Could it be true? The Quran is not anti-Trinitarian?

Through the mouth of some cleric who obviously had a vengeful mind. It is interesting how some people put words in God’s mouth that He never really said to justify wrong actions, attitudes, etc.:shrug:

What are your reasons for believing that the Qur’an is written by any “god” rather than by Muhammad?

It should be obvious who the god of islam is.

It seems obvious to me that the Qur’an is a very human document. And it seems obvious to me that it’s a shoddy tactic to accept a particularly un-provable Islamic claim (that the Qur’an is of non-human origin) just in order to portray Islam as demonic.

Edwin

And why do you attribute what is said by “some cleric” to be representative of the beliefs of Muslims worldwide?

Why shouldn’t “Allah” address multiple heresies - the supposed heresy of the Trinity, and the actually heresy of the divinity of Mary?

Indeed, if there were Arab Christians worshiping Mary, Mohammed did them a great service by rebuking such a practice.

You missed what I was saying. The Qur’an only hints to the Trinity involving Mary and believing that Christians worship her. None of these things are true, so it couldn’t have been a divine book. A divine book should not make such obvious errors.

Also, you’ll have to provide evidence that worshiping Mary was a practice large enough as a tenant of faith within any group of Christians.

Thirdly, the Qur’an doesn’t even address the “Trinity” rather it addresses “three” and the three named are Allah, Jesus, and Mary. An obvious mistake.

runningdude

I made the statement, “The god of islam denies the Divinity of Jesus while at the same time claiming Jesus as his prophet.”

You asked the question, “What God of Islam?”

Maybe my statement should have read, “The godwannabe of islam denies the Divinity of Jesus while at the same time claiming Jesus as his prophet.”, is that better?

Do you or anyone else consider my statement correct or incorrect according to the quran?

Jesus asked the question, “Who do you say that I AM?”

I say that He Is God-Incarnate, the god of islam says that He is not, I am just pointing this out and also pointing out that God becoming One of us in the Incarnation is what Christianity is, do you or anyone else agree or disagree that the Incarnation is the essence of Christianity because without it, there is no Christianity, is there?

Incorrect. According to the Qur’an the One True God thinks this. We both believe the Qur’an is wrong. So why all this nonsense about “the god of Islam”?

Either Muslims are right and God–the one and only–dictated the Qur’an, or as you and I both believe, they are wrong and it is a human document. Either way, there is no “god of Islam” or “god of the Qur’an.” That’s nothing but your own malicious fantasy.

Edwin

Contarini

I wrote, “It should be obvious who the god of islam is.”

You replied, “It seems obvious to me that the Qur’an is a very human document. And it seems obvious to me that it’s a shoddy tactic to accept just in order to portray Islam as demonic.”

I am not portraying “Islam as demonic”, I am saying that the god of islam is a godwannabe and that the god of islam is satan.

I have said many times that “God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof” (God looks at the whole person) and in this statement, I am speaking of the Triune, Triumphant God, the One and only God.

Seems obvious to me that the deceiver is behind this and various other claims in the quran.

As far as “a particularly un-provable Islamic claim (that the Qur’an is of non-human origin)”, seems to me that the claims in the bible can only be “proven” by God, if they weren’t than there would be no place for faith.

However, sometimes God rewards our faith with knowledge since it was God the Father Who “proved” to me that the statement “God Is Love” is quite literal, in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

And it was the Holy Spirit who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

Here’s the Trinity, which is denied in the quran in different ways, one of which is to deny the Divinity of Jesus and yet to speak highly of Jesus and to claim Jesus as his prophet.

A thing about a lie or a deception, it is easier to see thru a 100% lie than a lie that is 99% true and 1% false, both are lies.

I have heard there are Muslims who decry the violence. By “some cleric” I was thinking of some of them whose elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top. And are teaching people to commit murder as a “good” thing.

Maybe I’m speaking from total ignorance here but the quran seems to have no direct knowledge, or at least demonstrates it in of itself, of the trinity. One has to assume this narrative account of the events is accurate which I am not willing to grant islamic records concerning the life of the so called prophet.

That was what I meant. I can see why you would want to make the distinction, although I find it hard to see much difference. I apologize for stating your position inaccurately.

My objection stands, though: what is your reason for not considering the Qur’an to be a human document? Why speak of “the god of Islam” as somehow the author of the Qur’an in the first place?

Seems obvious to me that the deceiver is behind this and various other claims in the quran.

I think that we should be careful with language about Satan being “behind” things. It threatens to take away human agency. This is not to deny that Satan is involved in religious error. It’s just that we should not reduce the human actors to the status of puppets. However Satan may exploit human weaknesses, human behavior should be described in human terms. Certainly whenever we find religious people (even those of unimpeachable orthodoxy) doing evil in God’s name, we are dealing with demonic powers.

As far as “a particularly un-provable Islamic claim (that the Qur’an is of non-human origin)”, seems to me that the claims in the bible can only be “proven” by God, if they weren’t than there would be no place for faith.

