Does the Qur’ān misunderstand the Trinity? [Analysis of Sūrat al-ikhlāṣ]

Christian missionaries often make bold claims that Qur’ān have a misconstrued and erroneous notion of what Christians believed about their theology as though it reject of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of “god” the Son is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a biological sense (belief which Christianity would also reject). They accuse God of the Qur’ān, does not know exactly what Christians believed and not be able to communicate it accurately, or does it?

Let us focus on Sūrat al-ikhlāṣ (112) “the pure belief”, one of the core texts of the Qur’ān, and compare it side by side with the Nicene Creed, considered as the official orthodox formulation of the Trinty:

Nicano-Constantinopolitanum (381 AD)Qur’ān, Sūrat Al-ikhlāṣ (S 112 )
We believe in one God, – Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα ΘεὸνSay: He is God, One – قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible – Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.God the absolute – اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made – Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,He did not beget, nor is He begotten – لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
being of one substance with the Father; – ὁμοούσιον τῷ ΠατρίAnd there is none like Him – وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

Verse 1 “Say, God is One”; qul huwa llāhu aḥad — astoundingly echoes the Jewish credo, the Shema: “Hear Israel, the Lord, our God, is One”; שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד Shema’ Yisrā’ēl, adōnay ēlōḥēnū adōnay eḥad. One who is familiar with the Hebrew bible will immediately recognize the Hebrew sounding remains audible in the Qur’ānic version, which—although in a normal sense somewhat unusual (the choice of adopts the Hebrew-sounding noun aḥad instead of the more pertinent adjective wāḥid for the rhyme). Uninformed critics is quick to see it as grammar “mistake” in the Qur’ān but such thinking is absurd to say the least, everyone who has rudimentary knowledge in Arabic know that the Qur’ān dictates the grammar of classical Arabic not the other way around. This striking translingual quotation certainly serves for a purpose. It is part of a divine design to appropriate the Shema into making it universal transitioning from the Israelites to any believer. This is kind of exegetical update the Qur’ān applies to jewish revelations thus making it a universal messages.

Verse 2 — “God the Absolute”. This what monotheism is all about. Roman, greek and meccan pagan polytheists would no problem describe God as the Creator, but they would not say God is Aḥad, because they believe there are other deities cooperating to each other performing purposes. God in a sense is not “Almighty”. Here aṣ-Samad is the emphasis of pantokrátora the absolute power of God who needs none but Himself, freeing the designation from pagan influences.

Verse 3 — ”He did not beget nor is he begotten”; lam yalid wa-lam yūlad—is the reverse echo of the Nicene creed; it unequivocally rejects the emphatic affirmation of Christ’s sonship—begotten, not made; gennêthenta, ou poiêthenta—employing emphatic double negation and establishing an apophatic (negative) theology by the inversion of the Nicene creed. What striking is the Qur’ān seems to be fully aware of the absurdity of such God who could be “begotten” (gennaō – G1080 which is used elsewhere in greek new testament as an act women begetting children cf. John 3:4). Not to mention the text inherent logical contradiction with the attribute not “made” (poieō). As nothing divine could be “begotten” this doctrine compromised monotheism (the Shema), and because whatever is begotten is caused, and whatever is caused is not eternal. After all, the Christians mean the Son is really distinct with the Father (not merely distinct in thought) there is no way Christians can escape this rather problematic God “creates” god implication. Far from misunderstanding it, the Qur’ān fully grasp the Christian credal statement and deliberately negating the idea of sonship and fatherhood alike not necessarily in biological/procreation sense but precisely in the discourse as the creed put it.

Verse 4—“And there is none like Him”; wa-lam yakun lahu kufuwan aḥad. This is the summed up of negative theology in the previous verse, the Qur’ānic formulation, kufuwan, literally means “equal in rank,” is to invert the Nicene formula of Christ’s being of one substance with God—homoousios to patri—forbidding any philosophy of any being as equal in substance with God, let alone a son.


