Islam The Injil is the New Testament.

[Albion]

Islam has a well known definition, If you know, there are 5 pillar of Islam, 6 items to believe (Iman / Belief), accept all Quran and true Hadeeths.
Missing all or even one of these, It's no longer Islam.

The five pillars barely scratch the surface of the religion.

On the other hand, there is no clear definition for Christianity.

Sure there is. If the five pillars are supposed to define Islam, then faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior defines Christianity.

Actually , the Trinity detailed definition is the main reason of dividing of Christianity into big Churches like Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic,,,, (forget about Unitarian, Mormon, JW,, )

No, it's not. Almost all Christian denominations -- and all those of any significant size -- are Trinitarian.

Take into consideration, Trinity belief settled down as the belief of main stream only in 281 CE after Constantinople council. Between Nicaea 325 CE and Constantinople council the main stream and the state Christianity was the Unitarian belief according to Arius.

No, it wasn't.

 

[Limo]

The five pillars barely scratch the surface of the religion.

??

Sure there is. If the five pillars are supposed to define Islam, then faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior defines Christianity.

What is your reference of the definition of Christianity ?

No, it's not. Almost all Christian denominations -- and all those of any significant size -- are Trinitarian.

I said precisely "the Trinity detailed definition".
You's denying the history.
Why there are Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic,,, Churches ?
What is the context of divide ?

No, it wasn't.

You again deny the known history.
Just have a look on Arius history and period between Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381. There are 2-3 Unitarian councils (as far as I remember)

 

[Albion]

??

What is your reference of the definition of Christianity ?

Well, if you don't like that, I'd recommend the Apostles Creed.

Why there are Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic,,, Churches ?

Mainly a dispute over leadership not unlike the Islamic dispute that separated the Shiites from the Sunnis.

You again deny the known history.
Just have a look on Arius history and period between Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381. There are 2-3 Unitarian councils (as far as I remember)

Sorry, but your history is wrong. Unitarianism or Arianism were never affirmed in any ecumenical council, and Arianism never was in the majority among Christians.

 

[Niblo]

Of all the ways a person could die, Allah chose to cut Mohammad s aorta proving that he was a false prophet. what an embarrassment to Islam.

And so Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was a false prophet, whose aorta was cut by Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) in punishment?

In the darkest regions of some ill-informed imagination…it might appear so! But in the light of what Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) has to say - to you, as much as to anyone else:

‘So I swear by what you can see and by what you cannot see: this (Qur’an) is the speech of an honoured messenger, not the words of a poet - how little you believe! Nor the words of a sooth-sayer - how little you reflect! This (Qur’an) is a message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds: if (the Prophet) had attributed some fabrication to Us, We would certainly have seized his right hand and cut off his lifeblood, and none of you could have defended him. This (Qur’an) is a reminder for those who are aware of Allāh. We know that some of you consider it to be lies - this will be a source of bitter regret for the disbelievers - but it is in fact the certain Truth. So (Prophet) glorify the name of your Lord, the Almighty.’ (Al-Haqqa: 38-52).

In these verses the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is identified as an ‘honoured messenger’; one who speaks ‘the certain Truth’; a Truth that others - such as yourself - consider to be lies.

And are we to believe that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) would say this to a ‘false prophet’ (in order to reassure him, when he had not received revelation for some time, and believed that his Lord had forsaken him):

‘By the morning brightness and by the night when it grows still, your Lord has not forsaken you nor does He hate you, and the future will be better for you than the past; your Lord is sure to give you so much that you will be well satisfied. Did He not find you an orphan and shelter you? Did He not find you lost and guide you? Did He not find you in need and make you self-sufficient? So do not be harsh with the orphan and do not chide the one who asks for help; talk about the blessings of your Lord.’ (Al-Duha)

Or this (a continuation of the reassurance and encouragement given in Al-Duha)?

‘Did We not relieve your heart for you, and remove the burden that weighed so heavily on your back, and raise your reputation high? So truly where there is hardship there is also ease; truly where there is hardship there is also ease. The moment you are freed (of one task) work on, and turn to your Lord for everything.’ (Al-Sharh).

 

[DWA2DAY]

??

What is your reference of the definition of Christianity ?

I said precisely "the Trinity detailed definition".
You's denying the history.
Why there are Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic,,, Churches ?
What is the context of divide ?

