Jesus.. Islam.. Trinity

[Niblo]

• the word of God made flesh (Qur'an 4:171; Qur'an 3:45)...

• 
  
• By way of clarification:

‘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 – 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 the such a soul.

And then 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.

Al‘Imran 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 (Radi Allahu ‘anhu) is indeed a word from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and that word is ‘Be’; the command that brought him – and everything else – into being.

Yeshua is both prophet and Messiah; but, as you know, nowhere in the Qur’an is he referred to as God.

 

[setst777]

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 – any spoken word....

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

Qur'an 4:171 O people of the Book, be not excessive in your Faith, and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The MasīH ‘Īsā, the son of Maryam, is only a Messenger of Allah, and His Word that He had delivered to Maryam, and a spirit from Him. [Surah An-Nisa - 171]

"and His word" is a pronoun that refers back to the noun, "Messiah."

Not necessarily the spoken word, as you say.

The Messiah is His Word.

Qur'an 3:45 (Remember the time) when the angels said: “O Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him whose name is MasīH ‘Īsā , the son of Maryam (the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary) a man of status in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those who are near (to Allah)
- Mufti Taqi Usmani

"of a word (noun) from Him", whose name will be the Messiah.

"a word from Him" (noun) is identified as the Messiah (noun).

The name of that "word" is Messiah.

"A word from Him" is "Messiah."

Yeshua (Radi Allahu ‘anhu) is indeed a word from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and that word is ‘Be’; the command that brought him – and everything else – into being.

If "a word from Him" refers to 'Be,' that would not make sense...

For instance:

"Be" from Him", whose name will be the Messiah.

How does that make sense?

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 the such a soul.

I don't believe that the Qur'an teaches anywhere that a person, other than Messiah, is the Spirit from God. Show me where ‘rūḥ’ is applied to any man other than Messiah.

Yeshua is both prophet and Messiah; but, as you know, nowhere in the Qur’an is he referred to as God.

True.

 

[hedrick]

Qur'an 4:171 O people of the Book, be not excessive in your Faith, and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The MasīH ‘Īsā, the son of Maryam, is only a Messenger of Allah, and His Word that He had delivered to Maryam, and a spirit from Him. [Surah An-Nisa - 171]

"and His word" is a pronoun that refers back to the noun, "Messiah."

Not necessarily the spoken word, as you say.

The Messiah is His Word.

Qur'an 3:45 (Remember the time) when the angels said: “O Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him whose name is MasīH ‘Īsā , the son of Maryam (the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary) a man of status in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those who are near (to Allah)
- Mufti Taqi Usmani

"of a word (noun) from Him", whose name will be the Messiah.

"a word from Him" (noun) is identified as the Messiah (noun).

The name of that "word" is Messiah.

"A word from Him" is "Messiah."



If "a word from Him" refers to 'Be,' that would not make sense...

For instance:

"Be" from Him", whose name will be the Messiah.

How does that make sense?



I don't believe that the Qur'an teaches anywhere that a person, other than Messiah, is the Spirit from God. Show me where ‘rūḥ’ is applied to any man other than Messiah.



True.

When discussing Islam it is useless to propose readings of the Quran that Muslims don’t actually use, even if we could somehow show that it’s what Mohammed actually meant.

 

[Niblo]

@setst777

‘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 from Him’ ((Al-Nisa: 171).

In answer to my statement that ‘wakalimatuhu’ refers to a spoken word you write:

‘"and His word" is a pronoun that refers back to the noun, "Messiah."

‘Not necessarily the spoken word, as you say.’

‘wakalimatuhu’ contains the noun ‘kalim’, meaning ‘word’. It is derived from the root ‘kāf lām mīm’, from which is derived ‘kallama’ (he spoke) and ‘kalām’ (speech, speaking). In the Qur’an, all of these terms are used when referring to the speech of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla).

As directed to Adam:

‘Then Adam received some words (‘kalimātin’) from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful.’ (Al-Baqara:37).

As directed to Abraham:

‘When Abraham’s Lord tested him with certain words (‘bikalimātin’)*, which he fulfilled, He said, ‘I will make you a leader of people.’ Abraham asked, ‘And will You make leaders from my descendants too?’ God answered, ‘My pledge does not hold for those who do evil.’ (Al-Baqara:124).

* Here ‘bikalimātin’ can also be rendered: ‘with commandments’

As directed to the Exalted’s servants and prophets:

‘Our word (‘kalimatunā’) has already been given to Our servants the messengers: it is they who will be helped, and the ones who support Our cause will be the winners.’ (Al-Saffat: 171-173).