Finally it has been suggested that contrary to Christian missionaries accusation that Qur’ān have misunderstanding of their trinity doctrine, it seems very familiar with the orthodox formulation of trinity doctrine, the Nicene creed. It has been shown in sūrat al-ikhlāṣ, the Qur’ān adopts rhetorical strategy to negate the essential statement of the Nicene creed word by word. The Nicene wording goes on saying that Christ’s was “begotten” and then proclaiming his equality in nature with God, homoousios to patri, “being of one substance with the Father.” In response, the Qur’ān, dismissed this ideas by rejecting the idea of sonship and fatherhood alike — lam yalid wa-lam yūlad, “he did not beget, nor is he begotten” — and then seals it with a universal negation stating that there is no way to think of a being equal with God: wa-lam yakun lahu kufuwan aḥad. Establishing pure universalist monotheistic creed, a composite (affirmation and negation) counter-text to earlier people-of-the-book texts, the Jews (the Shema) and the Christians (the Nicene creed). What for muslims has become the symbol of unsullied monotheism reveal itself as exegetical correction for the trinity doctrine.


Disclaimer: I am indebted to the scholarly work of Professor Angelika Neuwirth who have pointed out the point-by-point refutation of the Nicene Creed in Surat al-ikhlāṣ.

 



Categories: Christology, Feature Article, Qur'an, Theology

Tags: , , , , ,

51 replies

  1. Surah 112 does not show knowledge or understanding of the Trinity nor the eternal Sonship of Christ, nor the Deity of Christ, nor the term “begotten”; nor church history, nor the creeds.

    The other phrases around the ones that are highlighted and explained, show that you don’t understand what the Creed is talking about. The phrase “begotten, not made” demonstrates this. “begotten” does not mean “created” or “came into being at a certain time”.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten (only unique and only generated out from ) Son of God, begotten (means coming out of from, generation from and with Light of light, means the same nature of light coming out from God, who is light (1 John 1:5)
    of the Father before all worlds (æons),

    “before all worlds” means eternally into the past. (the context was specifically against Arius and Arianism, the heresy that said, “there was a time, when the Son was not”.

    So the Son is not a creation or creature, as it says later, “not made”. (not created; having no beginning) John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 and Philippians 2:5-8 say the same thing.

    Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made –

    light of light means the essence of the Son being light comes out of the same essence of the Light, the Father – God is light.

    الله نور

    We have the same word for light نور (Nor or Nur) in Farsi.

    1 John 1:5
    “God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all”

    “very God of very God” = the Son is truly God whose nature comes out of very God, the Father.

    Very God (the Son) of Very God (the Fahter) = the Son’s nature is the same, coming out from the Father.

    Not only does the Qur’an not understand the Trinity at Surah 112, but it also does not understand the Trinity in other places, like:

    Surah 6:101
    “how can God have a son when there is no consort / wife for Him?”

    This is what the Qur’an THINKS Christians meant by the terms “Father” and “Son” and seeing the icons and statues of Mary also made them think this. And probably hearing prayers to Mary and hearing some Christians calling her “the Mother of God” made them think this.

    Surah 5:116
    Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’

    الهین من دون الله
    = “2 gods besides God”

    (God, Jesus, and Mary are said to be 2 gods with God) with 5:72-75 (“Jesus and Mary used to each eat their daily food; “Allah is the third of three” with 4:171 – “say not three” shows the Qur’an thinks this; – shows the Qur’an thinks Mary is part of the Trinity. That the Qur’an says “three gods” means the author of the Qur’an does not understand history, nor the Creeds, which was always “one God”, “in three persons” – also the phrase in 5:72
    ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” – shows the Qur’an did not understand what Christians said and even gets the phraseology wrong. Christians said “The Messiah is God” (by nature/substance/essence) – they never made the statement: “God is the Messiah” – big difference.
    The ignorance of “Allah” in the Qur’an is astounding and proof that the Living God did not inspire the book.

    Surah 19:88-92

    The Surah is “Maryam”, the Mother of Jesus, so they are talking about what they heard Christians saying:

    And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son.”

    اتخذ – verse 88 –

    (we have this word and its various forms in Farsi also)

    “taken”, “adopt”, “assume”, “arrange” – this shows the Qur’an thinks that God later in time “takes” or “adopts” a son or with 6:101 0 that He had sex with a wife – a monstrous thought! استغفرالله
    estaqfr’Allah !

    Obviously the Qur’an does not understand the eternal nor spiritual relationship of the Son and the Father into the past eternally, that it is not a physical thing, nor sexual. That is why the virgin birth was necessary.

    Al Masih entered into creation at a point in time. (Luke 1:34-35)

    19:89 – You have done an atrocious thing.
    The strong language here and in verse 90 and 92 also shows that the Qur’an thought it was about sex and physical touch and biology.

    19:90 -The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation.