And my point is that it seems odd that you would place a kind of “negative” faith in the Qur’an, by accepting that a “god of Islam” is at work rather than simply seeing it as a human document (no doubt used by God insofar as it contains truth, and used by Satan insofar as that truth is highly imperfect and sinful people use it to justify their evil actions).

A thing about a lie or a deception, it is easier to see thru a 100% lie than a lie that is 99% true and 1% false, both are lies.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a 100% lie. It is also, however, pretty hard to find something that is 100% truth. Only God’s Word is that, and even that only comes to us filtered through our flawed human perceptions.

So I don’t think it’s true that anything imperfect should be thrown out as a lie. Rather, we should sort through everything human to find the truth, and accept that, rejecting the flaws and errors insofar as we perceive them.

But back to the main point: why not simply speak of the Qur’an as a human document produced by human agency? Why place faith in the claim that it is of nonhuman origin, and then ascribe it to a malevolent nonhuman source?

Edwin

Contarini

You asked, “But back to the main point: why not simply speak of the Qur’an as a human document produced by human agency?”

Because then I would be lying, I may not know it but I believe that Mohammad was deceived by satan in the writing of the quran, it is that simple, why should I lie about this to you or anyone else?

As I have already written, when I met God the Father, I came to realize that the statement, God Is Love, is quite literal, in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, here is the Trinity.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t he, who is referred to as the god of islam in the quran, deny the Divinity of Jesus and yet claim Jesus as his prophet?

Sounds to me what the deceiver would say about God, that God is not God but is his prophet.

You then asked, “Why place faith in the claim that it is of nonhuman origin, and then ascribe it to a malevolent nonhuman source?”

Seeing as besides claiming that God is not God but is his prophet and that islam is about world domination and the destruction or submission of both Judaism and Christianity and everything else for that matter, why not speak up, other messengers of God spoke up in the bible, didn’t they?

Seems to me that either satan deceived Mohammed or Mohammed got a pretty good description of what satan would say about Jesus, doesn’t it to you or anyone else who wishes to comment concerning this?

While the Quran doesn’t mention the trinity as noted in the OP, ostensibly Muhammad married a woman from a Christian family, Khadijah. He was close to her supposedly-learned Christian uncle, which makes it very dubious that he would not know of the trinitarian doctrine.

As mentioned in the OP, the heresy of tritheism was prevalent among Arab Christians just before the time of Muhammad. A map of Arabia during his time reflects extensive Christian presence to the north and south of Muhammad’s main activities. In fact, he led attacks on the northern Christian communities prior to taking Mecca.

All this evidence makes me think that Muhammad was not really anti-trinitarian, and that the interpretation of his words as anti-trinitarian by later Muslims is a matter of polemical spin in support of their military aims of conquering lands held by Christians.

I don’t see what “errors” you claim. In the quote, “Allah”, asks Jesus whether Jesus claimed that he and his mother were Gods, to which the Jesus of the narrative replied in the negative.

Also, you’ll have to provide evidence that worshiping Mary was a practice large enough as a tenant of faith within any group of Christians.

Why, I don’t see how this is relevant?

Thirdly, the Qur’an doesn’t even address the “Trinity” rather it addresses “three” and the three named are Allah, Jesus, and Mary. An obvious mistake.

So, if it is not addressing the Trinity, but the divinity of Mary, where is the mistake? As an early poster to this thread had said, the Arab word for “Trinity” is not addressed in the book.

So then you admit that “some cleric” is not representative of all Muslims? Why then do you generalize him as speaking for this alleged “God of Islam”?

For this to be true, there has to be a rational agent claiming to be God. I would contend that there is no such agent; merely a “wannabe”, claiming to be a prophet of God, who wrote a narrative claiming to be scripture.

There are numerous questions we might ask. We know it was in the far east to where all the heretics fled (trying to escape the empire) so it might not be right to assume it was neccessarily a “trinitarian Christian” that Muhammad supposebly married. How do we know these accounts are actually worth trusting?

We could also point to verses in which Muhammad very much denied Christ as God in any sense.

Contarini

You wrote, "I don’t think there is such a thing as a 100% lie. It is also, however, pretty hard to find something that is 100% truth.

The statement, Jesus Is God-Incarnate, is either 100% True or 100% false, there is no, almost or sort of, concerning this.

The whole of Christianity is based on Jesus being God-Incarnate (Divine and human), 100% Divine and 100% human just as we are 100% from our earthly father and 100% from our earthly mother, without this being 100% true, Christianity simply does not exist.

For that matter, the word “Trinity” does not appear in the bible either but one can see the Trinity spoken of in various places.

One of the ways that the quran denies the Trinity is with its denial of Jesus being God-Incarnate.

The whole of Christianity boils down to the Incarnation, without this there is no Christianity.

As I have said before, Christianity and islam can both be false, one or the other could be true but both of them can not be true.

Reading through this thread I have see you make these statements over and again.

The whole of Christianity is based on Jesus being God-Incarnate (Divine and human), 100% Divine and 100% human just as we are 100% from our earthly father and 100% from our earthly mother, without this being 100% true, Christianity simply does not exist.

To my knowledge there are many Christians who do not believe that Jesus is God.

So why would you think Christianity would not exist without it?

Or are you just talking about your type of Christianity?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.