As directed to Mary:

‘And Mary, daughter of Imran. She guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her from Our spirit (‘rūḥinā’). She accepted the truth of her Lord’s words (‘bikalimāti’) and Scriptures: she was truly devout.’ (Tahrim: 12)

As directed to the disbelievers:

And He made the word (‘kalimata’) of those who disbelieve to be the lowliest, and the word (‘wakalimatu’) of Allāh is the highest. And God is Mighty, Wise.’ (Al-Tawba: 40).

In the following posts (in šāʾ Allāh), I shall show that the ‘word directed to Mary’ was ‘Be’ (‘kun’); a divine decree – a command, and not an incarnation – that brought into being Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

Let’s return to what you wrote in Post 20:

‘……the Qur'an teaches that Lord Jesus was……the word of God made flesh.’ (My emphasis).,

Any Christian reading this – and I was one for over sixty years – might suppose that the Qur’an supports the author of the Fourth Gospel, who claims that ‘The Word became flesh’ (1:14); a claim that led – eventually – to the Council of Chalcedon, and its declaration that: ‘With one accord we confess one and the same Son, our lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God, and the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature. (Denzinger: ‘Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum; Number 148’).

The Qur’an does not support this dogma; nor does it teach (as you have claimed) that Yeshua was ‘the word of God made flesh.’

In the Qur’an, the divine decree – ‘Be’ (‘kun’)! – creates Yeshua; brings into being – in the virgin womb of Mary – that which the Creator intended. The decree itself did not – and does not ever – become flesh.

The late Geoffrey Parrinder – one time Professor of the Comparative Study of Religion in the University of London; and the founder member of the Department of Religious Studies in University College of Ibadan Nigeria – writes:

‘According to the Qur’ān the birth of Jesus would be brought about by the plain but all-powerful word of God. ‘He simply saith, “Be (kun)!” and it is.’ The might of the divine speech and decree is a principal theme of the Qur’ān. It is in accord with the Biblical view of the creation, where ‘God spoke, and it was done’. For this reason no doubt the birth of Jesus is compared with that of Adam, both were by divine decree and power (see 2, 110)." (‘Jesus in the Qur'an – Makers of the Muslim World’).

Parrinder is referring to sūrah Al‘Imran: 47:

‘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.’

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘It is He who created the heavens and the earth for a true purpose. On the Day when He says, ‘Be,’ (‘kun’) it will be: His word is the truth.’ (Al-An‘am: 73)

Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘God created the heavens and the earth in truth, that is, in accordance with the nature of reality and with purpose rather than in play or in vain; this can also indicate that the world He has created is in itself good, not evil, and created in goodness. This sentence can also be read, “He it is Who created the heavens and the earth with the Truth,” that is, with His Word, for His Word is the Truth, as when He says (to something), “Be!” and it is, or when He creates the heavens and the earth by calling them to Himself.’

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) also says:

‘Truly the likeness of Jesus in the sight of Allāh is that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” and he was’’ (Al‘Imran: 59).

Shaykh Nasr writes:

‘This verse constitutes one of the central arguments in the Quran against the divinity of Christ. It acknowledges the miraculous nature of his birth, but rejects the implication that this makes him Divine. If God could create Adam, who had neither earthly father nor mother, from dust, he could also create Jesus from the “blood” of Mary. The word likeness means that certain attributes of Adam and Jesus are alike. Regarding the Divine fiat Be! …..see 2:117c.’

Here is Al-Baqara: 117:

‘He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is.’

Shaykh Nasr comments:

‘…….all that is necessary to bring a thing into being is for God to say Be!

‘For some commentators such as al-Rāzī, the command Be! is meant to convey the ease and power by which God creates, requiring no preparation, practice, or effort.

‘Be! (kun) also corresponds to the Biblical fiat lux (“Let there be light,” Genesis 1:3) and serves to emphasize the fact that the existence of everything comes from God and His Will and that human beings do not have the power to bring anything into being out of nothing.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

You would have to explain how the divine decree – ‘kun’, an imperative verb that brings all things into being – becomes that which it creates.

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

You write:

‘I don't believe that the Qur'an teaches anywhere that a person, other than Messiah, is the Spirit from God. Show me where ‘rūḥ’ is applied to any man other than Messiah.’