    The idea of God having a wife, having sex, becoming a Father, etc. is so ridiculous the heavens almost rupture and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse”, etc.

    19:91 – That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.

    19:92 – And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.

    All together, this definitely shows the Qur’an has misunderstood the Trinity and the Sonship of Christ; and proves it was not from Almighty God.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Wow what scholars did you get that from?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Also while you’re getting that scholarship we both agree Psalm 2 is/probably Messianinc correct?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Been studying these things for many years.

        Like

      • If you agree that Psalm 2 is Messianic, then you can see why the Jewish leadership asked Jesus the questions that they did at His trial.

        The understood “the Messiah” is also “the Son of God”

        Mark 14:60-64
        Matthew 26:61-68

        John 19:1-7 also agrees, as does Luke chapters 22-24.

        These are historical words and God-breathed words.

        For you to come along 600 years later and try to use Rabbinic Jewish commentaries from centuries later to deny what true Judaism is, is anachronistic.

        Jesus Al Masih and the disciples and Paul and the author of Hebrews, etc. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews) are the true Jews that gave the right interpretation of the law and the prophets and the Psalms. (Luke 24:25-53)

        There is no difference between “the Christ of faith” and “the Jesus of History” – they are the same person.

        Jesus said the main issue of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets (TaNaKH) was Himself – His person and work of redemption – “concerning Me” and “about Him” – Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-47 and about His sufferings and death and His resurrection and that that message must be preached to all the nations.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Okay so you got your claims about the Quran from nowhere glad you admit it (and ironically show your own ignorance)

        Anyways, since we agree Psalm 2 is/possibly Messianic you are now refuted on the Trinity and being called the “Son of God” is blasphemy in Judaism. Let’s read:

        I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; TODAY I have become your father. (Psalm 2:7)

        That means there was a point, “today” that he became the “son” meaning he wasn’t always. Furthermore, David is the one speaking and he is declaring himself the “son” yet nobody thinks that’s blasphemy. Let’s read:

        “Psalm 2:7 has to do with the Davidic king. At a time when the Gentile kingdoms in the Davidic empire seek to throw off Israelite rule, this psalm recalls the promises made to the Davidic king at his coronation and notes that the Gentiles will find lasting joy only as subjects of this king.

        The coronation oracle had declared the newly crowned king to be God’s “Son”; this recalls 2 Samuel 7:14, where God promises to David concerning Solomon, and then each new king in the line of David: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” This is talking about more than just the close relationship God will have with the king. The people as a whole are called the “son of God” (see Ex. 4:22–23; Hos. 11:1; Ps. 80:15), and the king is called the “son of God” because he represents and embodies the people (see also Ps. 89:27, with “firstborn”)….The “Son of God” in Psalm 2 is first and foremost a Davidic title—and that is good news, because it means he comes as our King to fulfill all that God said he would do through the heir of David.”

        https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-son-of-god-is-the-son-of-david/

        So all the title means is I’m an heir to David(as) basically. (Also funny enough on theology you are basically saying David(as) is God’s father (authobillah). Just a circle jerk of shirk.

        Liked by 3 people

      • This is a good point, as we see many times from the text in the Hebrew bible, christians understanding of messianism is rather skewed, distortion from “jesus is god” lense.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Eric

        Oh no doubt> They’re so quick to go Jesus, Jesus, Jesus not realizing something refutes their beliefs (especially when the background is considered). NOw watch ken act like he doesn’t see it (like when I pulled up Copts of the time praising Amr bin Al As whom he accused of oppressing them) and come back in a few weeks saying the same thing

        Like

      • Yep, for a paid missionary like him, the elephant in the room is the fact that Islam is a religion mercy to all people. It is in our scripture and it was what history has shown.

        Selling Islam as bad and evil is the only way to keep him from his job.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Eric

        Exactly. We, of course, weren’t perfect at all times but OVERALL we are pretty amazing.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “Allah is the third of three” with 4:171 – “say not three” shows the Qur’an thinks this; – shows the Qur’an thinks Mary is part of the Trinity. That the Qur’an says “three gods” means the author of the Qur’an does not understand history, nor the Creeds, which was always “one God”, “in three persons” – also the phrase in 5:72”

      How can you judge that the Quran misunderstands the doctrine when you can’t even explain it coherently…you first of all need an understanding to judge something, so please explain how is it not polytheism.