You again deny the known history.
Just have a look on Arius history and period between Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381. There are 2-3 Unitarian councils (as far as I remember)

Proto-Trinitarianism is fairly easy to find in Christian writings dated between the 1st and 4th century. So if you are going to attempt to put forward the false narrative of Christians suddenly adopting a brand new pagan religious belief because of Constantine (or some variation thereof) then allow me to nip that in the bud. As someone who has actually spent time reading and studying the period of Christian antiquity, who has actually read primary sources from the period, and so forth I can assure you such a narrative has no basis in the historical record.

So allow me to preemptively discuss a few points:

1) The Council of Nicea didn't come up with the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't actually even discussed at the council; the council dealt with the specific task of dealing with the Arian controversy. And, while many have erroneously held that Arianism said Jesus was "just a man", that's not even remotely true. Everyone involved in the discussion believed that Jesus was divine, everyone involved called Jesus both "God" and "Son of God"; the discussion and the controversy was what it meant to say that Jesus was God. Specifically, was Jesus the same God as God the Father (homoousios, "of the same substance), was Jesus another God of a similar or related substance (homoiousios, "of a similar substance"), or was Jesus another God of a different substance (heteroousios, "of a different substance"). The council held at Nicea ultimately resulted in the near-unanimous agreement of the several hundred bishops in attendance to the formula put forward in the creed, that Jesus, the Son, is homoousios with the Father--that He is of the same divine substance, "God of God", "Light of Light", etc.

2) Constantine's role in the Council of Nicea was limited to summoning bishops to meet, he had no vested interest in any particular outcome, just that there would be an outcome. Constantine accepted the decision by the bishops, at least initially; Constantine was actually convinced by personal friends and acquaintances--who were also friends or friendly with Arius--to take the Arian side. It was Constantine who removed Athanasius from his position as bishop of Alexandria and sent him into his first exile (he was exiled multiple times) and installed Arius himself as bishop. Constantine, in fact, supported a number of pro-Arian councils held after Nicea, he requested the Arian-sympathizing Eusebius Pamphilus, the author of the Church History and the Life of Constantine, to have fifty codices of Scripture copied so they could be used in the fifty churches he had constructed in the new capital of Constantinople; and ultimately Constantine was baptized by the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia on his death bed, Constantine's surviving sons were of opposite opinion, but the arguably more powerful Constantius was a devout Arian, and his successor Julian was raised Arian but adopted a form of paganism, and became known as "Julian the Apostate" and was the last of the Constantinian dynasty to rule.

3) Neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicea played any role in the formation of the Biblical Canon. The Canon was never discussed, it wasn't on the table; and the old myth of books being placed on a table and those which did not fall off were to be included in the Bible can be traced back to Voltaire whose usage of it was not to be taken seriously. There is simply no evidence of any form which backs such a tale. On the contrary, the history of the formation of the Biblical Canon can be fairly easily discerned through the historic record, we know which books were generally accepted and read in the course of Christian worship, what were known as homolegoumena and which were disputed, known as antilegomena. The homolegoumena consists of the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen epistles of St. Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter; these had achieved a universal acceptance by the end of the 2nd century if not earlier. The disputed books, or antilegomena, consisted of Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John; as well as the Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Revelation of Peter. Aside from these there is no evidence of support for other texts outside of particular sects, for example certain Gnostic sects utilized their own sets of Gnostic texts, they really weren't meant for universal consumption but were only intended for the initiated; other texts were largely romances such as the Protoevangelion of James, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas--they were effectively early Christian fan-fiction. In any event, the discussion on the Canon continued well after Nicea and well after Constantine, we can see differences in opinion between, for example, the canonical list expressed in the letter from St. Athanasius, the list drawn up at the local councils of Carthage and Hippo, and the local council at Laodicea. We can see that certain texts remained highly controversial in some places for a long time, for example the Revelation of John (also known as the Apocalypse) was still disputed among some of the eastern churches as late as the time of St. John of Damascus, the 8th century. And the Armenian Canon continued to sometimes include the text known as 3 Corinthians until the late middle ages. Debates on the Canon in the West were revived during the Protestant Reformation, which accounts for the current differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles today.

Copied from previous post.

 

[DWA2DAY]

And so Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was a false prophet, whose aorta was cut by Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) in punishment?

In the darkest regions of some ill-informed imagination…it might appear so! But in the light of what Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) has to say - to you, as much as to anyone else:

I am shock that this is what you think of the Quran. I quote again and offer you a second chance to show that mohamaded was not a false prophet. I make note that the Quran say it is clear and with out contradiction. 6:114 & 41:e and so on.

