|
|
| Between 'Shubbiha Lahum' and Trinity |
Between 'Shubbiha Lahum' and Trinity By Jalal Abualrub
Here is part of a discussion I am having with a Christian man. I will not mention his name or contact info here. I also ask the brothers and sisters to add whatever they think is useful. Make the answers short and to the point please.
The Christian questioner asks, “My point is simply that the Kalima is not found in one verse in the Quran as such. It is made up of multiple verses, just like the Trinity. So why should the same principle, that a theological teaching is founded on multiple verses, only be acceptable in Islam but not in Christianity? I am not talking about the Sunnah because it is of less value then the Quran among Muslims and they cannot agree among each other as to which one is authentic. If you want to talk about the Sunnah in this regard then I will talk about the Christian equivalent, the writings of the early church fathers. They very clearly spell out the Trinity and all the other doctrines of Christianity. Regarding the 99 names of Allah. Do Shias not believe in them? If they do then my point is like the one above: Two of his names are not found in the Quran.
You (Jalal) asked: ‘Where is the clear unequivocal text in your book that Jesus is lord, or the son of god, or one in three and three in one, or anything like this at all?’ Well, here it is. I copied it from an article found on www.christianityexplained.net.tc:
Evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh from the sayings of Christ : 'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' (John 8:58) In this way Jesus expresses his oneness with God and the eternity of his being. By saying 'I am' (Greek: ‘ego eimi’) and not 'I was', Jesus is using the personal name by which God revealed Himself in the Old Testament! The first translation of the Old Testament into Greek between the third and first century BC, known as ‘Septuagint’ uses the words ‘ego eimi’ in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4 to refer to God. (See also Isaiah 43:25, 45:6, 51:12, 52:6)
Dr. James White writes: “…we might do well to look, then, with this understanding in mind, at Jesus' words at John 8:24: "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith - faith, real faith is that which comes to the real Jesus. A faith that demands a change in Jesus before a commitment is made is not real faith at all. The Jews standing about Him during this conversation most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some had just recently proclaimed Him as Messiah - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher - but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him "a god" or a great angel - but that is not sufficient for faith.
No, Jesus Himself laid down the line - unless one believes Him for whom He says He is - the ego eimi - one will die in one's sins. There is no salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation. It is out of love that Christ uttered John 8:24. We would do well to heed His words.” (‘Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ’, www.aomin.org/EGO.html#18)
'And now, Father, glorify me (Jesus) in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' (John 17:5) Jesus: 'If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.' (John 14:7-10) Then Jesus said, 'How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?' (Luke 20:41-44)
Jesus is here quoting from Psalm 110, which was viewed to be a prophecy about the coming Messiah (Christ, the anointed one) by the Jews before the Christian era. Verses from this Psalm are frequently applied to Jesus in the New Testament. (Acts 2:34-36; Hebrews 1:13, 5:6-10, 7:11-28)
The Christ is known as the Son of David (Jeremiah 23:5-6) and also as the one whom David called 'Lord!' The only answer to Jesus' question as to how this could be, is found in that the Christ is both, God in human flesh since the Old Testament can not contradict itself! The infinite is combined in the finite in much the same way as our eternal souls are united in earthly bodies. (Surah 3, Ali'Imran, verse 185) 'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods?' If he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.' Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John 10:30-33)
The Jews understood correctly that Jesus was not just speaking about being one with the Father in purpose but in essence or nature. Neither is Jesus saying that he and the Father would be identical persons for the Greek construction is neuter, meaning 'one thing' not 'one person'. The context, verses 34-39, shows clearly that Jesus spoke about himself differently than others who were called 'gods' in the law, for his audience still wanted to seize him. Firstly, Jesus answered their charge of blasphemy by turning their argument against themselves. Secondly, he sets himself apart as unique from others who were called 'gods.' Unlike them, he does the works which are only done by his Father.
The context of John 17:21 shows that the oneness there has to be understood relationally. 'You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.' (John 8:23) 'For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.' (Matthew 18:20, see also 28:19-20) Jesus is omnipresent, everywhere, like God.
Jesus about him being the ‘Son of God’ (not meant in physical but in spiritual way):
They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He (Jesus) replied, 'You are right in saying I am.' (Luke 22:70, see also Matthew 16:15-17)
Verses on which the Trinity are built:
The following verses teach also that Jehovah, God the Holy Trinity is His own community built upon a loving relationship as the essence of reality. It brings forth a perfect and beautiful unity: 'In the beginning God ('elohim', plural, the Father) created ('bara' singular verb) the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, (God the Son who is known as His word in Joh 1:1 through whom he created all things according to Col 1:16) 'Let there be light,' and there was light.' (Gen 1:1-3) '...hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit.' (Isa 48:16) Ultimately, these verses find their fulfilment in Jesus (Joh 10:36, Luk 4:1,14,18). 'I will tell of the kindness of the LORD, the deeds for which he is to be praised, according to all the LORD has done for us - yes, the many good things he has done for the house of Israel, according to his compassion and many kindness. He said, 'Surely they are my people, sons who will not be false to me'; and so he became their Saviour. In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.' (Isa 63:7-10)
There are a number of verses in the New Testament that call Jesus and the Holy Spirit God, besides God the Father. (Joh 8:58, compare with Exo 3:14; Act 5:3-4 etc.) In the light of this truth the following verses are understood to be speaking about the Trinity: 'And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.' (Mat 3:16-17) 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular!) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,...' (Mat 28:19) 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' (2 Cor 13:13) 'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.' (1 Pet 1:1-2)
In Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:4 people are baptized in the name of Jesus only. Since Jesus is now included in a way he was not in John's baptism (19:4), the abbreviated form is used in the beginning to emphasize the distinctive quality of the new baptism. For more verses speaking about the Trinity when one considers the Biblical context see, Ephesians 4:4-6, 5:18-20, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, Romans 8:9-11. Anyway, I think you are too busy for us to have a meaningful conversation in this way. (Unless you live in London, UK, perhaps we could meet sometime face to face.) Therefore, please do as you promised and get some help from the visitors of your website. Thanks.”