      Btw, here’s a rose 🌹

      Regards,
      Shad

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Shaad

        Buzzing!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for the rose Shad; you certainly have a much better attitude and method of debating issues than some (even most) of your fellow Muslims.

        Of course I understand why Muslims have a hard time understanding the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the 2 natures of Christ. I actually have spent a lot of time with real Muslims for decades, both Arabs and Turks in the USA for 9 years (1983-1992, and also some from India and Pakistanis in the USA (and some from Africa and Central Asia ), but not as much as with Arabic speakers – they just happened to be the main ones God led me to in NY City, and other places in the USA. and with Iranians since 1987 and 1993 to today after learning Farsi in 93-95. However, the Christian faith has been around a long time and already analyzed the misunderstandings that the Qur’an and Islam has about the Christian faith and its doctrines. The becomes really obvious when you take the time to listen to Muslims like Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik and all the debates that James White has had with other Muslims – We can judge Islam, when we study it and what it teaches and see the contradictions and misunderstandings. Shabir Ally and some others have advanced the Muslim understanding of Christian theology and Christian doctrines (without reacting in anger and violence), but previously (before 50 years ago), in areas in the Muslim world, the reaction was many times violence. It is good to see debaters like Shabir Ally and also the apologetic dialogue that Yasir Qadhi and other Imams have had with James White to promote understanding without violence or ad hominem or insults.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Thank you for showing your ignorance by thinking you’ve interacted with Arabs and Turks means anything when most Muslims are neither of these (ESPECIALLY3 in the US) 🙄🙄🙄

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken, Oh dear thank you…same to you! Yeah James is awesome, few people know how good he was in the 90s..he still is

        https://images.app.goo.gl/X1chHt9BGSEGcVwn6

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “That the Qur’an says “three gods” means the author of the Qur’an does not understand history, nor the Creeds, which was always “one God”, “in three persons”

      Question for you Ken, are hindu’s polytheists? Yes or no? Please answer as i promise it”s directly related to you’re accusation against the holy Quran.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes the Hindus are polytheists; but we are not, since our doctrine was always “One God” in “three persons”, (hupostasis and persona are relational terms between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit into eternity past. “God is love” demonstrates this.

        Like

    • Thank you for using 6:101 and confirming you are a devil worshiper since this verse is a continuation of verse 6:100 (Continouing frol the previous verse???? Shocking, I know!):
      But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe

      So thank you again for confirming you worship demons. L

      Liked by 2 people

    • KT: //The other phrases around the ones that are highlighted and explained, show that you don’t understand what the Creed is talking about. The phrase “begotten, not made” demonstrates this. “begotten” does not mean “created” or “came into being at a certain time”.//


      The problem is you change a definition of a word. This in not a even english language! Dictionary defines “begotten” as “brought into existence by or as if by a parent“:


      So begotten means “came into being at a certain time”. If you insist something beyond human language it is a neglect of common sense, a deliberate obfuscation. The creed just a meaningless mumbo jumbo coz no-one grasp the meaning of it, it will never guide anyone theological beliefs. Here the creed is clear that the son was begotten, there was ever a time when he didn’t begotten! The Qur’an refutes this succinctly: God is Aṣ-Samad , God who needs none but Himself! You can never talk “begotten” about God!

      KT:// So the Son is not a creation or creature, as it says later, “not made”. (not created; having no beginning) John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 and Philippians 2:5-8 say the same thing. Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made – light of light means the essence of the Son being light comes out of the same essence of the Light, the Father – God is light.//


      “Come out from something” is not God’s quality, it only shows 2 separate beings with two separate wills who are each the same god’s essence. It is unitheism. Also by saying son being light coming out the father being the source of light, that’s straight up modalism.

      Surah 6:101“how can God have a son when there is no consort / wife for Him?”This is what the Qur’an THINKS Christians meant by the terms “Father” and “Son” and seeing the icons and statues of Mary also made them think this. And probably hearing prayers to Mary and hearing some Christians calling her “the Mother of God” made them think this. (KT)


      It is precisely what the Quran criticise, the role of Mary in this Father-son relationship, the creed give statements: ” … and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man


      Nowhere the Qur’an imply that the involvement of Mary and the physical generation of Jesus necessary through “sexual” union of God with Mary. Listen to John Quigley, a Franciscan Friar and priest tells us who Mary was:




      So as Fr. Quiqley passionately explained, God asked Mary to “cooperate” with God, because God “needed” a mother to manifest Jesus…