How about this:

‘Such is He who knows all that is unseen as well as what is seen, the Almighty, the Merciful, who gave everything its perfect form. He first created man from clay, then made his descendants from an extract of underrated fluid. Then He moulded him; He breathed from His Spirit (‘rūḥihi’) into him; He gave you hearing, sight, and minds. How seldom you are grateful! (Al-Sajda: 6-9).

Commenting on these verses, Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘The clay from which Adam and, by extension, all human beings were created is variously described as being like potter’s clay (55:14); dried clay, made of moulded mud (15:26); a draught of clay (23:12); and viscous clay (37:11). These different forms of clay can be seen as describing stages of human creation: from dust (3:59), to viscous clay, to moulded mud, to dried clay, like earthen vessels (55:14), at which point it is ready for the spirit to be blown into it, as in v. 9.’ (The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

The Shaykh then references the following:

‘Your Lord said to the angels, ‘I will create a man from clay. When I have shaped him and breathed from My spirit (‘rūḥī’) into him, bow down before him.’ (Sad: 72).

And again:

‘Your Lord said to the angels, ‘I will create a mortal out of dried clay, formed from dark mud. When I have fashioned him and breathed My spirit (‘rūḥī’) into him, bow down before him,’ (Al-Hijr: 29).

The Shaykh continues:

‘Breathed into him of His Spirit indicates that God made Adam, who had been inanimate, into a living conscious being. The Spirit can also be understood to represent the bestowal or activation of the intellect by which human beings control hearing, sight, and hearts.’ (The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Imam al-Ghazali writes that one’s ‘rūḥ’ (spirit) is:

‘The subtle, knowing, conscious substance of the human being, which we have explained is one of the meanings of the heart… It is a wondrous, heavenly matter.’ (‘Iḥyā’ Ulūm al-Dīn’).

Abdur Rashid Siddiqui writes:

‘Rūḥ (pl. Arwāḥ) means soul, spirit, and breath (of life). It is the immaterial and immortal element of a human being…………… By this act (the creation of Adam), a divine spark was breathed into a human being, which enlightened his faculties and thus made him the noblest of all creation. This elevates humans and gives them superiority over other creatures.’ (‘Qur'anic Keywords: A Reference Guide’).

The ‘rūḥ’ breathed into Adam did not make him divine; any more than it did Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām); any more that it does any human being.

Finally:

‘Say, “He is Allāh the One, Allāh the eternal. He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to Him.”’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ikhlas’; my emphasis).

 

[setst777]

setst stated:
‘……the Qur'an teaches that Lord Jesus was……the word of God made flesh.’ (My emphasis).,

@setst777

The Qur’an does not support this dogma; nor does it teach (as you have claimed) that Yeshua was ‘the word of God made flesh.’

In the Qur’an, the divine decree – ‘Be’ (‘kun’)! – creates Yeshua; brings into being – in the virgin womb of Mary – that which the Creator intended. The decree itself did not – and does not ever – become flesh.

Hi Niblo,

Thank you for taking time to reply to my post.

I agree that Islam does not teach that the word of God became flesh.

I agree that the Qur’an does not specifically state that Messiah is the Word of God in the flesh.

However, in all honesty and integrity, as I am clearly reading the Qur’an, here is what I learn:

Distinct from God calling into being (‘kun’) that which was conceived in Mary, the Messiah himself, whom God called into being (‘kun’), is himself, called, 'Word of God.' The Word of God is, by nature, eternal.

Qur'an 4:171 O people of the Book, be not excessive in your Faith, and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The MasīH ‘Īsā, the son of Maryam, is only a Messenger of Allah, and His Word that He had delivered to Maryam, and a spirit from Him.

Qur'an 3:45 (Remember the time) when the angels said: “O Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him whose name is MasīH ‘Īsā , the son of Maryam (the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary) a man of status in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those who are near (to Allah)

So although Islam does not teach that the Word of God became flesh, and the Qur’an does not specifically state this, I do understand, from reading these verses that God called Messiah into being (‘kun), and this Messiah, whom God called into being in Mary’s womb, is called: Word of God.

The reasonable and logical outcome, although not stated, is that:

Since the Messiah came in the flesh, and Messiah is the Word of God, then the Word of God became flesh.

Since the Word of God is eternal, then the origin of Messiah is eternal, being the Word of God, although Messiah’s earthly physical nature is a humble man, that of a servant.

‘rūḥ’

‘I don't believe that the Qur'an teaches anywhere that a person, other than Messiah, is the Spirit from God. Show me where ‘rūḥ’ is applied to any man other than Messiah.’