Jalal Answers, by saying, “Let me put it this way:
1. In one ayah, Allah says, {Know (O, Muhammad) that Lâ ilâha illallâh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and ask forgiveness for your sin, and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women.}
a. This ayah establishes the ‘Kalimah’.
b. I still do not know what you mean by ‘Kalimah’ and where you got it from. If you mean by it the Islamic Monotheism, the word of Tau'heed, Kalimata at-Taqwa, then, here it is in one ayah, ayah 47:19 above.
c. This is Islam: the testimony of Monotheism as sent to Muhammad, Allah’s Messenger, whose job is to convey it to mankind and to seek forgiveness for the believers from He Who owns the forgiveness, Allah Alone.
2. Why can’t Christianity bring a clear verse, just one, that clearly explains and declares their Trinitarian creed as the creed to follow?
a. My question to you was to bring OT or NT words from Jesus himself establishing the Trinitarian creed in a similar way to the Quran establishing its monotheistic creed in clear terms and in one sentence each.
b. Instead, you brought all of the same, ‘This verse means this, and that verse means that; add them together and you will have trinity.’
c. ‘I Am’, with a capital ‘A’ (remember that Greek does not have capital vs. lower case letters as English does), is hardly proof for Trinity or divinity, just like ‘I is’ is hardly proof that those who use such term are not sub-human.
d. ‘I and the Father are one’, hardly pertains to Trinity. Where did the Holy Ghost go here?
e. Also, if Jesus and the Father are one, why did not the Father die when his son died, if they are in perfect harmony as Christians claim?
3. La Ilaha illa-llah, the Kalimah, the foundation of Islam, is found throughout the Quran, why can’t Christians bring a single verse that speaks of their creed clearly without vagueness or need for complex interpretation?
4. Even multiple verses that CLEARLY identify Trinity, in the words of Jesus, as the correct creed would do. Christendom does not even have that. They have multiple interpretations and corruption of texts, even OT texts.
5. Meanwhile, the Jews who are the recipients of the OT vehemently reject Christian claims as to what these texts mean.
6. As soon as he was commanded, Prophet Muhammad declared this to his people, “O, My People! Say, ‘La ilaha illa-llah’ and you will become successful.” [Ibn al-Mulaqqin]
7. The words reported from Jesus also use the Kalimah as the one and only correct creed; “29. The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. 30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment’ [Mark 12:29-30].”
a. This is NOT Trinity.
b. This is the Islamic Tau'heed and clear proof against Christianity.
8. Jesus never said, “I created you; worship me like you worship God; I am one in three and three in one; I am God, really.” All what Christians have are vague texts that they gather together and then fight with each other –endlessly- as to what they really mean. They have to bring entire articles of, “This verse may mean this, and that verse may mean that; add this to that, and there you have it, Trinity.”
As for the Sunnah, who among Muslim sects does not accept the Sunnah? Not even the Shia say that they reject the Sunnah; they know that to reject the Sunnah means to become a disbeliever without a doubt. All Muslims accept the Sunnah as the resource of Islam along with the Quran. Only some disbelievers who claim to be Muslim defy the entire Nation (Ummah) of Muhammad by rejecting Sunnah.
1. More than 90% of Muslims are now as they have been throughout the history of Islam, Sunnis. The ‘Sunnis’ accept the Sunnah (a hint: this is why they are called ‘Sunnis’ to begin with).
2. Your statement that Muslims cannot agree on what is authentic, is profoundly false. Sunni Muslims agree on the two Sahihs, Bukhari’s and Muslim’s, and also agree on most other Hadeeths found in the major resources of Sunnah. Even the Shia refer to these two books for various Hadeeths. They also study these two books in their schools. You cannot disregard this fact and claim what you claim about Muslims disagreeing on the Hadeeth, and consequently, on the Sunnah.
3. May be you mean that with regards to certain Hadeeths, Muslims disagree on the authenticity of some of the Hadeeth reports. However, this is not because the Sunnah is lesser in value than the Quran, but because the chains of narrations for certain narrations are questionable. Muslims agree on most Hadeeths that establish Islam in its various aspects.
4. There is not a single Muslim that rejects the Sunnah. There are disbelievers who claim they are Muslim and –yet- reject the Sunnah. These are part of a tiny misguided minority. They include the likes of Osama abdallah and his un-Islamic website that attacks the Sunnah of the same man who was sent with both the Quran and the Sunnah. They also attack the integrity of the same generation that preserved the Quran from corruption by claiming they did a lousy job in protecting the Sunnah, but a wonderful job in protecting the Quran from corruption. This type of people and their likes are not Muslim.
5. In the Quran, Allah declares that the Sunnah is also a revelation, {3. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.4. It is only a Revelation revealed.} [53:3-4]
6. In the Quran, Allah orders Muslims to take the Sunnah as a judge, {65. But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.} [4:65].
7. Thus, the Quran itself declares the Sunnah as a part of the revelation. Sunni Muslims, who comprise more than 90% of Muslims, regardless of the sect, accept the Sunnah. Even Shia do not say they reject the Sunnah.
8. Thus, it is not up to you to, since you are not a Muslim, decide to exclude what all Islamic sects, Sunni, Shia and otherwise, agree is part of the revelation. You cannot pick and choose: you want to concentrate on the Quran but not on the Sunnah, even though both were brought from Allah by the same man and both were protected from corruption by the same generation, Muhammad’s companions, whom Allah raised for this job.
They are not ‘Equivalents’.
The Sunnah is the tradition of the Prophet who was sent with the Quran, i.e., the very same man. The early Christian authors are not Jesus. You cannot make the two as equivalents. Unless, of course, you agree with me and with numerous Christians that Christianity was not established by Jesus but by people who came after him. In which case, I will still remind you that Muhammad came with the two, the Quran and Sunnah, Jesus came with none, neither with your current NT nor with the early Christian writings. These things were written after he departed from this earth, alive and well. No one, except Allah, knows for certain when any part of the NT was written or by whom.
