Trinity and Islams duality.

[Questions]

God is one in essence yet three in function as Mohammed was a so called prophet, husband and military leader, was he therefore 3 different people or was he one person in essence with three functions?


The trinity can be likend to the following mathematical equations, 1 to the power of 3 or 1x1x1=1, not 1+1+1=3

How does a muslim separate the the word of God from God himself? The Quran is supposedly eternal and had no beginning or end, just like God. Isn't that a bit of a contradition in terms? Two eternal singular truths (quran and al-ilah)(duality) yet one singularity??


It doesn't make philosophical or intellectual sense.

[H2O]

How does a muslim separate the the word of God from God himself? The Quran is supposedly eternal and had no beginning or end, just like God. Isn't that a bit of a contradition in terms? Two eternal singular truths (quran and al-ilah)(duality) yet one singularity??

Can you please show us where in the Quran it states that ?

[KhristosAnesti]

H20:

This is not an issue that can be ascertained with exclusive regard to revelation. Unless you would like to deny the fact that there are logical and philosophical truths in this world.

First of all, why dont you define for us your concept of "The word of God", the attribute itself, the nature of its existence, the correlation between the spiritual reality and the empirical substrate, the relationship between God and the attribute and God and the empirical substrate, the relationship between the preserved tablet the empirical substrate the spiritual attribute and God etc. etc.

Looking forward to an enlightening discussion on this issue.

[Joseph]

H2O....Looking forward to an enlightening discussion on this issue.

H2O.....enlightening discussion, all in same breathe? Tell me you're just kidding.

joseph

[(Omega)]

How does a muslim separate the the word of God from God himself? The Quran is supposedly eternal and had no beginning or end, just like God. Isn't that a bit of a contradition in terms? Two eternal singular truths (quran and al-ilah)(duality) yet one singularity??

Can you please show us where in the Quran it states that ?

ل هذا الناس قد نما قلب بليدة ، وآذانهم ثقيلة من جلسة استماع ، وأعينهم هم قد أغلقوا ، خشية أن هم سوفت لاحظت مع أعينهم ، ويسمع مع آذانهم ، ويفهم مع قلبهم ، ويلتفت ل ي أن يشفيهم

[sardab]

How does a muslim separate the the word of God from God himself? The Quran is supposedly eternal and had no beginning or end, just like God. Isn't that a bit of a contradition in terms? Two eternal singular truths (quran and al-ilah)(duality) yet one singularity??

Kalam (Speech, Communication) is an eternal attribute of God. Qur'an, Gospel and Torah are realizations of this Attribute per His Will.

Think of the example of the seed. The seed contains the tree, or maybe infinite number of trees. In other words, the tree potentially exists in the seed, but it will turn from potential to actual only when the seed finds appropriate conditions.

Likewise, Word of God will appear or will be available when God wills or finds appropriate. They are not eternal in that sense. Only God is eternal.

If that answers your question.

[Loki]

How does a muslim separate the the word of God from God himself? The Quran is supposedly eternal and had no beginning or end, just like God. Isn't that a bit of a contradition in terms? Two eternal singular truths (quran and al-ilah)(duality) yet one singularity??

Kalam (Speech, Communication) is an eternal attribute of God. Qur'an, Gospel and Torah are realizations of this Attribute per His Will.

Think of the example of the seed. The seed contains the tree, or maybe infinite number of trees. In other words, the tree potentially exists in the seed, but it will turn from potential to actual only when the seed finds appropriate conditions.

Likewise, Word of God will appear or will be available when God wills or finds appropriate. They are not eternal in that sense. Only God is eternal.

If that answers your question.

You sound like a hindu my muslim friend. Your attempt at pluralism is shallow. You disregard the internal and external contradictions compared to the religions (judeo-christian) you claim you own.

God's 'tree' (whatever that is) stopped growing after Christ, Jesus was the last and the closure of Judaism... the saviour appeared, salvation my friend! the good news!

theologically there is absolutely no need for islam... Islam throws away judaism and christianity (how then can it be of the same tree?), and replaces it with something rotten and hatefull. practically completely anti-christian/judaism.

God doesn't contradict neither does God throw away 4000 year of divine revelation for it to be replaced by a sexual perverted selfpossessed prophet who destroys all religions that disagree with force, and utterly blasphemes and insults the prophets of Israel and their teachings in words.