Y ‘Such is He who knows all that is unseen as well as what is seen, the Almighty, the Merciful, who gave everything its perfect form. He first created man from clay, then made his descendants from an extract of underrated fluid. Then He moulded him; He breathed from His Spirit (‘rūḥihi’) into him; He gave you hearing, sight, and minds. How seldom you are grateful! (Al-Sajda: 6-9).

I am familiar with the verse; however, that verse says that God breathed His spirit into him. The verse does not state that Adam is a spirit from God.

The Messiah is unique in that he was

• born of a virgin,
• sinless,
• the only Messiah,
• raised bodily alive to be with God,
• God’s Word
• spirit from God
• Messiah had status in this world
• Messiah has status in the Hereafter

Qur’an 4:171 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.

Qur'an 3:45 (Remember the time) when the angels said: “O Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him whose name is MasīH ‘Īsā , the son of Maryam (the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary) a man of status in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those who are near (to Allah)

Qur’an 4:157-158
157 And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
158 Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

‘Say, “He is Allāh the One, Allāh the eternal. He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to Him.”’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ikhlas’; my emphasis).

I agree that neither the Qur’an, nor Islam in general, nor Christianity, claims that Messiah was not begotten in the way the Qur’an defines that “begotten,” which is: a physical relationship, as through intercourse, between God and Mary.

Niblo, this is my honest reply as I read the Qur'an.

Blessings

 

[Niblo]

@setst777

Thank you for your courteous reply.

I doubt neither your honesty nor your integrity.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) tells us of the annunciation of the Prophet John:

‘There and then Zachariah prayed to his Lord, saying, “Lord, from Your grace grant me virtuous off-spring: You hear every prayer.” The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary, “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming a word from Allāh (‘bikalimatin mina l-lahi’). He will be noble and chaste, a prophet, one of the righteous.” He said, “My Lord, how can I have a son when I am so old and my wife is barren?” (An angel) said, “It will be so: Allāh does whatever He will.”’ (Al‘Imran: 28-40).

Compare with verse 45:

‘The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word from Him (‘bikalimatin min'hu’), 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 God.’

You will see that both John and Yeshua (Radi Allahu ‘anhum) are referred to as a ‘kalimatin min Allah’ – a ‘word from Allāh.’

In the case of Yeshua, it was Allāh’s command that brought him into being, rather that the intervention of a human father. In the case of John, it was Allāh’s command that brought him into being in the normal manner.

Nothing comes into being without the Exalted’s divine decree. This being so, every one of us is a ‘kalimatin min Allah’.

May the Beloved reward you for your honesty and integrity; and may He keep you, and all you love, safe in these trouble times.

 

[setst777]

@setst777
Compare with verse 45:

The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary, “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming a word from Allāh (‘bikalimatin mina l-lahi’).
(Al‘Imran: 28-40)

The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word from Him (‘bikalimatin min'hu’), whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,
(Al‘Imran: 28-40)

Hi Niblo,

Thank you again for your reply.

As I compare the two verses in your response, particularly the parts of the verses that directly compare to one another, I can definitely see the similarities. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I have suspicions though regarding the differences in words used. Please consider my full response, and you will see that my suspicious are not frivolous or intended to deny the obvious. I welcome your reply.

Regarding similarities between verses, even in our Christian Scriptures, we see similarities between verses, but we must not neglect the subtle, but potentially striking, differences as well that give the verses different meanings. This may be the case in these two verses as well.

Another instance we discussed regards ‘rūḥ’ (spirit). While the similarities can not be denied between the verse regarding Adam and that regarding the Messiah, the one regarding Adam, states that God breathed His spirit into Adam. The subtle difference between that verse and the one regarding Messiah, is that Messiah is actually called a spirit from God.

So to, we see similar language between Qur'an 3:39 and Qur'an 3:45, but also a striking difference that seems to suggest a different meaning and purpose.

Qur'an 3:39 The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary, “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming a word from Allāh (‘bikalimatin mina l-lahi’).

Qur'an 3:45 The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word from Him (‘bikalimatin min'hu’), whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,

The similarities are obvious, but the differences in language are puzzling.

Considering that these verses are so close to each other, I offer you a possible explanation for the difference in words used.

Could it be that John's mission or purpose is to confirm a word from Allah.

What word from Allah?

That word from Allah is Messiah, whom John was to point to and proclaim as Messiah, thus confirming that word from Allah.

Qur'an 3:39 The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary, “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming a word from Allāh (‘bikalimatin mina l-lahi’).