1. You seem to forget that most Christians are Catholic and Orthodox; they have entire extra books in their Holy Bible that are rejected by the smaller cults, such as the Protestants. Using your logic, the Bible is of a lesser value as evidence since Christians cannot agree on what is authentic in it or not. This is a far cry from Muslims disagreeing on certain Hadeeth reports that are not established by authentic chains of narration.
2. On one hand, you claim that the Sunnah takes less authority than the Quran because Muslims disagree on the authenticity of it, which is not true because they agree on the authenticity of the Sunnah except for reports that are not established through authentic chains of narration. On the other hand, you bring what is not found in the Quran, but actually in Hadeeth narrations, as evidence that Muslims believe in what is not found in the Quran. You either accept Sunnah reports or do not accept them. You cannot have it both ways.
3. Islam is the Quran and Sunnah together regardless of how you feel about it.
4. You think that Muslims are Islam. This is not true; even ‘you’ do not believe that Christians are Christianity since you distanced yourself from their stances on various issues.
5. You need to be consistent: where is the text that establishes the 99 names exactly? I will save you the trouble. The Hadeeth that contains the 99 names is not established according to the major scholars of Sunnah, such as imam at-Tirmidhi. It is a weak, rejected Hadeeth, not because it is not found in the Quran, but because it is not established by authentic chains of narration.
6. Even if some sects or people accept the ‘99 names of Allah’ Hadeeth as true, they do so because the Sunnah was sent with the same man who was sent with the Quran, so they accept it because they think this Hadeeth is part of the authentic Sunnah.
a. They do not believe in your doctrine that the Sunnah is of a lesser value than the Quran. Rather, the Islamic religion is built on both the Quran and Sunnah.
b. To Muslims, the Messenger of Islam was sent to explain the Quran and to add to it, such the description of the Islamic Prayer.
c. All Muslims pray in the manner they pray based on the Sunnah that reached them; the Quran does not say how to pray.
d. To Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah are the same, and whether the text is Quran or Sunnah, they are the same.
e. To Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah are a revelation.
f. To Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah complete each other.
g. To Muslims is their creed. You cannot decide their creed on their behalf.
7. What you use as evidence to support your point is exactly what you almost reject as being evidence: the Sunnah.
a. What Shia believe or do not believe is not relevant, unless you want me to hold you responsible for the Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses (who say there are 50,000 mistakes in the Bible), the Mormons, who disagree with major aspects of your faith, etc.
b. Also, I am not a Shia, ask them what they believe.
c. I want to discuss issues with you that are based on the Quran and Sunnah and the way the Prophet taught these two resources, both of which he came with from Allah, to his companions.
What you brought as evidence to Trinity is an answer to another question. Where is the Trinitarian creed in clear texts from your book? Where did Jesus say, ‘I created you; worship me as you worship god; I am one in Trinity; the Holy Ghost is God”? I did not ask you to bring me an entire article where Christian scholars ‘glue together’ vague texts that may mean a host of things and make them appear to be an answer to my question. Trinity is not found in the Bible; this is why you need all this ‘glue’ to piece together an answer.
The answers you gave me in response to my question are being disputed by almost every authority on Christianity. Here is the proof… Here is part of my book, 50 Righteous and Humane Concepts brought by Muhammad, PP. 19-22, Under Title, ‘Wa-Shahida Shahidun min Ahliha’ (A Witness of Her Own Household Bore Witness’): ‘Major Western encyclopedias and dictionaries, written in the Christian West, by mainly Western Christians, admit to these facts:
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). … The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. ... It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. … By the end of the 4th century ... the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.’
The Encyclopedia Americana: ‘Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.’
The Columbia Encyclopedia: ‘Trinity … the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament.’
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: ‘The formula [one God in three Persons] itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. … The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.’
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: ‘In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology.’
Encyclopedia International: ‘The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles’ preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.’
New Bible Dictionary: ‘The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and, though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the Church till the 4th century.’
Dictionary of the Bible: ‘The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.’
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: ‘The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity … primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church.’
The Oxford Companion to the Bible: ‘Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. … While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.’
Thus, the texts you rely on to prove Trinity are not agreed upon by Christians, to say the least that is. Don’t you think that had there been clear texts to prove Trinity that Christians would have celebrated them and shown them to the entire world? Instead, they have to come up with an elaborate scheme to prove what does not exist in the Bible. They twist and corrupt texts and glue together what may mean a host of things. They, modern-day Christians, then claim that ‘Allah’ deceived them. Rather, Allah made the resemblance of Jesus be thrown on a man who volunteered to look like Jesus and be killed instead of him, and then become Jesus’ companion in Paradise. Those who came after them relied on conjecture and guesswork, not on evidence and proof. They took the word of the very people who resisted Jesus, called him a bastard and called his honorable mother horrible names; i.e., the same people who were ‘Shubbiha lahum’. Then they made the word of their enemy and the enemy of Jesus as the word of God. No one, except the Christians, deceived Christians. Some major Jewish rabbis call Christianity a sea of darkness that covered the true faith. He should know, since it is they, the Jews, are the ones who corrupted the NT and deviated and deceived Christians.
Do not follow the word of your enemy and the enemy of Jesus, peace be upon him. Christians dare say that Allah deceived them, as they claim the Quran says, by making things appear to them as though Jesus was crucified.
Here are the words of the Quran in clear terms, {157. And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh,” — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of ‘Îsâ (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]. 158. But Allâh raised him [‘Îsâ (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All‑Powerful, All‑Wise.} [Surah 4]
1. ‘Shubbiha Lahum,’ not, ‘Shubbiha Bihi”.