[Joseph]

If that answers your question.

I know only God is eternal, and understand the divine unity of God and his Word can only be known by God. No one here has suggested Muslims should and do believe otherwise upon divine unity of Allah and his Word. Christians differ with Muslims on concept of divine speech (itself an issue) not dismiss, Creator makes himself known through their recording. Analogy as tool for teaching the receptive mind and heart are not alien concepts to Christians. And even your ending comment "If that answers your question" is reasonable. However, what do you believe and understand is being asked in the question (particular KhristosAnesti's) on Allah and Quran?

joseph

[sardab]

However, what do you believe and understand is being asked in the question (particular KhristosAnesti's) on Allah and Quran?

We cannot define God or His Attributes. We can know God and His Attributes only through manifestations.

Attributes are considered inevitable, because God is not a dead mass of energy whatsoever. He is Alive, in a way we cannot comprehend. And His Perfectness requires all these Attributes. He always (eternally) had these Attributes, because He was always (eternally) Perfect.

[Joseph]

We cannot define God or His Attributes.

Questions on Allah and Quran were not asking for a comprehensible definition of the incomprehensible nature of God. Quality of the ultimate life, ultimate reality, ultimate conscious, etc, is not the subject nor can be known. We both believe in manifestation of the Word of God notwithstanding the humongous gap in different meaning of the Word. We both say, God has no parts or points, in other words, what is God can only be God or as reject not faith said "God is God." But this is not what Islam holds for Allah and eternal perfect Attributes and Quran. I am not attempting to make you speak on where Muslims are not permitted to speak, just trying to get some understanding on how you see Allah and Quran. If there is nothing more to say, fine, peace be with you.

joseph

[sardab]

I am not attempting to make you speak on where Muslims are not permitted to speak, just trying to get some understanding on how you see Allah and Quran. If there is nothing more to say, fine, peace be with you.

Yes, that was actually all I could say, without limiting any other Muslim who might have more to say.

Peace be with you too.

[john doe]

However, what do you believe and understand is being asked in the question (particular KhristosAnesti's) on Allah and Quran?

We cannot define God or His Attributes. We can know God and His Attributes only through manifestations.

Attributes are considered inevitable, because God is not a dead mass of energy whatsoever. He is Alive, in a way we cannot comprehend. And His Perfectness requires all these Attributes. He always (eternally) had these Attributes, because He was always (eternally) Perfect.

You say he cannot be comprehended, yet you muslims always refer to him as “he” ???????

[Kai Hagbard]

If he is incomprehended (as I believe he is), how come the Koran states:

...For Allah is One God: glory be to him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son...(Sura 4: 171)

Notice the text clarifies not that Allah does not will a son, but Allah is far to exalted to have a son.

If Allah is so exalted that he cannot have a son, are we not ascribing to Allah an inability.

Seems as if the Koran gets stuck in the paradoxical question here: Can God/Allah create an entity or stone which he is unable to lift.

Does this make sense or am I out of my mind?

[sardab]

If he is incomprehended (as I believe he is), how come the Koran states:

...For Allah is One God: glory be to him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son...(Sura 4: 171)

Notice the text clarifies not that Allah does not will a son, but Allah is far to exalted to have a son.

If Allah is so exalted that he cannot have a son, are we not ascribing to Allah an inability.

Seems as if the Koran gets stuck in the paradoxical question here: Can God/Allah create an entity or stone which he is unable to lift.

Does this make sense or am I out of my mind?

Kai, Qur'an is clear. The verse is related to another Attribute of God, Muhalafatun lil havadis, which means God in essence does not resemble His creatures. That means God creates, He does not have son.

It is not a matter of ability. If you see it in terms of ability of God, same paradoxical question may be directed to you. And I guess even by your thinking there are things God would not do. For example, if He can come to Earth in human form, can He also come in the form of a ....... (name the most awkward things you can imagine.)

God is perfect and He does not dwell in imperfect forms. Or things with imperfect nature are not God, because (only) God is God.

[Kai Hagbard]

I think you misunderstood me bro.

I agree with you, I believe that God would never create someone like himself; and certainly as all Christians I do not believe that God has a literal son.

This is were the author of the Koran has failed to grasp Christian doctrine, which in itself is enough to argue that the author of the Koran cannot be an alknowing God.