There if we accept your explination from the Quran then it proves the Quran is contradicting its self thus you have proved the Quran to be a fabrication. 4:82.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797 tells us Muhammad’s greatest wish was to die in battel, yet after 23 years of Allah granting Muhammad’s wishes he stops, and lets him die at the hands of a Jewish women whose husband and father Muhammad killed.

Not only is the death of Muhammad painful himself describes it as having his aorta severed, fulfilling the requirement of a false prophet of Allah.

69:44-46
And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut (sever) from him the aorta.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith (Hadith 5.713)
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith (Hadith 2135)
Umm Mubashshir said to the Prophet (peace be upon him) during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaybar. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith (Hadith 2134)
Muhammad ibn Amr said on the authority of AbuSalamah, and he did not mention the name of AbuHurayrah: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) used to accept presents but not alms (sadaqah). This version adds: So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Take away your hands (from the food), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr ibn al-Bara' ibn Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaybar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

Conclusion
Islam is a fabrication made up by Mohammad who borrowed stories from pagans, christians and Jews to gain power self wealth and political gain.

Its a hard fact to face but the facts are there in the Quran and Hadiths, one just has to read them.

 

[Niblo]

??

As-Salāmu ‘alaykum wa Rahmatullāhi wa Barakātuhu brother.

The Symbol (Creed) of the 11th Synod of Toledo has been called: ‘The most complete formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a Creed since the times of the Fathers.’ This is it:

‘We confess and believe that the holy and ineffable Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is one God by nature, of one substance, of one nature as also of one majesty and power.

‘And we profess that the Father is not begotten, not created, but unbegotten. For He Himself, from whom the Son has received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession, has His origin from no one. He is therefore the source and origin of the whole Godhead. He Himself is the Father of His own essence, who in an ineffable way has begotten the Son from His ineffable substance. Yet He did not beget something different (aliud) from what He Himself is: God has begotten God, light has begotten light. From Him, therefore, is "all fatherhood in heaven and on earth"

‘We also confess that the Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father, without beginning, before all ages, for at no time did the Father exist without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. Yet the Father is not from the Son, as the Son is from the Father, because the Father was not generated by the Son but the Son by the Father. The Son, therefore, is God from the Father, and the Father is God, but not from the son. He is indeed the Father of the Son, not God from the Son; but the latter is the Son of the Father and God from the Father. Yet in all things the Son is equal to God the Father, for He has never begun nor ceased to be born. We also believe that He is of one substance with the Father; wherefore He is called homoousios with the Father, that is of the same being as the Father, for homos in Greek means 'one' and ousia means 'being', and joined together they mean 'one in being'. We must believe that the Son is begotten or born not from nothing or from any other substance, but from the womb of the Father, that is from His substance. Therefore, the Father is eternal, and the Son is also eternal. If He was always Father, He always had a Son, whose Father He was, and therefore we confess that the Son was born from the Father without beginning. We do not call the same Son of God a part of a divided nature, because He was generated from the Father, but we assert that the perfect Father has begotten the perfect Son, without diminution or division, for it pertains to the Godhead alone not to have an unequal Son. This Son of God is also Son by nature, not by adoption; of Him we must also believe that God the Father begot Him neither by an act of will nor out of necessity, for in God there is no necessity nor does will precede wisdom.

‘We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is God, one and equal with God the Father and the Son, of one substance and of one nature, not, however, begotten nor created but proceeding from both, and that He is the Spirit of both. We believe that He is neither unbegotten nor begotten, for if we called Him unbegotten we would assert two Fathers, or if begotten, we would appear to preach two Sons. Yet He is called the Spirit not of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son. For He does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both. Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father. But He is not less than the Father and the Son, in the way in which the Son, on account of the body which He has assumed, testifies that He is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.’

