabic, never plural. Elohiym is always plural (true plural). Elohiym should not ever be translated to "allah", though in false Arabic to English translations, Jesuits, have done so, in their ecumenism.

    Read Exodus 3-4. The name that was given to Moses is:

    Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

    Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God [JEHOVAH Elohiym] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.​

    Muhammad never knew this name, not even once in all qur'an, or Hadith.

    In your "opinion"? Worthless. You will not find a single Hebrew or Arabic linguistic scholar who would agree with you.

    What nonsense, attempting to subjugate the Hebrew word to the Arabic word?
     
    #28 Crosstian, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  9. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +6,423
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Qur'an 5:73?
     
  10. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +886
    Religion:
    Christian
    “And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? (Koran 5:116)

    In an Athanasian Trinity view there is one God not three Gods. One in divine nature, three in persons. One in one sense and three in another sense.

    SOOOOOO...

    Why does the Trinity matter to the gospel anyhow?

     
    #30 whirlingmerc, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +6,423
    Religion:
    Judaism
    OK. I hope to prove you wrong on this at least.
    Then clearly I am not familiar with your point of view.
    OK. This is where I got stuck, then. Because it looked like you were comparing the Name Allah with the Name Elohim. If Elohim isn't a name, then how does it fit. What's the connection to Allah at all? Why did you bring it up? If it's not comparing two names, what is the comparison?
    Fascinating. There is at least one similar example in Genesis, too... As long as Elohim isn't a name, and all we're talking about are "mighty forces" like the wind, or like angels... or agents of God, or the functions of God operating as creative energy...

    All of those 'concepts' contain some multiplicity.... so I don't see anything contradictory about our points of view... to be honest. At least not yet.

    I just thought, assumed... foolishly maybe, that you were talking about 2 holy names: Allah and Elohim.... now all I'm missing is relevance, unless I'm still misunderstanding you.
    Agreed.
    Noted... it was foolish for me to speculate. Thank you for pointing it out.
    I wouldn't use the word subjugate... but honestly, I mean... now can you understand why I was confused?
     
    #31 dybmh, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  12. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,618
    Ratings:
    +7,655
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    I recall finding this in the Quran many moons ago when I was young, and my thought at that time was that Mohamad clearly did not understand the teachings of the Christian Trinity.

    "And as Allah said, "O Isa son of Maryam, (Jesus son of Mary) did you say to mankind, "Take me and my mother to your selves as two gods, apart from Allah '?" He said, All Extolment be to You! In no way is it for me to say what I have no right to."

    ~Surah 5:116

    So, yes, Mohammad had a wrong idea of what the Christian Trinity doctrine teaches. No Christian theologian, nor lay person as far as I know, believes the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother Mary.

    This began my understanding how that the claim and beliefs of "divine revelation", in the mouths of "messengers", was actually just based upon their own human ideas attributed to God. Cleary one can see they aren't necessarily accurate and true, and therefore they are not really "messengers" in that sense of the word as speaking perfect truth from God. ;)
     
    #32 Windwalker, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  13. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +886
    Religion:
    Christian
    I have to agree... I never even met a person with that view of the Trinity
     
  14. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +6,423
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Respectfully, we are saying the same thing.... aren't we? You're calling it a "title" ( see above ), I'm calling it a "name".

    What am I missing?
     
  15. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +3,345
    One might think so, if it were only Christians who were doing the interpretating/misinterpreting. However, ... I find the following in THE QUR'AN: Translation and Commentary edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
    • 115 And when God said, “O Jesus son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as gods apart from God?’” He said, “Glory be to Thee! It is not for me to utter that to which I have no right. Had I said it, Thou wouldst surely have known it. Thou knowest what is in my self and I know not what is in Thy Self. Truly it is Thou Who knowest best the things unseen.

      116 Some assert that God’s questioning of Jesus in this verse took place immediately after his ascension (3:55; 4:158). Yet the verse seems, rather, to bring the discussion back to God’s questioning the prophets, apparently on the Day of Judgment, about how people responded to their messages, as initiated in v. 109. Although many prophets and their messages were forgotten over time, the issue here is the extent to which Jesus’ spiritual station was exaggerated by his followers after his death to the point that they attributed divinity to him and his mother. Following immediately upon the warning in v. 115 that whoever disbelieved after the miracle of the table would be punished, this verse suggests that this is the disbelief of which they had been warned.