What news (information) of John was God meaning to convey? John was to confirm a word from Allah. Which word? That word, being Messiah.

Qur'an 3:45 The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word from Him (‘bikalimatin min'hu’), whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,

The news regarding John was that he would confirm Messiah as a Word from Allah.

Blessings.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is the Islamic position on Jesus fundamentally different from a non-trinitarian Christian view?

As others have noted, it depends entirely on which non-Trinitarian view one is talking about. There are a lot of non-Trinitarian views, and they are frequently as different from one another as they are to the orthodox Christian view.

Unitarianism, or as it was called in antiquity, Monarchianism, was a view that held that God the Father alone is God; however there were two very different kinds of Monarchianism:

Dynamic Monarchanism, also called Adoptionism, was the position of the third century Paul of Samosata, who taught that the one God--the Father--adopted Jesus as His only-begotten Son, and thus exalted Jesus to the status of divinity, or perhaps quasi-divine status.

Modalistic Monarchanism, also called Modalism or Sabelianism after its most well known proponent, Sabellius. Sabellius as well as others such as Noetus and Praxeas, taught that the one God (the Father) Himself took on flesh as Jesus. As such according to Sabellius it was as though the one God expressed Himself in various modes, a single divine hypostasis (or "person") who could wear multiple "faces" (Greek: prosopa, theater-masks). In that sense God was like an actor in a Greek drama who could change roles, change "persons" by putting on a different mask to present Himself to the audience (that is, human beings, us). Jesus is, in this sense, the human expression of God, God placing a role in a theatrical drama.

Arianism is among the most famous of the ancient non-Trinitarian heresies, because it was the catalyst that resulted in the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church at Nicea in 325 AD. Arius taught that there was the one Uncreated and Unbegotten God, the Father, whose first creative act was to make the Word, the Son of God begotten and created by the Father before all things who was then the instrument, the agent, of Divine Creation. Jesus is regarded as divine in Arianism, but a secondary, junior God. Thus Arianism attests to the existence of two Gods: The unbegotten Father, uncreated; and the only-begotten Son, created by the Father. Arians could call Jesus "God" but they meant Jesus was a lesser, secondary, distinct God from the Father.

Here is an Arian confession of faith, specifically the confession of the Arian bishop Wulfila (Ulfilas) as preserved in the letter of his student Auxentius,

"I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: 'Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high.' And again: 'And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit.' 'Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father." (Source)

Oneness Pentecostalism (often just called "Oneness" when referring to this particular belief) is a modern non-Trinitarian teaching, a position that emerged early in the history of Pentecostalism, in which it was claimed by revelation that the "name" mentioned in Matthew chapter 28 where Jesus says to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" is "Jesus". Thus Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus is the name of God, the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are merely ways to describe the one God, Jesus. Jesus is the Father, who came down from heaven as the Son, and then who after ascending has come to dwell as the Holy Spirit. It is very similar, but not necessarily identical, to the Sabellian or Modalistic position described earlier.

The non-Trinitarian view(s) that are probably somewhat more compatible with the Muslim views about Jesus would be closer to the Ebionite view, though with major differences. Like Muslims the Ebionites believed that Jesus was an ordinary human being, the Messiah, but a purely and entirely human Messiah. However the Ebionites denied the Virgin Birth (in contrast to Muslims who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus); likewse the Ebionites believed Jesus was crucified and God rose Jesus from the dead; whereas Islam teaches that Jesus did not suffer death, and will not experience resurrection until the final days.

I'm not aware of any non-Trinitarian group that completely agrees with the Muslim view or vice versa. One could take apart several non-Trinitarian positions and re-assemble them to look like the Muslimi view, but it still wouldn't be the same. For example the ancient Docetists denied that Jesus was crucified, but that's because they believed Jesus had no physical body at all, Jesus was pure specter, a spirit, that could take on any form it wished to take, or no form at all. The aforementioned Ebionites believed Jesus was a purely mortal human who did not pre-exist His conception/birth, but also did not believe in the virgin birth. Some non-Trinitarians held to a Unitarian or Monarchian view of God, but still regarded Jesus to be divine (e.g. Modalism, Arianism).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Is the Islamic position on Jesus fundamentally different from a non-trinitarian Christian view?