2. It is those who wanted to kill Jesus whom ‘Shubbiha Lahum’, i.e., they were made to think they killed Jesus. Because of their aggression against Allah and His Messengers they were ‘Shubbiha Lahum’. The ayah is about those who claimed they killed Jesus, not about the trillions of Christians who came after him.
3. Allah did not deceive billions of Christians as they claim. Billions of Christians took up a creed that is not based on evidence, and thus, followed guesswork and suspicion. They chose this path on their own. They could have refrained from following their desires by accepting a faith that is based on the word of the very people who wanted to kill Jesus.
4. Instead, they follow conjecture and hang on to any shred of evidence they think proves their creed. They do this instead of seeking the truth about this matter.
5. This is because they FIRST believe in something THEN they research its proofs, and finding no proof, they make up proofs.
6. You see, your own bible, all four Gospels to be exact, say that the disciples deserted Jesus and fled when he was dragged to be crucified. So who is your witness? The same people who according to your faith killed Jesus.
7. This is why the Quran describes the Christian creed as relying on guesswork and suspicion.
I ask you to read the Quran carefully. By the way, if you want to use ayah 3:185 to prove that Jesus can be a divine being united in human flesh, then, this would also mean that you too are a Jesus and divine! Think about it.
It is funny how people who have no clue what the Quran says
use the Quran to prove what it says is false, {171. O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allâh aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allâh and His Word, (“Be!” — and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rûh) created by Him; so believe in Allâh and His Messengers. Say not: “Three (trinity)!” Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allâh is (the only) One Ilâh (God), glory is to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is All‑Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. 172. The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave of Allâh, nor the angels who are the near (to Allâh). And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together unto Himself.} [Surah 4]
Allah willing, I will post this response on my website, www.islamlife.com. Look for it. Peace be upon those who follow the true guidance sent with Jesus, Muhammad, and all of Allah’s Prophets and Messengers.
Jalal Abualrub |
|
on February 14 2008 05:23:58
Bismillahir-Rahman-ir-Raheem
Assalam-u-alaikum.
1. Starting with the issue of the 'kalima' not being mentioned in any specific Quranic verse but based on multiple Quranic verses:
I think he (the Christian brother) refers to the declaration of La Ilaha Illah-Allahu Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah (There is no God except for The God (Allah) and Muhammad is his messenger) as the 'kalima.' In the Quran both the things are clearly, un-equivocally mentioned and in exactly the same wording also. Brother Jalal Abualrub has already pointed out one of the verses where 'La ilaha illah-Allah' is clearly mentioned and one of the places where 'Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah' is mentioned is Quran 48:29.
2. The Christian brother commits the fallacy of 'False Analogy' by comparing this to the concept of trinity, which is no where described by Jesus or by God almighty in the OT. There is no place where Jesus (pbuh) even describes anything related to this concept; in any single verse or a set of verses (even if one was to consider the argument that the concept of trinity though not stated un-equivocally in a single verse is echoed by a number of verses). All that the Christians do is INTERPRET certain verses WHILE keeping in mind the PRE-CONCEIVED notion, it is more like 'solving a puzzle' or solving the 'mystery of different verses' which they think can 'only be understood or harmonized in the light of this concept.’ It is like 'Jesus said so-and-so; he could not have said this if he was not God, and thus he is God though there is no verse where he says he is God.' It's like me inferring from the following hadith that Muhammad (pbuh) na-auzubillah was God: 'None of you believes unless he loves ME (the prophet) more than his parents, his children, and all the people. (Sahih Bukhari (2:14) and Sahih Muslim). Or from the following verse: ‘Say: 'If you love God, follow Me (the apostle), and God will love you, and forgive you your sins; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.' (The Quran 3:31)And what's most important is that the verses which the Christian Brother has used to *prove* that Jesus is God can be interpreted and understood in other ways! (I'll give my explanation later)
3. The Basic concepts of any religion are stated in un-equivocal, un-ambiguous verses which CANNOT be interpreted in different ways. Thus if 1.Trinity 2.Crucifixion are the basic concepts of Christianity when Jesus was asked the question: Mark 12:28 "Which commandment is the greatest of all?" He should have explained to them these commandments (i.e. God is a triune God...) instead of saying: 12:29 (Jesus answered,) "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
4. The Islamic belief of One God is stated on almost every page of the Quran, and not only the Quran but by all the prophets of God! The belief of trinity is false also because it is a NEW (Biddah) belief which no prophet taught, no prophet in the OT in any un-equivocal verse says that God is a triune God, in fact the name Jesus is no where mentioned in the OT. The OT says '13:1 If there arise in the midst of you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give you a sign or a wonder, 13:2 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods” WHICH YOU HAVE NOT KNOWN 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams (Deuteronomy). The people of Israel or the Jews have never known a triune God, or a God who is father, son and holy spirit one at the same time. The people of Israel have also not known a 'man-god' (see Numbers 23:19 and (Hosea 11:9):- "I am God, and NOT MAN; the Holy One in the midst of thee). The people of Israel have always known the One God without any partners.
5. The verses which the brother has stated and which other Christians also state in their writings, potray that Jesus is God, ONLY IF one has the PRE-CONCEIVED notion in his mind but NOT without it. How do u know which belief (in case of a central belief) is false (false according to the respective holy book)? --When the concept/belief itself has come later on and other verses are USED to prove it But that particular belief is not stated as such in that holy book. Like for example if one comes up and says it is the central belief of Christianity that Moses (Pbuh) is (na-auzubillah) God and then he goes on to present verses of Exodus which state Moses was made as God to Pharaoh. He even had HIS prophet (like you know God has his sent prophets) (see Exodus 7:1). He controlled the waters etc. He is trying to prove a concept which itself has come later on! As there is no verse in the Bible stating that Moses was the one true God. Similarly, in the case of trinity diff. verses are used to *prove* a belief which is not stated by any of the verses USED to *prove* it.