      Interestingly the qur’an use the word cohort ṣāḥibat, not zawj (wife) which should not be the case if what it meant was sexual union. So Christianity believe God needed another being to be his mother or his wife to manifest Jesus.. but why??, such Almighty can create anything with his power. Just what the Qur’an said: kun fayakūn “BE”, lo and behold he was

      إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ( Indeed, (the) likeness (of) Isa near Allah (is) like (the) likeness (of) Adam. He created him from dust then He said to him, “Be,” and he was


      Hence Qur’an is absolutely spot on in condemning such belief. Christianity elevate Mary to the same level as God and even worshipping her as God since the very beginning.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You are showing your ignorance of early church history and ignorance of Patristics, and how they understood “only begotten” for centuries before Islam, which proves the Qur’an is not from God. You have to understand how they defended the eternal Sonship of Christ – with John 1:1-5 and John 17:5 against the Arians heretics; and so in early church patristics, “only unique” (Monogenes) or “only begotten” did not refer to His physical birth from Mary in time, but His eternal relationship as the Son from eternity past.

        Then you throw in a Roman Catholic priest to confuse the issue. As a Protestant, we totally disagree with the way they over-exalt Mary (icons, statues, prayers to her) and see the problems that the later times after the 431 – 451 AD Councils had (The Council of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon – 451 AD – they are related to one another and the later one was a further reaction to the earlier reactions of the 431 AD decisions. Islam misunderstood what Christians believed, because it was hearing from heretics out on the fringes of the Roman / Byzantine Empire and also from nominal Christians who practiced Marian piety (icons, statues, prayers to Mary.) The original meaning of Theotokos (the one who is bearing God) was meant about Jesus – that He was always God by substance, even from the womb, and John 1:1-5 and 17:5 and Philippians 2:5-8, and other passages point to His eternality. But Nestorius was right in one sense – he objected to the phrase because he knew it would lead to misunderstandings, which is exactly what happened with Islam – they thought the Christians were saying God had sex with Mary ( Estaqfr’Allah!) and so, Nestorius was wrong in separating Jesus into 2 persons, but he was right in objecting to the terminology because it over-exalted Mary. The church in those 2 councils and afterwards (431, 451 AD and afterwards) was too harsh vs. the Nestorians and Miaphysites (they called them “Mono-physites” or “Oriental Orthodox” – what later became the Coptic church, Syrian Jacobite church and the Armenian church. Even Nestorius eventually agreed with bishop of Rome Leo 1’s tome and writing of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD. (Nestorius was exiled to the desert) The document was found in the late 1800s, “The Bazaar of Hericlides”, in which Nestorius in exile agreed with the Council of Chalcedon that Christ was 1 person with 2 natures. (Divine and Human)

        We Protestants agree with Muslims that the icons, statues, and prayers to Mary is wrong and confuses you all unbelievers for centuries. We Protestant Evangelicals have the Biblical Faith that gives the proper doctrine of the Biblical woman Mary – she was a holy and godly woman, but she was not sinless nor immaculately conceived. (dogmas that developed over centuries until finally proclaimed by the RCC in 1854)

        Like

      • //You are showing your ignorance of early church history and ignorance of Patristics, and how they understood “only begotten” for centuries before Islam// (KT)

        I read about church history, no theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as formulated in the Nicene. The term “Trinity” have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century and third century of so called patristic wrtings; even so these writings which predates the nicene doesn’t reflect the nicene formulation belief. They (eg Origen, Tertullian) refer to the plurality of God, So God is three with his Son and Spirit while emphasising the superiority of the Father. So early Christianity was theologically different with the so called Nicene creed. The Qur’an teaching is the true successors of Jesus’ (as) teaching. It came for correcting the deviation from monotheism.

        //Then you throw in a Roman Catholic priest to confuse the issue. As a Protestant, we totally disagree with the way they over-exalt Mary// (KT)

        Catholics is the largest in christendom and their Church is the original and first Christian Church they believe. Protestantism was born out of Catholicism only since 16th century. So you can not say that the Qur’an is wrong because the Catholics exalted and worshipped Mary as deity and called her “Mother” of God, Queen of the kingdom of God etc.. since the very beginning of early christian history.