I'd recommend watching some David Wood & Nabeel Qureshi videos on the subject. From what I can recall, Muhammed thought the trinity was Father, Son and Mary. Which is obvious incorrect, but also something of an embarrassment for the the church of his time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd recommend watching some David Wood & Nabeel Qureshi videos on the subject. From what I can recall, Muhammed thought the trinity was Father, Son and Mary. Which is obvious incorrect, but also something of an embarrassment for the the church of his time.

There was [maybe] an ancient heretical sect known as the Collyridians, the early Christian heresiologist Epiphanius places this group in pre-Islamic Arabia. The doctrine for which they were most infamous was that they held the Virgin Mary to be divine, and she was worshiped as a goddess; which is why they were condemned as heretics.

While the subject of the Collyridians is a continued matter of debate among modern scholars, but it is entirely possible that the source for this issue may have been the continued presence of Collyridian, or Collyridian-like teaching thus giving a false impression about what mainstream Christians believe. This is, of course, not certain; but it does provide a possible explanation.

Collyridianism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[setst777]

There was [maybe] an ancient heretical sect known as the Collyridians, the early Christian heresiologist Epiphanius places this group in pre-Islamic Arabia. The doctrine for which they were most infamous was that they held the Virgin Mary to be divine, and she was worshiped as a goddess; which is why they were condemned as heretics.

While the subject of the Collyridians is a continued matter of debate among modern scholars, but it is entirely possible that the source for this issue may have been the continued presence of Collyridian, or Collyridian-like teaching thus giving a false impression about what mainstream Christians believe. This is, of course, not certain; but it does provide a possible explanation.

Collyridianism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

Apparently then, the God of Islam, according to His eternal word, the Qur'an, was mislead, possibly by a heretical cult, into believing that the Christians promoted a trinity of three Gods: Father, Son, and Mary. If that is the case then, the God of the Qur'an was very mistaken.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apparently then, the God of Islam, according to His eternal word, the Qur'an, was mislead, possibly by a heretical cult, into believing that the Christians promoted a trinity of three Gods: Father, Son, and Mary. If that is the case then, the God of the Qur'an was very mistaken.

Muhammad prior to his becoming the prophet if Islam was a merchant who traveled throughout the Arabian peninsula; which was at the time a highly diverse region. Christians, Jews, Pagans, and other groups; and there were a lot of Christian groups--orthodox and heretical. As such it seems likely to me that Muhammad encountered a very wide of religious people, with a wide variety of religious opinions. I think that, more than anything, is likely to account for such things as this.

But then I don't believe the Qur'an is divinely inspired; and that it gets God very wrong. The Qur'an is talking about the same God you and I talk about; it's just not a faithful portrait of who God is. At least from our perspective as Christians; as we believe and confess that the faithful portrait of who God is is to be found in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh; and our Scriptures bear witness to this Revelation of God to us in Jesus. Thus we know and meet God as Logos Ensarkos, the Incarnate Word, the only and eternally-begotten Son (who is Himself true God of true God) Jesus Christ our Lord and God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Niblo]

@setst777

As-Salāmu ‘alaykum.

I apologise for the long delay.

You write:

‘Regarding similarities between verses, even in our Christian Scriptures, we see similarities between verses, but we must not neglect the subtle, but potentially striking, differences as well that give the verses different meanings. This may be the case in these two verses as well.

You compare a verse concerning Adam (ʿalayhi as-salām):

‘Your Lord said to the angels, ‘I will create a mortal out of dried clay, formed from dark mud. When I have fashioned him and breathed My spirit (‘rūḥī’) into him, bow down before him,’ (Al-Hijr: 29).

With one concerning Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām):

‘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, directed to Mary, a spirit (‘warūḥun’) from Him.’ (Al-Nisa: 171).

And then write:

‘While the similarities can not be denied between the verse regarding Adam and that regarding the Messiah, the one regarding Adam, states that God breathed His spirit into Adam. The subtle difference between that verse and the one regarding Messiah, is that Messiah is actually called a spirit from God.’

Yeshua – the Messiah – is not ‘called a spirit from God’; he is given a spirit from God – a ‘rūḥ’: that
‘subtle, knowing, conscious substance of the human being….a wondrous, heavenly matter.’ (Imam al-Ghazali: ‘Iḥyā’ Ulūm al-Dīn’; my emphasis).

Each of us has been given a ‘rūḥ’ from our Lord.

We are always going to have problems when we adopt an atomistic interpretation of the Qur’an; when we consider individual words on their own, with little or no heed to their historical or textual context. We need to be mindful of the principle that different parts of the Qur’an explain each other.

The Qur’an rejects – absolutely – any notion that Yeshua is more than a mere human being.