Sardab wrote:

Kai, Qur'an is clear. The verse is related to another Attribute of God, Muhalafatun lil havadis, which means God in essence does not resemble His creatures. That means God creates, He does not have son.

Kai replies:

I dont see that to be the actual context. The passage clearly stated that God is too exalted to have a son. In this case we are not taking about a created being like a human being, but an actual Son.

Muslims typically believe that the Christian concept teaches God to have had a sexual relationship with Mary, thus the result was a God-son.

This outrules creation, God would utilize the natural means. This is of course blasphemy and Christians deny this concept, but my point is, if God willed so, what could stop him.

Sardab wrote

It is not a matter of ability. If you see it in terms of ability of God, same paradoxical question may be directed to you. And I guess even by your thinking there are things God would not do. For example, if He can come to Earth in human form, can He also come in the form of a ....... (name the most awkward things you can imagine.)

Kai replies:

If God in no way can be associated with the finite realm, then why was he revealed in fire on Mount Sinai? In what sense was the finite Muhammad able to stand face to face with God in the heavenly realm? Why does the Koran describe eyes, hands, etc to Allah? Does Allah really need a throne, or a book? There are many paradoxical questions, right?

And you Sardab, being a finite imperfect being, what gives you the authority to state what God would do and not. Let me repeat myself again, the passage I quoted clearly stated that God is too exalted to have a son, it nowhere stated that he willed not.

As I have also stated, in its context it concerns the Son-of-God issue, which in a Koranic concept seems to imply that God naturally impregnated Mary, thus we are not really considering a mere creation.

Sardab wrote:

God is perfect and He does not dwell in imperfect forms. Or things with imperfect nature are not God, because (only) God is God

Kai replies:

Where in the context does it say that God does not dwell in imperfect forms? That is quite a different issue, right? and now I think we are leaving the Islamic misconcept and getting on the right track.

[sardab]

I think you misunderstood me bro.

I agree with you, I believe that God would never create someone like himself; and certainly as all Christians I do not believe that God has a literal son.

No Kai, we do not think Christians believe God has a literal son as a result of a sexual relationship. The problem is that father and son are of the same essence, and it is this idea what Qur'an rejects, as it is considered ascribing partners to God. By this token, yes, God is far exalted to have a son. He has no equal and no similar, as the creation has.

This is were the author of the Koran has failed to grasp Christian doctrine, which in itself is enough to argue that the author of the Koran cannot be an alknowing God.

Well, I do not think Qur'an ever needs to grasp the Christian doctrine, because it is sent by God. We believe it is actually Christians who are wrong on the nature of God, and nature of Jesus. And Qur'an is a warning.

[john doe]

I think you misunderstood me bro.

I agree with you, I believe that God would never create someone like himself; and certainly as all Christians I do not believe that God has a literal son.

No Kai, we do not think Christians believe God has a literal son as a result of a sexual relationship. The problem is that father and son are of the same essence, and it is this idea what Qur'an rejects, as it is considered ascribing partners to God. By this token, yes, God is far exalted to have a son. He has no equal and no similar, as the creation has.

This is were the author of the Koran has failed to grasp Christian doctrine, which in itself is enough to argue that the author of the Koran cannot be an alknowing God.

Well, I do not think Qur'an ever needs to grasp the Christian doctrine, because it is sent by God. We believe it is actually Christians who are wrong on the nature of God, and nature of Jesus. And Qur'an is a warning.

In Jewish and Christian canons (the original and genuine sources) both personify God.


Genesis 1:27

God created man in his own image

Genesis 3:8

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.



God made a covenant with Abraham and all his predecessors up to the Messiah (all Jew line), do you really expect me to believe he’ll let an Arab pervert (a gentile) seal his covenant with! I don’t think so.

I’d place Mohammed in the same category as John Holmes

[Liberate]

I think you misunderstood me bro.

I agree with you, I believe that God would never create someone like himself; and certainly as all Christians I do not believe that God has a literal son.

No Kai, we do not think Christians believe God has a literal son as a result of a sexual relationship.

The problem is that father and son are of the same essence, and it is this idea what Qur'an rejects

This is a blatant lie which I shall show you:

To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.

sura 6:101
Yusuf Ali

Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

sura 6:101 Shakir

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?

sura 6:101 Pickthall

The Initiator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son, when He never had a mate? He created all things, and He is fully aware of all things.

sura 6:101 Khalifa

It seems whoever concocted the koran had the mentality that allah needed a wife/consort/concubine to have a son, the deep philosophical concept sufis ascribe to the koran flies in the face of what it actually says, remember now it reiterates time and time again this is a simple religion a child can understand:

[41:3] A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;-
[43:3] We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).
[54:17] And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?
[54:22] But We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?
[54:32] And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?
[54:40] And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

Is the belief that allah needs to have sex to have a son not blatant from the quran?

Where is this deep hop scotch sufi plagiarised lies to acribe deep intellectual thought to the koran coming from? when it is simply superstition and common sense of the 7th century, and childish at that. Can you even prove that your sufi brand of islam is the true path of islam? can you prove that the 95% of islam that considers westernised muslims like yourselves as apostates are not telling the truth according to the koran?

Well, I do not think Qur'an ever needs to grasp the Christian doctrine,

It doesn't

because it is sent by God

You mean the same God that changeth not would all of a sudden sanction:

Incest
adultery
fornication
paedophilia
rape
caravan raiding
polygamy

Something He classed as sin in the previous revelations that spanned 4000+ yrs, yet he sanctions all these within 23 years for a megalomaniac prodigy of a prophet frothing at the mouth in an epileptic fit claiming he is receiving divine revelation, yet doesn't have a prophecy to his name??



Not to forget the same God that called the jews the apple of His eye, suddenly now calls them apes and pigs and should be driven to the sea? Would any objective individual think it is the same God?

We believe it is actually Christians who are wrong on the nature of God, and nature of Jesus. And Qur'an is a warning.

a god that abrogates, that sanctions incest, paedophilia, rape, caravan raiding et al, is an insult to believe it is the true God.

[Kai Hagbard]

Sardab wrote:

No Kai, we do not think Christians believe God has a literal son as a result of a sexual relationship. The problem is that father and son are of the same essence, and it is this idea what Qur'an rejects, as it is considered ascribing partners to God. By this token, yes, God is far exalted to have a son. He has no equal and no similar, as the creation has.

Kai replies:

You need to look at the Koranic text again, it clearly condemns the whole idea about God having a son, not just to a human being who is considered equal.

But ok, instead of confusing the matter further, could please explain how as a Muslim you perceive the whole concept in Christianity of God having a son; what do you think we mean by that?


Sardab wrote:

Well, I do not think Qur'an ever needs to grasp the Christian doctrine, because it is sent by God.

Kai replies:

I think we are getting into circulative arguments here (because the is sent by God), probably all Christians on this forum refute that. In fact such a statement proves nothing, and it certainly does explain why the Koran does not need to grasp Christian doctrine, because it attempts.

Secondly, if the Koran does not need to perceive Christian doctrine why is Muhammad and the Muslim enouraged by the Koran to seek guidance from the Christians?

Funny, Muslims are to ask Christians and Jews for guidance, they are to believe these previous Scriptures, yet Christians are nowhere told to believe in a future book or prophet.

Why do I say this? Because you are the one stating that the Koran has no need to grasp Christian doctrine.

Sardab wrote:

We believe it is actually Christians who are wrong on the nature of God, and nature of Jesus. And Qur'an is a warning.

Kai replies:

As I indicated, yeah, it is what you believe; well Christians also believe, so do Hindues, Sikhs and even satanists.

How do you actually know that Christians have got it all wrong, or does this belong to another thread? Well you brought it up.

[sardab]

You always leave me perplexed! I have no wish to continue this debate. Just one final note: 6.101 has nothing that would mean "Christians believe God has a son through a relationship," which was the point.

To the contrary it says, "you say God has a son, how would that be possible when He even has no consort. You would have to believe in a consort too". OR "You say God has a son without a relationship, but if He has a son of the same essence then why not He also have a consort of the same essence. That would be more applicable to the idea of having a son." I'm perplexed with the reach of your mind.

[Kai Hagbard]

Well, Sardab I did ask you a reasonable question: How do you perceive this whole concept of divine son-ship? Literal, metaphorical, symbolical...

[Gnostradamus]

You always leave me perplexed! I have no wish to continue this debate. Just one final note: 6.101 has nothing that would mean "Christians believe God has a son through a relationship," which was the point.