        //The original meaning of Theotokos (the one who is bearing God) was meant about Jesus – that He was always God by substance, even from the womb// (KT)

        God of the Universes, the creator of heaven and earth was contained in a womb?? …Thanks God for I am a muslim

        Liked by 3 people

      • No; you are ignorant of church history.
        One can argue that the first 5-6 centuries is “catholic” (little c, meaning Universal, “kata” = according to, and “holos” = the whole. (we Protestants are also “catholic” in that sense; all original Protestants quoted the 4 ecumenical councils and agrees and argued that they are also “catholic” / universal. But not Roman Catholic, with the authority of the Pope of Rome nor the false doctrines of over-exalting Mary, Purgatory, Priests, etc. The early church did not have icons or statues – that came later, as did the over-exalting of Mary. You are ignorant of church history. Even the Eastern Orthodox agree more with us that there was no such thing as a single office of “bishop over all other bishops” (the one in Rome) with infallible authority over the other bishops areas and churches. even Cyprian in 257 AD and 86 other bishops agreed that no one has the right to call themself “bishop of bishops” – see the seventh North African Council of Carthage. All 87 of those bishops rebuked bishop of Rome Stephen for making that claim. The EO agrees with this.

        “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”

        The Roman Catholic idea of a Pope (bishop of Rome having infallible authority over all other bishops” was UNknown in the first 600 years.

        See here:
        https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/carthage_council/anf05.iv.vi.i.html

        Like

      • Your attacks on catholicism is funny, say that to a Catholic. For us it does not make any different with a mormon who says that evangelical theology is wrong.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Also, you are using a modern English dictionary to describe something that had a specific meaning in Greek in the NT and subsequent theology of the first 5-7 centuries in Christianity. The Qur’an and Islam misunderstood because of all the icons and statues and prayers to Mary, etc. and because of nominal believers, and heretics and apocryphal gospels and the lack of missionary outreach into the Arabic language to the Arabians – the lack of language learning and outreach was bad and created a vacuum for heresies and false religions to start. Politics and the wars between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire also created a great vacuum in between where the frontiers of the wars met each other. Islam grew out of that vacuum and lack of missionary outreach.

        The Patristics and theology had a different meaning for the concept, because of the eternal nature and substance and pre-existance of the Son / The Word (logos), based on putting all of the NT Scripture together with its background of Monotheism in the OT – John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; Philippians 2:5-8; John 8:56-58; John 5:17-18; John 10; John 20:28; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-14, 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.

        Like

      • Nobody believe 4 century man made creed define what begotten mean in any language anywhere, any time

        Begotten always mean begotten, it is created.

        Trinitarian invented a language beyond meaning. It is meaningless.

        Liked by 4 people

      • nope; “before all worlds” = into eternity past
        “light from light” = the Son’s light comes from the Father’s light = same essence / substance, nature. same as “very God of very God.

        Begotten in Patristics about Jesus means “eternally generated” (not created and not born like humans)

        John 1:1 – Jesus is logos = the mind expressing itself in words; the mind flowing out into communication.
        John 17:5 – eternal Sonship into the past eternally

        Like

      • Again this is beyond language and meaning!

        Father and Son are equally and fully God. What is fully God doesn’t come from anything else. Yet the Father eternally “beget” the Son.

        Anyone with intelligence will see this “uncreated begotten” belief a blatant contradiction.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ken, for some reason I don’t seem to be able to comment on your blog..

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “Yes the Hindus are polytheists; but we are not, since our doctrine was always “One God” in “three persons”, (hupostasis and persona are relational terms between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit into eternity past. “God is love” demonstrates this.”

      So Hindu’s are polytheists even though many would say they worship only one God. In addition the core of their theology should be considered monotheism according to you since all of their “gods” share the same substance.

      https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/hinduism/v/hindu-gods-overview

      http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/religion/hinduism.htm

      https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5663

      And yet in spite of all that you correctly identified them as worshiping multiple gods, why is that Ken?

      And how is what you’ve just done different from the Quran?

      Please answer both of my questions when you have the time.

      Liked by 4 people

      • The millions of idols, statues, drawings, cartoons, etc. proof that they are polytheistic and have idols; even though in philosophical Hinduism there is one ultimate source (the Brahman) that, in their view, all will melt back into. (even everything and every one after centuries of Karma and re-incarnation) The whole thing is pagan at root. )

        Like

      • In Hinduism an avatar (Sanskrit: अवतार) is a concept where worldly/human material appearance or incarnation of a deity on earth. It is a theological concept like Christ as an God incarnate.

        Liked by 4 people

      • No; not the same category; not even close.