Tilman Nagel – a German Orientalist, and professor Emeritus at the University of Göttingen – writes:

‘I deliberately refrain from rashly pointing out parallels or similarities between Islam and Christianity, because this tends to be misleading. For what do we learn from an analogy which is sometimes made of Christ as the “logos” and the Koran as God’s word? Statements of that kind only feign similarities between Islam and Christianity; the naive European reader is led to believe that Islam has a logos theory comparable to that of Christianity. That is utterly wrong!’ (‘The History of Islamic Theology: From Muhammad to the Present’; my emphasis).

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

You reference the following verses from sūrah ‘Al‘Imran’:

‘The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary, “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming a word from Allāh (‘bikalimatin mina l-lahi’). He will be noble and chaste, a prophet, one of the righteous.”’ (39).

And:

‘The angels said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word from Him (‘bikalimatin min'hu’), 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 God.’ (45).

And then write that we:

‘.. see similar language between (them), but also a striking difference that seems to suggest a different meaning and purpose. The similarities are obvious, but the differences in language are puzzling.
Considering that these verses are so close to each other, I offer you a possible explanation for the difference in words used.

‘Could it be that John's mission or purpose is to confirm a word from Allah?........(the) ‘Messiah, whom John was to point to and proclaim as Messiah, thus confirming that word from Allah.’

This is an interesting notion. Here’s what Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr has to say about it:

‘Confirming a word from God is understood to mean that John will confirm Jesus son of Mary, who is described as a Word from Him in v. 45.’

The Shaykh lists the following supporters of this interpretation: Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Māturīdī (in his ‘Taʾwīlāt ahl al-sunnah’); Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (in his ‘al-Tafsīr al-kabīr’); and Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (in his ‘Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān’).

The Shaykh goes on:

‘To “confirm” means to affirm the truth of something or someone; it is used in many verses to describe the Quran itself as a confirmation of previous revelations (e.g., 2:41; 3:4; 5:48).’ ‘’The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

If al-Māturīdī, al-Rāzī and al-Ṭabarī (and your good self, of course!) are correct, then John was meant to ‘affirm the truth of’ Yeshua; arguably, the principal purpose of John’s life; but the Qur’an says nothing at all about how – if ever – this was done. Interpreters and commentators of the Qur’an are obliged to seek other sources; most notably, the Gospels. The Qur’anic narrative – as they interpret it – is incomplete. It hovers in the air.

For sure, you have big-hitters on your side. However, I am content to disagree; believing that Al‘Imran: 39 speaks only of John. Here’s why:

John’s conception will be the confirmation of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s promise (His word) to Zachariah and his wife; that they shall have a child, in spite of their old age and physical state.

John was ‘noble’; meaning one who is learned, devout, generous, reverent of his Lord.

He was ‘chaste’; meaning one who abstains from illicit sexual relations (whether out of marriage or in).

He was one of the righteous:

‘While he was still a boy, We granted him wisdom, tenderness from Us, and purity. He was devout, kind to his parents, not domineering or rebellious. Peace was on him the day he was born, the day he died, and it will be on him the day he is raised to life again.’ (Maryam: 12-15)

John was tender towards others, a mercy from his Lord; dutiful towards his parents, being neither arrogant nor disobedient (to his Lord or to them). So honourable was his character that each of the three stages of his life – his birth, his death and his resurrection – are (or shall be, in the case of his resurrection) marked with a blessing of ‘Peace’ from his Lord.

He was a prophet:

‘We gave him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, each of whom We guided, as We had guided Noah before, and among his descendants were David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron – in this way We reward those who do good – Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elijah – every one of them was righteous.’ (Al-An‘am: 84-85).

Once we have applied the principle that different parts of the Qur’an explain each other we discover that the narrative of John is complete. It provides all we need in order to know him; to see that he is a worthy exemplar.

John’s narrative parallels Yeshua’s, of course; but with one important omission:

John’s narrative does not contain the word ‘Messiah’.

If verse 39 is truly about Yeshua, then why does it not read: “Allāh gives you news of John, confirming the Messiah…………………..’; after all, Yeshua is identified as such in verse 45?

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) knows best!

Blessings.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has had a small cleaning. Please note that this is NOT the Christian Apologetics forum. Please read and abide by the Statement of Purpose for this forum, which states (among other things):​

Further violations could result in Staff Actions.

ADMIN HAT OFF​

The Christian apologetics forum is closed, any reason why for that?