‘This is the way of speaking about the Holy Trinity as it has been handed down: one must not call it or believe it to be threefold, but Trinity. Nor can it properly be said that in the one God there is the Trinity, but the one God is the Trinity. In the relative names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance. Although we profess three persons, we do not profess three substances, but one substance and three persons. For the Father is Father not with respect to Himself but to the Son, and the Son is Son not to Himself but in relation to the Father; and likewise the Holy Spirit is not referred to Himself but is related to the Father and the Son, inasmuch as He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. So when we say 'God', this does not express a relationship to another, as of the Father to the Son or of the Son to the Father or of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, but 'God' refers to Himself only. For, if we are asked about the single persons, we must confess that each is God. Therefore, we say that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God ' each one distinctly; yet there are not three gods, but one God. Similarly, we say that the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty, each one distinctly; yet there are not three almighty ones, but one Almighty, as we profess one light and one principle. Hence we confess and believe that each person distinctly is fully God, and the three persons together are one God. Theirs is an undivided and equal Godhead, majesty and power, which is neither diminished in the single persons nor increased in the three. For it is not less when each person is called God separately, nor is it greater when all three persons are called one God.’

End of quote.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature.’ (Constitutions: 1. Confession of faith).

The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons……………… These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity……. Therefore, it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.’ (Session 114).

The Council decreed that it: ‘Holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

It is a doctrine of the Church that the ‘hypostatic union’ of Yeshua’s human nature with the ‘Second Person’ (the ‘Divine Logos) took place at the moment of his conception. It is also a doctrine of the Church that in the ‘hypostatic union’ each of Yeshua’s two natures (divine and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and that this ‘Union’ will never end.

We need to consider two problems associated with Trinitarian doctrines concerning the nature of God and the ‘hypostatic union’.

First:

The Church teaches that within the Godhead the Father is entirely within the Son and entirely within the Holy Spirit; that the Son is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Holy Spirit; and that the Holy Spirit is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Son. In other words, the three Persons form a single unity, indivisible and permanent. They are not three persons standing side by side, so to speak; such that one could join with a human body, to the total exclusion of the others.

As we have seen, the Church teaches that God is absolutely immutable; by which is meant that in Him there can be no change whatsoever. St Thomas Aquinas bases the absolute immutability of God on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); and on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection. According to Thomas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and, as such, is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1).

If it is true that these three ‘Persons’ are bound together in such a manner as to form a perfect, and permanent, unicity then how is possible for only one of them to become incarnate; in other words, how is it possible for the ‘hypostatic union’ to have occurred without violating the doctrine of God’s absolute immutability?

Second:

There are certain ‘intrinsically impossible’ things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. St Thomas Aquinas writes: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

C.S. Lewis (a Trinitarian) writes: ‘(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.

‘Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can."… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.’ (‘The Problem of Pain’).

Please take note of the words: ‘It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives.’ This is a reference to the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one and the same time. This law tends to be ignored by Trinitarians when discussing the Trinity, or the natures of God and Christ; indeed, I have heard Trinitarians deny that such a law exists. The Persian philosopher, Avicenna, said: ‘Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.’ (Metaphysics, I.8; commenting on Aristotle).

God cannot do anything that would be logically impossible. He cannot, for example, create a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; for in the statement that a man is a donkey ‘the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.’ (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

According to Christian theology, the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ became flesh and will remain flesh forever. However, this ‘Person’ is said to have remained spirit, and will always be spirit. In other words, this ‘Person’ is both flesh and not-flesh (spirit is not flesh) at one at the same time. This makes the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ a logical contradiction.

As we have seen, the Church teaches that Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) is ‘wholly man and wholly God’; and that this condition is ongoing, and permanent. There is another way of expressing this teaching: Yeshua is both wholly man and wholly not-man (God, after all, is not a man); and he will always be both wholly man and wholly not-man.

If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (God) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

Two logical contradictions that dwell in the very heart of Trinitarian Christianity.

The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation. To believe in a logical contradiction, therefore, is problematic.

Not even God can flout the law of non-contradiction. For example, He cannot be finite and at the same time infinite; absolutely immutable and at the same time changeable; omnipotent and at the same time powerless.

Conclusion:

The Church attempts to resolve the first problem by stating that the ‘hypostatic union’ is a: ‘Mystery of faith, the reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation…. Pope Leo the Great says: "That both substances unite themselves in one Person no speech can explain if Faith does not hold fast to it".’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; Page 152). In over sixty years as a (Trinitarian) Christian I never came across any solution to the second problem. It may well exist, but it’s very elusive; truly a ‘mystery of faith’.

On a personal note: It was this second problem that turned me away from Christianity....a protracted, and painful, process...the gradual loss of that which I had long held to be true. By no means easy.

 

[DWA2DAY]

Did you know the trinity is mentioned in the Quran?