        Like

      • How is that so? You are showing your ignorance of Hinduism.

        The Hindus refer to Avatars are the incarnation of a deity in human or animal form to counteract some particular evil in the world.

        In the Hindu Vedas, there are passages that says: “In the beginning was the Lord of Creatures; second to him was the Word and the Word was truly Brahman

        Now Brahman as the avatar according to the Hindus is the Word out of which the concrete sensible world then evolves. The avatar being the descent of God. The word made flesh. Checkout this book by a hindu scholar –>

        These avatars refer to their divinity to the substance of the Universal Self. The Father, the Godhead, which is reached through the grace of the Incarnation. It is always the same supreme Spirit which embodies itself in the avatar

        Ring any bell?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Eric, was pretty skeptical at start so i did some digging…translations can be crafty probably you should take a look at the sanskrit?

        reference: http://hindudharmaforums.com/archive/index.php/t-83.html

        Prajapatir vai idam asit
        Tasya vag dvitiya asit
        Vag vai paramam Brahma

        found another translation from a christian forum

        “Prajapati is truly abiding (eternal), and his companion Vac is also truly abiding (eternal), and so Vac surely is the supreme Brahman.”

        𝑬𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒂𝒚, both strikingly similar to John 1:1

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks Shaad. I cant read Sanskrit so I rely on the information from the book (which is available online) by a hindu scholar which I doubt that he’d make things up in a published book..

        For that I give u a bucket of flowers 🌺

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Eric, Oh dear cheers for the flowers, smells nice..thank you ❤️

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “The millions of idols, statues, drawings, cartoons, etc. proof that they are polytheistic and have idols;even though in philosophical Hinduism there is one ultimate source (the Brahman) that, in their view, all will melt back into. (even everything and every one after centuries of Karma and re-incarnation) The whole thing is pagan at root. )”

      This comment is so ironic it hurts.

      But you still didn’t answer my second question Ken. How is what your doing different from the Quran?

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “The Qur’an is ignorant of Christian theology, since Christian theology maintains Monotheism, which all RCs, EOs, and Protestants believe and agree. Trinitarian Monotheism is still proper Monotheism.”

      Ken temple is ignorant of Hindu theology, since hindu theology maintains monotheism. Hindu monotheism is still proper monotheism.

      see how easy it is to turn that around? Again Hindus maintain that they are monotheists as well. In addition their theology should be considered montheistic according to trinitarian logic since all the “gods” in hinduism share the same substance. So I ‘ll ask again, how is what your doing different from the Quran?

      Liked by 5 people

  2. Paul wrote
    Ken, for some reason I don’t seem to be able to comment on your blog..

    It is on moderation – but I don’t see any from you waiting approval.

    Did you leave one?

    Vaqas Rehman made some comments in an earlier article.

    I had to put it on 14 day moderation because some Muslim who goes by θ flooded all my articles every day for a while with sometimes 10-15 comments per day and it became too much.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I can’t even see a field to leave a comment

      Like

      • The new one is open for 14 days.
        You are right that the old ones no longer have open comment boxes.
        It became too much because of the Muslim who goes by θ To keep up with because he pretty much flooded every old article with dozens of comments.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Does he refute you that badly?

      Liked by 1 person

      • No. I actually interacted with him for a while, of the ones that I could understand. Some of his stuff was not understandable. But when he started putting up dozens of posts in the combox at a time – 10 a day or so over multiple old articles, it just got to be too much to keep up with, and also a lot of it was weird not understandable, etc.

        The main issues were time, and his many times strange and not – understandable way of communicating.

        Like

  3. @ken
    I would be inclined to appreciate what you say if it was something jesus taught. You can’t glorify the father the way jesus did either. It’s as if your trying to make yourself retarded.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. If you are a trinitarian, you are going to try to fit everything to trinity, even if its clearly not but they try to fit it..

    Liked by 3 people

    • They even force their interpretation, it’s not only fitting at this point. They literally pull grammatical rules out of nowhere to defend their prooftexts. Colwell’s rule Sharp’s rule, Qualitative rule or whatever gobbledygook they came up with in the past simply sprang from their imagination out of zeal to force a Trinitarian reading into the NT, the real victims are the Christian masses trusting their scholars and translators…Lord help them Amen

      Liked by 3 people

Trackbacks

  1. The Qur’an misunderstands the Trinity | Apologetics and Agape

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: