Muslim Defends Against Trinity

Paris Bontrager · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 311

One Muslim's struggle against the Trinity.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/incarnate.htm

Paris

Owen · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 24

Salam Paris,

Please read articles from the other side, and make your conclusion after.

Translation errors of words "Son" and "Servant"
http://www.answering-christianity.com/son_translation.htm

It's unfortunate that the Bible underwent so many translations - as they proved to be somewhat innocent but fatal mistakes.

And, here's Jesus' message of Muhammad's coming:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm

EDIT: Forgot to add this other argument.
http://bismikaallahuma.org/Jesus/deny.htm

God knows Best.
Take care.
_________________
And Allah SWT is the best of planners

Mersk · Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Posts: 5764

Allaha the deceiver, not the planner, conveniently forgotten to tell Muslims that in the Naruq Ishmael was a wild man whom all brothers would laid their hands on him is mentioned in the OT and, repeated again in the NT a false prophet who'd come after Isa in his image he'd manifest to deceive People with his Holey Book. Then again we all know Allaha the Great deceiver is always good at lying to itself and in turn help his members, the Satanic followers, to do likewise at deceiving themselves.

Allaha as a "God" is indeed a great deceiver. Didn't Allaha have anything to say about Buddha whom Isa was purported to learn his "Middle Path" in the choices of life and the true choice of a Religion to reach the Almighty. Allaha Akbar...the True Deceiver.

Paris Bontrager · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 311

Hi Owen,

I don't find the "translation errors of words 'Son' and 'Servant'" argument very convincing with regard to Hebrew, because the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. If a word means "servant" in Hebrew, I would not put much stock in that.

Jesus as God the Son plays a subordinate role to God the Father, and it would not be unusual to use the Greek word "pais" that means son or servant in a particular context with regard to the Son's relation to the Father. Most of the Greek words for 'son' in the New Testament do not have the ambiguity of "pais," however. In my NIV version of the New Testament, Peter, in Acts, says, "When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways." Here the word "pais" is translated by many Biblical translations, but not all, as "servant." Some translate it as "Son." But even if Peter's intended meaning was "servant" in that context, we know that Peter believed that Jesus was the son of God. He said so in Matthew 16:16. Jesus asked His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." Note that Jesus says this was a revelation to Peter from the Father of Jesus in heaven, and remember, Muslims say that Jesus is a prophet of God, and was sinless. Jesus would not and could not lie about that revelation, as surely Muslims must agree. Also note that Jesus says, "my Father," not "our Father," clearly indicating that he is the direct Son of God, not a son of God, as might be said of men in general. As Muslims would confirm, Jesus as a prophet would not lie about being the Son of God, as that would be blasphemy to tell a lie like that; nor would Jesus praise someone for describing Him as the Son of God if it were not true.

The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy. If Jesus did not set himself up as God or the Son of God, what was the blasphemy for which the Jews wanted to kill him? John: 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

In other passages, Jesus talks about the relationship between himself and God using the words, "the Son" and "the Father," e.g., "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father." Only a divine Son could bring glory to the Father. If He is not the Son of God, what is He talking about? It does not matter at all to the truth of Jesus being the Son of God whether or not other ancient religions had myths about people being sons of God, because Jesus was a true prophet, according to the Quran. If Jesus described the relationship between himself and God as one between "the Son" and "the Father," then it must be true that He had that relationship with the Father, and that fact is not an adopted myth from some older, pagan religion, but a true fact of Islam.

Paris

Righteous · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject:

Owen · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 24

Salam

http://www.tims.net/bible/nkjv/acts-3.htm

13: ..glorified His Servant Jesus..
26: ..raised up His Servant Jesus..

Look in the other chapters too. I don't have much time going thru them, but I see alot of GOD's "Servant Jesus". The bible is changing, yet again. Isn't a Son and a Servant completely different in our understanding of English.

Also, Jesus spoke mainly Ancient Aramaic, but speculated to may have also spoken Greek. Aramaic and Hebrew belongs to the same group (Semitic) and share lots of similarities as opposed to Aramaic vs Greek.

Translation to Greek began 200AD. This is a fact, historians and scholars have all agreed on this.

For the sake of accuracy, we should consider his mother tongue i.e. Aramaic - his chosen language to preach.
_________________
And Allah SWT is the best of planners

Halal Pork · Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 760 Location: Porkistan

Paris Bontrager · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 311

Owen said,

Owen · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 24

..Bismillah...

Salam Paris,

Initially I wanted you to read the argument from the "other" side of things. Since you link from answeringislam, so it's only appropriate that I replied you with a link from answeringchristianity.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on the New Testament's history of translations. And I wouldn't say that I've reached my goal reading enough materials on it. So, if I'm wrong about the translation errors, I'm fine with that.

However I did read the link from answeringislam you provided. From a Muslim's point of view, it wasn't particularly interesting. My conclusion is that the author has not done his research to his fullest. Or possibly the author is a fake.

The bit where he argued that Quran "thought" that Trinity was God + Jesus + Maryam, this particular topic gave him away.

MISTAKES:
Mr. Ibrahim appears not to understand or speak the Arab language as he quotes no Arabic in his investigations. A real scholar of a Quran, not necessarily a Muslim, needs to have good knowledge of Arabic (Quranic-arabic as well).

Also, he derived his answers by reading the Quran himself. Within his investigations - he links to "Discrepancies in Quran" article, which he also authored, without challenging the masses of information that proves the Quran lacks such discrepancies. He also makes no mention of the Muslim scholars whom he supposedly challenged.

Allah Knows Best.

PS: I'll only be back here this coming weekend. See you then.
_________________
And Allah SWT is the best of planners

Paris Bontrager · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 311

QMAX21 · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 29

I wouldn't advise anyone using material from answering-christianity and Osama Abdallah, a very well-known liar:

http://answer-islam.org/who_really_lied.html

It would be very wise to leave his material alone. Even when confronted and proven wrong, Mr. Abdallah has a bad habit of continuing to lie. Any Muslim who uses his material destroys their crediblity instantly. As for the Trinity please see here:

http://answer-islam.org/Trinity1.html
_________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain -- and most fools do.-Dale Carnegie

However, not all fools are Muslim even though most Muslims are fools-QMAX

Owen · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 24

Hi Paris,

chingachgook · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:

QMAX21 · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 29

Christian Trinity
The Father = YHWH

The Son = YHWH

The Holy Ghost = YHWH

If the Quran says that Allah is the third of three, who are the other two?

So-Called Muslim Trinity
??? = God

??? = God

Allah = God

If we take the Islamic argument that this refers to Trinity this means logically that God is by himself and that there are 2 other gods before him, though Allah is supposed to be all in the Trinity! So based on Muslims misintepretation, this means that the Trinity is 1/3 of 3.

So-Called Muslim Trinity
??? = God 1/3

??? = God 1/3

Allah = God 1/3

If Allah is supposed to be the same God as YHWH, which Muslims vehemently claim, and if Christian theology clearly says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are YHWH, who are the other two being mentioned?

The first thing we should point out is that the word, "Trinity" does not even appear in the Arabic text of the Quran. This is strange since if Allah or Muhammad wanted to refute Trinitarinism they could have clearly mentioned it in the Quran! The word Trinity was present since the first century and a doctrine which is supposed to inspired error isn't even mentioned in the Quran!!! The literal Arabic text reads of the Quran doesn't say trinity, it reads:

"They are blasphemers who say that Allah is the third of three (innallaha thaalithu thalaathah)"

Hence, the Quran is rebuking belief in three Gods, not a Trinity which is ONE GOD in THREE PERSONS. It rebukes the fact that God is the third of three deities. This is something that Trinitarians wholeheartedly agree with since we do not believe in three Gods nor God being the third of something and not knowing who the other two are. But we believe in only one true God who is tri-personal in nature. If we use a mathamatical equation to illustrate what the Quran claims about Third of Three or one of three, here is what we get:
ONE OF THREE or THIRD OF THREE
1/3

Three of Three 3/3=1

The Quran is clearly talking about Tritheism, and not Trinity, so why are Muslims using such verses to nullify the Trinity? Its because they would do everything in their power to discredit Christianity, including make verses appear as what they don't say.

One question to as Muslims is if the Quran denied the Trinity, how come it didn't just mention the word Trinity in the Quran? This word was present long before Muhammad and we have to believe that him and Allah knew about this word. This is one question that begs to be answered and it greatly exposes Muslim apologetics for being interpolative as well as biased in propogating Islam.

TELL US EXPLICTEDLY WHERE QURAN MENTIONS THE WORD TRINITY
The Arabic word for the "Holy Trinity" is "al-thaaluuth al-aqdas", pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas. This isn't found in the Quran at all even though it was known in Arabia and before the time of Muhammad and Islam!! The above passage of S. 4:171 is to be read in Arabic as:

"wa-laa taqooloo thalaathatun" (Surah an-Nisa' 4:171)
And this certainly has to be translated as:

"And don't say three!"
The word "thalaathatun" is the usual cardinal number "three" referring to three things at least one which is of masculine gender. If we use this along with modern Muslim definition of the Trinity, we find out that Allah couldn't be a Trinity if he is just one of three? So now if Muslims are saying that one in Three refers to Trinity, then they are implying that the word ONE MEANS THREE!!! Look at this example:

TRINITY IS THIRD OF THREE AND SAY NOT THREE
Allah= Third of three 3/3
Muslim Trinity= Three 3
Allah & Muslim Trinity would equal 6/3!!!
Or

TRINITY IS ONE OF THREE AND SAY NOT THREE
Allah= One of three 1/3
Muslim Trinity= Three 3
Allah & Muslim Trinity would equal 4/3!!!

This would expose Allah as not even being able to add or do simple mathematics!!! Amazing!!! Lets look at some verses in which the form of three (thalaathatun) is mentioned as. Note: THREE is capitalized.

Student1 · Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Posts: 2825