6. I'll breifly examine some of the verses presented by the brother but first one must be clear about what Jesus CLEARLY stated: John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they should know thou (the father), the ONLY true God, and him whom thou sent, Jesus Christ. This verse clearly states that the father, who sent Jesus is the ONLY TRUE GOD! Only means no else is God, neither the son nor the holy spirit.
7. He stresses on this verse: before Abraham was born, I am!' (John 8:58)
'I am' in this verse either means Yahovah/God or it is used by Jesus to refer to himself, like when one says 'I am 3 yrs old'. But you are using it both ways. This is ABSURD. IF 'I AM' means God then the verse reads: "Before Abraham existed- God (substituting I AM with God, the whole wording becomes absurd now)" if Jesus is referring to himself then the verse means that Jesus was before Abraham was born NOTHING else. The meaning you are suggesting could have been the true meaning if the verse read : "Before Abraham was born I the I AM existed' or if Jesus just said “My name is I am' like it is in the OT, where God clearly says to Moses "say to them that I AM has sent you" here substituting 'I AM' with God creates no problem nor is it being used by God in the sense of referring to one's own self (like when one says 'I am 3 yrs old' . One is surprised to read what Mr. James White alleges: "He (Jesus) says He is - the ego eimi -" Now where is that? That is actually what I was looking for!
He said: The first translation of the Old Testament into Greek uses the words ‘ego eimi’ TO REFER TO GOD -we have already seen, if that was true, what the verse John8:58 would become. This is NOT the case with the examples presented from the OT. It is thus not surprising to find 'ego eimi' used for people other than Jesus in the NT! But of course not in the sense of referring to God. For example: ‘He (the blind man) said, "I am (ego eimi) he." They therefore were asking him, "How were your eyes opened? (John 9:9,10). You can confirm the transliteration here: John 9:9 alloi elegon oti outos estin alloi a=elegon a=ouchi a=alla tsb=de tsb=oti omoios autô estin ekeinos elegen oti EGO EIMI. (http://bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/greek_translit/43_009.htm)
He said: "By saying 'I am' (Greek: ‘ego eimi’) and not 'I was', Jesus is using the personal name by which God revealed Himself in the Old Testament!"- That's the argument which people ignorant of the languages use against the Quran too. The Quran says concerning Jesus’ creation: 'kun fa ya koon (Be! and he IS) and concerning creation of the world also God said (past tense): "Be! and it IS" instead of saying Be and it WAS, which the ignorant people, allege is GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT. It is more eloquent to say Be and it is! Expresses God's might and magnificence, and in both Arabic and Greek grammar this style can be adopted for describing a past event.
I quote Greek Scholars:
Concerning the construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament by G.B. Winer, he says:
Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues - a state in its duration; as Jno. xv 27 ap archrV met emou este (ap’ ar-khes met e-mou e-ste), vii. 58 prin Abraam genesai egw eimi [prin A-bra-am ge-nesthai ego eimi] (7th ed., Andover, 1897, p. 267)
Likewise, in A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J.H. Moulton, he says
The present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress…It is frequent in the N[ew]T[estament]: Luke 2:48; 13:7…15:29….John 5:6; 8:58…(Vol III by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62)
Also the Christian brother is partially incorrect about the words used in the Septuagint. I'll put the actual words in brackets: 'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM (‘EGO EIMI HO ON’): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM (‘HO ON’/ ‘O ON’) hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14) thus the word for 'I AM' alone is 'Ho on' the one for IAM that IAM is ‘Ego Eimi ho on.’ The first I am (Ego eimi) here being the one as in this statement 'I am a Muslim' the second I AM is not eigo eimi but 'ho on' to which the brother was referring as the 'divine name'. I don't have the link to any online available ENGLISH transliteration; however I can link u to the Greek Septuagint itself! See Exodus 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς μας. http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/02_003.htm.This phrase 'εγω ειμι ο ων' reads 'eigo eimi ho on ' and then u can see 'ο ων' (ho on-) ocurring again. Thus ‘eigo eimi’ is not the word for I AM, ‘ho on’ is. Compare with Greek text of John 8:58 here: http://bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/greek_1894_utf8/43_008.htm. In case you want to confirm the English transliteration, you'll have to download it (u can find one here: http://bibledatabase.com/chm_bibles.html) But anyway Jesus was using the word ‘I am’ no differently than how the blind man in John 9:9 was.
8. He quoted: 'And now, Father, glorify me (Jesus) in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' (John 17:5). -- From the context this glory or honour most probably refers to the Love which God had for Jesus even before he existed. God knew him well in his mind, before he or even Abraham (according to the Bible) actually existed. Thus the verse of the same chapter reads: '17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me be with me where I am, that they may see my glory, which you have given me, FOR--->> you loved me before the foundation of the world.' (JOHN). This is not unique to Jesus, see:
He chose us in him BEFORE (!!) the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love. (Eph. 1:4-the Bible)
also
Before I formed thee in the belly I KNEW THEE; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:1,4-5)
9. He quoted: 'If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? (John 14:7-10)"
Firstly even AFTER (!!!) Jesus had said: From now on, you DO know him and HAVE seen him, the Bible says that NO BODY AT ALL HAS EVER SEEN GOD!!! Thus people saw Jesus but no one actually saw God this itself proves that Jesus is NOT God since the disciples saw him and he said to them that from now on you have also seen God but they had not seen God and no body did because Jesus was NOT God. Where does the Bible say what I assert? Here:
‘Who ALONE has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom NO MAN has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (1Timothy 6:16) -
thus according to this verse He ALONE(only He), who has not been seen by anybody, is God (clearly proving Jesus is not God), this verse being of a much later time than when Jesus said that in John 14:7-10.
Also
‘No one has ever seen’ God. (1 John 4:12)
Furthermore God has said that: He (God) said, “You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live. (Exodus 33: 20)
Now coming to the explanation of the verse: God has in history ‘shown’ himself through various signs, through angels, through his messengers etc. God has also “spoken” to us through various messengers. But we know that no one has actually seen God or heard his voice.