      Commentary: Although traditional Christian doctrine does not view Mary as a member of the Trinity, the Quran may here be referring to certain Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, for example, her identification as Theotokos, or “Mother of God,” which is a doctrinal extension of the Christian belief in Christ’s divinity. The implicit criticism of the divinization of Mary here may also suggest that she is understood to be the third person in the Trinity as it is criticized by the Quran (cf. 4:171; 5:73), rather than the “Holy Spirit,” since the latter term is used in the Quran, as already mentioned, primarily as a reference to the Archangel Gabriel, and it is never suggested that he was improperly divinized. In this verse, however, the Quran may be criticizing not Christian doctrinal formulations concerning Mary, but rather popular Christian exaggerations of Mary’s status that approach divinization, similar to the Quranic criticism in 9:31: They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords apart from God, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, though they were only commanded to worship one God.

      Connecting the belief in Jesus’ divinity to his miraculous actions recounted in v. 110, al-Rāzī says that if Christians consider Jesus’ miracles to have been “created” by him at will—that is, that he, rather than God, had full control over them—then they effectively consider him Divine (R). Jesus indicates that he bears no responsibility for such exaggerations of his or his mother’s status, but rather than directly denying that he commanded his followers to take him and his mother as gods apart from God, he demonstrates an attitude of proper comportment before God by offering a response of perfect humility, saying he had no right to utter such a thing (Bḍ, R). His further response is similar to that given by the prophets in v. 109, indicating that his testimony is ultimately unnecessary, since God knows all things, including the things unseen (see v. 109 and commentary), thus properly deferring the matter to Him (R). Jesus’ statement that God knows what is in his self, but that he does not know what is in God’s Self, may simply mean that God knows whatever Jesus knows, while God’s Knowledge remains unknown to Jesus (Z), or that God knows what Jesus might hide within himself, but that Jesus does not know what is hidden in God (R). Self, used in connection with both Jesus and God, translates nafs; in the case of Jesus, it refers to his human soul, whereas in the case of God, it can be said to refer to His Essence (R).
     
  16. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,618
    Ratings:
    +7,655
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    No Christian takes Jesus and Mary as two gods apart from the Father, and therefore such a rebuke is not called for. All of this is just a typical apologists excusing and rationalizing away a mistake on their prophet's part about the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Why "two" in addition to God, if this is not a reference to the Trinity? Why not include all the other saints, and make it hundreds of gods? Christians "prayed" to them too. Why not say, "Did you say to your followers to take you and your mother and the other saints as gods besides Allah"? No, this is in reference to the "three" of the Trinity.
     
    #36 Windwalker, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  17. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    At His birth, Christ was called Immanuel, which means God with us.

    Christ said that He and the Father "were one".

    Christ said " if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"

    Christ said " before Abraham, I am" The term "I am" is very important, as God used it to describe Himself a number of time in the OT. Clearly He was saying He was God,

    The Disciples knelt before Him and called him " God".

    The Jewish agitators wanted to stone Him because He called Himself God.

    The Spirit of God is referred to as He numerous times in the Bible, confirming that He is the third point of Consciousness, or being, of God.

    To accept the Muslim view, one must demote God in the person of Jesus Christ, to being just a prophet. You must affirm that Christ is a liar, as well as affirm that a man 500 years after the founding of Christianity had "visions:" that undermine the entire basis of Christianity, Unlike Christ, who performed miracles before many witnesses, Mohammed performed none to show the power of God through him.
     
  18. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +3,345
    cf. my last post.

    I concur, with a comment: regarding #1 -- The divinity of Christ, according to some Christians, is rooted in and founded on the incarnation of (a) the pre-mortal and divine existence of Jesus, the Son of God, and/or (b) the purpose and function of Jesus' presence during his life among mankind.

    The only thing I can think of adding to your list is the execution and entombment of Jesus and the absence of the apocryphal accounts of Jesus' infancy and youth, which are briefly mentioned in the Qur'an.