To the contrary it says, "you say God has a son, how would that be possible when He even has no consort. You would have to believe in a consort too". OR "You say God has a son without a relationship, but if He has a son of the same essence then why not He also have a consort of the same essence. That would be more applicable to the idea of having a son." I'm perplexed with the reach of your mind.

Why would God need a consort in order to have a son? Didn't Mary have a son without the need for a consort?

[Kai Hagbard]

I think you have been debunked Sardab (again).

[Joseph]

I have no wish to continue this debate.

And that is understandable. Argument began with false dilemma that was imposed upon you and you answered with an equal. Under those conditions the debate never stood a chance of having purpose. Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out, what is the issue here. All in all, quote above is the wisest of all words spoken on the matter. Peace be with you.

joseph

[Kai Hagbard]

Well...

Anyway this is becoming childish...

[Joseph]

Kai,

Q4:171 is widely held by Muslims as the strength of their argument to mainstream Christianity belief of the true God; Instead, is nothing more than same inadequate Quranic definition of trinity. However, from your argument, some Muslims will mistakenly gather you are defending a Maryamite belief. Here, I please ask you take a few minutes to read Sam Shamoun's article http://answeringislam.org.uk/Responses/ ... /t5_73.htm Peace be with you.

joseph

[Kai Hagbard]

Joseph wrote:

Kai,

Q4:171 is widely held by Muslims as the strength of their argument to mainstream Christianity belief of the true God;

Kai replies:

agree

Joseph wrote:

Instead, is nothing more than same inadequate Quranic definition of trinity.

Kai replies:

I did not really get this????

Joseph wrote:

However, from your argument, some Muslims will mistakenly gather you are defending a Maryamite belief.

Kai replies:

I think you are correct, you are totally out of touch concerning the topic.

We are not debating Marynism, and I am certainly not defending it, that should be quite obvious. It surprises me you derived at that conclusion.

In fact nothing within the last posts, if I am correct even mentions the Maryamite belief.

We have been touching one basic issue; is God unable to produce a literal son, because he does not will so or because he is incapable. Sadly the topic was sidetracked whether God had a sexual relationship with Mary, which obviously both Christians and Muslims consider blasphemy.

Joseph wrote

Here, I please ask you take a few minutes to read Sam Shamoun's article http://answeringislam.org.uk/Responses/ ... /t5_73.htm Peace be with you.

Kai replies:

All respect to Sam Shamoun, he is one of the greatest Christians apologists we have in dealing with Muslim missionaries (how many would be able to totally mob the floor with Shabir Ally in their first debate, ever?)

But again I don't really see what the article has got to do with the topic?

[Joseph]

I did not really get this????....

....But again I don't really see what the article has got to do with the topic?

Instead: used to indicate the what follows in place of something previously mentioned.

I am under impression my replies are taken as debating with you. This is far from true. I was simply pointing out why your argument was unsound. As far as Sardab was concerned, your argument was in support of the heretical belief in child of God from wife of God (God forbid), not mentioning the Maryamites hardly factors as difference. And his rebuttals were within pertinent issue of the verse you selected. This should have been obvious when you need clarify, procreation is not an orthodox Christianity belief. Furthermore, Sardab has the right to answer from priori concept, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. Peace be with you.

joseph

[Alpha]

procreation is not an orthodox Christianity belief.

Procreation IS an orthodox Christianity belief.

[Joseph]

Procreation IS an orthodox Christianity belief.

I do not where but there must be something I did not make clear, Alpha. Because in no way, shape or form, do I take your statement to mean The Son was procreated; God forbid.

joseph

[Alpha]

Procreation IS an orthodox Christianity belief.

I do not where but there must be something I did not make clear, Alpha. Because in no way, shape or form, do I take your statement to mean The Son was procreated; God forbid.

joseph

I'm not talking about the procreation of Christ, who is the Alpha and Omega.

[Joseph]

...Christ, who is the Alpha and Omega.

This was without doubt, and I had already spoke for you on the non-issue. So, I must have said something that stuck a burr under your saddle. Please accept my humble apology for whatever may agitated you.

regards, joseph

[john doe]

It’s good to hear from you again Alpha, it’s been awhile, only a couple of post and you already displayed your undisputed trademark