It must also be known that God has spoken to men IN all Prophets and NOT only in Jesus:
'God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers IN the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Hebrews. 11:1-2)
Thus Jesus (pbuh) could have said to the people that if they saw him (or had known him, according to another interpretation and usage of words) they were like seeing God (or knowing God according to another interpretation and usage of words, here seeing means knowing) this does not prove at all that he was God but shows that he could in a way ‘show’ them God’s glory through his miracles etc. If they got to know him (Jesus) they could have known God (since Jesus was from God) as people in the past have been seeing MESSENGERS (MALAK) of God and saying ‘WE SAW GOD FACE TO FACE.’ Thus what Jesus says CANNOT be taken literally, it’s only allegorical.
Examples of what I asserted above: 'The Angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. And he said… So she called the name of the LORD [Yahovah] who spoke to her, "Thou art ‘a’ God [El] of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?" (Genesis 16: 7,13) Thus the angel of God was called BOTH Yahovah and a God, though he was God’s sent angel! And the point I wanted to make is that after seeing the angel (and NOT the One true God himself) Hagar said that she had seen God, though she had only seen his malak (angel lit. messenger).
also Jacob wrestled with a man (who was an angel) and NOT GOD or a 'man-god' as some Christians assert. After the angel blessed him Jacob said: I have seen God [Elohim] face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30). Though he had in reality only met an angel. Another verse of the Bible clearly mentions that that man was indeed only an angel: "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and in his strength he struggled with God [Elohim]. Yes, he (Jaco struggled with THE ANGEL and prevailed; he wept, and sought favour from him. He found him in Bethel, and there he spoke to us - That is, the Lord God of Hosts. The Lord is his memorial. (Hosea 12:3-5).
Also
When the Angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that he was the Angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God (Elohim) (Judges 13:22-23)
Reading the OT will let you know that people did ‘see’ God (not actually) and they saw Him or spoke to him through his messenger (angel). When the angel blessed these prophets they felt like seeing God and they actually called their meeting with the messenger as a meeting with GOD HIMSELF!! Though the messenger was NOT ACTUALLY GOD HIMSELF (AND THIS IS MY POINT). Furthermore as I mentioned the verse saying that God spoke to men IN the Prophets.
It is also worth noting that angels are called as God, and Yahovah too in the Bible. Not only angels but PROPHETS, JUDGES, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD were called Elohim or El in the Bible (e.g. Exodus 7:1, Exodus 22:28, Exodus 22:8, Ezekiel 31:11, Psalm 82:6, Psalm 97:7, Psalm 82:1-2, Ezekiel 32:21, Genesis 31:12-13 etc.)
Regarding this statement of Jesus: Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? --- I would like to tell you that this is not unique to Jesus:
1. Surely God is IN you; and there is none else. There is no other god (Isaiah 45:14)
2. One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and IN ALL. (Ephesians 4:6)
3. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives IN US and his love is made complete in us. We know that WE LIVE IN HIM (!!!) and HE IN US, because he has given us of his Spirit. (1 John 4:11-13)
4. My soul rests in God alone (Psalms 62:1) etc.
10. David (pbuh) is said to have called the Messiah (Jesus) as his lord, so the Christian brother concludes thus Jesus is God. This is just another example of how people can 'make' different human beings, whose character was OUTSTANDING and whose status was EXALTED by God Almighty, as the one true God. It is possible that the Messiah (Jesus) though he was David's son was yet in the sight of God almighty a greater prophet than David himself (according to the Bible) and was granted (by God) a greater status than him thus David called him as lord. Also because he was prophesized as a great king, and kings were called lord. To understand the Bible we must know how the Hebrew speaking people said and understood things NOT as how we perceive things today. Does a wife call his husband as 'My Lord' in today's time=NO. But that's exactly what Abraham's (pbuh) wife did (see 'my lord (Abraham) being old also... (Genesis 18:12). Another example is of Jacob: Genesis 27:37 Isaac answered Esau, “Behold, I have made him (Jaco your lord, and all his brothers have I given to him for SERVANTS." Aaron called Moses his lord; Jacob called Esau his lord too. But the point is that every blessing was GRANTED to Jesus by God Almighty, which proves he was a human being: John 17:7 Now they have known that ALL THINGS whatever you have GIVEN ME are from YOU.
11. He quotes John 10:30 'I and the father are one,' while we have already seen from diff. verses of the Bible that God is IN all, or at least a lot of other people too, also certain people LIVE IN GOD as per the verses of the Bible that I quoted above! Furthermore Jesus was to be one with God in exactly the same way as the disciples were to be one see: 'The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; they (the disciples) may be one, EVEN AS we (the father and Jesus) are one (John 17:22). Thus the disciples would be ONE exactly AS JESUS WAS one with God almighty. This itself explains that Jesus and God almighty were not one and the same or not one as spirit in flesh...Furthermore since God is in all, all are ONE WITH GOD. Jesus explains his 'oneness' in this verse: John 17:21 that they may all be one; EVEN AS you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US (thus now the oneness includes, Father, Jesus plus all the Christians as they would be one in God and Jesus). We see from this verse that Jesus says he is one with God because the father is in him and he in the father, which is exactly the case for others too as we have seen(If we love one another, God lives IN US and his love is made complete in us. We know that WE LIVE IN HIM (!!!) and HE IN US...(1 John 4:12-13).
Furthermore, one and the same God ought to at least have the same knowledge. But according to the Bible the Son of God (part of trinity) and the Holy Spirit does not know certain things which ONLY the Father knows:
Mark 13:32 But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but ONLY the Father.