    You have an interest in "rabbit holes" and "rabbit chases", eh? I declined because (a) I could have presented an orthodox version of the Trinity but didn't want to or (b) my personal, sketchy and incomplete heretical version, which would probably get me burned at the stake, which I'm not ready to go through here.

    Whether you agree or not, I certainly would not.

    My guess: We might well agree on how Allah is described in the Qur'an and maybe even agree on how Yahweh is described in the Tanakh. But if we do, I believe we both will agree that they are not the same.
     
    #38 Terry Sampson, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  19. loverofhumanity

    loverofhumanity Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    8,514
    Ratings:
    +4,319
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The Bible nowhere says Muhammad is a false Prophet. That is something that has been ‘added’ to the meaning of the Bible disregarding the verse below. On the contrary there are entire chapters I believe which prophesy Muhammad but like the Jews did not recognise Christ, Christians misread their own Holy Books and followed the interpretations of their priests like the Jews did and so called Muhammad an imposter like the Jews did Christ.


    Revelation 22: 18-29


    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +541
    Religion:
    Islam
    Hello again Adrian.

    It has been said that the Qur’an identifies a heretical Jesus, one who never existed in Christianity.

    You will be familiar with the ‘Gloria’; an ancient doxology. The Latin translation of the Gloria is attributed to Hilary of Poiters – a Bishop and Doctor of the Church. It is said that he learned of it while in the East; around 359-360 CE. It is associated with the Vetus Latina – a collection of Latin manuscripts that existed before the Vulgate – and it would have been known to the Christians of Arabia. It is very probable that it formed part of their liturgy or private devotions; as it does in the Church today. Here is it:

    ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory; Lord God, heavenly King; O God, almighty Father.

    ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.’

    The Yeshua who never existed in reality is the one portrayed in the second paragraph of the ‘Gloria’.

    Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this: ‘People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about Allāh except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of Allāh, His word (‘wakalimatuhu’), directed to Mary, a spirit (‘warūḥun’) from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers and do not speak of three – stop (this), that is better for you – Allāh is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.’ (Al-Nisa: 171).

    The word ‘wakalimatuhu’ is derived from the root ‘kāf lām mīm’; and refers – not to the Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians – but to speech; to a spoken word – to any spoken word.

    The word ‘warūḥun’ is derived from the root ‘rā wāw ḥā’; and comes from the form ‘rūḥ’; meaning ‘soul’; ‘spirit’; and ‘inspiration’. When applied to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) it refers to his spirit soul. We all possess such a soul.

    Consider this:

    ‘The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word (‘bikalimatin’) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to Allāh. He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood. He will be one of the righteous.’ (Al‘Imran: 45-46)

    ‘Bikalimatin’ is derived from the same root (‘kāf lām mīm’) as ‘wakalimatuhu’ and, as you might expect, also refers to a spoken word.

    The sūrah continues: ‘She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ (The angel) said, ‘This is how Allāh creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He says only, "Be" (‘kun’), and it is.’ (Verse 47).

    Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is indeed a word from Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla); and that word is ‘Be’; the command that brought him – and everything else – into being.

    This ‘Be’ has nothing to do with the so-called ‘incarnation’. Yeshua is both prophet and Messiah; but nowhere in the Qur’an is he referred to as God. The notion of his divinity is a Trinitarian myth.

    And now, consider this:

    'When Allāh says: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, ''Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God''?' he will say: ''May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say – if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen – I told them only what You commanded me to: ''Worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord.'' I was a witness over them during my time among them. Ever since You took my soul, You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things and if You punish them, they are Your servants; if You forgive them, You are the Almighty, the Wise.''' (Al-Ma'ida: 16-118).

    These verses are prophetic. The conversation between the Exalted and Yeshua takes place on the Day of Judgement; when the prophets – in common with everyone else – are asked give an account of their lives.

    Yeshua is asked to account for the fact that certain Christians have exaggerated his spiritual station, and attributed divinity to him. Yeshua denies ever giving permission for this.

    Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

    'Jesus indicates that he bears no responsibility for such exaggerations of his or his mother's status, but rather than directly denying that he commanded his followers to take him and his mother as gods apart from God, he demonstrates an attitude of proper comportment before God by offering a response of perfect humility, saying he had no right to utter such a thing.' ('The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary').

    (Continued):
     
    #40 Niblo, Nov 23, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...