 

[Niblo]

‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, ‘‘Take me and my mother as two gods (ilāhayni) alongside Allāh’’?’ he will say: ''May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say……”’ (Al-Ma’ida: 116).

We have to understand what is meant by the word ‘ilāhayni’ in the phrase: ‘Take me and my mother as two gods (ilāhayni) alongside Allāh.’

Ilāhayni is derived from the word ilāh, meaning ‘god’; and it can be applied to anyone who usurps the Beloved’s Sovereignty, or flouts His Will; or to anything that is worshipped – in whatever form that might take – before Him; or in place of Him; or in partnership with Him.

When we sin, for example, we make an ilāh of ourselves. We are – in effect – putting ourselves before the Beloved.

Next, we have to ask which ‘people’ took Mary as a ‘god’?

The Catholic Encyclopaedia announces:

‘The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths. Hence Epiphanius laid down the rule: "Let Mary be held in honour. Let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored, but let no one adore Mary" (ten Marian medeis prosknueito).’ (Article entitled: ‘The age of the Fathers’).

I first read of the Collrydians in the late seventies.

Having expressed a desire to enter a Catholic religious community (the Trappists of Mount Saint Bernard Abbey, in Leicester), I was gifted several books, including a copy of Dr Ludwig Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ (I have it still).

On page 216 of that book – in the chapter headed ‘The Veneration of Mary – Ott writes: ‘St Epiphanius teaches in opposition to the sect of the Collyridians whose members paid an idolatrous veneration to Mary (he then quotes from the Saint’s ‘Panarion’).’

Geoffrey Parrinder writes:

'In Arabia there were in the early centuries some (called Antidicomarianites) who protested against the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there were cults, some semi-pagan, which exalted Mary in unseemly fashion. The Collyridians, an Arabian female sect of the fourth century, offered to Mary cakes of bread (collyrida), as they had done to the great earth mother in pagan times. Epiphanius, who opposed this heresy, said that the Trinity must be worshipped, but Mary must not be worshipped. The Qur'ān may well be directed against this heresy. It gives its support against Mariolatry, while at the same time it recognizes the importance of Mary as the vessel chosen by God for the birth of his Christ.' ('Jesus in the Qur'an - Makers of the Muslim World').

The following also affirm the existence of the Collyridians, without qualm: W. Montgomery Watt in his ‘Muhammad at Mecca’; Philip Schaff in his ‘History of the Christian church; Volume 4; , Chapter 3); and William Cook Taylor in his ‘Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations’.

Louay Fatoohi writes:

'I should stress another important point. A common mistake in studying the Qur’an’s discussion of Christian beliefs, including the doctrine of the Trinity, is to suggest that the Qur'an talks about the New Testament only, or simply misunderstands it. The Qur'an rejects particular Christian beliefs, regardless of whether they are found in the New Testament or not. For instance, the Qur'an rejects the worship of Mary, even though Mariolatry is not a New Testament doctrine. The New Testament does not have any special scriptural value outside mainstream Christianity, which was itself defined in the first few centuries after Jesus. The Qur'an is interested in clarifying its positions on doctrines that Christians hold, regardless of the origin of those doctrines. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger before whom similar messengers passed away, and his mother was a saintly woman.' ('Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ').

The whole of sūrah Al-Ma'ida was revealed after the city of Mecca had been taken by the Muslims.

Among the Ka’ba’s three hundred and sixty (or so) idols was a statue (or perhaps an icon) of Mary and her son; placed there by a Christian visitor to the city (in the days before Islam). Every year thereafter, for at least twenty-three years, these idols were made accessible for public worship. During the pilgrimage season, people from all over Arabia (and beyond) would flock to the Ka’ba to pay homage to their gods.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that – over time – Mary and her son came to be regarded by the polytheistic Arabs as gods, alongside their Ka’ba companions. It is possible, therefore, that sūrah is also addressing these same Arabs; is correcting their false belief.

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) destroyed every one of these idols, save that of Mary and her child.

No longer to be considered ‘gods,’ these two are greatly honoured in Islam.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread is closed for review.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[98cwitr]

mod hat on

Thread has been reopened, but with this reminder from the SOP

As an example, you may not answer a seeker or new believer's question with a statement that God is not a Trinity, nor may you state that Jesus was merely a very good, human leader. All replies must help the questioner to understand orthodox Christian beliefs and practices, and the theology on which they are based.

Replies must adhere to the above or your posts will be removed and you may receive further actions as a result. Please respect the rules of this forum.

mod hat off​