12. In John 10 the Jews accuse Jesus of 'making himself God (John 10:33)' (the christian brother has used a certain version which puts it: 'claiming to be God' which is not how most of the versions put it.) Anyhow, although Jesus was NOT making himself God, he still considers their argument and gives an example from the Psalm where certain men are called Elohim (gods) -Psalm 82:6. Thus he says if those to whom the word of God came (AND THEY WERE MEN!!!) can be called gods why can't he who was purified and sent by God be called god too? What else can be the reason of quoting this example if Jesus was not establishing this fact? In ancient Hebrew, people (MEN) representing God were called Elohim, but they were not considered as the One True God. The Christian brother still insists Jesus meant to say that he was a unique god or something or that he was God Almighty that is why the multitude was angry with him and not satisfied. The Jews of that time were ignorant of a lot of things and terminologies of their own scripture, they were more inclined towards what the Pharisees taught even if they knew what the scripture said. Furthermore they were not so ready to accept anybody calling himself even a god (though Jesus was not even doing that, he just used this argument to refute their argument), or even his son. In today’s time if you come and say ‘I am a God,’ because the word of God Almighty came to me too, the Jews are still going to consider it blasphemy. That is because no mind is ready to take that 'terminology' and 'usage of words' anymore. (It also must be noted that there is no capital (G) or small (g) God in Hebrew language.) Also people of anytime are more ready to stick to what they believe rather than to something which seems new to them even if that thing is true as per their own scripture and they have forgotten it and different people have their own motives of opposing good people and inventing lies against them.
It is a pity that Christians of today consider the Jewish misunderstanding as a WITNESS of truth, while Jesus himself clarified that they were not able to understand his speech: John 8:43-44 Why don't you understand my speech? Because you can't hear my word. You are of your father, the devil.
In the same chapter he clarifies: 8:40 But now you seek to kill ME, A MAN who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. ... (John). If the Jews always rightly understood Jesus why would he need to tell them ‘I am a MAN- who heard from God’, he never said ‘I am GOD.’
In the same chapter he clarifies: John 8:54 It is my Father who glorifies me, OF WHOM YOU SAY; THAT HE IS OUR GOD. - Thus he clarifies that the God whom the people of Israel knew was only the father.
Also from other parts of the Bible it is clear that the Jews misunderstood Jesus or were ignorant of their own scriptures. Like for example they accused him of breaking the Sabbath. According to them work was forbidden on that day as per the scripture while this is completely false since doing good to anybody on the Sabbath was NOT forbidden in scripture. Thus the Jews were WRONG.
Concerning this part of the verse: John 10:37 If I don't do the works of my Father, don't believe me. 10:38 But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works, the brother is of the view that Jesus was unique since he did the works of the father. I am sorry to say I have never come across such a weak argument. Is a righteous man not supposed to do the works of God? Is he supposed to do Satan's works? Every righteous man is supposed to do godly works. Even simply speaking the truth or spreading His message is doing God's work. Any good work is God's work. Furthermore the miracles Jesus performed were NOT done by him but by God, thus God was actually working through him, like he does with all other prophets! Consider how the righteous men understood Jesus' miracles:
John 3:1-2 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you (Jesus) are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him. (John)- We see that the signs which ‘Jesus did’ were associated with God and it was said that no one could do these signs unless God was with him.
(A believer says...) 11:22 Even now I know that, whatever you ask of God, GOD WILL GIVE you." 11:23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."(John)-The believers understood that what Jesus did was NOT what he himself did but what God did since it was done ‘by Jesus’ with the ‘finger of God’ he asked God’s help and God actually did those signs not Jesus.
The believers always praised GOD for the miracles and not Jesus. (And Jesus also said: 8:39 "Return to your house, and declare what great things GOD HAS DONE for you." (Luke))
In Martha’s story Jesus also confirms that he asks from the father and the father listens to what he asks and gives him what he asks (in this specific case to perform the miracle).
11:41 So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, "Father, I thank you that you listened to me. 11:42 I know that you always listen to me, (John)
Jesus said he had the authority to 'forgive the sins’ on earth, let’s read what the believers understood of that:
9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins... 9:7 He (Jesus) arose and departed to his house. 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified GOD, WHO HAD GIVEN SUCH AUTHORITY TO MEN (!!!). (Mark)
As I already mentioned Jesus had clarified who God was: 'John 8:54 It is my Father who glorifies me, OF WHOM YOU SAY THAT HE IS OUR GOD.' And: 'John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they should know thou (the father), the ONLY (!!) true God.' And denied that he was God or good, because only God is good: 'John 10:18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? -No one is good except ONE-GOD.'
13. He quotes the verses saying: 'You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.' (John 8:23) 'For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.' (Matthew 18:20, see also 28:19-20)
It is important to understand what Jesus means by the word: 'world.' Jesus clearly refers to people other than the believers as ‘the world’ in a lot of verses of the Bible for example
John 17:9 I pray for them (the disciples). I don't pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
And also in this verse John 8:23 as he is addressing the Pharisees.
If I tell a Christian that some other verses when Jesus says 'I am not of the world,' he just means that he is on a higher status; Christians are most likely to not accept my interpretation because they like to interpret this to mean he was God Almighty. But the following verse provides an answer to them:
John 17:14 I have given them your word. The world hated them, because THEY ARE NOT OF THE WORLD, EVEN AS I am not of the world.
So are the disciples God too? No they just were on a higher status than the unbelievers ('the world'.
Furthermore Jesus taught 'that every one must be born from above' see: "John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born from above (or born anew or born again, all these translations are correct), he can't see the Kingdom of God."
The Christian brother said: 'Jesus is omnipresent, everywhere, like God'- Notice the ‘like God' argument here. Anyway I can conclude from a similar verse that Children, yes children are 'omnipresent':
SEE: “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their (the children's) angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Matt. 18:10)
Thus taking these allegorical verses literally is the wrong approach. Jesus was from above means he was from God like all prophets (like John also see: John1:6), 'he is somewhere above' speaks again about his honour or status. Also> he is speaking of the place where he was to be after he had passed away, as if he is there already because he was destined by God Almighty to be there for sure. For example in the Quran God says ...those who believe and do righteous deeds (present tense) ARE in Meadows of the Gardens (The Quran 42:22). This does not mean that the believers are already there (or omnipresent). This means that they are destined to such a place, therefore it is no problem saying that they are actually there! Furthermore the disciples and certain other Christians were also to be 'where Jesus was' thus they would become omnipresent too? See: 'John 14:3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also. 14:4 Where I go, you know, and you know the way.' (Also see 17:4).
14. The Christian Brother quotes:'In the beginning God ('elohim', plural, the Father) created ('bara' singular ver the heavens and the earth'
It is false and complete ignorance to say Elohim is being used as a plural word there. Again, ignorance of the language. In Hebrew you cannot decide whether a word is used in the plural or singular unless you look at the verb or adjective which it gets. Elohim when used for God always gets a singular verb and adjective, this thing is decisive of whether a word is used in the plural or singular sense. Such nouns in Hebrew which seem grammatically plural but are used for majesty for singular beings are called ‘majestics’. In case when Elohim refers to gods or false deities then it always has a plural adjective or verb like: the second commandment forbids the worship of “other elohim" It gets a plural adjective “OTHER” thus is here it is used as a plural. Sadly elohim is used in the plural form only when referring to false deities! Even in my language, if I call my self "WE" that would be OK because people do that for respect. Since in English nothing as such happens that is the reason why Elohim confuses you. Kings and highly respected people referred (and still refer) to themselves in grammatically plural words signifying majesty and respect. Consider this example from the Bible:
"The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." (Ezra 4:18)
You can read the context; the letter was sent to the king only, for showing his majesty and respect the king referred to himself as US (A plural word) and also me. Just like that God also sometimes refers to himself by using words like “US” and also by using “ME” and “I.”
Another example: "Behold I have made you (Moses) an ELOHIM to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet." Exodus 7:1- Does this mean Moses peace be upon him was a person who had many persons in him? YES OR NO?
You can confirm that Elohim was used for God only as a 'plural' of majesty nothing else:
Elohim singular Eloah (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, (Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9032466?query=Elohim&ct=)
15. The other verses from the OT which the brother quoted mention God's spirit etc. But what's the point? Even Muslims believe in the Holy Spirit and call him God's spirit; we also believe that he is no more than the angel Gabriel. 'God's spirit' also refers to God's own spirit sometimes but again no point is established, since God has a spirit or is a spirit and there is no reason to make up a new concept of trinity out of this verse. This is how you can make different 'parts' of God Almighty as separate gods. Like 'God's hand' is mentioned in a lot of verses of the Bible so this makes yet another god right? Does the OT refer to the holy spirit or a son being God almighty? No, not anywhere. So where are the verses on which trinity is based? In fact even a human being can be called God's spirit because we have ‘His spirit’ in us. Jesus Christ is also called Ruh-Allah (Spirit of God) by the Muslims, not that other prophets were not the spirits of God but this is just a title. Similarly the Bible calls Abraham 'Prince of God' (see Genesis 23:6). Also the Bible calls just any prophet a 'Spirit of God' see: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but TRY THE SPIRITS WHETHER THEY ARE OF GOD (!!): because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 John 4:1-3)- Thus a true prophet must be THE SPIRIT OF GOD!
In the end I would like to say. We are no body to MAKE anybody God, also when he does not claim to be, and that just by interpreting certain allegorical sayings of his to conclude that he 'has to be God.’ The clear statement of Jesus Christ (in John 17:3) has already proclaimed the truth that 'the Father' is the ONLY true God. God has also exalted the status of all humanity. The Bible says (concerning all humanity): 8:1 Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth, who has set your glory above the heavens! 8:4 what is man that you think of him? What is the son of man, which you care for him? 8:5 For you have made him a little lower than God, and crowned him with glory and honor. 8:6 You make him ruler over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet: 8:7 All sheep and cattle, yes, and the animals of the field, 8:8 The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, and whatever passes through the paths of the seas. 8:9 Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8)
Assalam-u-alaikum. |
on March 26 2008 13:55:55
As salaamu alaykum,
The "kalimah" is mentioned in the Qur'an if we join two verses, as brother Abdur-Rahman mentioned above. However, I would like to point out that Christians and other non-Muslims almost always ignore, or pretend to ignore, that our religion is not based on a single fabricated man-made book which is called "Bible" (from Latin Biblia, meaning "Book"). Prophet Eesa (Jesus) was not given something called, "Bible" or "Book". Rather he was given a book (or biblia) called Injeel (Evangel) meaning, "Glad Tidings". As such, the present day bible is merely a mixture of God's words, mans interpretations of God word's, men's correspondences, writings of historians, and quite simply man's insertions and fabrications.
At any rate, our religion is not based on a single source like the Christians. We have two equal primary sources. One being the Qur'an and the other being the Hadeeth. These are equal sources, one is not given more precedence over the other. Rather both of them are consulted equally. That is simply due to the fact that both are from the same source (God). The difference is in the method they are expressed. The Qur'an is direct word of God whereas the hadeeth is the word of God expressed in the sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (Sallaahu alayhi wa sallam). Hence, one is called recited revelation (wahee matlu') and the other is called unrecited revelation (wahee ghayr matlu'). Both are revelations from God.
The main point is that the "Kalimah" is clearly mentioned in several ahaadeeth. We will quote one hadeeth which is called the umm as-Sunnah (mother of the Prophet Traditions): The Prophet said when asked by Angel Gabriel about Islam, "Islam is that you testify that La ilaha ill Allaah wa anna Muhammadan Rasoolallaah (There is no deity except God and Muhammad is Messenger of God)...." [Reported by Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaymah, et al.]
was salaamu alaykum,
Abu Yunus |
|
|
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
Rating is available to Members only.
Please login or register to vote.
No Ratings have been Posted.
|
|
Not a member yet? Click here to register.
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
|
